Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill

I move, That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a second time. I would like to express my thanks to the Government Administration Committee for its swift consideration of the bill.

At the appropriate time I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to clarify the bill’s amendments to the Copyright Act. The Supplementary Order Paper will clarify that if the Crown owns the copyright in a work, and that work is incorporated by reference in another work listed in section 27(1) of the Copyright Act, then the copyright in the first mentioned work is removed. Where, however, the copyright in a work is owned by a person other than the Crown and that work is incorporated as just described, the copyright remains unaffected.

As members will know, the bill amends the Building Act, the Commerce Act, and the Health Act to remove the requirement that where material is incorporated by reference under those Acts, those with delegated or statutory responsibility must make that material, such as building standards in the case of the Building Act, available free of charge on the Internet. “Incorporation by reference” is a term used to describe a mechanism that gives legal effect to provisions contained in a document without repeating those provisions in the text of the legislation that incorporates that document.

The amendments proposed in this bill endeavour to strike a balance between facilitating access to material incorporated by reference and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyright and standards and of other material that may be incorporated by reference. The amendments in the bill will ensure that the Government is not expropriating or infringing the copyright of other parties, both in New Zealand and overseas, that the standards development process in New Zealand is up to date with international best practice, and that the development of joint standards by Australia and New Zealand can continue.

As all parties know, following consultation over the last week it is the Government’s intention to make further amendments to the Building Act, by way of a further Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. Those amendments are technical in nature and relate to omissions, inconsistencies, or clarifications. Substantive amendments are, however, proposed in section 363 to address practical issues that have arisen during the implementation of the Act. At the appropriate time I will move a motion that the Committee of the whole House have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on that Supplementary Order Paper 361.

I commend this bill to the House.

It is no wonder the Minister mumbled into his microphone and held his head in shame in respect of this bill, because it is a diabolical mess. What the Minister did not mention was that for the last 13 days this Government has been breaking the law. This Government wrote a new Building Act, rushed it through under urgency, and now it is breaking the law. Did we hear that from the Minister?

What is even worse is that, according to officials who briefed the Government Administration Committee, the Government was advised in January of this problem—in January! So for 3½ months the Government has done nothing, and in particular, the Minister Chris Carter, who was quite properly described by John Tamihere as a “tosser”, because he was briefed in January that the Government was breaking the law, did nothing. He did absolutely nothing.

💬 Dianne Yates: That’s not true.

Dianne Yates says that that is not true. Well, I ask Dianne: when did we get the bill?

💬 Dianne Yates: You weren’t at the committee.

The member knows—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name, title, or electorate.

Dianne Yates interjects and suggests that I am incorrect. The officials were very explicit at the select committee. Chris Carter was advised in January that the Building Act was a botched mess and that the Government was going to break its own law from 1 April, and we did not see a bill until 30 March. That is the sort of respect this Government gives to the law of the land. On this side of the House—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: You are not the law of the land.

Dr Cullen, who is the Attorney-General—the Minister who is responsible for enforcing the law of the land—says that it does not really matter. If the Government breaks the law, it is OK. That is probably why Helen Clark signs paintings fraudulently. That is probably why she speeds at 150 kilometres an hour while, at the same time, if any ordinary New Zealander goes 10 kilometres over the speed limit, he or she gets pinged.

This bill is about patching up the Government’s breaking of its own law. What has happened here is actually quite straightforward. The Government keeps passing all sorts of control freak legislation, telling New Zealanders to do this and telling New Zealanders to do that, but when it affects the Government, the Government simply ignores it. So what we have here is a bill being passed under urgency to fix problems in another Act that was passed under urgency. One would think the Government would learn. One would think that, somehow, the Government would work it out that if it passes rushed legislation, it will botch it up, and it will end up having to pass amendments.

The building industry is worth $18 billion a year to the New Zealand economy. We are talking about an industry involving 230,000 people.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can the member come back to the content of the bill.

The very content of the bill is that the Government is breaking the law. The Minister and the Department of Building and Housing have both admitted it. They have both admitted that they are in breach of the law. I say that an industry that is worth $18 billion a year to the New Zealand economy—an industry that employs 230,000 people—deserves better than a Government that breaks its own law. Do people know what this Government does? The Government, with this legislation, is going to pass requirements that people cannot do building work even on their own homes. [Interruption] Jill Pettis, the member for Whanganui, probably does not understand that there are Kiwi battlers in Wanganui who get themselves ahead by buying a home, working their little rings out and upgrading their house, selling it, and improving their equity. That is how generations of New Zealanders have been able to get ahead in life. What has Jill Pettis’ Government done? It has abolished it. The Government has banned it.

