Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11091] 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 August. 
Clause 3 Principal Act amended ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Kia ora tatou. The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the amendment dividing the bill. When the Committee last considered the bill it was debating the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 to omit clause 3. Therefore the question before this Committee is that clause 3 stand part. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman; I will just wait for the clapping to die down. We are considering clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. It states: “This Act amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006.” It is interesting to consider that we have canvassed the purposes of the Act in previous speeches. 
The National Party was always supportive—and certainly we listened to the submissions to the Social Services Committee when the original bill was debated—of the view in terms of general damages that damages for relevant mental distress for example should be claimable through the dispute resolution process. We recognised that many of the people who are going through the leaky buildings crisis have families and others are elderly people who do not have years ahead of them in which to save money and make payments to repair the destructive job that someone has done on their home. Those people underwent tremendous stress over a period of years particularly while the Government tried to get the process right in terms of the resolution services and they should have every right to pursue damages for relevant mental distress. We supported the submissions made along those lines many years ago. 
It has taken until now in this legislation—unfortunately 5 years later—to recognise that mental distress is a relevant and legitimate claim. So why would the National Party not support that? We certainly supported it when submissions came to this Parliament several years ago and of course we accept it now. The only regret we have is that it has taken 3 4 or 5 years for the Labour Government to acknowledge that claims for mental distress should have been accepted in the first place. I can only think of the tears the heartache the pain and the family stress that has occurred in the interim for those who have been through the process and who have been unable to claim for stress in relation to mental fatigue and distress. Of course there is no option for those people to claim for that; that option is available only for those who enter the process now going forward. So yes we support the legislation from the point of view of those claimants. 
But in terms of clause 3 which states: “This Act amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006.” I say we should not be fooled into being unaware that the legislation we are debating this evening also makes changes to the Building Act. The Minister in a last-minute bid has decided to bring in on Supplementary Order Paper 133 clauses that amend the Building Act. Those clauses have nothing to do with the principal Act the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act. They are clauses on a Supplementary Order Paper to debate and force through Parliament changes to the Building Act. Those changes are all about the ability of local government to be registered as being able to issue building consents. Of course local government has been issuing building consents for many decades now. The Minister suddenly decided that local government had not been doing that in a particularly good way and now for some reason councils are required to be accredited by 30 November 2007 to issue building consents. 
Supplementary Order Paper 133 shifts the accreditation date beyond November because the Minister knows that the deadline for accreditation for councils currently in the Building Act cannot be met. It is absurd to think that councils which on the whole have been issuing building consents in a good and responsible manner for many many decades will suddenly not be able to issue those consents whether it be by the date currently in the Building Act or after that date. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Are you seeking the call Dr Smith? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Dr Smith you have already had four speeches. According to the Standing Orders you are unable to speak again on this clause. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee to take a call. I am sure that members would be delighted to hear a contribution— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Of course the Committee is the master of its own destiny. The member is perfectly entitled to ask. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek the leave of the Committee to make a contribution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is Dr Smith— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are you absolutely certain that Dr Smith has had four speeches on clause 3? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sir. 
John Carter 
: If my memory serves me right he has made some very valuable contributions. I guess they have been of such quality that the time seemed a lot shorter than it was. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The honourable member himself has had only two speeches. If he would like to seek the call I would be happy to accept it. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 It is a great pity that my colleague Nick Smith has already taken his time because as always his contributions are certainly well worth listening to. However I will endeavour to reach his high standards. 
 I want to draw the Committee’s attention to an issue that is a worry right across this country and it would pay for the members opposite to listen because the Minister in the chair Clayton Cosgrove is doing the building industry local government and homeowners in New Zealand a grave disservice. It is an absolute disgrace that we are here today considering this bill for two reasons. Firstly this Minister knew many many months ago that the deadline he gave to local government would not be achieved. Local government authorities told him that the Building Officials Institute of New Zealand told him that and members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—including myself—advised the Minister of it. But this Minister would not listen. He carried on saying that he had set the deadline and that local government authorities would achieve it. Well the sad fact is that local government authorities were never going to achieve it and it was impossible to achieve it. 
