Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I note that Part 1 of this bill is amendments to the Building Act. I also note that the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled has 21 pages of amendments to the Building Act, and I note that the Minister for Building Issues is in the Chamber. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to have the Minister responsible for the Act in the chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The Minister in charge of the bill is in the chair.

This is an extraordinary situation. As my colleague Ken Shirley pointed out, we have a Minister who is paid a ministerial salary, gets a flash ministerial house, and sits in ministerial cars, all for being the Minister for Building Issues, we have an awfully botched Act the ink of which is not yet dry, and we have 21 pages of amendments to it, yet the Minister responsible tosses away all responsibility for it. What sort of Government do we have, where the Minister responsible—

💬 Hon David Carter: Tamihere’s right.

He is absolutely right; he is literally right. Chris Carter has tossed away his responsibilities, and one who tosses things away is indeed, and must be, a tosser. We now have some insight as to exactly what John Tamihere was referring to.

This extraordinary Supplementary Order Paper—

💬 Darren Hughes: This should be the last man to make a comment like that.

I would like the young member from the Ōtaki coast, who will be losing his seat in about 4 months’ time to a very talented young guy, to explain why we have a Minister for Building Issues who does not introduce Supplementary Order Paper 361, and who is not in the chair to defend his legislation.

💬 Darren Hughes: The member should finish his personal attacks on the Minister and get on with debating the bill.

I ask the simple question of the hot-headed member for Otaki why we have a Minister for Building Issues who, when we have a bill on building issues, is nowhere to be seen. The member was very talkative a moment ago. Can he give an answer to a simple question? He is sitting next to the Minister for Building Issues. Why is the Supplementary Order Paper not in his name, and why is he not in the chair?

💬 Darren Hughes: Why don’t you talk about the substance of the legislation?

The member wants to talk about the substance, but he is not prepared to answer the question. The key issue is ministerial responsibility. The Minister sitting next to him is the Minister responsible for the biggest botch-up in legislation that I have seen in my 15 years in this place.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: He wasn’t the Minister.

Oh, Lianne Dalziel was the Minister. I just want someone on the Government benches—

💬 Lianne Dalziel: I wasn’t on the select committee.

I simply wish someone on the Government benches would accept responsibility for this awful botch-up, which is the worst case I have seen in my time in Parliament in terms of bad law.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: This member needs another rest.

Chris Carter will not answer the basic question as to who is responsible for this mess. Well, I have a list here of those who have been the responsible Minister, and I would say it is probably the Prime Minister. I will say why. In the last 6 years we have had seven Ministers who have been responsible for building issues. It is little wonder that, when the Government has played a game of musical chairs with a portfolio that involves $18 billion a year of our economy, we have this sort of legislative mess and this sort of abuse of process.

I ask Lianne Dalziel why this legislation cannot be referred to a select committee.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Let’s debate the issues.

Let us debate the issues, then. She is not prepared to answer those questions. Perhaps the Minister in the chair, Pete Hodgson, can say why clause 5A in the Supplementary Order Paper inserts subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) into section 438 of the Building Act. I know that education standards have plummeted in the Government, I know that Government members cannot count, I know that we are expected to rush this legislation through and make it law by tomorrow, but can Chris Carter explain why the Government counts its subsections in the order of (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6)? If the Minister in the chair would just pay attention for a moment, he would see that on page 15 of the Supplementary Order Paper there is a botch-up.

I refer to another botch-up that has been drawn to the Committee’s attention by Dail Jones, on page 11. Clause 3P adds a new subsection (2) to section 241, and it states that subsection (1) is subject to paragraphs (a) and (b). But there is no subsection (1). I have the Building Act here, and section 241 has no subsection (1). So here we have the Government, having passed a botched Act, rushing in a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper late at night, and already—[Interruption] Perhaps Chris Carter can answer this question. How can clause 3P have subsection (1) subject to two new provisions when there is no subsection (1)?

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Just take a deep breath.

I have. Would the member answer the question? [Interruption] Are those members not interesting? I ask them a serious question about their flawed law and all they can do is try to divert attention. The fact is the Supplementary Order Paper is a mess, as well, and this Government is avoiding any select committee process at all in dealing with it.

The first part of this amendment deals with the definition of building work. I want to say how badly the Government goofed up. What Chris Carter did with the law was to say: “You can’t do any design work on a building until you get a building consent.”

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Ha ha!

He thinks that is funny.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Because the member has got it wrong.

Well, if that is the case, why are we altering the definition of building work?

💬 Lianne Dalziel: We are shifting the location of design work.

Oh well, why are we shifting the location of design work? I will tell Lianne Dalziel why. The reason we are shifting the definition of design so that it applies only to Part 4 is that every one of our 15,000 building engineers and architects has been breaching the law because of the flawed way that this law was drafted and passed.

