Catchpole Brent: Third Readings 
Catchpole Brent: Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:19833] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Building Amendment Bill (No 3) which is the first part of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill has come about because the officials particularly the Legislation Advisory Committee added a clause into the original Building Bill that had not gone past the select committee. That clause resulted in documents having to be put up on to the website. An unexpected result—because the Government had not discussed it with the industry—was that a whole lot of documents referred to in those documents also had to go on the website. The particular section section 409 insisted that all documents had to be on the website. 
As a result a lot of copyrighted information had to be put on to the website free of charge. A lot of those items in particular the standards and other technical details of manufacturers’ products are confidential very highly prized and worth a lot of money to the individual manufacturers. That information had to be automatically put on to the website. Of course that left people in the industry out of pocket. One of the major examples is Standards New Zealand. It relies on the income from selling its standards to people who require them. That is a means of funding that organisation. So forcing it to put those things on a website free of charge meant that a funding stream was going to be cut off and that was going to make it very difficult for the organisation to continue to operate. 
The other aspect of this legislation that makes New Zealand First very disappointed in this Government is the Supplementary Order Paper that has gone through that makes changes to the Building Act. Yes a lot of those changes were needed particularly the one to section 363 which was worded in such a way as to leave a bit of confusion and doubt. If it was read one way then there was no problem but it could be interpreted to mean that all buildings that had not been issued with a code of compliance certificate were not allowed to be occupied. The reason for that goes back to the Cave Creek incident when a platform that had not been signed off as code compliant or inspected collapsed causing loss of life. 
We accept that safety is a major factor that needs to be taken into account when we look at the Building Act but unfortunately it was taken too far under section 363 and meant that the whole site had to be completed. Let me give an example of a situation where this becomes ridiculous. A multi-storey apartment block or a building that the public has access to is largely completed except for the white lines in the car-park. Under this particular section that building cannot be occupied until those white lines have been put in. However there is now a mechanism that allows the territorial authority to alter the consent and allow a certificate of public use so that the building can be used while those lines are still to be put in. 
There is also another mechanism that allows a notice—I cannot find the actual terminology—enabling the site to be used. The territorial authority can alter the consent to take that into account. Of course it makes a bit of a mockery of the process when a council is allowed to change the original consent and to actually take out a part of that consent. Why would anybody put the painting of the lines into a consent in the first place when that person could just apply later on to put them in later to prevent occupation of the whole building being halted. That particular example is one that was highlighted to me and I think it really needed to be looked at a bit further. 
That is why New Zealand First is opposing this legislation now—because there are errors. We have just had a whole raft of those errors highlighted in the House very quickly last night and this morning. The Building Bills were rushed through in such a hurry that errors were allowed to slip in. The original building legislation went through a select committee. A lot of errors were picked up during the drafting stage and we on the select committee picked up a lot of errors. However by putting through under urgency a Supplementary Order Paper—and as has been noted by other members it is a substantial Supplementary Order Paper—without it going to a select committee we are making rushed alterations to the Act. Yes the Act has some errors and has some problems but we have already discovered that the legislation going through the House now is exaggerating some of those errors. Unfortunately by not sending the Supplementary Order Paper to a select committee we are allowing errors to slip in. 
The industry will be confused—the confusion will continue—because it will find other big holes that could have been picked up if the legislation had gone to a select committee. The whole process of this Parliament involves select committees that invite the public and particularly those members of the industry who are affected to make submissions. Through that process we sort out most of the problems and get legislation that is right and is very close to what the industry requires and what the public expects. But we have rushed this legislation through the House over the last day and a half and I think we have made a huge error in not allowing the Supplementary Order Paper to go to a select committee so that the errors it contains could be corrected. 
It is unfortunate that the officials were put under so much pressure to get the legislation here in such a short time when they should have been given a lot more time. The first phase of the Building Act came into force on 30 November last year and the next major phase came into effect on 31 March this year. Some of the issues had already been discovered long before the second phase came into effect but it was as it came into effect that everybody started to panic. That of course put pressure on the officials to come up with corrections. I know they were working right up to the last minute to try to get the legislation right before it was sent out to several members of the House to have a look at but we did not have time to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and put it out to very many people in the industry for their feedback. I managed to get some feedback last night. I discussed it with a few people and they picked holes in it straight away. 
I am afraid that as we have not put the legislation to a select committee those holes will reappear and will require another piece of legislation to come before this House very soon.