One of the reasons why local government authorities were not able to achieve the deadline is that this Minister and his department have been taking experienced people from local government and employing them in the Department of Building and Housing. I have already told the Committee—and it is worth repeating again—that the Department of Building and Housing has risen in staff numbers from the equivalent of 31½ people employed in 1999—I think the half might have been the Minister—to in excess of 300 people. Where would those people have come from? Obviously they would have to have some experience in building although with the stuff that is coming out of the Department of Building and Housing one would hardly think so quite honestly. Some of the rubbish that comes from that department is an absolute shame. 
The point is that a lot of the people who are now employed in the Department of Building and Housing have come from local government authorities which of course has left local government authorities short of staff. Local government cannot attract experienced people to be building inspectors and as a consequence people cannot achieve the goal of being authorised as building inspectors by the date set by the Minister. The Minister knew that. He must have known that and it surprises me that he has not taken a call and at least once endeavoured to defend the fact that he now has to extend this deadline. But the Minister carries on arrogantly saying: “Well so what? It does not matter.” Well actually it does matter because the Committee also needs to understand the negative impact this issue is having on homeowners in New Zealand. 
The fact is that the Department of Building and Housing is out of control and it passes regulations day after day that are unnecessary that are hugely costly and that are causing stress and delay. In some cases it is so difficult to comply with the rules and regulations that the Department of Building and Housing is putting down that a number of builders are saying they will have to exit this industry. They cannot afford the delays they cannot afford the costs of the delays and they cannot afford the cost and the time it takes to fill out the paperwork that is required by the Helen Clark - led Labour Government and as a consequence by their local authorities. 
What is even worse is that the building industry is telling me there is absolute confusion from district to district as to exactly what is meant by the rules and regulations being passed by the Department of Building and Housing. I wish I had time to gather the volume of rules and regulations that have been passed under this Minister’s ministership. Seriously it would choke a horse a whale or any sort of large animal that we might like to try to get to digest it. In fact it would actually— 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have not heard from Mr Hayes; there may be something new and interesting in what he has to say. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Mr Chair I will certainly do my best this evening to deliver your aspirations. The Minister in the chair Clayton Cosgrove who is promoting this legislation had a mantra: “Do it once do it right.” Let us go back to November 2002 when he was responsible for passing the key leaky home legislation. He did it in a great panic and the task was done in 2 weeks. A mess of major proportions was made. Then we track forward to 2005 when there was another attempt to fix this mess. The Minister ignored submissions from the public and he introduced legislation to fix the botch-up. He also had produced a new Building Act and now he comes to this House in 2007 and says there is actually a further botch-up. This is a classic example of this Minister saying: “Do as we say not as we do in the Labour Party.” 
I think it is totally offensive for this Labour administration to insult the House by inviting it to suspend or break its own rules. This law change will not come into effect for a further 3 months on 28 November. I think it is absolutely extraordinary to usurp the House’s rules in this way. I invite the Minister to advise the Committee as to when he first learnt that the councils could not meet their deadline because in a speech he gave a month ago he said there was no problem. If he had read  
Molesworth & Featherston 
 this week he would have been able to read the story of the Labour Party’s rising star who has just been torpedoed by his bureaucrats. 
I would ask the Minister why house ownership has been reduced by 1 percent per annum under his stewardship. I would ask him why under his stewardship the cost of completing a house has risen by 20 percent per annum because of the Building Act and why of all the leaky home cases that have been brought to his attention over the last 5 years or more only 15 percent have been resolved. I think it is time for the Minister to contemplate an alternative career outside his housing portfolio because clearly he is making a total botch-up of the administration of that portfolio. I see this every day in my electorate in the Wairarapa where building costs are escalating hugely. 
Darren Hughes 
: The retirement villages! 
JOHN HAYES 
: This Government is imposing collateral costs on retirement villages as Mr Hughes mentioned to the point where most of the small ones are being put out of business because the charges for process that are being imposed upon house residents cannot be met by them because they are on fixed incomes. 