We take the second issue—the mess over dams. If there are any building structures that have the potential to kill people it is dams. The largest man-made disaster in human history was the Vaiont tragedy where 16,000 people died as a consequence of a dam failure. But again we find the Government has botched the law in respect of safe dam design.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my friend, but I just notice that in the lobbies there are officials, perhaps, just floating around who I do not think are officials associated with this legislation.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Where?

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Right outside. It is a simple question with a simple answer. I would just like inquiries to be made as to why these people are floating around here.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I believe that they are officials or people assisting the Minister.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: I do regret interrupting the flow of my learned friend’s speech, but it is quite unsatisfactory. This is not a place for Labour lobbyists to circle round weak Ministers.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: They are officials.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I accept the Minister’s word that they are officials.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am not going to take another point of order.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: I would like to ask why it is necessary for more than 10 officials to be in attendance on a Minister on a bill of this complexity.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a question for you to raise, but I thank you for raising the first point of order.

The incompetence of this Government is that even with Parliament swarming with officials we end up with a Supplementary Order Paper that shows that Government members cannot count, that has provisions that refer to parts that do not exist, and that has 21 pages of changes to the Building Act that are being raced through Parliament to fix up problems that Chris Carter only 2 weeks’ ago said did not exist. What an extraordinary time we have in Parliament with respect to those!

I want to express serious concern about what is not in this bill. The Government, in its stupidity, decided to prohibit ordinary New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own houses. I extended an extra bedroom on my first house in Christchurch, which enabled me to extend my equity. This Government is going to prohibit that. Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have gone about improving their homes, adding rooms and doing work. This Government is going to prohibit their being able to do that, and I say that is quite wrong.

I shall make a few brief remarks. The first is that the legislation in front of us amends the Building Act, the Commerce Act, the Health Act, and the Copyright Act. I am the Minister of Commerce, and what is more, I have obligations, through my portfolio in commerce, for Standards New Zealand, which, of course, is the group that promulgates most, but not all, of the standards in this country, which is why the bill is in my name. Secondly, I thank the member for pointing out an error on page 15. It does indeed, state (1), (2), (3), (4), (6). They are mistakes, or things, that are corrected as a matter of course by the Clerk’s Office and do not form part of New Zealand law. The third point I would like to make—

💬 Murray Smith: Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes.

I shall say it again for the member if he would like to be quiet. I thank the member for drawing to my attention the numeration (1), (2), (3), (4), (6). I have checked it with officials. He is absolutely right; it does not follow, but it is not something that needs to be attended to by the House. It is routine after the passage of law for things like line numbers, etc. to be checked. They do not form part of New Zealand law, but I thank him for drawing it to our attention, anyway. My third set of remarks are directed to the member Richard Worth.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Dr Richard Worth.

I do not think it would be Dr Richard Worth, but Richard Worth, none the less. I say to him that the reason—

💬 Dr Richard Worth: An explanation is helpful. I welcome an explanation.

The member will get an explanation if he would keep his mouth shut, and he will not if he does not.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: I don’t think I need an explanation, but if you must make it.

The Minister in the chair has accepted that there is a flaw on page 15, in that the Government cannot count from 1 to 6.

💬 Darren Hughes: Move on.

The seriousness about this is that the Government rushes the Building Act through the Parliament. Before 12 days are up it introduces a 21-page amendment, saying “Oops, we screwed up. We got it all wrong. Under urgency we have to rush through another amendment, but don’t worry, we’ve got it all absolutely right.” And then it says: “Sorry, we couldn’t count from 1 to 6, and we’ll fix that bit up.” But the Minister has not addressed the substantive part. Clause 3P in the Supplementary Order Paper adds section 241(2), which states that subsection (1) of section 241 is subject to a regional authority’s power under section 244 and does not apply to any function it transfers to another regional authority. That all reads very well, except that there is no subsection (1). It does not exist, so how can we pass nonsense law that makes a subsection (1) conditional on a paragraph (a) and (b), if subsection (1) does not exist?

I have to say to the Government that despite the hoards of officials that it may have in the corridors, it has got it wrong, again. It has made another mistake. I cannot help believing that, for all the giggles that can come from the Government benches—[Interruption] Our primary responsibility is as legislators, and I have not seen in my 15 years in the House a new Act of Parliament so botched, so full of errors, and causing so many compliance costs.

The Minister in charge thinks that it is a laughing matter. I have just had a letter from a woman on the North Shore that stated that in applying for her building consent she was told she has to pay $43,000 before she is able to get a building consent for a house. Members opposite think that that is quite funny. They think this is all just a bit of a hoot. They think that ordinary New Zealanders come up with $43,000 for a new house just like that. Well, we do not. Members on this side of the House hold Chris Carter accountable for this sort of botched law.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)