Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill

We have experienced in Parliament tonight an incredible abuse of parliamentary process. [Interruption] Let me explain to Mr Maharey exactly what that abuse is. The slimy members—as Bob Clarkson rightly describes them—from the Government do not seem to understand that we have rules in Parliament about how legislation is changed.

I want just to summarise for the Committee the extent of the mess that we have. In 2002 Labour passed under urgency, using a late Supplementary Order Paper, the legislation that established the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That was in 2002. In 2005 the Government said that it was a botch-up and we had to fix it. By truncating parliamentary process, in 2005 it passed a new set of laws around leaky homes. Then the Government found out that the original fix that was botched up was botched up in the fix-up, so another bill was introduced at the beginning of this year to fix up the fix-up on the fix-up. The bill that was to do the fix-up on the fix-up was introduced to the House, went through its first reading, was referred to a select committee, had its second reading, had its Committee stage, and was on to its third reading when the Minister in the chair said: “Oops! I’ve got another botch-up, and I’m going to override the rules of Parliament and make Parliament do the Committee stage again.” In this Committee stage he is introducing the amendments in this new Part 3. These amendments are bad process on top of bad process.

Supplementary Order Paper 133 will become law on the same day that it has been introduced, and the Minister did not even see fit to explain to the Committee what he is doing. So I will do it for him. His original law had a stupid provision in it. The stupid provision said that if a council was not accredited by 30 November this year as a building consent authority, it would not be able to issue any building consents.

💬 Hon Bill English: What a stupid Minister!

Exactly! What a dumb provision.

💬 Hon Bill English: This is the rising star.

This is the so-called rising star of the Labour Party. A really basic law of raising kids is that one should not make threats that one cannot carry out. The Government threatened councils by saying to them that if they did not get accredited by 30 November, then the Government would stop them from being able to become accredited, and they would not be able to issue building consents.

The consequence of not issuing building consents would be horrific. It is not the council that would be punished; it would be the thousands of New Zealanders in that area who would not be able to process building consents. The real problem here is that the Government has been way behind in giving the support that councils have needed to become accredited, so the Government wants to extend the date from 30 November.

The Minister has completely failed to explain to Parliament why this bill could not have been referred to a select committee and gone through the normal process. Why go round the Standing Orders and do what Geoffrey Palmer would have called an absolute abuse of process? He refers to New Zealand as the fastest lawmaker in the West. We do not have a second Chamber. The amendments that the Minister has introduced today will be law by tonight. I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why did he not have this Supplementary Order Paper go through the normal process? The issue addressed by the Supplementary Order Paper is not a problem until 30 November. Why is it necessary to override our Standing Orders and not go through proper process?

The second question for the Minister is this: does he not accept that this is dumb policy? There is no other area in Government policy in which we approve councils to do stuff. For instance, under the Resource Management Act, if councils do not get their act together by a particular date, do we take away from them the right to issue resource consents? No. What about the Health Act and the approval of restaurants and health authorities? Does the Health Act say that if the council is not accredited by a particular date, it loses authority to issue permits and consents under that Act? Of course not. Well, why should this be the case under the Building Act? The Minister is absolutely silent. He cannot answer that basic question. His Building Act was a flop.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: You can be silent and answer. It’s a non sequitur.

Oh, good. Maybe Marian Hobbs might explain. We know that the Government wants to pass law to override the Electoral Act so that it might be able to cheat and win the next election. Why is it also trying to cheat on the normal parliamentary process—

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Lack of logic on your part.

The member might explain why we are suspending the Standing Orders of Parliament and introducing—

💬 Russell Fairbrother: We’ve done that.

The interesting thing is that Mr Fairbrother says we have done it. The extraordinary part is that not one Government speaker has risen to his or her feet to justify overruling the Standing Orders. I would expect Mr Fairbrother, a respected constitutional lawyer, to think that if we are going to throw out Parliament’s rule book, the onus is on the Government to justify why it is doing so. But this arrogant, tired Government has not seen fit to do even that.