 There is another problem that I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to and that is the whole question of the administration of the Resource Management Act which is also negatively impacting on the house construction industry. This is coming about because no two councils administer the Resource Management Act in the same way. Everybody has a different set of standards and a different interpretation and this is adding hugely to building costs. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 3 not agreed to. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill  
divided into Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 134. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This motion from the Minister represents everything that is rotten about this Government. It is about incompetence it is about abuse of process and it is about bad outcomes for ordinary New Zealanders out there in respect of both the Building Act and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. 
Let me first deal with the issue of incompetence. In 2002 the Government rushed through—in 2 weeks—the legislation to deal with weathertight homes. It got it wrong. In 2005 the Minister in the chair came along to the House—again in a rush again breaching normal process—and said that the Government would fix the botch-up but got it wrong. Submissions were made to the Social Services Committee that the bill did not provide for general damages that it was unfair and that we needed to make it explicit but the Minister said that he knew best and that the bill did not need to include it. Now we have this amendment bill before the Committee which is effectively about a botch-up that was fixed in 2005 but turned into a botch-up and now we are trying to fix that botch-up—again in a mad rush. 
Then we have the splitting of this bill to be inserted into the parts of the Building Act. We see the same levels of incompetence in that area. That is in 2004 the Government brought this big bureaucratic Building Act into Parliament and in 2005 it said: “Oops! We’ve made some mistakes and we’ve got to fix it up.” Now here at the last moment after the bill has gone through its Committee stage the Minister introduces amendments that now require the splitting of the bill. National says that this is absolutely incompetent. What makes it almost laughable is that the Minister in the chair has given speech after speech to the building industry saying: “Do it once; do it right.” and when it comes to the weathertight homes legislation and the Building Act the track record is mistake after mistake after mistake. That would be all right except there has been an awful price for New Zealanders to pay for these botch-ups. 
Five years after this Government introduced the legislation to address leaky homes only 15 percent of cases have been resolved. The Government has spent $85 million on the bureaucratic process to deal with leaky homes. That works out at $111000 per case. But the tragedy is that the average payout on each of those homes has been $70000. So I ask the Minister in the chair who wants to split the bill why we should agree to that. Why should we agree when there has been mistake after mistake after mistake? 
Then we look at the core Building Act which this legislation also amends. Have we obtained the objective of trying to generate good quality buildings at less cost? My colleague Bob Clarkson—“Bob the Builder” we colloquially call him because he knows a thing or two about building—has rightly exposed the fact that 5 years after the leaky homes legislation the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing can still not give this House an assurance that there are not more leaky homes being built. That is incompetent. But even worse is that if we look at the bureaucratic nightmare it now takes for any citizen to get a building consent we see that it is an absolute disaster. 
Members should look at yesterday’s  
Dominion Post 
 in which the Wellington City Council says that the amount of paperwork that is now required to build a standard New Zealand home has increased fivefold. I simply ask why members on this side of the Chamber would want to do that. The fascinating part is—and this is again where there is a double standard—that the Minister has said that he stands for reducing compliance costs. Then we have in this crucial area of building an increase of fivefold in the amount of paperwork that is required in the building industry to the point that talented good professionals are leaving New Zealand to go to Australia to avoid the bureaucracy that has been created. 
The third point I have made about the motion to split the bill is that the legislation has caused bad outcomes for people. Every year that Labour has been in office we have seen a 1 percent reduction in homeownership—and really that is a telling sign of the failures of this Government. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from where Nick Smith left off. He has made some very poignant points in his calls over the course of this debate with none being so poignant I guess as when he pointed out the number of times that the Minister for Building and Construction has been into this debating chamber with legislation saying he will fix the leaky homes crisis. 
I was impressed that the Minister for Building and Construction ever got into this debating chamber to fix the leaky homes crisis because—as colleagues will recall and perhaps the Hon Dr Nick Smith will support me in this—the Prime Minister of New Zealand Helen Clark said there was not a leaky homes crisis that the National Party was blowing it all out of proportion and that only a handful of homes in Auckland were affected. Then the  
New Zealand Herald 
 through quite a campaign was able to establish that a lot of homeowners across the country and particularly in Auckland were affected by the issues being addressed in the provisions in this legislation that we are discussing tonight. 