💬 Dianne Yates: What are you talking about?

The member Dianne Yates asks what I am talking about. I am talking about the botched Building Act—which was examined by the select committee that she was the chair of—that prohibits New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes. My challenge to members opposite is for them to give me a single example of where a leaky home problem has been caused by a do-it-yourself builder. [Interruption] Dianne Yates says that I do not have it correct. Well, members should hang on a moment. I now have a Supplementary Order Paper before the House to fix 18 stupid mistakes that her select committee got wrong.

💬 Dianne Yates: No, we didn’t.

Dianne Yates says: “We haven’t got it wrong.” Why is it then, I ask Dianne Yates, that I have not one, not two, but 40 pages of legislation before this very House today to fix the botch-ups that she and her select committee made in this important area of building law? They have made a hash of it. The Government has imposed all sorts of controls on other New Zealanders, and it has not been able to provide sensible building laws that will work for New Zealand.

I see that the Minister for Building Issues is now in the House, and I am pleased. But I must point out that he is the seventh Minister that we have had in this portfolio.

Is it any wonder—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: And the most successful.

Chris Carter says that he is the most successful.

💬 Hon David Carter: What a tosser!

Yes, I have to agree with David Carter and John Tamihere when they refer to Chris Carter as a tosser, because only a tosser—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member please come back to the bill.

I know it is embarrassing for the Government, because the ink on this bill—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: I haven’t had to seek psychiatric treatment.

Chris Carter, the moment one challenges—

💬 Jill Pettis: Go and have a lie down.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can we just have order.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The comment made by the member was out of order. He knows that no such reference is to be made to members, and I want him to stand and withdraw the comment he made about my colleague Dr Nick Smith. [Interruption]

💬 Jill Pettis: There is somebody there with an elevated voice. I take exception to what both David Carter and Nick Smith said. However, I thought I would let what they said go, because Nick Smith has only a couple of minutes left to speak anyway. But given that the National Party has taken a point of order, I have responded to it. Its members made an offensive comment, as well, and I suggest that, to keep the slate clean, both Mr David Carter and Mr Chris Carter get up and withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank both honourable members for their contributions. I realise that the debate is rather testy at the present stage and recognise that there is going to be this sort of leeway backwards and forwards. I am prepared to leave it at that.

💬 Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I am going to be making a contribution shortly, I want to clarify the use of the word “tosser”. I acknowledge that I did make an interjection, referring in it to Mr Chris Carter as a “tosser”. I want to know whether that is an acceptable and legitimate word for the House, or only for Mr Tamihere.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Standing Order 115, and I leave it at that. I know that the member can read it.

Chris Carter gets nasty the moment he is in trouble. The ink is not dry on his Building Act, yet here we have 30 pages of amendments. Any Minister worth his or her salt would be hiding his or her head in shame and embarrassment with that sort of botch-up of the law of the land. I am looking forward to Chris Carter apologising, because it was only 2 weeks ago—and I can quote from Hansard—when I raised concerns in respect of the Building Act, that Chris Carter said these words: “There is no problem.” Well, if there is no problem, why is the House under urgency? Why do we have 30 pages of amendments to fix up the Minister’s mess? If Chris Carter is correct in what he told the House just 10 days ago, that there is no problem, then why do we have 30 pages of amendments to fix up his botched law? The truth is that you have completely screwed up, you have not listened to the industry—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate.

The Minister responsible for the legislation has made a complete mess. As I said earlier, we have had six Ministers. They are playing a game of musical chairs with a portfolio as important as building and people’s houses. It is a mess. Chris Carter—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member should come back to the bill. The bill itself does not contain these provisions. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 95/1, which states that a Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated in detail during a second reading. The time to debate the Supplementary Order Paper will be when the Minister moves an instruction.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As this matter has now been alluded to, can I clarify the situation. As I understand it, the Minister sought leave to include the Supplementary Order Paper. That leave was declined. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have a point of order on the floor of the House. The correct procedure when there is a point of order is that it is heard in silence.