We have a Government that botched its original law, botched the leaky home fix-it, botched the fix-up, botched the fix-up of the fix-up, and now expects Parliament to roll over on the latest error. Members on this side of the Chamber simply say that is not good enough. It is not good enough from Minister Clayton Cosgrove, and it is not good enough from his departmental officials. What we have—[Interruption] Has the member got the job yet as vice-chancellor of Massey University?

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: Not good enough as deputy leader.

The member wants to distract. He cannot answer the question, so he wants to get personal. I tell Mr Cosgrove to answer the question. Why do we have to suspend the rules of the House? This issue will not be a problem until 30 November. Why do we not send the Supplementary Order Paper through the proper process, and not have the extraordinary abuse of parliamentary process of introducing law one day and passing it the same day—particularly given the Minister’s track record? Not once, not twice, not three times, but five times in respect of building law we have rushed the process and subsequently had to introduce amendments to fix up those botch-ups.

Quite simply, members on this side of the Chamber have completely lost confidence in the Minister’s assurances that he has got it right. He cannot make over three pages of legal changes to the Building Act without having a proper process to refer them to the select committee. We actually ask the broader question as to whether the policy is right. We think it is nuts. It does not apply to the Health Act. It does not apply to the Resource Management Act. We think the very notion that councils will be unable to issue building consents is wrong. Rather than simply extending the period to 30 June, we should ask the question as to whether the policy itself is sound.

We further challenge the Minister to take some responsibility for the extraordinary costs that he has put on ratepayers through the accreditation process and through the extraordinary delays that it has caused. Councils have had to spend more time dealing with the demands of the Department of Building and Housing and dealing with the process of accreditation, rather than processing building consents. This has meant that tens of thousands of New Zealanders have had delays in the processing of their building consents. It is little wonder that building costs are going through the roof. It is little wonder that homeownership is falling through the floorboards. It is these sorts of botch-ups in the area of building regulation that the Minister should have got right, so that New Zealanders did not need to put up with the problems in the building law that are driving up the cost of housing, making homes unaffordable, driving our builders off to Australia—where they might have a sensible regime—and causing all of the problems that we see within the law. I say again to the Minister that in my 17 years as a member I have not seen these sorts of repeat botch-ups. He owes the Committee an explanation.

This very interesting statistic might come as a surprise to you, Mr Chairperson, and it might come as a surprise to the Minister for Building and Construction and to colleagues in the Chamber. District councils and city councils across the country issue about 80,000 building consents a year, and they have done so for many years now—in fact, for decades. They are quite able to do that, and have the experience in it. It is a surprise to us, given that fact, that this particular Minister and Government have suddenly decided that councils, after 50 to 100 years of issuing consents, have to be accredited to undertake that very task.

I do not know why they are being regulated in that area. They are not regulated in a whole lot of other areas in which they have functions. Clearly, that particular function of issuing consents is underpinned by legislation and regulations, just like all their other functions. Why councils have to be accredited is beyond us. Furthermore, the fact that they have to be accredited or, from 30 November this year, they cannot carry out the function of issuing consents, which they have done for decades, is absolutely absurd. It means that, although right through the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s when I and the member for Napier were born, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, district councils were issuing a maximum of 80,000 consents a year, from this November, for some reason, they have to be accredited to do so.

For all those decades those councils got it wrong! Now the Minister is saying that, from this November, they have to be accredited to issue consents. If this Minister’s legislation does not pass, from 30 November this year councils will not be able to issue consents. The fact that councils have issued tens of thousands of consents for decades is all going to come to a grinding halt this November, if the Minister’s legislation does not pass. I ask the Minister how well-thought-out that is. Why cannot we have a proper select committee process? There is plenty of time between August and November for this legislation to go before the select committee, and for us to re-examine the Minister’s supposed need for councils to be accredited to do a task that they have done for nigh on a century.

This threat—of councils not being able to carry out the task if they are not accredited—is also absolutely absurd given that the Minister is now shifting the goalposts in terms of the time frame. Has the Minister realised that to do this was always a flawed policy position? It makes it look like the Minister is doing something about leaky homes, but really all he is doing is heaping compliance costs on councils.