So the Minister has come into this debating chamber not once in 2002 not twice in 2004 not three times including when this legislation was first debated but four times. We are here tonight discussing the fact that we now have to split the bill and discuss not only the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service legislation but also the Building Act. Four times we have been in this debating chamber since 2002 to discuss provisions related to the Building Act in order to see this leaky homes crisis fixed—a crisis that the Prime Minister originally denied was a crisis at all. 
So does National support the ability to split the bill and to discuss the amendments to both the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building Act tonight? We say quite simply that the Minister has run roughshod over Parliament’s normal processes. Listeners may not be aware of this but normally when legislation is drafted there is wide consultation within an industry—in this case within local government and councils—to see whether there is a need. Legislation is then worked on by officials and it is tabled in the House. There is a first reading. 
The legislation is then sent to a select committee where it is discussed amongst 12 members of Parliament from across parties. They consult the public who come to Wellington or perhaps the committee travels across the country to take submissions and there is wide-ranging discussion with affected parties out in the public. That part of this legislation is not happening at all. This legislation is being rushed through this Parliament tonight and on ensuing days. We think that is appalling. 
Then of course normally legislation would come back to the House have its second reading the Committee stage and the third reading and hopefully we would see good legislation passed into law. Unfortunately history speaks for itself with regard to this legislation. 
The Building Act came in in 2002. It was fixed again in 2004 fixed again after that and now we see these amendments here before us again tonight. What confidence can this Committee and the public have that the Minister has got it right again this evening? He did not get it right on those other three occasions and I think that is a lesson to this Minister and the Labour Government that we must follow good process. Only by following good process will we have good scrutiny of legislation and ever have even a hope of getting it right. 
This legislation affects leaky homeowners—thousands of them across the country—who are under tremendous financial burden and pressure. Many of them are at the latter end of their lives they are affected by this legislation and the Minister should get it right. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask my parliamentary colleagues. The first question is who among them thinks that if we pass this legislation it is going to fix up everything it is going to fix all the problems and they are going to disappear. At the moment I cannot hear any members saying that they think that. Not even the Minister for Building and Construction will say that this legislation is going to solve the problems. The next question I have is who in this Parliament thinks that if we pass this legislation there will not be any more leaky homes. Well is that not strange! Not even the Minister is indicating that he thinks this legislation will solve the leaky homes problem. Who thinks that if we pass this legislation we will end up with more leaky homes? A good number of my colleagues are indicating that they think that will be one of the outcomes. Yet the Minister does not even take an interest. 
What this Parliament needs to know and what the country needs to know is that right now in New Zealand more leaky homes are being built than ever before. We already know that in this country 3200 homes are registered as leaky homes. What people do not yet know but what we are being told is that leaky homes are being built in this country every day. The reason is that this Minister has been derelict in his duty to ensure that the materials that go into those homes are up to standard. We know that materials imported from Asia that are going to fail within 7 to 10 years are being put into homes in New Zealand. Copper piping and plastic piping will fail in 7 to 10 years. It will cause leaks the moisture of course will go into the timber which is not treated and as a consequence we will end up with more leaky homes. This Minister knows that. This Minister has been charged with the responsibility of ensuring that it does not happen and he will not even stand up and guarantee to the people of New Zealand that under his regime under the regime that we are dealing with tonight—the two bills that we are splitting the original bill into—there will be security for the people of New Zealand. I say that the Minister should take a call on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill which the original bill is being split into and tell the people of New Zealand that he is going to improve things and make them better. But the Minister cannot do that. 
That is the problem with this legislation. When we pass these two bills we are going to end up with a bigger mess than ever. It has been recorded and it needs to be recorded again that in New Zealand now it is estimated that over 250000 homes are not compliant. These 250000 homes which people are living in do not have a compliance certificate. People cannot even sell these homes because they do not have a compliance certificate. These 250000 homes would take up an area the size of Wellington City. Here we are debating legislation tonight that is meant to address that sort of problem and this Minister will not even take a call to defend his own legislation. 