💬 Dail Jones: As I was saying, the Minister sought leave to include this Supplementary Order Paper, and the leave was declined. Therefore, the Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated at all at this stage, or even at the Committee stage, unless the Government moves a normal debatable motion that the Supplementary Order Paper be included.

I am just making the point that until that procedure is adopted there is a second reason for not debating the Supplementary Order Paper at the report back of the select committee’s report. That is my understanding of the procedure that needs to be followed. A formal motion has to be moved and debated in the normal way by the House before the Supplementary Order Paper can be discussed by the Committee of the whole House. So New Zealand First will be debating the report back of the bill from the select committee, but we will not be referring to the Supplementary Order Paper, because as yet the Government has no right to have it before the House. That is my understanding of the situation. As the matter has been alluded to, maybe it could be clarified. The Supplementary Order Paper is outside the terms of the bill, and, because it is so far outside the terms of the bill, it cannot be accepted by the House, except by leave or by a motion.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Supplementary Order Paper can be debated to the extent allowed by Speakers’ rulings 95/1, which is that a full debate will follow on the instruction.

One can see that we have an awful botch-up. What we have with this bill is rushed legislation that was given to the select committee to consider for only 24 hours, because the Government is breaking the law. Anybody else breaking the law gets prosecuted, but this is a Government that says it makes the rules but does not abide by them.

Before I call the next member, I just say that I had referred the member on my left to Standing Order 115, “Offensive or disorderly words”. I expect the member to understand by that that I took offence at the use of that word.

💬 Hon David Carter: It’s OK for John Tamihere.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): In this debating chamber we have a certain standard.

We have just been subjected to 5, or maybe 7, minutes of nasty, personal attack and extravagant statements from Nick Smith, the previous speaker, who is from the National Party. Essentially, he is glorying in calling me a tosser. At least I have never been sent from Parliament to seek psychiatric help for a stress-related condition.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point or order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please be seated while I rule on this. I know what he is going to say. I tell the honourable Minister that I have just ruled that word out of order in this House. I know that the member was rebutting, but I did ask Mr David Carter not to use it, and I would appreciate it if we could get back to the debate and carry on.

I give an undertaking that I will not refer to Dr Smith’s mental condition again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a personal reflection now, and I ask the Minister to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has referred to my mental state three times. He has claimed three times that I have seen a psychiatrist. I inform the member in the House that I have never seen—

Ha, ha!

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: He thinks it is funny. He is dragging this House down. If I challenge him on matters of legislation, on issues before Parliament, he gets nasty. I want to make it a matter of personal explanation that I have never in my entire life ever seen—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, I am.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that I have now dealt with this issue, and I want to get back to the debate.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not going to put up with this. Three times that member has made the accusation that I have seen a psychiatrist. That is totally untrue. What am I to do? I have known of members in the House, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just want everyone to take a deep breath for a minute. The matter has been dealt with. The honourable Minister has withdrawn and apologised, and the member’s explanation has been accepted. I have now dealt with the matter, and there I want to leave it; I want to move on. I think it is in order that we move on.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. I would like to thank all the stakeholders involved in the development of the Supplementary Order Paper. Although the Supplementary Order Paper has been developed at a rapid pace, the provisions in it have been thoroughly considered, and the industry has been closely involved in the development of the provisions.

The Supplementary Order Paper proposes urgent amendments to the Building Act 2004 to improve its workability and to ensure that the transition from the Building Act 1991 is as smooth as possible. The majority of the proposed amendments are technical in nature, and relate to omissions, inconsistencies, and clarifications. Substantive amendments are, however, proposed to section 363 of the Act. The amendments to section 363 include clarification that the purpose of the section is about protecting the safety of members of the public using premises open to the public, or intended for public use; clarification that this section of the Act applies only to the part of the building intended for public use; new provisions to allow the staged use or occupation of buildings intended for public use, if it is safe to do so; and new transition arrangements for existing buildings, to ensure that the transition from the Building Act 1991 is as smooth as possible.

These amendments address the issues that have been raised by stakeholders, and that have been the subject of much discussion in this House. The Government’s willingness to fix up issues such as the lack of clarity in section 363 demonstrates good management in action. In any law the size of the Building Act 2004—some 450 sections—inevitably there will be drafting issues and matters to be clarified. A sensible Government moves promptly to solve problems once they have been identified, as we have done today. Our actions stand in sharp contrast to those of National, particularly those of the member Nick Smith, who has abandoned any attempt at a constructive contribution. Instead of wanting to fix up problems for the benefit of the industry, he has sought to stage a publicity stunt by trying to get the Wellington City Council to close down Parliament because of section 363.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Three times during my contribution on this particular bill you intervened and raised the fact of my not addressing the bill. I have noted that the Minister has well and truly strayed outside it, and you are adopting a different standard. The norm from the Chair these days is that there is one set of rules for this side of the House and a different set of rules for the other side of the House. I find that in respect of points of order, and I find it in respect of debate, and we simply ask for some consistency.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Dr Smith, I did intervene in your speech, but it would also be correct to say that it was rather late when I did so.

The member has egg all over his face because the Wellington City Council has refused to do so, saying that it is satisfied that the intent of the Building Act is being observed. In other words, he has his facts all wrong. Not only that but Nick Smith and the National Party, despite trying to make political capital out of a few drafting errors in the Building Act, are now refusing to help fix up those errors. New Zealand’s building industry would be quite right in thinking that National is more interested in petty politicking than in ensuring a robust regulatory environment for safe buildings.

I would like to thank again the stakeholders involved in the development of the Supplementary Order Paper. This Supplementary Order Paper shows that the Government is listening, and that when issues are identified the Government acts quickly. The Building Act aims to ensure that buildings are designed and built right the first time. I am confident that the Act, and this Supplementary Order Paper, go a long way to achieving that aim.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did you just hear the interjection from the member?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Hon Dr Nick Smith has the floor. Does Dr Smith have a point of order?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I was expecting you to deal with the issue that was just raised. But I will leave it to Mr Shirley.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I am trying to assist the House here. I heard you intervene in an altercation across the floor of the House when Dr Smith took offence at the member who has just resumed his seat referring to psychiatric treatment. As the Minister sat down he made another quip that was equally offensive. I was offended by it, and I am sure that Dr Smith had good cause to be offended by it, too.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: What did I say?

💬 Hon David Carter: He has Alzheimer’s disease now.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Yes, he has Alzheimer’s disease now. I think the whole House heard the comment, and the Minister is trying to pretend he did not say it. I suggest that the Minister should stand, withdraw, and apologise, and in future he should just try to contain and restrain himself.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If the Minister made a derogatory remark—and I was distracted because I was calling Mr Catchpole—I would ask him to stand, withdraw, apologise, and cool down.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Well, I did make a derogatory remark. I simply said: “Have a rest. There’s probably a good psychologist somewhere around who could help.” If the member finds that offensive, then I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member, because remarks like that lead to disorder and make it more difficult to control the House.

I want to come back to the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, which is the bill on the Table at the moment. I have heard discussion about a Supplementary Order Paper and what have you. I will leave that to the time when the motion is moved to bring the Supplementary Order Paper before the House, because a motion has to be brought in order to make sure it can be dealt with. That Supplementary Order Paper is the one on the Building Act. But in reality what we have before us now is the bill. After the original Building Bill went through the Government Administration Committee—and I was on that select committee—and was reported back to the House, some additional clauses were added to the bill that had not come before the select committee. One of those clauses that I am referring to in particular is clause 409, which was added to the bill. That provision had the effect of making all the documents available on the website, and it had an unfortunate spin-off in that it required additional documents, purely by reference, to also be included on the website. They included documents such as manufacturers’ specifications and particularly sensitive material that is unique to a manufacturer’s product. All that information, under section 409 of the Building Act, was going to have to be disclosed, free of charge, for anybody to access, when in actual fact that contravened the copyright regulations and restrictions. Therefore we fell foul of international copyright restrictions on a lot of the products involved and a lot of the information that was appearing on the website.

This particular bill, although it was very, very rushed—I point out the Government Administration Committee was given one day to consider the whole thing—

💬 Hon David Carter: Three hours!

The member is calling “Three hours”. Well, according to the report here, it was only 85 minutes. There were 50 minutes of hearing the evidence and another 35 minutes of consideration of the process. So if it was done over a period of 3 hours, then perhaps it was broken up during a particular sitting session. I must say that the select committee did a tremendous job to get the bill through in that short time. Given that the select committee had 1 day, and that it got through the bill in just under an hour and a half, I must congratulate the select committee. Dianne Yates is the chairperson. I know her well; she does a very good job. She keeps the select committee on the ball, and she should take a lot of credit for that. So my congratulations go to her.

