Building Bill

This includes debate on schedule 4.

Part 5 of the bill is where the offences are taken into account—where people start to implement their muscle, where the Government gives bureaucrats muscle over the ordinary Labour voter, and where the Government comes down with the full weight of the law against that poor little Labour voter who lives in Ōtaki and wants to get on and do some work. There is nothing in here that is probably more offensive—[Interruption] Mr Smith should listen so that he can check and see that this section is not one that has been struck out. New, by majority, is clause 317A: “Offence for residential property developer to transfer household unit without code compliance certificate”.

On the surface, that does not sound too bad, but the question is: what happens when a person does not have enough money to build the house to completion? Let us say that some Labour voters from Ōtaki or down south have enough money to build two-thirds of the house. They have one room to live in and one room to sleep in, and the rest of the house is left unfinished. The builder cannot not go away, having issued a code of compliance—that is against the law—and the owners cannot not take possession and shift into the house, simply because the law will not allow that to happen. So how do we overcome that? How will the member over there give us an explanation tonight as to how to overcome that problem?

Does it simply mean that those people cannot not shift into the house, and still have to pay rent? Let us say that they are paying the mortgage on the half-built house and want to move in. They have a place to sleep in and a roof over their heads, but they cannot move in simply because the builder will not allow it. The builder cannot get paid. The builder and the owners could have come to an agreement about what they want to do, and the owners may want to finish the house as and when income allows them to do so from that point on. But no, according to the socialists in this Parliament they cannot do that. The Government will not have a bar of that. I say to members opposite and to the Minister—[Interruption]. Mr Smith will get his chance. The member interjecting should take a call and point out how the owners could get around that problem—I am sure the lawyer will figure something out.

My reading of the bill—and most builders’ reading of it—will be that those owners cannot not move in. For every lawyer who says they can, there will be another lawyer who will challenge that view, and the territorial authority will say: “No, you can’t do it.” I say that it will not be able to happen. So I ask the Minister to take a call. He should get some advice from his officials and clear this up for members tonight. He should clear it up also for those poor Labour voters up in Ōtaki who employ a builder to part-build a house and who cannot shift in and get their house finished because they run out of money—maybe the owner loses his job in Parliament as a result of the election—and cannot carry on.

Further, the bill introduces a whole raft of abilities to prosecute and chase people through the court system, run them through the legal system, and cost them heaps of money. The payment of infringement fees is mentioned right throughout the bill. Mr Tamihere should take a call about that—I am sure it would frighten even him. This bill is the sort of thing that one could design only if one decided that everybody in the country was a villain. We are taking the worst possible case and developing law around it. One thing we learn very early when we come to Parliament is that bad cases make bad law, and this bill is a classic example of that. The Government is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The old legislation, which had 100 pages, was prescriptive in some areas—and obviously not prescriptive enough in some other areas, which is why it was found wanting—but this bill overdoes it overwhelmingly. The Minister should take a call to clear up a number of issues that have been raised tonight.

Clause 338, “Liability of principal for acts of agents”, may well be useful, but I suspect that it is not good enough. I have another question for the Minister. If, as has been stated in the Chamber tonight, a developer were to come in, employ a lot of subcontractors, including building contractors, on an hourly or weekly basis, slap up a development in central Auckland, not comply with the code, and then disappear into the sunset because he did not have to be a registered builder or comply with all of the detail in this bill—he just put his name up as the investor, the developer, the entrepreneur, the former MP, or something—then I presume that the subcontractor, who, of course, has to comply with this legislation, would be left holding the baby. But I do not know. This clause is about the liability of the principal for acts of agents.

Mr Ardern has shocked me. I am absolutely shocked. Mr Ardern sat on the Government Administration Committee, which dealt with this bill. [Interruption]. He was not there? He must have slept through it. I just do not understand. The other thing I do not understand is that National, with all its resources, and Mr Ardern somehow could not get the answers to very simple questions about what this bill says and what it actually means. Mr Ardern has come to the Chamber during the Committee stage, asked questions of other people, and pointed at me to ask me to explain to him how this bill works, because he does not understand it. For some reason the National Party, with all its resources, has not been able to explain to him how it works.

Mr Ardern has raised two issues. Regarding the first one, he asked us in his previous speech to show him where this bill applies to people who design houses. Mr Ardern has consented to me—

💬 Shane Ardern: Architects.