That is the problem. We really are dealing with a run-down Government a Government that knows it is failing. This is just another example of the failure of this Government. Here we are considering legislation tonight that is just going to add to that failure. The challenge is going to be for the next Government—and we will take it on—to fix this. There are ways that it can be fixed; and it will be fixed. We will give certainty and security to the people of New Zealand and to new homeowners. They will not have to worry about a department of 300 people delivering laws and regulations that make the problem worse not better. They will know there are local authorities out there that are competent and can provide the security they want. They will know there is a building industry that is robust and confident and has a future because that is what we will deliver to New Zealand when we get the opportunity to start making decisions instead of having to put up with the incompetence that this Minister is showing tonight. 
One of the things one would expect is that at the very least the Minister would take a call stand up and defend his own legislation. But this Minister has sat in that chair tonight and has not taken a call. He has not bothered to defend the Government against any of the comments that we have made. He has not suggested that anything we are saying is wrong. He has just sat there and carried on. It is a disgrace. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have two questions for the Minister in terms of the motion to split the bill. The first is: why should we trust that he has got it right this time? We know that in 2002 the Government got it wrong in a rush. We know that in 2005 the Government got it wrong in a rush. We even know that with this core bill the Government got it wrong. We know that with the core Building Act in 2004 we got it wrong. We know that in 2005 when we attempted to amend the Building Act we got it wrong. Yet the Minister is asking for an enormous amount of trust from this Parliament. He is asking us to pass these five pages of new law but without having a first reading and without it going to a select committee to receive the scrutiny of public submissions. If this was the very first time we might give it the benefit of the doubt. We might say: “Yeah well we’ll go along with it.” But the Minister has to understand that when the House has gone along with it and agreed to amendments done in a rush five times and when every one of those five times it has found that it has stuffed up the House has to say today: “Minister once bitten twice shy. We’re not prepared to go along with it.” I will put money on it. 
 I bet there is not a single member of this House who has gone through these five pages of law line by line checked back to the Building Act checked back to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act and ensured we have it exactly right. I bet not one member of the House has been able to do that. 
Maryan Street 
: Do it yourself. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: How can we reasonably do that? Maryan Street is a new member so let me put her in the picture. Normally legislation has a first reading goes through the select committee process and has a second reading and a third reading. This arrogant Government has thrown away the rule book of Parliament and suspended the Standing Orders. That is an unbelievably heavy-handed approach. Yes sometimes it is absolutely necessary. But neither the Minister nor the Government has given even the slightest reason why we should take that extraordinary step in respect of this law. 
The second question I have for the Minister is this. When did the Minister know that councils would not meet the deadline of 30 November? 
John Carter 
: I told him 18 months ago. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague John Carter says he knew 18 months ago. In meeting councils and building officials it was plainly obvious to me at the beginning of the year that councils were not going to meet that deadline. But I note that the Minister gave a speech to the building officials conference just a couple of months ago where he said that all councils will be able to meet the deadline. Well what has changed? Why is it that everybody else seemed to know that there was a problem except the Minister? He is the Minister he has the Crown car and he has the big salary. How about doing the job? How about staying on top of the portfolio? How about knowing in advance? 