In fact, if any member of this Parliament, regardless from which party, genuinely sat down with a mayor anywhere in this country, that mayor would say, yes, the council is putting up rates, and the reason it is putting up rates is that central government keeps sending it things to do. Central government keeps sending councils things to do, whether it is dog chipping, managing brothels, or getting accredited to issue consents, which they have done for nigh on a century. Why does this Government keep heaping on councils things to do, which they eventually have to bill ratepayers for? Even Labour-voting mayors, although they are becoming thin on the ground across the country, will say that they are tired of the regulatory creep coming from central government. This is just another example of that.

I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill, which again is before the Committee. I believe I have already spoken on the commencement, Part 1, and Part 2, but not on Part 3. This part appears to be totally new, and—fancy that—it is. Yet again we are here, talking on this bill. This part is something the select committee has not seen at all. It is something that appeared just yesterday. Being a new member, I thought that after the Committee stage we would move to the third reading. So I was all ready to come here and make my third reading speech, but, no, there is this new bit of paper, and now we are having another Committee stage, which I actually did not know one could do, but obviously one can do it.

When I looked at this Supplementary Order Paper I thought it was excellent, because there was a Building Amendment Bill on my desk. I thought it must be relevant to that. But, no, it actually is not. Then I thought this Part 3 has to be relevant to something the select committee has already seen. But, no, it is not. I went back through the bills we have looked at. We looked at the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002, which was repealed. Then there was the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. That was good; it fixed up the errors in the 2002 Act, just 4 years later. But what we are debating in 2007 is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. So, 1 year later, yet again we are facing another bill. I thought: “That’s OK. It’s about weathertight homes. It must be one of those things the Government hasn’t quite got right. It rushes legislation through the select committee every time. There has been a knee-jerk reaction to situations out there, and now it must have it right.”

On my table at the select committee today was the Building Amendment Bill. When I looked at the policy statement, I saw that it stated that the bill was “to improve the workability of the Building Act 2004”. The building industry must be getting really confused by now. This is the fifth bill since 2002 that has gone through. I was wondering how many Ministers have been in charge of this portfolio—[Interruption]—not in charge! Have there been six, seven, or eight? That is five bills in 5 years. No wonder the building industry is really confused.

So I thought I would look at Part 3. Obviously, I had to read it. It has not been to the select committee, we have not had any submissions on it, we have not had any advice on how well it is written, and we have not had the Law Commission give us its view on it, so let me have a look at it. I think I am pretty good at law. I did law at university.

What does Part 3 actually do? It converts the bill into an omnibus bill that amends not only the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 but also the Building Act 2004. I had one bill on my desk, and that was the Building Amendment Bill to make the 2004 Act more workable, but now we also have this Supplementary Order Paper, which fixes the 2004 legislation, as well. Why could they not have been combined? Oh, I know why: because there was an error. The Government had believed that its deadlines could be met, and they just could not be met.

What are those deadlines? Let me tell members what the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 133 states: “Some extend the period during which a territorial authority may act as a building consent authority … even though the territorial authority has yet to be registered as a building consent authority. That period is extended so that it ends on or before 30 June 2008 …”, whereas before the date was November 2007. Why is this extension needed? Why is legislation being rushed through again?

Why is this provision part of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill? I must say that I actually do not get that. This bill, and I have read it many times now, and I have spoken to it many times in the House, is actually about the compensation that one can get for distress and anxiety. This bill is actually about the leaky homes that have been built, and are still being built, in New Zealand. Is Part 3 relevant to the purpose of this bill? I do not think so.

I want to add a contribution to this Committee stage of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and I want to draw to the Committee’s attention what is actually happening here. The Minister, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, is extending the time by which the councils can become compliant by 7 months. The reason why he has finally decided that he needs to extend the time is because he has become aware that a good majority of local government bodies will not be able to comply nor to achieve the ability to be registered by 30 November. I wonder whether the Minister has ever bothered to ask himself why it is that this is occurring.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, he is in charge of the Department of Building and Housing—the department that, in 1999, was staffed by 31½ people. It now has a staff number of in excess of 300—a growth of, I do not know, 900 million percent. I do not know what percentage that is; it is some strange number. The Minister is asking how many staff there were. Well, of course, there was not a Department of Building and Housing in 1999, but the equivalent in the Department of Internal Affairs had 31½ staff.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh, you just woke up.

