Catchpole Brent: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19821] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 This legislation has got the building industry up in arms; it is very concerned about it. I was speaking to members of the industry last night because I had some concerns about the speed with which this legislation came in. They have already spotted errors and problems and so have we. I ask the Committee to consider new clause 3P inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 361 which amends section 241 of the Building Act. There are numbers missing. Obviously it was rushed in so quickly that it is all out of order. There are things in the wrong place and there are numbers missing. Even new clause 5A amending section 438 of the Act has a number in the wrong place and a number missing. I quickly went through the Supplementary Order Paper and found that paragraphs have been missed out. New clause 3M has paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (i) in new section 165(1). What happened to paragraphs (f) and (g)? Obviously something has been taken out but nobody went through and checked it. The problem is that this legislation is being rushed through so quickly that errors are appearing again. 
New Zealand First believes that this legislation is needed but that we must get it right. The bill had to come before us because there were errors in the Act. The problems have carried on and all of a sudden we are rushing the Supplementary Order Paper through in urgency in order to correct errors including some major ones under section 363 of the Act that have created all sorts of problems in the industry. This Supplementary Order Paper will solve some of them but it will not solve them all. In fact it will create more problems because there will be confusion over the order of things. There are provisions missing and out of place. I ask the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson why we did not put the Supplementary Order Paper before a select committee. If it had gone before a select committee those issues would have been picked up by the members of the select committee and by the industry. They would have had a chance to take a closer look at the final product. 
This document in its final form has not been put out to the industry. Yes a discussion document went out but a final draft document has not been out to the industry so that it could have a close look at it. People in the industry will spot holes in this legislation in all sorts of directions and I am afraid that they have already spotted some. The industry has already expressed some concerns to me and I would like to raise them later on. However at this point in time I ask why the bill was not put out to a select committee. The select committee process is one where problems can be discovered and sorted out. Let us face it we had to introduce this legislation to correct section 409 in the Act because that section created a problem with regard to copyright. Now we are rushing another piece of legislation through the House a Supplementary Order Paper because there are so many errors in the Act. It is silly to put this legislation through in such urgency. The Supplementary Order Paper is quite an extensive document. It has a lot of implications and if we do not get it right that will create many more problems. 
I turn to new clause 3R inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 361 which repeals sections 273(1)(b) 274(a)(ii) and 402(1)(t)(ii) of the principal Act. The question I have about this provision is to do with the register of building consent authorities. How on earth does the chief executive keep track of those authorities when a territorial authority has passed on its information or transferred its functions duties or powers to another territorial authority? He or she will have no idea about that until such time as errors start to appear and something starts to break down. I ask why the register of those territorial authority functions is not being kept by the chief executive. The chief executive does not have that record so he or she will not know whom to go to when he or she has a problem. The chief executive will have to go chasing around and asking people left right and centre in order to find out who has that information and who has been responsible for the duties that were passed on or transferred by the other territorial authority. 
To give members an example of how ridiculous the explanation of that measure is I tell them that it refers to doing away with the registers of all consent authorities. That includes any private consent authorities although I do not think there are very many of those left because the Act makes it virtually impossible for private certifiers to be in existence. The whole thing was so rushed that the Government did not realise it had put in a provision that would do away with the registers for all the building consent authorities. That is just one example of the errors in this legislation. I am sorry to come down so hard on the officials who were put under pressure to come up with this legislation at such short notice. But let us face it the first phase of the Act came into existence on 30 November 2004. Another very large segment of it came into existence on 31 March this year. From those dates a lot of these errors were known about; a lot of these things were discovered right in the very first stage. Why did it take so long for them to be actioned? It was simply because the Government was hoping the problems would not happen. 
I am afraid the biggest example of that is in sections 362 and 363 of the Act where if territorial authorities—and I can give examples from Wellington and Auckland—were to follow the literal interpretation of the Act we would have had to evacuate this building. The territorial authorities have been put in a very awkward situation. They could have set a precedent by ignoring the situation and saying that they would not take any action because everything was OK. But that would set a precedent and everybody would expect to have the same treatment. That is why the Government suddenly thought it had better get into action and do something about the situation and by rushing this legislation through it has put the officials under enormous pressure. They have come up with a lot of very good amendments but there are still some errors in it. 
New Zealand First says that the Supplementary Order Paper should be put to a select committee so that it can be sorted out in a proper fashion with all the issues brought up and discussed with the industry. The building industry really wants the issues to be sorted out. It wants to have certainty in the industry and it wants to make sure that everything is correct. When I see the number of errors that have occurred in this legislation already I am afraid that we will just be back in this Chamber again in the not too distant future to debate more of these issues and try to correct the errors we are about to inflict on the industry yet again. New Zealand First is not supportive of the process regarding this bill because of its rushed nature—pushing the legislation through in urgency—and because of the errors that are occurring. I will take another call later on to discuss some of the other issues that have been raised by the industry already.