I say to the Minister again. If he wants Parliament to override its normal rules he must answer a simple question. When did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the 30 November timetable? I have a further point and it is this. This change in law is required only before 30 November. What is the mad rush? That date happens to be more than 3 months away. How can it be justifiable to throw away the Standing Orders of our Parliament and the proper scrutiny of legislation when this is not a problem for 3½ months? I have seen the Standing Orders suspended previously. It has happened when there been a crisis whereby if a law is not passed overnight there may be a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers because of a loophole that has been discovered. None of that justification exists in this case. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What were your questions Nick? I’ve forgotten. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well let me explain it again. Perhaps Mr Hodgson may be able to answer. When did the Minister know that councils would not meet the deadline? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I don’t know that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Hodgson says he does not know that but the Committee is entitled to know. If we are going to throw out the Standing Orders and go over the top of all process— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I am not the Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the Minister has been the Minister in the chair. I asked him the question last week. He would not answer then and he will not answer now. I tell members why he will not answer. He will not answer because it is embarrassing. It is another one of those ministerial botch-ups that he has to explain. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What’s your second question? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well my other question for the Minister is why we should trust him. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Who? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister. Why should we trust his incompetent Government to get it right when on the previous five occasions it has rushed legislation in this area it has got it wrong? In case Mr Hodgson thinks this is just some academic point let me go to the core of the issue. We have about 5000 leaky home owners. They have been waiting for justice. They have been waiting to see whether they will get some resolution of those matters. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What’s the answer to my question? Where did those leaky home owners come from? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well that is an interesting question. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: The Building Act in the early 1990s? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yeah and does Mr Hodgson know what the comment to that is? I can quote what Mr George Hawkins the member’s colleague said. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What did he say? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: When the Building Act was passed in 1991 George Hawkins said this: “National had no right to claim any credit for that Building Act because all the hard work was done by George Hawkins and Margaret Austin.” 
Jacqui Dean 
: Is that right? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is what he said. Labour is pretty desperate. It will dredge anything up. I think we will soon have a debate about the Boer War and what National’s position might have been on it. Labour is so desperate it will dredge anything up. 
I say to Mr Hodgson that I want to talk about now. Eighty-five percent of leaky home owners have been waiting for 5 years for a solution. Many of them are living in rotting smelling unhealthy homes while they have been waiting for the Government to get it right. Over and over again we get reassurances from the Government that are breached. Leaky home owners have had a rotten deal from this Government and this legislation is just another sad chapter of botch-ups and failures in that respect. 
But these changes are also about the Building Act. I have seen some bureaucratic nightmares in my time but the new Building Act is just awful. Last week I spoke to the building inspectors of New Zealand at their conference. I was amazed at the building inspectors—the regulators. I was not expecting them to be particularly positive towards National but I tell members that I was greeted like a saviour. “Can anybody save us?” 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Ha! ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was and I have to tell members opposite that I was surprised. I would have thought that council officials would be pretty friendly with the Labour Party. I have to say that they were pleading: “Can you give us a break from the incompetence of this Government and this department the bureaucratic requirements they are imposing on us the costs that they are imposing on our councils and the nightmare they are creating for builders and for homeowners? When are we going to get some common sense into our building laws?”. Those were their pleas and I had to tell them that they will need to wait for a John Key Government. In the key speech John gave at National’s conference setting out a forward plan for dealing with issues of homeownership and of home affordability John rightly said that we need to reform the Building Act that the Government has made a mess that the costs are unreasonable that the paperwork is over the top and that we have a process that is a very poor way in which to drive quality. 
National’s view is that we need building laws that will drive quality at less cost and that is not what we are getting in this bill. Again I will just recite the numbers and maybe the Minister will be able to answer this question for me. Have taxpayers got good value for money for the 85 million bucks that has been spent on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service? It works out at $111000 per case—that is not the money to fix the house; that is the money for the bureaucracy of the process—yet the average settlement is $70000. So I ask the noisy Mr Hodgson whether he thinks that is good value for money. 
Shane Jones 
: Transitional costs! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Shane Jones has been in the bureaucracy too long. It is a failure and we need change. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 This motion is an abuse of the Government’s power. The suspension of the Standing Orders is a draconian provision because it allows the Government to override the rules of this Parliament. I am absolutely— 
Shane Jones 
: The sovereignty of Parliament it is just changing. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Would the member like a violin? I say to Mr Jones that I think this situation we are in shows a botch-up in the Government’s legislative programme in that it has to resort to such heavy-handed tools. I am dumbfounded that the third parties in this Chamber including I tell Pita Paraone New Zealand First and the Green Party have agreed to such an abusive process when they claim their role is to check the Government’s abuse of power. 