The Minister can go back and check. I tell the Minister that I got this straight from the horse’s mouth and I know that I am absolutely accurate. He can talk all the rubbish he likes, but there were actually 31½ people employed in the equivalent department back in 1999. Now there are in excess of 300 people. Do members know where they have come from? Do members know why local government actually cannot get people?

💬 Bob Clarkson: Why?

Well, because the 270 people who are now employed by the Department of Building and Housing are ex-building inspectors from local government. So how can local government get staff when they have to try to compete with Government-funded, highly paid people in the dysfunctional Department of Building and Housing? It does not work does it? One cannot be in two places at once.

The other interesting fact is this. Not all of those people actually came from local government, a good number of them were people who had failed at being building inspectors, failed at being compliance officers, and failed at being bureaucrats. So the Minister said: “Oh, don’t worry about it, she’s right. We’ll build up this Department of Building and Housing.”, and we have made it grow by 270 people over however long it has been—8 years.

💬 Bob Clarkson: Some of them might have been involved in building the leaky homes.

The member Bob Clarkson says some of them might have been involved in the building of the leaky homes. They were not involved in the building of leaky homes, but some of them were the people who were initially meant to sign them off, failed, went bankrupt, and had a hard time for a while until the Minister came along and said: “Hang on, don’t worry, we’ll start this Department of Building and Housing and now you can be employed again.” So they now have a job. No wonder the whole system is failing. It is because we have incompetent people in the department who have failed in their own lives—in private enterprise—and have not been capable of doing a decent job, and now they are in a department telling competent builders how to run their lives.

The Minister is saying: “You know, local government can’t get compliant.” I cannot remember the exact figure, I wish I could. I was trying to remember how many councils are likely to be compliant by 30 November.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: None.

No, there were some. Out of the 85, I think from memory there were eight—I cannot remember—but some small number. There were a number who had registered to be compliant, but the likelihood was that a good number were never going to get there.

💬 Bob Clarkson: One got through.

Yes, I know there have been some, but most of them were never going to be. I remember this Minister coming up to the Far North District Council and telling the local authority up there—the councillors and the other mayors of the district—“Have I got the answer for you.” Well, they all sat there and thought: “Boy, great, thank goodness this Minister has come along. Everything is going to be right.” Well, I was talking to them the other day and they said to me: “Do you think everything is going to be right?”. I said: “You’ve got to be kidding. This Minister’s got to extend the time for compliance.”

I am going to take a short call and answer a number of issues that have been raised. I want first to deal with the last speaker, Mr John Carter, a far north MP who made an interesting contribution. He made a couple of claims. Firstly he said—and I will bet him a nice bottle of plonk that it is in Hansard that he said it—that the Department of Building and Housing that existed in 1999, I think he said, had 31 staff. Well, I will give the member a wee history lesson. The department came into existence, before I became Minister actually, in 2004. He ought to get his facts straight.

He then went on, of course, to make all sorts of claims. One, I think, was that the department was full of building inspectors who were failed builders, and all sorts of things. Well, he can insult the staff and the department if he wishes. That is his democratic right in Parliament, and his democratic right. He can insult the officials, and he can insult the staff. He can make false claims about them, and he can make claims about staff in the department being bankrupt or having facilitated leaky buildings. That is, indeed, his democratic right, but I will not buy into it, and the public who are listening tonight, of course, will judge his words for what they are.

I then, sort of in reverse order, want to deal with the claims of Mr Heatley. Mr Heatley made a number of interesting claims. He asked—fair question—why on earth local authorities, which have issued building consents nigh on, he said, a hundred years, should be required to be audited and accredited. And he asked why on earth we should have auditing and accrediting—which has the objective to lift the standard and to ensure that personnel are competent and the process correct—because, he said, effectively there is nothing wrong.

