Carter David: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19804] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise to debate the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill and as I listened to the chair of the Government Administration Committee she reinforced in my mind what a complete and absolute shambolic mess this legislation is. She rose to her feet and said thank you for the valuable contribution that she received on this legislation from Brent Catchpole and from Murray Smith—Brent Catchpole of course being a member from New Zealand First and Murray Smith being a member from United Future. 
 I looked at the report back on this legislation which went to the member’s select committee for a total time of 85 minutes and although the Government Administration Committee considered the legislation Mr Catchpole and Mr Murray Smith were not there. So we have the chair of the select committee ticking off a report yet she has forgotten the members of the select committee who looked at the legislation. It would be hard to find a more shambolic process as we debate the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. 
As I said in my contribution on the first reading the bill is absolutely misleading in its name. This bill is entirely about a Building Act amendment bill and that is where the debate should have been. However the Government has very cunningly said that there are one or two other pieces of legislation with exactly the same problem as the building legislation. First it found that it had to amend the Health Act. If we look at that legislation we see that the Health Act was passed in 1956. Here we are in urgency rushing through legislation that the Government says is a matter of urgency and it is to amend a bill that has been around for 40-odd years. 
The other legislation being amended is the Commerce Act of 1986. The New Zealand public ought to realise that the bill we are absolutely amending with urgency is the Building Act 2004. It was passed at the end of last year when the Government was told that the legislation as passed in this House would not work. Nothing has proved that more succinctly than the fact that we are here dealing with this on 12 April. 
We had an interesting contribution from Murray Smith. Obviously the man from United Future put a lot of effort into the Building Act legislation when it went through the House. In his contribution today he acknowledged that it would need some amending over the years that it came into effect. [ 
Interruption 
] The member nods his head and says that yes those were the remarks he made. I remind the member that this legislation was passed last year and came into effect on 1 April 2005. It has not taken years for this legislation to appear back in the House wanting urgent amendment; it has taken but 12 days. Mr Smith shakes his head in horror. He had not realised that it was as bad as that. 
What I want to say is that the legislation went to the select committee for 85 minutes. Only one minority report is attached to the legislation and it is in the name of the National Party. It makes some very good points as to why the original legislation would never have worked and the Government was told that at the time. The most worrying comments I have found as I have gone through the commentary presented back to the House by the Government Administration Committee are these: “When the Building Bill underwent its third reading in August 2004 concerns were raised that this mandatory requirement could infringe the copyright interests of third parties.” Those words categorically state that the Government passed legislation supported by United Future in August 2004 when it had been told that it would not work. It was told by the industry that the legislation as being passed at the time would breach the Copyright Act. The Government proceeded with the support of United Future to ram that legislation through. I understand that it received its final reading again in urgency yet the Government had been told at the time that the legislation would not work. 
 That is an amazing admission by the Government. But in the meantime we have been saddled with the Building Act 2004 which came into effect on 1 April. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Who saddled us with the Building Act 1991? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister says it is the fault of the Building Act 1991. The Minister should pick up the legislation and look at it. It does not talk at all about the Building Act 1991. I say to Mr Chris Carter that it does not even mention that Act. Part 1 of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill refers to the Building Act 2004 which if my memory serves me correctly was in the name of the Hon Chris Carter or the Hon George Hawkins. One of those Ministers was responsible for the Building Act when it went through this House and that particular Minister was told at the time that it would not work. So here we are rushing through legislation that has been suitably doctored so that it amends two or three other bills that the Government has had to trace back through the statute books—it has found one going back as far as 1956—in an attempt to hide its total embarrassment that we are amending legislation passed about 6 months ago. 
The other thing I want to ask is why this legislation is in the hands of the Hon Pete Hodgson. What has the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill to do with Minister Pete Hodgson and his portfolios? We will ask that question again during the Committee stage because at this stage the Government is making no attempt to answer it. The Government could have done the honest thing. It could have put the bill in the name of the Minister who is responsible for building and construction the Hon Chris Carter. But of course he has been a bit of a target lately. He has been a bit of a target both for members on this side of the House and more spectacularly for a member on the other side of the House John Tamihere who is now on extended leave. I will not quote Mr Tamihere’s words. I assure you Mr Speaker that earlier in the debate when you were not here it was ruled out of order to use those words in Parliament so I will not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tosser. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I say to Mr Smith that I will not use that word. That word has been ruled out of order. It does seem incredible to me that that word is out of order in the House yet it is totally in order inside the Labour Party caucus room. 
What the legislation does via the Supplementary Order Paper—and I will refer very briefly to the Supplementary Order Paper because it is substantially larger than the rest of the bill—is to start to wade through the Building Act and the idiotic changes it brought in effective from 1 April 2005. The Building Act amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper will change the rather ridiculous situation we have now where legally the Beehive should not be occupied on any floor because renovations are going on on one of the nine floors. That is the situation my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith has revealed to the House and that is the situation the Government was told about at the time when it passed the legislation—but of course with the arrogance that has now become a hallmark of the Labour Government it ignored all the advice it was given. It passed the legislation. It rushed it through and here we are again in urgency having to try to fix up the mess. I guarantee that Mr Murray Smith’s comments were right—this will not be the last amendment we pass to the Building Act.