However, I raise with the Government the issue of rushing these things. We saw that with the original Building Bill. That bill took a considerable time to go through the hearing process, but the last phase of it was done under urgency. It was rushed through. Clause 409 was added to the bill prior to it coming to the Committee stage and that was rushed. Nobody had an opportunity to really understand the meaning behind clause 409 and the implications it had with regard to copyright restrictions. Therefore, the present bill has had to come before the House. We believe it is a necessity, but it would not have been necessary had the original legislation not been rushed. Later on we will hear about the Supplementary Order Paper intended to correct other things within the Building Act. Once again, let us not consider this bill in a rushed state. Problems arise because things are rushed. Let us get it right the first time. We should take a little longer and get it right. Had that been done with the Building Bill, then we would not have had to have this particular bill. But then, the Building Bill was rushed, we have this bill, and it is important to correct a situation whereby copyright infringements are happening all the time, purely because everything was made available free of charge.

Having said that, my concern with regard to the restriction contained in this bill is that it will create barriers to access to the legislation. I notice that the Regulations Review Committee made that comment in its report on the bill and that it was acknowledged by the Government Administration Committee in its report. The fact that there will be barriers to access is a sad situation. I would like to see some way to get around that so that the information can be available, but with the copyright restrictions kept in mind.

I would like to address the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, rather than the various Supplementary Order Papers that are floating around.

I would like to draw Parliament’s attention to the fact that the basic purpose of this bill is to remove the obligation on chief executives to make material available free of charge on the Internet. Basically, that is the purpose of this legislation—to remove the obligation to have important material like building regulations freely available on the Internet, and to allow various Government departments to charge for what was freely available information. So let us be under no illusion about the purpose of this legislation. It will allow Government departments to charge for information that is fundamentally important; legislation such as building codes—material that should be freely available, for example, to builders around New Zealand. Now, instead of being able to look it up on the Internet they will have to pay for it. This seems to be extraordinarily unwise.

The Green Party can acknowledge that a certain amount of information, if it is international, may have copyright issues. Building Act provisions are all basically New Zealand provisions, and I question why we are allowing Government departments to charge for what is basic information on building codes, etc. The leaky building syndrome showed us that builders and developers around New Zealand were flouting the regulations, ignoring the regulations. Surely, one of the lessons of that would be to make as much information—certainly, all the building codes and regulations—freely available for any builder or developer in New Zealand to access easily on the Internet, so that he or she would not be able to argue that somehow he or she had not understood the regulations and had built inadequate buildings. But this legislation basically states that instead of having information freely available on the Internet, it can now be charged for.

As I said in my first reading speech, I have seen this in operation with Food Standards Australia New Zealand. A lot of information about food codes is now not available on the Internet, instead one has to pay for them or fly to Wellington to Xerox them. One of the provisions of this bill is that some of the information will no longer even be available on the Internet, but will be available only in Wellington. So builders and developers around New Zealand will have to fly to Wellington to access important regulations and legislation that they need to know in order to comply with the various building codes. They will be available for inspection only in Wellington. What is the point of that? Will builders around New Zealand fly to Wellington—[Interruption] Yes, some of it will be available in the regions. The United Future member is rather defensively saying that that is not true, but these are the provisions that I understand are available in this bill. It will enable a chief executive to say “No, that is not available freely. No, you can get that information only if you fly to Wellington, go to the office and pay to Xerox the information.” This is silly legislation. It goes against the whole lesson of the leaky building syndrome that we must make sure every builder in New Zealand is fully informed and up to date with all of the building regulations. Now, instead of being able to sit and look at them on the Internet, they will have to pay for them or fly to Wellington. Guess what! Many of them will not do so. They are not prepared to do that.

Not only that; the bill is setting a precedent that other Government departments too, like the Ministry of Health, will now be able to charge for information, instead of having that information freely available on the Internet. This is basically a freedom of information issue. The Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill looks very technical and boring. Most people would say how incredibly tedious, and would not even read it or give it the time of day. They would not realise that it is setting a precedent to undermine freedom of information, in the guise of addressing copyright issues that really only pertain to international regulations. In the guise of that it is removing freedom of access to important information such as basic building standards, building codes, and so forth, and setting up, as the New Zealand First speaker said, barriers to access to information. That is absolutely true. Now we will have to pay for information that should be freely available, and we are setting a precedent so that this can be done by the Ministry of Health, the building code, and various other parts.