Mr Ardern wants clarification, and the clarification is that the definition of “building work” includes building design. Building work that has to be signed off by a licensed building practitioner will include the design of the building. Licensed building practitioners of the design class will have to sign it off, and architects will be licensed building practitioners of the design class. That answers that. Mr Ardern seems to be satisfied with that explanation.

Now he has said that clause 317 means that people will not be able to move into their houses until they have a code compliance certificate, and that people will be locked out. He has been asking for someone to show him how people will get on, because he cannot see how they will. He should read subclause (1), which is a very brief subclause that states: “This section applies to a building that is intended for public use.” “Public use” does not relate to a residence. “Public use” relates to a public building. The provision applies only to a situation involving public buildings. The public will not be able to use public buildings until such time as the buildings get code compliance certificates. This provision does not apply to residences. Residences are not intended for public use. That answers Mr Ardern’s question. Mr Ardern just wasted his last speaking opportunity by coming up with a red herring that can easily be answered.

This part raises some fairly key issues, one being the transitional provisions. I alluded in my last speech to the 5-year provision for licensed building practitioners. There is also a modification in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, in terms of the way that private building certifiers will be treated, that will tighten up the process by which private building certifiers will be able to operate. Now, unless those builders have applied for registration within 18 months of the bill coming into force—18 months after 30 November—they will not be able to carry out any more building work, but they will be able to finish off what they had been doing. So there is some transition, which will last for a period of 3 years.

There are some positive things in this bill that I think will add a lot to consumer protection. Clause 349, in particular, gives, for the first time, some implied warranties as far as building work is concerned. Consumers will have the protection of implied warranties that are found in legislation like the Consumer Guarantees Act, and that is important. They are the sorts of protections whereby materials to be supplied will be suitable for the purpose for which they will be used; building work will be carried out in accordance with and will comply with all laws and legal requirements, including the Act and regulations; and building work will be carried out with reasonable care and skill, and will be completed by the date, or within the period, specified in the contract, or, if no date or period is specified, within a reasonable time. That is a provision I was particularly keen to push for.

As a lawyer, I dealt with a lot of contracts whereby some people would sign up for a house to be built, and would get an indication from the builder that it might take 3 or 4 months, then 6 or 8 months later the house would still not be finished. Twelve months later the house would still not be finished, and the people would not know when they could move in. They would have rental commitments, and the whole thing would be up in the air. Some classic cases have happened in the Wellington region whereby buildings have not been completed and people have been hamstrung, because they signed a contract that they cannot terminate, and have been caught. This bill will give considerable protection in this area.

Let me take up Mr Murray Smith’s view. I realise he has acted for a few purchasers, and has never really thought about it from the builder’s point of view.

💬 Murray Smith: I read the bill.

Well, God help them, because from looking at clause 317A, one is up for a $200,000 fine if one transfers, completes the sale of a household unit, or allows a purchaser of a household unit to enter possession of that unit without a compliance certificate. [Interruption] Wait a minute, I say to Mr Smith. He has been telling members that there are not the people in the country to do those certificates. He has told members that. He said it would take 3 years. So members now know that houses will be completed, and it will take 3 years before there is time for people to issue the compliance certificates.

I put it to Mr Smith that what one could do, if one has not signed a waiver, is hold the builder to ransom. The builder has built the building and done everything, but cannot transfer or be paid, because the builder cannot get a certificate. So, of course, if one is acting for the builder, one would say: “You must not sign any contracts to build anything unless there is a waiver to a compliance certificate automatically agreed to.” I say to Mr Smith that that is what one would do, is it not? So what is the point of the bill? What is the point of the bill if no competent builder will build anything—I assure members—without a waiver certificate in advance.

Then I come to Mr Smith’s great claim that there cannot be any residential buildings that could ever be qualified as a “public place”. Well, there are some members of Parliament I have heard of who have electorate offices in their houses at the moment. They have done that. [Interruption] Thank you. I did not quote a name. It is a public place. There are tens of thousands of people who have offices in their houses.

💬 Shane Ardern: Where does the Speaker live?

Where does the Speaker live? Well, we could just go through it. I do not know what Mr Smith was doing when he was waving this bill through, but this provision has a $200,000 fine for anybody who has permitted a house to be used that does not have a building consent. I just ask, where do those members of Parliament come from?

I have given a couple of stories; I will give another one. I once bought a house in Parnell. It was four grotty flats, and I wanted to turn it into a decent-sized house for my decent-sized family. I rang the carpenters union—I was getting on well with it then—and asked who I should have. It recommended to me a person, whom I will not name, who was a good member of the Communist Party, but also a very good carpenter. He came around and saw me, and said: “Look, Preb, I’m happy to do it, but there are—[Interruption] If the member listens, she will hear it. He said to me: “There are two prices. If I have to get a building permit”—and that was under the old rules—“I’ll charge you $30,000, but if you can assure me that you have a building permit, it’s only $25,000.” I said: “From you—a ‘com’?”, and he said: “Mate, you don’t want to have those building inspectors around. They just delay you forever.” I said: “I’m sure I have a building certificate here, somewhere.”, so we went and built it on that basis. Then I asked him: “What will we do now?”, after he had finished it, and he had done a very good job. He said: “I’ll ring up the council, and they will come and inspect it.” So he rang the council, and an official came and inspected it. Then I said to the council official: “I have moved four flats down to one. I should get a rating change out of the Auckland City Council rating value.”, and he said: “Do you really want to do that, Preb?”. I asked: “Just hypothetically, why wouldn’t I?”, and he said: “Well, you have actually lifted the value.” So I saw him off the property, and we decided not to revalue it.

But the point I am making is that is how Kiwis do things. That is how it was under the old rules. If, under the old rules, any sensible communist carpenter would not want to have a building inspector coming around, following him around, and delaying him for weeks, trying to get approvals, then under this bill, if I did what I did, I would be up for a fine of $200,000, and all I was trying to do was save my family some money. I did not want the Government coming along and guaranteeing the job. I knew the builder. I knew he was an honest “com”. I knew he would do me a good job—which he did. He did an excellent job; so much so, that my rateable value went up. I ask the Government: who does it think it is trying to help when it puts out $200,000 fines?

I have some serious concerns about this particular part, and I would like to ask the Minister to take a call and give us an assurance. This bill dissolves the Building Industry Authority and transfers everything into the Ministry of Economic Development or the new ministry that is being formed—I cannot recall the full name for it now. But my concern is that I would hate to see the Building Industry Authority being dissolved like a phoenix company, and having all its responsibilities dissolved also. I hope the Minister can assure the Committee that the authority’s responsibilities and liabilities will be transferred across to the new ministry, and therefore anybody who has any outstanding claims that may involve the authority will be able to continue with those claims.

I am mindful of the approach the Building Industry Authority took with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That was a process whereby all the parties were to get together to sort out their differences, under mediation or arbitration. Unfortunately, the one party that should have been leading that charge—the Building Industry Authority—decided it would go to court regardless, and forced a lot of the smaller operators involved in the process to accept a substantial sum, but it was nowhere near the figures they were trying to claim. Put simply, the might of the authority had the finances behind it, but the smaller parties did not, and they were unable to take on the authority head-on in the court case.

I hope the Minister will take a call and assure the Committee that those liabilities will be transferred over, and also that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service will still have that recourse to mediation with the new entity that will come into force in place of the Building Industry Authority. The authority has responsibilities to people, and there are a large number of problems concerning weathertight homes. I believe there are many that still have not come forward or to fruition yet, because the timberwork in those properties has not started to rot, or the rot has not been noticed yet. That recourse must continue right through, to allow the owners to have the opportunity, if necessary, to take the equivalent of the Building Industry Authority to arbitration or mediation, and also provide the funding so that they can even take the new ministry on. I hate to think that the big money behind the authority was responsible for quashing a lot of that responsibility and the subsequent payouts. It was a sad day for the whole weathertight homes resolution inquiry.

The Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was put in place under the Construction Contracts Act, which was ultimately split off into a separate Act of its own. So it was sad to see the Building Industry Authority being able to dodge its responsibility. I would like the Minister to take a call to assure us that that will not be the case when this bill comes into force, and that the new ministry will take on the full responsibilities and liabilities of the Building Industry Authority.

I want to continue the points Richard Prebble made regarding clause 317 and 317A. Clause 317A, “Offence for residential property developer to transfer household unit without code compliance certificate”, concerned a number of submitters, because there is a liability on the council and the developer if they transfer a property. Subclause (3) states: “A person who commits an offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding $200,000.”

From a local body’s point of view, it is important to know exactly what the provisions in the clause mean. Officials of the Waitakere City Council came before the Government Administration Committee and made a very important point about code compliance certificates. We asked them how many outstanding code compliance certificates there are in Waitakere City. I want the Committee to listen to the reply carefully, because it shows how stupid the whole clause is. The answer was: “(a) A year or two ago an internal review concluded that only 48 percent of all building consents issued had code compliance certificates issued in respect of those consents. (b) We interrogated the consents database for the status of incomplete building records in the system, which covers the period 1 January 1993 to date.”—the date being the end of December last year. “There are 15,184 records of incomplete consents, indicating the lack of code compliance certificates. In the period 1 January ‘93 to 30 November ‘03 this council issued 38,300 building consents. If the electronic interrogation is correct, then this is indicating that around 40 percent of all building consents in that period have not had a code compliance issued. (c) We asked a further question. The response to the question”—which relates to flats, unit, apartments, and stand-alone dwellings—“was 2,009 incomplete records. To put that information in context, I note that in the 12 months to 30 November 2003 this council issued 920 new building consents for flats, units, apartments, and dwellings. That is with an average construction period of 4 months approximate.”

The submission goes on to state: “By way of conclusion, may I say that I am staggered by these numbers. My experience as a solicitor in practice in Christchurch was that you could not sell or mortgage a property without a code compliance certificate. Why, in Auckland, it might be so different I do not know, but this is a major issue. Finding a mechanism to ensure code compliance is obtained is not easy.”

I ask the Minister in the chair, John Tamihere, given the number of dwellings in Waitakere City that do not have code compliance when this clause states that it is an offence for a developer to pass those buildings on and that there will be a fine of up to $200,000 for a person who commits that offence, whether it is the Government’s intention that those people be put out in the street because they do not have code compliance. That is what clause 317A states. That is a major concern. The clause states quite clearly that that is an offence.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Is it retrospective? Are there 50,000 buildings in Waitakere City that are going to be unsaleable?

That is right. They do not have code compliance. The clause states that it is illegal and an offence for residential property developers to transfer household units without a code compliance certificate.

I say to the Minister that National is not supporting the bill, because the sort of nonsense appearing here affects the lives of innocent people, who do not know the importance of code compliance certificates. The same issue came up in Northland. An official from the Far North District Council submitted that there were thousands of homes up there that were substandard. What will happen to those people when the bill comes into effect? Will they be out on the street? We know that housing is a major issue in some parts of the country. I do not know what it is like over on the East Coast. In Northland it is a major issue, and this bill is wrong.

I take up the challenge that a couple of members have made in regard to Part 5 of the Building Bill. Firstly, I invite, with the greatest of respect, the member who has just resumed his seat, Lindsay Tisch, to read in full Supplementary Order Paper 241, which gives territorial local authorities a range of discretions with regard to the transitional provisions. I would be grateful if the member would be kind enough to read the full intent and expression, as outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper.

More particularly, I rise to comment on the challenge from the honourable New Zealand First member, Mr Brent Catchpole. He asked a number of questions that I will now refer to specifically. I respectfully request that the member read clause 361, “Assets and liabilities vest in Crown”, which states: “All rights, assets, liabilities, and debts that the Authority had immediately before the commencement of this section must be treated as the rights, assets, liabilities, and debts of the Crown”. That is moving towards a Government department and acknowledges that a Government department is a successor and an assignee in all things conducted by the Building Industry Authority. I also request that the member look at new clause 368 in Supplementary Order Paper 241. You must read—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is bringing me into debate.

As the Chair pleases. Members must read the Supplementary Order Paper, which is a very important Supplementary Order Paper in respect of the bill before them. I invite you to look at clause—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member cannot refer to the Chair.

I would like members to look at clause 368, “Proceedings of Authority”, which states: “Any proceedings to which the Authority is, or becomes, a party (whether before or after the commencement of this section) may be commenced, continued, completed, and enforced by or against the Crown.” I give a clear expression and undertaking to the New Zealand First member that it is quite clear that coverage is given in respect of any acts the Building Industry Authority may have conducted prior to the passage of this legislation. Notwithstanding that, I bring his attention to new clause 361A, which is set out on the Supplementary Order Paper. I do that in the best interests of the questions he raised. Subclause (1) of new clause 361A, “Protection from civil liability for members, building referees, and employees of Authority continued”, states: “Despite the repeal of the former Act and the dissolution of the Authority, no civil proceedings may be brought against any of its members, building referees, or employees for any act done or omitted to be done by that person in good faith”.