There is no reason that these changes albeit embarrassing I say to Mr Cosgrove cannot go through the first the second and the third reading processes because the Government has until 30 November to consider this legislation.  This motion is a sign of a legislative mess in the building laws. This is the third time we have had to make changes to the Building Act which have been in the same fashion as we are debating tonight and they are about to be rushed through—the third time since the Act was passed in a big hurry in 2004—and much of the Act is still unimplemented. These changes are being tagged on to another mess— 
Shane Jones 
: Parliamentary innovation—it takes time. 
JOHN HAYES 
: This is the third attempt I tell Mr Jones that his Government has made to fix the laws addressing the problems of leaky homes. I think it must be seen in the context of the total building law debacle highlighted recently by my colleague Mr Key that the level of homeownership dropped 5 percent between 2001 and 2006 to its lowest level in 50 years. And the Government is asking us to split this bill. 
Home affordability as in the ratio of cost to income is now the worst of any OECD Government. And the Government is asking us to split this bill. Interest rates have gone up by 6.7 percent since 1999 to 10.4 percent in 2007 and house prices have doubled from an average cost of $172000 to $348000. That means that the cost of a 75 percent mortgage has risen from $166 a week to $533 a week. And the Government wants us to split the bill. The Building Act of 2004 has resulted in a trebling of paperwork. And the Government wants us to split the bill. 
This motion amounts to a comedy of errors. It has been rushed through as I have said. In 2005 we wanted to bring in changes to fix the then Weathertight Homes Resolution Service and to change its name to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. We are going through change after change only to find that the latest fix still has problems. So we now have the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to fix those problems. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Put this on a tape; it’s giving us insomnia. 
JOHN HAYES 
: It is unbelievable to the Labour list member living in Hastings that we have to find a split in this bill so that we can now fix another of Mr Cosgrove’s errors. It is unbelievable that after the first and second readings and the Committee stage the Government is still in a mad rush and wants to suspend the Standing Orders so that it can again split this legislation. Clayton Cosgrove’s message to builders—and he has repeated it like a Hare Krishna chant—is “Do it once do it right”. It is a pity that the Government does not apply the same rule to itself. Thank you. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to follow my colleagues John Hayes and Nick Smith and pick up on a couple of the points that my colleague Nick Smith made. He made a very good address to the Committee on the fact that we are splitting this bill. He brought to the Committee’s attention the fact that he had recently been to the Building Officials Institute of New Zealand where he had addressed them and been welcomed as a hero and a saviour. I can understand that and this Minister needs to understand that it was not just because he is Nick that he was applauded and welcomed; it was because of his association with the National Party as well as his being a very good member and individual himself. The Building Officials Institute of New Zealand is looking for someone to get it out of the muddle it is in. Nick Smith referred to that and brought it to the attention of the Committee—as we should when we are debating this bill and the splitting thereof. 
But there is another issue we need to discuss which we have not mentioned enough tonight. We have talked about the problem of the compliance costs this legislation is putting on local government. We have talked about the worries and failures there are in local government and the fact that it cannot now meet the requirements that this Minister and his Department of Building and Housing are putting on it. But I want to talk about two other things—firstly who is actually paying. The terrible cost that has been put on homeowners and the building industry in New Zealand is just not acceptable; it is seriously not acceptable. We are seeing price increases because of the incompetence of this Minister and his department. We have reached the stage now where the rules regulations and compliance costs that will be put in place as a consequence of passing this bill will mean extra increases in costs to the homeowner. 
Compliance has become so difficult that it is nigh on impossible for a layperson now to fill out a building application form. That is what we are putting in place with the splitting of this bill and that is why I bring it to the attention of the Committee. We need to understand as we pass this bill and its two parts that one of the things that will happen is that people will find they have to employ a person to fill out their building permits. Well that is unbelievable. A building permit application is not actually a difficult thing or it was not until this Minister and his department became in charge. Under the previous legislation it used to be that a person would fill out his or her name and address put in the details of the house and a bit of the description of the property etc. say who the builder was describe what style of house it was attach some plans and away that person could go. We could actually do it for ourselves pretty much. 
Hon David Carter 
: Do a Shane Jones now. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well Shane Jones now would not be able to fill out the building application form. I do not know whether he could before but he certainly could not now. Under this legislation that we are going to be passing as a consequence of splitting this bill people like Shane Jones will have to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars to employ somebody just to fill out a building application. 