Although I am not going to bag local authorities in a contemporary sense, I will make this point. I will mention the name Colleen Dicks to the member. Colleen Dicks’ house was signed off by a Waitakere City Council inspector. After having been subjected to the building of a builder who was, to put it politely, substandard, Colleen Dicks then had the building inspector arrive to see a big yellow thing called the sun coming through the roof. Why? Because there was a piece of roof missing. What did the building inspector then do? He signed off the house as being weathertight. So I say to Mr Heatley that that is one reason for auditing. Poor old Colleen Dicks—she is a fighter, and she won in the end—was subject to that. I recall going to another local authority where inspectors said to me that they had done away with the drive-by inspection.

We are engaged in an auditing and accrediting process to lift standards of operation and to lift quality, so that we do not have the Colleen Dicks scenario again, where a building inspector on seeing a piece of roof missing would sign the thing off as weathertight. That scenario is replicated, and has been replicated, over a large number of local authorities, and is in part, according to the Hunn report on weathertight homes, part of the systemic failure that occurred and gave us the weathertight debacle we have.

Dr Smith, of course, said that we were threatening local authorities by requiring them to meet a deadline. Need I remind him that not a couple of weeks ago he wanted to pass a bill, swiftly, that would have threatened local authorities that if they did not get a consent done in 20 days, the hammer would drop on them. That hammer would be the granting of the consent to the individual for free, and all those costs would then be visited, of course, on every other ratepayer—the same ratepayers that Dr Smith says he wants to lift compliance costs from. He raised the threat, but the House put the sword into that bill. It was described by Ms Tolley’s own National Party electorate chair as “daft”. The document in which that was said was tabled. I recall looking that word up in Collins English Dictionary, because I did not quite know what daft meant, being a bit of a young guy. And one of the key words in the dictionary said that daft was defined—and I am sure that Dr Nick Smith will hear this—as insane. I will say no more than that. So we want to—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that when Government members get under pressure, resorting to personal abuse is their standard frame. But the Minister has not answered any of the reasonable questions, and I do take personal offence. I think—

I take personal offence, too.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, I could resort to making all sorts of references in quite derogatory ways to all sorts of members of the Labour Party.

The CHAIRPERSON(Hon Clem Simich): No, we will not start—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You do not want me to go there? Well, Mr Chairman, I would have expected you—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I did not say that. You can go anywhere you like.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I can go anywhere I like? Well, who shall I start with in the Labour Party? Is personal abuse now going to be OK in this House of Representatives? I know that the Minister feels a bit inferior. He has no experience in the building industry, at all. But to allow a member to make claims of the sort—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No. Your point of order is quite clear, and that is what I was going to say. It had nothing to do with stopping you, sitting you down, or anything like that. I understand your point of order; it is very clear. You took offence, and I am going to ask the Minister to withdraw—just to withdraw—

I withdraw, Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): —because the offence was marginal, and its meaning was based on an assumption. He did not say anything directly, you see. It is not for me to read anything into what he said, but I think that most in the Chamber know the implication, and you have taken offence, so I think it is fair that he withdraw it.

I withdraw, and I give you a commitment, Mr Chair, that I will not quote the dictionary again.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Cosgrove.

Despite all the hot air, the protestations, and the sort of constitutional emotionalism exhibited by Messrs Carter and Smith about the constitutional outrage of how we should allow people to consult, and of how we should take it through a select committee, I remind the Committee, and all those poor folks who have had to sit through this debate at home, scratching their heads and wondering what all the hullabaloo is about, that this legislation—just a couple of parts, in effect—effectively extends a date by which local authorities have to get audited and accredited. The date is being extended from November this year to June next year.

Suddenly we have wasted a whole lot of taxpayers’ money listening to a lot of hot air and a lot of political posturing, but to listeners out there in the real world, and to the members listening, what this bill does, absolutely, is simply extend a date by which local authorities can become audited and accredited, thereby allowing them to become accredited, thereby creating certainty, thereby allowing the building consent process to continue, and thereby allowing people to continue to build their homes. I do not know, even if we did put this to a select committee, who would object to that. Actually, I do. Nick Smith would, and John Carter would, but I dare them tonight—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I dare you!