We have transported a range of liabilities into the name of the Crown by way of the new department, but we have also acknowledged that members of that authority who have conducted themselves in good faith should be provided with some cover, but the standard law with regard to any act of negligence conducted by members of the authority will be able to be pursued legally. I give a clear undertaking that the framework we have put around that issue is the way it works.

I conclude by stating that Part 5 is extraordinarily important. Not only have we recalibrated a range of undertakings to the consumers of this country, but we have also clearly erred on the side of the great Kiwi battlers and consumers who invest significant resources in the greatest asset purchase they are likely to undertake in their lives. This legislation does not contain the rorts that have been perpetrated on them and that have forced us to put it forward. We on this side of the Chamber make that quite clear, rather than being in business for vested interests or acknowledging that the market achieved everything, because it did not and we know it. I make it quite clear that Part 5 is not just about the carrots that are involved, it is about the sticks as well. There must be a clear message sent to the industry that a range of remedies is available in the event that the good and worthy practice and warrantable tradesmanship that we expect from good Kiwi tradespeople should exist and be available, and that if it is not, there must be an opportunity for us to take recourse.

Part 5 has two important provisions that I will focus on, and they are the abolition of the Building Industry Authority, and the second topic I will deal with is clause 386, which states that the chief executive of the Ministry of Economic Development—although there will be a new ministry—must review the building code.

My first point is that the problem with the abolition of the Building Industry Authority is that a degree of control has been taken away from the industry itself. The Government has decided to impose the centralised statist approach that it has become so infamous for, and which is its ready recourse. The solution to any problem it has, is to get the State involved. If I look at areas in which each of my colleagues is involved, the Government has increased statism. That is exactly what has happened. For example, in Brian Connell’s area of forestry, there are more powers for State intervention by the Ministry of Economic Development. It is just extraordinary. So right across the board there is a statist approach and in this bill the Government has abolished the Building Industry Authority and given the power completely to the State.

The problem is that there is no industry involvement. It is always a top-down solution where directions are simply given to the industry. At least one of the advantages of the Building Industry Authority—had it been properly reformed, because that is what it needed—was that the industry itself had a genuine and real input. It had membership effectively through that input, but in this instance that will not happen. At best the new authority will become an advisory committee to the chief executive. So that is wrong, it is a bad solution, it is just old-fashioned statist solutions.

The second issue I want to deal with is this revision of the building code, which has to take place within 3 years. The requirements are to review the building code, prepare for a ministerial report, etc. The problem with this is that because the Government has abolished the Building Industry Authority, which did have the expertise around the building code notwithstanding its deficiencies, it could have done this job much more rapidly. Although the Government trumpets this legislation as a great protection for consumers, the statist solution actually delays the reform of the building code, particularly around fixing up the leaky homes problems—the approved solutions around claddings, ventilation spaces, and so forth. It slowed it up and delayed all those sorts of things. In other words, the consumers will still have to put up with deficient solutions.

Our criticism of this bill is that the statist solution has delayed the correction of the problems, whereas, in contrast, a reform of the Building Industry Authority would have meant a speedier fixing up of the building code. We in the National Party will vote against this bill. We realise we cannot stop the Government in its madness, and there are other parties that are contributing to the madness that we are seeing tonight. The United Future party—we are not allowed to refer to them as lapdogs, but that is what they are—and the New Zealand First Party—

💬 Murray Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I know exactly what the member is going to say. It is a personal reflection and can be considered unparliamentary as well, so the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I was told by the New Zealand First whip, Mr Dail Jones, that New Zealand First is proud to be part of the Government. That is what he actually said in a select committee today. I asked him whether he wanted me to repeat that in the Chamber, and he said yes, that he wanted me to repeat the comment in the Chamber. So I will put it on the record for the nation at large that this—

💬 Brent Catchpole: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Points of order will be short and to the point. They will be heard in silence.

💬 Brent Catchpole: The member well knows that New Zealand First is not aligned with anybody.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. That is a debatable point.

