Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Does he believe that the contracting system currently used in the construction industry works appropriately and fairly in circumstances of insolvency; if so why? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Yes because the Government engaged in significant consultation 2 years ago with the construction sector including subcontractors and concluded that a regime for security of payments would add extra costs up front to the building work and the cost of doing business and that parties to a contract are currently free to negotiate the use of security payment measures using products that are already on the market. But having said that the Government is still not ruling anything in or out. It is considering any changes being proposed but they must be based on good evidence. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that answer what specific changes if any is the Government proposing to the contracting system in the construction industry to ensure that subcontractors are paid the money they are owed for work they have done? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well I think a little bit of history would be worthwhile here. There was a Wages Protection and Contractors’ Liens Act in place. The Labour Government in 1987 got rid of that. Then in 2001 when the fourth-biggest construction company in New Zealand a company called Hartner Construction went into receivership and subbies did not get paid the Labour Government said it did not believe there were measures the Government needed to take to ensure—remember the fourth-biggest construction company as was Mainzeal Property and Construction; a very good mirror to that. So what I am saying to that member—because I have heard Labour even referring to New South Wales; there is only a proposal in New South Wales at present and the New South Wales Government has not yet decided whether it will proceed on it—is that we will not rule anything in and we will not rule anything out. It would have to be based on evidence before the Government would change things. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Well the 1987 decision was wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The point of order is this. I asked a specific question around changes. He said there were proposed changes. I asked what changes were being considered. We did get a detailed history lesson but we did not get any specificity to the answer. I asked what were the proposed— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because at this stage the Minister on two occasions has said—[ 
Interruption 
] Sorry? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Isn’t that for the Minister to clarify? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. You raised with me a point of order about whether the question has been satisfactorily answered and the question was about what specific changes the Government is considering. The Minister categorically said it would not rule anything in and it would not rule anything out at this stage. I think he has adequately answered your question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister agree with Phil McConchie co-owner of scaffolding and propping business Camelspace which had $1 million of gear on the twin tower Hobson Gardens site and who estimates losses of $300000 when he predicted on 13 February that a big group of subcontractors could fail in the next month causing widespread damage to the building sector; and if he does agree that that is a distinct possibility given the Mainzeal collapse does he not think he ought to be proactively pursuing options to futureproof contracting arrangements for subbies ensuring that they do get paid money they have earned? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I do not accept some of those claims that were quoted by the member. What I can tell that member is that in 2009 the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Brendon Burns came to me as Minister and said they were concerned about this issue. So I put out a very extensive—here it is—consultation document which was circulated throughout the entire industry with submissions from the Construction Industry Council from subcontractors federations and so on. The total and unanimous conclusion of all that work was that there are methods in the system right now where you can get the protection if you wish it and that going to a mandatory system would not work. So I say to the honourable member: “I’ll show you mine—you show me yours.” 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] Hold on help is on the way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given his personal expertise in the subcontracting industry in that he is currently a director of the subcontracting firm Holyoake Industries has he sought any advice from his former boss and former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley a former director of Mainzeal Property and Construction on the reasons behind the Mainzeal collapse and its impacts on the subcontracting industry; if not why not? [ 
Interruption 
] And the nasty thing is some contractors— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: First can I clarify that Holyoake Industries is neither a contractor nor a subcontractor in the building and construction sector— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Well you’d know. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes I would know. Secondly no I have had no discussions on this matter with the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is someone who so blindly supported the removal of sound building materials practices and regulations leading to tens of thousands of leaky homes and buildings the Minister for Building and Construction today? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well I presume you mean me because I am the Minister for Building and Construction today. I would like to know what changes to building materials regulations I supported. I assume the member is talking about the decision by Standards New Zealand an independent body in 1995 to allow non-treated timber in the building of housing and I say to that member did he expect somebody who was not involved in the portfolio then to now tell an independent organisation like Standards New Zealand that it is not to do that? Because if that is what he is suggesting I would not have done it.