—and even the interesting individual who barracks like somebody out of the Porirua public bar—to vote this down. This simply creates certainty—[Interruption] No, I will not say it; I have seen Dad’s Army too often. I say to listeners and to the Committee that this legislation simply creates some certainty.

The question was asked as to why this legislation is being put through now. Well, communities have this thing where they like us to act efficiently. A piece of legislation is on the books now, but this issue has been identified, so we have recommitted the bill and put it through. That is why. It has been done 3½ months in advance, to create certainty for local authorities and to allow planning for communities—it is as basic as that.

So despite all the hot air, all the political posturing, and all the dress rehearsals going on among new members on the Opposition side, that is what it boils down to. That is what the country knows it boils down to, that is what Local Government New Zealand, which supported the legislation, knows it boils down to, and that is what every local authority, including John Carter’s in the far north, knows it boils down to. I invite members, if they like, to continue the posturing, to continue the stupidity, and to continue the sort of strange constitutional emotionalism, but that, in essence, is what it boils down to.

💬 Darren Hughes: It’s just daft!

It is just daft, the member said, and he is right. I do not believe there is a New Zealander out there or a person in the community who would not say that this is a logical and appropriate move, and that this is an efficient mechanism to expedite it.

I have a simple question for the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, the Minister in the chair. When did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the deadline of 30 November? I ask the Minister again: when did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the accreditation deadline of 30 November?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Many councils will.

That does not answer the question. The question is: when did the Minister find out that councils would not be able to meet the accreditation deadline of 30 November?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Some, not all.

Well, yes, some—I can see that. The Minister told us that we need this amendment because councils are not going to be able to meet the 30 November deadline. My simple question is: when did he find that out? Minister?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Read the speech.

I have read the speech, and at no time in the speech did the Minister say when he found that out. I ask the Minister again: when did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the 30 November deadline?

💬 John Carter: I knew over 18 months ago.

My colleague John Carter, who is National’s very effective local government spokesperson, said he knew that 18 months ago. You know, I was told by councils as long as 12 months ago that councils would not be able to meet the deadline. But the question asked of the Minister is when he found that out.

The Minister is silent. He is a very arrogant Minister, just like this arrogant Government, which says that because it cannot win the election next year in a fair game, it will twist the rules to suit itself. And it says that because it cannot get its bill through the House by the normal process, it will just chuck the Standing Orders out so that it can get the bill through.

I will tell members why this is important. I will quote what the Minister said only a month ago—and we know it was him; he had four chins. He said: “In the end it is the responsibility of TAs to get accredited and registered by 30 November this year, or if they are not they will lose their right to issue building consents.” He said that in a speech at the building officials conference only a month ago. He went on to say: “I know you’ll get there.” Well, what has changed in the last month? Can any member opposite tell me? Or is this a Benson-Pope situation—that is, we cannot believe what the Ministers in this Government say any more?

The further point I want to make is that the Minister said that this provision is still some 4½ months away. It is an extraordinary step for Parliament to get rid of its Standing Orders and for the Minister to ride roughshod over them. I have a quote here from Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Do members remember him? He was the Prime Minister in a Labour Government and is now the head of the Law Commission. He said that only in extreme circumstances can the suspension of the Standing Orders be justified. Well, do we know whether we have extreme circumstances? I have seen absolutely no justification, at all, that we have extreme circumstances. We know it is 4½ months before there is the potential for any difficulty.

So I simply ask any member of the Government to explain why these amendments that the Minister wants to advance cannot be referred to a select committee and go through the normal process. Can the Minister explain to the Committee—given that Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the head of the Law Commission, has said the Standing Orders should be suspended only under extreme circumstances—why these provisions cannot go through a first reading?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I remember 101 hours of urgency in the 1991 Government.

Lianne Dalziel has piped up. The only problem with regard to Lianne Dalziel is that she has not answered the questions that this Committee needs to be answered.

I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Mr Henare has interrupted on three different parties during the casting of their party vote, which is against the Standing Orders. As he is a distinguished and long-serving member, a former Cabinet Minister, and someone who has reached the heights of his career, I would have thought he knew not to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that. I had noticed it—and, yes, that applies. But they were laughing; they were having a bit of fun back there at this stage.