I obviously need to remind Mr Catchpole that Dail Jones said to me today—and he said that I could repeat it in the Chamber—that for this and other purposes New Zealand First regards itself as part of the Government. I was amazed at that, but that is what he said.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member should stick to the bill.

New Zealand First is helping to pass this deficient legislation. New Zealanders will suffer, consumers will suffer, and the industry will suffer. The Minister in the chair, John Tamihere, has failed small business, consumers, the building industry, and economic growth generally. This bill is deficient. [Interruption] In reply to the interjection from the member for New Zealand First, I add that New Zealand First has made a mistake.

We are now on to Part 5 and could easily forget that the genesis of this bill was leaky homes.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Where’s that in the bill?

It is not in the bill. I have gone through it.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Are you sure it’s leaky homes?

It was that long ago that one starts to test oneself and to question oneself. However, it was to do with leaky homes. Then we narrowed the issue down to, not the timber industry or the forestry industry, which this Government was so quick to pounce on, but design. Now we have a list of offences, a list of penalties and criminal proceedings, that are out of all proportion to the issues at hand.

Mr Catchpole has said throughout the course of this debate that his party supports this legislation, but we could have been forgiven for thinking that it did not, after listening to his last call and to his series of questions to the Associate Minister of Commerce. I wondered why the Minister responded to those questions—he did not have to. I thought the answers were pretty self-evident. However, what I am concerned about, like so many others, is—

💬 Brent Catchpole: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The previous speaker and the member who is speaking now have implied that New Zealand First has made certain statements. The statement quoted by the previous speaker came from somewhere other than the whips’ office. It is definitely not part of New Zealand First policy.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If the member considers that he has been misrepresented, then he should look at Speaker’s ruling 35/3.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As the member has already been disrupted, I point out that I have been trying to listen to him but there is a Government member standing in the aisle carrying on a conversation. I regard it as grossly disorderly for Government members to come across the Chamber like that. If they want to have a conversation with their mates, they should go out in the lobbies to do so.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, Standing Order 82 states that members should be seated.

The tactics of the New Zealand First member to disrupt me will not put me off. What they do is bring into clear focus that a vote for New Zealand First is a vote for the Government. That is the way New Zealand First members are positioning themselves. We have called them to book and the member does not like it very much, but that is the reality.

Clause 317 lists the penalty for not having a code compliance certificate, and that penalty is $200,000. John Tamihere, the champion—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: For not having a piece of paper. The building might be perfect.

The building will in all probability be perfect—I have a lot of confidence in the hard-working builders of this country—but people will be penalised if they do not have a piece of paper. John Tamihere, the self-proclaimed champion of small-business people in this country, is sitting there mute and letting that happen. But it gets worse. For every day thereafter that there is not a compliance certificate, John Tamihere allows his Government to whack these people for another $20,000, and Mr Catchpole gets up and says: “We in New Zealand First are voting for this because we think it is good.”

“Mr Gorbachev” took a call before on clause 317A, and he spoke about Mr Ardern being wrong about residential property not being part of clause 317A. That member cannot understand that clause, but I can. Clause 317A is titled “Offence for residential property developer to transfer household unit without code compliance certificate”. That is the point he was making!

💬 Murray Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It appears that the member has referred to me as “Mr Gorbachev”. That is not my name and I think he should get it right.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Under the Standing Orders one is supposed to keep awake and one is supposed to raise a point of order at the time—not realise 3 minutes later that perhaps one has been referred to as “Mr Gorbachev”. But, in that member’s case, he should be flattered.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Prebble is quite right. The member might like to look at Speakers’ rulings 20/2 and 19/2.

One would be forgiven for thinking that this legislation had been developed because the whole building industry was out of control. Leaky homes accounted for 1 percent—perhaps not even that; 0.5 percent, if that—of all the building problems in this country. For generation after generation, the builders of this country have built very solid, longstanding, quality homes. Now, we have legislation that is targeting the probably 0.01 percent of builders in this country who are shonky. The probability that those people will be caught out is remote, because people who are engaged in shonky practice will not stay in it, anyway. The biggest concern is that we are creating legislation that will penalise 99.9 percent of builders in this country.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you have missed some amendments. Other amendments in the Minister’s name were on the Table. Have they been withdrawn? I refer to amendments to clauses 356D and 356E.

They have been withdrawn.