The Government will now earn another bit of revenue, charging for information that should be freely available. For that reason, the Green Party will be opposing this bill.

United Future is continuing to support the second reading of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. I must say that the Greens need to be somewhat enlightened on this legislation, because Sue Kedgley’s speech, in terms of what this bill does and does not do, is so far away from reality that it makes no sense at all.

United Future totally agrees that information has to be available free of charge to builders. That is why United Future succeeded in making major changes to this legislation—in particular, to clause 5—in order to ensure that as much information as possible is available to builders and building practitioners around the country. It is simply incorrect to say that the building code and regulations are not available free of charge. They are available free of charge, and anybody reading clause 5 will see that there are extensive provisions requiring the chief executive to make available for inspection free of charge all the material that building practitioners will need, not only at the Ministry’s office in Wellington but also at all the Ministry’s offices around the country—and also to make material available on the Internet.

Part of the concession I obtained from the Government in return for United Future’s support of this legislation was to ensure that all compliance documents would be made available free of charge on the Internet. The Government indicated that it was unable to do that under this bill, because it was outside the terms of reference and would have required a change to the Building Act, but I am delighted to see that that is also going to happen. In practical terms, as from about a week ago all compliance documents were made available free of charge on the Internet. What this bill is about is only one small segment of the information that is necessary, and that is material incorporated by reference; that is, standards that are produced by external agencies that have copyright attracted to them.

In particular, standards associations, including Standards New Zealand, but, perhaps more significantly, the Australasian standards bodies—the ones we work in with, with Australia—and international bodies produce these standards, and the income they get in order to be able to produce these standards comes from the fees they receive by being able to sell them. If they had been made free of charge, not only would we breach copyright but these standards associations would then not have the income from the sale of their standards that they need in order to produce, and to continue to produce, standards and to meet those criteria.

Those standards associations do a valuable service to the building industry in providing standards that are well researched, and take a lot of time and effort in order to ensure that our buildings are safe. I would have thought that the Greens would be totally supportive of the work that standards associations do, because of the valuable role they play in ensuring that our buildings are built to adequate standard, and that the Greens would not be trying to undermine the work of standards associations nationally and internationally by taking away from them a valuable source of their income to do the job, and thereby effectively prohibiting them from doing the work they do.

So the Greens could not be further wrong in terms of their allegation that this bill is going to restrain the building code and regulations from being available free of charge. The idea that one has to fly to Wellington to get information is quite false. The only restriction in terms of the information that will not be available at regional offices is information relating to products and product safety standards. That is information that manufacturers need in order to manufacture their products. It seems reasonable to me that they should be able to get that from a Wellington source. It is not something they have to run down to the local branch at a day’s notice to get; it is something they require when they are doing planning for the production of their products.

I am pleased to see that this bill has come back unaltered from the select committee. We were very concerned, as was both the select committee and, particularly, the Regulations Review Committee, to ensure that the bill was kept to a minimum in terms of what it protected from free access to the public, and I entirely agree with the statements in the report of the Regulations Review Committee, which states: “We consider the copyright issues provide appropriate reasons for the change proposed in the bill. We wish to make it clear that in the absence of these issues we would be opposed to the bill. By removing the requirements to place incorporated material on the Internet, the bill in effect creates a barrier to accessing legislation. However, we accept that difficulties with copyright justify not using the standard clause in this case, and that this is an appropriate exception to the principles identified in our report.”

That has been United Future’s approach all the way along—that if there is a need to prohibit free access, it is kept to the minimum necessary. That is why we successfully approached the Government and got the changes to clause 5 that would ensure that rather than the chief executive having discretion as to how the information would be available, there would be a mandatory provision for the chief executive to continue to make all the material possible free of charge.

That is what the Government has done. As I indicated before, one of the concessions we obtained from the Government was an undertaking to consider an inclusion in the first amendment to the Building Act that, effectively, all compliance documents would be made free of charge. The sort of provision that that would require would be that the chief executive would ensure that new compliance documents, when issued, would be digitally published; that even when a new compliance document was published, any prior versions would also be available, because it is essential that there is a historical record so that people who are operating legitimately under a previous code can still get access to that code; and that amendments to compliance documents are clearly shown so that people who were legitimately operating under the compliance document prior to the amendment can still get exactly what they need.

