Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22141] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to raise this afternoon some very serious issues in respect of the forest industry which depends on the Government to regulate properly the treatment of timber and to ensure that New Zealanders can have confidence in timber products. That matters because thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have investments in the forestry sector. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that on 11 July after being approached by a number of players in the timber industry the Government’s Department of Building and Housing approved a timber product quite fraudulently and quite wrongly that is causing huge disruption within the timber industry. My concerns at the time were threefold. The first was the way in which the T1.2 timber was being quite wrongly marketed as the equivalent of H— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I apologise to the member for interrupting him but the Hon David Cunliffe has while out of his seat been volleying a barrage at my colleague during the course of his contribution. I ask you to consider the fact that although this is a robust debate Ministers who shift their seats to advantage themselves—and we are used to Mr Cunliffe doing that—should be careful when interjecting on members who are trying to make a valid contribution to the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member but I would just point out that there has been a fair degree of constant barraging from the Opposition side on many— 
Simon Power 
: Out of their seats? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Power I am ruling on this point of order. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raised three serious concerns about the T1.2 product. The first was that it was being grossly mismarketed as being identical to fully treated timber—timber that has been treated all the way through. My second concern was that the product had not been properly tested. My third concern was that the conditions put on the use of T1.2 timber were totally impractical—this idea that when a builder cut the timber he would have a paintbrush handy with which to paint over the surface to make sure the timber was properly treated. 
When I raised those concerns the Government came out with a number of statements. The first thing it said was that this was the very first it had heard of this problem. In fact five times on the  
Close Up 
 programme the Government said that this was the first it had ever heard of this problem. Well I have a letter in my hand from the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors dated 3 June last year which states: “This product in its accreditation with only a light covering of boron to the outer timber has been given the same status and standing as a fully core-penetrated timber product and this is obvious nonsense.” Greg O’Sullivan said: “I am very concerned about the situation of this envelope treatment of timber. It is going to lead to a future disaster.” That is what they wrote to the Government and said. 
Later in that interview the Government’s Minister said: “Don’t worry the timber has been extensively tested.” and that is where I want to take things a step further today. The testing was done by a Dr Mick Hedley of Scion which was formerly the Forest Research Institute. He is the person whom the Government is relying on in backing the T1.2 product. Let me quote what this email stated: “T1.2 is a misnomer invented by Tenon which is totally misleading mischievous and which I disagree with entirely.” That is from the scientist whom the Government is relying on in backing this timber product. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Cunliffe says it does not matter; I tell him it does. It matters because 10000 homes out there are being built of this timber and the scientist whom the Government is relying on in backing it says that. 
Let me tell members what else the scientist stated: “We tested the active ingredient as a brush-on formulation. We were never asked to test the commercial product.” Thousands of homes around New Zealand are being built with this timber nicknamed “Agent Orange” and it has never ever been tested. What is worse is that after the billion-dollar leaky home scandal the Government had a duty to ensure that in future timber was properly treated and safe and it is not doing that. Again I quote Dr Mick Hedley: “I believe the real issue is that the conditions of use of which I was not consulted at any stage are impractical from a building perspective and are probably incompatible with conditions that prevail on many building sites. This is where the Government probably got it wrong.” So the scientist behind this product is saying that it is all very well for him to do the testing but if we set conditions that are totally inappropriate for the average building site his testing proves nothing. Members should remember that builders on cutting this product are meant to open a tin of paint and paint over the areas they have cut and that the timber is not meant to get wet. Well a building about 100 metres from here is made of this “Agent Orange” timber it is getting wet as we speak and this Government does nothing. 
Now I raise the most serious concern which is the scientist’s last quote: “I also have concerns that the Government was empowered to approve alternate solutions for preserving timber when there are perfectly adequate standards available. I have a particular concern that there was no public consultation on this action which is a requirement of all New Zealand standards. It undermines the purpose and the status of standards.” The very scientist whom the Government is relying on in approving a product involved in 50 percent of houses constructed in the last 12 months is saying that this product undermines the standard of treatment in New Zealand. I say “What a disgrace!”. 
Three weeks ago the Minister said that the department would have a review of how that product got accredited and that the review would be completed within a fortnight. Well that was a week ago; why have we heard nothing? I will tell people why. It is because the Government wants to wait until after Parliament has risen before it fesses up. What is wrong with that is that builders and homeowners are again being left in the lurch by Government members because they will not come clean and say “We cocked up.” The reality is that the Government cocked up. We have an “Agent Orange” timber out there that is totally inappropriate and is not supported by even the scientist whom the Minister quotes to back it. It is a disgrace! 
The Government should come clean today say it got it wrong stop this product from being used and de-accredit it so that the industry can move forward. We also need an independent inquiry into how it is possible for a timber product to be approved in breach of the new New Zealand standard for treated timber and when the scientist who supposedly did the treatment work has no confidence in the naming of the product or in the conditions under which it is meant to be used. 
This is a very serious issue. Thousands of builders and homeowners want to know the answer. The Government has let the side down. That email is absolutely damning and it is time for the Government to come clean to admit that it got it awfully wrong and to provide some security for those homeowners. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Who deregulated the industry? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I ask whether Mr Cunliffe can tell me why this product was approved. I ask whether anyone on the Government benches can tell me why the Government approved this product. Those members cannot tell me; they do not care. The department is having hula parties kava drinking and Cowboys and Indians theme parties while people’s homes rot and most seriously the Government has not even ensured that future homes are built to a proper standard. I look forward to a Government member providing an explanation as to why it approved a product in breach of the New Zealand standard which was adopted only in 2003. Why has the Government ignored the scientist who investigated this product who has such serious concerns about it? 
I seek leave to table an email from Scion which was formerly the Forest Research Institute in which the scientist whom the Government has quoted as evidence for it backing the product expresses very serious concerns about this product. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.