Hon David Carter 
: He can afford to. 
JOHN CARTER 
: He may be able to afford to but many people in New Zealand cannot. This Government is putting huge compliance costs and unnecessary expense on to new homeowners and people in New Zealand and it is just not acceptable. 
On top of that the Government is causing cost to local government which means that rates are having to increase as a consequence of this incompetent Minister and his incompetent department. So the people who have to fill out these forms and pay huge money to apply for a building permit are paying twice. They are paying once through the compliance cost of having to hire somebody to fill out their applications get the plans drawn and get all the necessary support documents—the multitude of rules and regulations they have to comply with—and on top of that they have to pay through their rates as well. I say that that is just not acceptable. 
In this country we used to be able to get on build our own homes and fill in our own forms. We would get somebody who was competent to build our homes and a building inspector would come along and support the application. But under the legislation we are discussing tonight and the splitting of the bill into two if members of this Committee go back and look at what it means they will see that all that disappears. It means that instead of our having a simple system for the asset that for most people is about putting a huge chunk of their life into and one that gives security and certainty that it will be there for them in 10 15 20 and 40 years under this legislation we are passing tonight there is no guarantee of that at all. In fact the sad thing is that many people will end up being not just disappointed and not just distressed but being made if not bankrupt then certainly severely disadvantaged financially as a consequence of this legislation being passed tonight. 
 You know in all the time we have been debating this matter which is since about 8 o’clock tonight in this Committee the Minister has arrogantly sat there not even bothering apart from reading some papers to take one call. He has not bothered to stand up even once and defend any of the criticism—justifiable criticism—that has been made by colleagues who have taken part in this debate. The people of New Zealand the struggling new homeowners who have to go through this tirade of rules and regulations and form filling have to employ people at huge cost to do it before they even get started to make sure they comply with the rules and regulations that have been put out by this incompetent Minister and his incompetent department. They have to spend I am told up to $90000 to comply with rules and regulations—compliance costs fees lawyers' fees—before they can start to build. That is just to comply—$90000! That sounds outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. It was not that long ago that one could just about build a house for that sort of money. Now people have to pay that just get started let alone buy the section and start buying the materials for the house. And this Minister sits there and says: “Well that’s OK. It’s all OK.” The sad fact is that it is not. 
Hon David Carter 
: Has he got a ministerial house? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes he has a ministerial house. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh he is saying he does not have a ministerial house. I can understand that; it is probably leaky and he would not want to be in it. He probably has a tent somewhere. 
But the fact is that with the passing of this bill there will be no certainty for our homeowners no guarantee for our building industry and no certainty for local government. The only people who are certain are the people who are employed by this Minister and by the Department of Building and Housing knowing that they have a secure job paid for by the taxpayer and that they can carry on with these building compliances and rules and regulations that are achieving nothing. They are actually making the problem worse. 
I only wish there was some way we could get this Minister and his department to understand that we are not going forward at all. We are actually going backwards and it can be guaranteed that it will not be long before we have another bill of this nature before this House that no doubt will have to be split and we will have to suspend the Standing Orders again and leave the whole House aside so we can try to fix up the mess this Minister is making tonight. 
This Opposition has debated the matter well and truly; so it should. We want to put what has happened on record—and we have done that. I think when people go back and check  
Hansard 
 they will find that the people who knew what sort of a mess we were getting this country into—what sort of a problem we are creating for homeowners what sort of a problem we are creating for the building industry and what sort of a problem we are creating for local government—will be on record because this country’s loyal Opposition at least stands up for reality. At least we are prepared to say it as it is. 
This Minister is not even competent enough to stand and defend his rules and regulations. I say to him that that is disgraceful. He should be ashamed. As he gets into his LTD and drives off to his taxpayer-funded house wherever it might be and whatever it is at least he knows he will be warm and dry. But the people who have to try to comply with these rules and regulations have no certainty at all. This House should be guaranteeing people’s homes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 134. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.