There is a need to show the progressive change in compliance documents, and I am delighted that that is recorded in Supplementary Order Paper 361 in new clause 3D, which inserts new section 25A. That means that the undertaking that the Government provided to United Future in return for our support has come to fruition far faster than I had expected it would.

United Future expected that there would need to be changes to the Building Act. It was inevitable, as I said in my speeches on the Building Bill, that a document as complex as this Act in terms of the changing of the whole building regime that New Zealand operates on would require some fine-tuning over the next few years as it bedded down. As the Act comes into force, some errors have been picked up that need to be incorporated. That will always happen, whatever the administration—whether it is Labour, National, or whoever leading the Government. Inevitably, when legislation is as complex as this, it will need some settling down, some fine-tuning, and some amendments to it.

It is the case that some requirements—in particular, the provisions of section 363—have required this to be done as a matter of urgency, so we have been put in the situation of having to rush through the amendments, which is usually not desirable. But we are faced with the situation, which I can talk about when we get to the Committee stage, that a reading of section 363—which is ambiguous—could say that as we are in part of a building that is being worked on, the whole building is inaccessible. That, clearly, was not the intention, and I note that Supplementary Order Paper 361 will correct that.

Supplementary Order Paper 356, on copyright, again ensures that there is a minimisation of material kept away from the public. In fact, the Supplementary Order Paper ensures that the Copyright Act will provide that there will be no Crown copyright on material owned by the Crown. So it will be freely available and able to be reproduced, and I think the Government has gone to extensive lengths, by that provision and the provisions in the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, to ensure that as much information is available, free of charge on the Internet and in hard copy, to the public as is conceivably possible.

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I have sought the call several times during this debate. As the chair of the Government Administration Committee I want to thank Brent Catchpole and Murray Smith for their comments on the bill, because both were involved in the select committee. I thank the Government Administration Committee for the work it did on the Building Bill and on this Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill.

The matters in this bill are technical. As has been explained, the Government Administration Committee reported the Building Bill back to Parliament, and some standard clauses were added that were required by the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. Those guidelines, as Sue Kedgley has pointed out, required that material be available on the Internet. What had not been foreseen was that that would have an effect on Standards New Zealand and an effect on copyright law. It would mean that not only would we not be complying with some international regulations but also that Standards New Zealand would be deprived of its income. The Minister was informed of this and has taken legal advice, and consequently we are faced with this bill, which is moving with urgency to correct that particular unforeseen problem. It was not a fault of the Government Administration Committee or of the original drafting of the bill; it came about because the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines were required to be imposed on the bill at that very late stage, and were found to be unworkable around that area of Standards New Zealand, as Murray Smith has very well explained.

Dr Nick Smith, who turned up at the select committee just for this bill, was not a member of the inquiry on weathertightness of buildings—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank goodness.

—thank goodness—as his colleague Wayne Mapp was. He was not part of the select committee when we looked at the Building Bill. If Dr Smith is going to start pointing the finger and talking about botch-ups, I will remind him that the problems of weathertightness are multiple. Many of them came about through deregulation of the industry, which he will know went back to when his party was in Government. He also might like to recall that George Chapman, who I am sure is an old colleague of his, was chair of the Building Industry Authority when he was informed of weathertightness problems. What did he do at the time? Nothing. Long before any other people were involved, George Chapman was informed of these problems, as Dr Smith, Wayne Mapp, and members of the committee well know. If we are going to start pointing fingers, then we need to look back somewhat further than this particular legislation.

I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee. I also thank the members of the Regulations Review Committee, and in particular Dr Richard Worth for his work. I thank the Regulations Review Committee for giving us its opinion on the necessity to make changes in order to protect copyright laws. It has said of the incorporation by reference in this case: “We consider the copyright issues provide appropriate reasons for the changes proposed in the bill. We wish to make it clear that in the absence of these issues we would be opposed to the bill. By removing the requirement to place incorporated material on the Internet, the bill in effect creates a barrier to accessing legislation. However, we accept that the difficulties with copyright justify not using the standard clause in this case, and that this is an appropriate exception to the principles identified in our report.” I thank the legal minds on the Regulations Review Committee, chaired by Dr Richard Worth, for their cooperation in getting this bill back to the House and making the necessary changes.

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.

Who saddled us with the Building Act 1991?

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.

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.