Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Madam Speaker, I know that this is a very tight debate in terms of the Government’s view, and it is supported by some others in the House that there be a shortened select committee time, but perhaps you’ll indulge me just to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions made by parliamentary colleagues all across the House, including on both sides of the argument, in relation to the first reading. I think it’s appropriate that there’s constructive dialogue, and I thank everyone for exactly that.

I do wish to point out in relation to the proposal that’s before the House that there be a shortened select committee period that the fact we are now discussing and debating this bill at all in the first place reflects that there has been considerable discussion in the community, including with local government—between themselves and with central government—and, certainly, I’ve been grateful for guidance by the mayors and other elected representatives of many different councils across New Zealand, including those in whose jurisdiction we currently stand. So I think I would respectfully point out to those who are nervous about a shortened select committee report-back period that, first, there has already been considerable consultation and discussion. This is not a new idea—this is not, indeed, an original idea to me. Second, just to emphasise to anyone who’s listening and in case it’s not clear already, I’d point out that, of course, this bill relates only to the extension of the current deadlines, as opposed to the much more substantive and difficult and gnarly and complex question of what the review might find and, therefore, what the regulations should be, going forward.

With that, I look forward to hearing how the select committee goes, though, obviously, not to influence it, but to take great interest in it, and I thank in advance the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, whose members—many of whom are in the House today and have contributed already to the debate—I know will be diligent in the time that’s afforded to them. I know that they will take seriously the obligation to consider this question of extension. Finally, I’d like to point out that the time frame that we are proposing—31 October—for report back will enable us to pass this bill by the end of this calendar year, thereby providing more certainty, more clarity, and less retrospectivity to the question of an extension, whereby for those in the period of time from 2 April until today or such time as this bill comes into effect are in some sort of legal limbo.

We know that Ministers cannot make law merely by announcing, and, certainly in the case of statutory and amendment, we know from the case Fitzgerald v Muldoon and other discussions in our constitutional history that we can’t regard these changes as being effective in law until such time as that law is passed. Therefore, it’s appropriate to have a shortened select committee report-back so that we can get on and provide that certainty and then, of course, continue the important task of discussing those major questions that will surface during the review and already have, indeed, been the subject of some discussion. With that, I look forward to contributions that, no doubt, will continue to be constructive in tone regarding the report-back period, and, of course, I wish the select committee all the best in its considerations in due course.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. For all members who might wish to take a call on this, just a reminder that it is about the report-back time, not the details of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister struck a lovely tone, but didn’t actually give us any reason as to why this should be truncated. He basically said two things in that speech, if I heard him rightly. One is that we’ve knocked this idea around a fair bit, so there’s been some sense of community consultation, and the other thing was that the people who, when the obligation crystallised in April—they’re in a kind of a limbo. Neither of those pressed why there should be a less than four-month report-back stage. I guess it’s difficult for me to stand up and now debate and say the reasons he gave were terrible, because he actually gave no reasons. He just seemed to say, “We don’t really think we need a six-month period.”

I think it’s really important in this House that we note that a full select committee process is really, really important so that we have both a good process and a legitimacy around what Parliament is doing, and whilst we know that urgency and shortened processes are useful sometimes, and appropriate—all Governments use them—they certainly have to be very clearly justified. I mean, it’s a little ironic to me that we’ve got a bill here which is extending time, kicking the can down the road, and we’re doing it with a truncated process. With one hand, we’re saying, “Oh, we can adjust time frames and push it out. Everyone needs a bit more time.”, but when we’re considering that very question, we’re giving the House less time.

So that seems very strange to me, and I simply can’t accept, in terms of the limbo question, that it’s problematic. You know, we’ve all heard of the Fitzgerald v Muldoon case and we know that a Minister—and that Minister, of course, knows—can’t stand up and declare that the law will be changed in the future and change behaviour now. We get that. But, pragmatically speaking, some months ago, the Minister issued a press release and let it be known to the community that he was going to take a particular approach and that gave considerable certainty. That’s why he did it—so that the sector could have certainty.

Now, there’s no suggestion—and I couldn’t imagine, of all the Ministers of that Government, that that one would go back on his word. We know that the sector has certainty around this, so, genuinely, I just can’t see it. It’s like we could get the same result without any downside by giving the select committee either four months, in which case we wouldn’t be having a debate, or the routine and regular six months, which is what is normal and appropriate. It may be that the Minister will just round off and explain to the House why there is some particular urgency that means we need less than four months to get on with it. It would be useful if we could really put the finger on it because the select committee procedure is an important one, and it does truncate.

I accept that the bill does a whole lot of other things that people may take an interest in, like small, heated swimming pools and things like that. But it is a relatively technical issue in terms of earthquake strengthening and time lines and how we go about it, so it’s not likely that people are going to front up and give their personal reckons on what the issue is. They’ll be substantive submissions backed by evidence. It is quite likely, and I genuinely hope that the committee will be informed by submissions from professional people like lawyers who have been engaged in that space, like professional engineers, and like property owners and managers. Those people want to do a professional submission, which takes time, and it would be a sad day if, because of a truncated time frame, people who genuinely wanted to inform the House and give substantive and informed professional submissions didn’t get an opportunity to because their professional lives were too busy or whatever.

I understand that the Minister gets another opportunity to speak. It’d be good to say, “Well, it is urgent and here’s why it’s urgent.”, because at the moment, what we’ve got is a risk that we’re running of—I know the committee will do the best job it can—a lower-quality select committee procedure then would otherwise be the case.

Look, I’ll leave it there. I know there’s another bill that I’m very keen to speak on a little later on in this House, but I’m sure some of my colleagues will want to speak to this, as well. Kia ora.

Just before I call on Government orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, I just wanted to clarify, actually, that the Minister only has one call in any motion. So the Minister, even if he wanted to, was unable to take—

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I would have given him leave!

I just wanted to make that—yes, I just had that advice and wanted to make it clear so that it’s not a problem on future occasions.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill.