Third Readings

, on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move, That the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4), the Copyright Amendment Bill, and the Health Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This legislation corrects an unintended effect that resulted from the inclusion of an additional section in three Acts: the Building Act of 2004, the Commerce Act of 1986, and the Health Act of 1956. All those Acts require that when material has been incorporated by reference, those with delegated or statutory responsibility must make that material free of charge on the Internet.

In terms of the Building Act, to avoid the potentially negative effects that these requirements have the legislation removes the obligation of the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to make available free of charge on the Internet material incorporated by reference. This provision is replaced with a requirement on the chief executive to make available for inspection free of charge, at all the department’s regional offices, key material incorporated by reference in regulations and compliance documents, including standards used by building practitioners in areas such as the use of timber and concrete in the construction of buildings, the design of buildings using timber and concrete, plumbing installation, access for persons with disabilities, and energy efficiency. In addition, the chief executive must make available for inspection free of charge at the department’s Wellington office all material incorporated by reference. All material will also be available for purchase at all the department’s offices. By amending the Building Act in this way, the Government has endeavoured to strike a balance between the facilitation of access to material incorporated by reference, and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyright in standards and other material that may be incorporated by reference.

For the same reasons I have just outlined, the legislation also amends the Health Act and the Commerce Act, in order to remove the positive obligation on the Director-General of Health and the chairperson of the Commerce Commission to make material incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. That obligation has been replaced with a provision that allows the director-general or chairperson to make material incorporated by reference available in any other way he or she may consider appropriate in the circumstances. Neither currently incorporates material by reference, and neither has any plans to do so, but the amendments in this legislation future-proof those Acts. In addition to the amendments I have just outlined, the legislation also amends the Copyright Act to clarify that the non-Crown copyright is affected when material subject to copyright is incorporated by reference into legislation. All these amendments ensure that the standards development process in New Zealand can remain up to date with international best practice. In addition, they ensure that the development of joint standards by Australia and New Zealand can continue, by ensuring that domestic and international copyright is given appropriate protection.

As implementation of the Building Act took effect, some small anomalies and technical errors were identified. Most important, there has been some debate around section 363 relating to the occupation of public buildings. These have been rectified by this legislation to make the Building Act more effective. I thank United Future for its support in this very worthwhile enterprise.

I commend this legislation to the House.

Politics has been dominated for the last fortnight by a speech given by John Tamihere, in which he made three particular references. The first of those was that we were verging on a dictatorship—that this Parliament was being treated with disrespect—and that the Leader of the House, Michael Cullen, was “sneaky” in the way in which he dealt with issues. We were also told with exquisite language about the features of this particular Minister, Chris Carter, who was referred to as one who tosses things.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. I ruled out the use of that word last night, and I would appreciate it if the member would come to order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My point is that this legislation, and the appalling way this Parliament has been treated, have reinforced everything that John Tamihere said. Let me explain why. What we have seen is a sneaky little bill—the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, which makes only one change to the Building Act—being introduced into the House, then a 20-page Supplementary Order Paper with 21 significant changes has been brought in over the top of it. That should concern you, Mr Speaker, because one of your duties is to protect this Parliament, and this Parliament is being walked over like you would not believe.

Only last week we saw the Government believing that it could simply walk all its Ministers out and shut down this House of Representatives. What we see with the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) is exactly the same sort of abuse and lack of respect for this democratic institution. What we really have here is the Government making an absolute botch of New Zealand’s building laws—and that matters, because the building industry is worth $18 billion per year to the New Zealand economy. The industry employs 230,000 people. Those people depend on a set of sensible building laws that are practical and workable, and that ensure we have homes and buildings that will serve our nation well. What we have is an arrogant Government that, under urgency, rammed through a botched bill written by a bunch of Ministers who would not have the foggiest idea about the building industry.

In this Government there have been six different Ministers for building issues. For a start, we had Mark Burton. We then had George Hawkins. We then had Lianne Dalziel. We then had Margaret Wilson. We then had John Tamihere. Now, we have Chris Carter, and to make matters even worse, this legislation is in the name of Pete Hodgson. It is little wonder that the building industry is crying out for some reasonable leadership and rules, when that sort of game of musical chairs is occurring on the Government benches. No Minister in charge of this portfolio area has been in charge for a period in excess of 9 months, so it is little wonder that it is the mess that it is.

A fortnight ago, during question time, I raised with the Minister for Building Issues, Chris Carter, a series of concerns about the Building Act, and I will quote what he said. He said: “There is no problem.” If there is no problem, why are we ramming 21 changes to the Building Act through this Parliament under urgency? Was he being untruthful then, or now? It must be one or the other. He cannot have said 2 weeks ago that there was no problem, and now say: “Hang on, we have to ram through 21 changes to the Building Act.”

I will make a bet today. The Government botched it the first time. It ended up with a Building Act that was totally unworkable, and that ended up with a Government breaking its own law. The officials in the Department of Building and Housing came before the Government Administration Committee and said: “Yeah, sorry, we are breaking the law.” Well, that is becoming a habit with the Government—whether it be in terms of forging paintings or of going at 150 kilometres an hour while every other New Zealander doing that gets pinged. And now we now have it in respect of the building laws, where the Government, over both copyright issues and occupation of the Beehive, has blatantly breached its own laws. That is the sorry state we have ended up with.

I will make a bet that any one of these changes will create more errors. I have to make a comment about United Future. United Future members supported going into urgency so that the building legislation could be passed in a mad rush. When National expressed concern at the time, they said: “No, no, it’s all right. It’s all OK. We have it absolutely right.”

Murray Smith: I never said that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, well, why did the member support urgency? I say to Murray Smith that he has put us under urgency, he voted for urgency, he voted the legislation through the House, and he said that it was all OK. Will he stake his reputation on these amendments being correct? If the Government has it wrong again, will the member take responsibility? United Future members said that they would be the honest brokers for the Government, yet they will allow the Government to treat this Parliament with the disrespect that sees 21 substantial amendments—20 pages of law—that were tabled only yesterday afternoon to be the law of the land by lunchtime today. United Future says that that is good lawmaking. United Future will be campaigning this year and saying: “Vote for us because we will ram 20 pages of law, affecting one of New Zealand’s largest industries, through Parliament within 24 hours.”, and United Future says that that is good lawmaking. It is shonky lawmaking, it is appalling lawmaking, it is a mess, it is causing great strife within the building industry, and the problems are not finished. The wallies on the Government benches have decided that the good old—

Hon Dover Samuels: The only wallies are on that side.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would like Mr Samuels to explain this to me. Why are we banning ordinary New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes? There has never been any evidence presented to the select committee or anywhere else—in fact I have asked the Minister—on how many of the 2,300 claims made over weathertightness resulted from do-it-yourself builders. The answer is none, as far as we know. Why, then, is the Government prohibiting the New Zealand homeowner from doing building work on his or her own home? [Interruption] Oh, well, we have David Cunliffe. He says it all. He has answered the question that I have been asking Ministers. He said it is because homeowners do a crap job. Well, I have to say to David Cunliffe that generations of aspiring New Zealanders have done building work on their own homes and have improved those homes and, as a consequence of doing that, they have been able to get themselves ahead in life.

I was one of those New Zealanders. I had a little old house in Riccarton. I built an extra room on to it, knocked some walls out, and upgraded it, and that improved my equity. That is how generations of New Zealanders have been able to improve their lot, and this Government is saying: “Nope. You will not be allowed to do that in future. We will abolish the ability for New Zealanders to be able to get themselves ahead.” That move would be so typical of the control freak approach taken by the Labour Government that has got it into so much trouble with this particular legislation.

This process is an absolute disgrace. I remember being in Government, and Labour members would be completely throwing their marbles in the House because we had law changed over weeks. This law has not seen the light of more than 1 day. In the Minister’s contribution we have just heard, he made only passing reference to what he called a few minor and technical changes. Well, is it minor and technical that all our architects, designers, and engineers are prohibited by law from doing design work because of the mad drafting and mad laws that the Government has imposed here?

This will not be the last amendment to the Building Act. This is one of the worst reforms that I have seen in my 15 years in this Parliament. It is a diabolical mess. The Minister Chris Carter, and the chair of the select committee, Dianne Yates, should be apologising to the building industry for making such a mess of the law for which they are responsible. We have a Building Act that has been written by control freaks who have no practical idea as to how the building industry in New Zealand functions. They do not know the practical dimensions of what it is to be able to provide good quality buildings. They have added hugely to the costs for no benefit. The industry will continue to pull its hair out, but my response to the building industry is that help is on the way—a common-sense National Government will fix the Building Act later this year, because the building industry knows from this bill that Labour cannot be trusted.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 3), which is the first part of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, has come about because the officials, particularly the Legislation Advisory Committee, added a clause into the original Building Bill that had not gone past the select committee. That clause resulted in documents having to be put up on to the website. An unexpected result—because the Government had not discussed it with the industry—was that a whole lot of documents referred to in those documents also had to go on the website. The particular section, section 409, insisted that all documents had to be on the website.

As a result, a lot of copyrighted information had to be put on to the website free of charge. A lot of those items, in particular the standards and other technical details of manufacturers’ products, are confidential, very highly prized, and worth a lot of money to the individual manufacturers. That information had to be automatically put on to the website. Of course, that left people in the industry out of pocket. One of the major examples is Standards New Zealand. It relies on the income from selling its standards to people who require them. That is a means of funding that organisation. So forcing it to put those things on a website free of charge meant that a funding stream was going to be cut off, and that was going to make it very difficult for the organisation to continue to operate.

The other aspect of this legislation that makes New Zealand First very disappointed in this Government is the Supplementary Order Paper that has gone through that makes changes to the Building Act. Yes, a lot of those changes were needed, particularly the one to section 363, which was worded in such a way as to leave a bit of confusion and doubt. If it was read one way, then there was no problem, but it could be interpreted to mean that all buildings that had not been issued with a code of compliance certificate were not allowed to be occupied. The reason for that goes back to the Cave Creek incident when a platform that had not been signed off as code compliant or inspected collapsed, causing loss of life.

We accept that safety is a major factor that needs to be taken into account when we look at the Building Act, but unfortunately it was taken too far under section 363 and meant that the whole site had to be completed. Let me give an example of a situation where this becomes ridiculous. A multi-storey apartment block or a building that the public has access to is largely completed, except for the white lines in the car-park. Under this particular section, that building cannot be occupied until those white lines have been put in. However, there is now a mechanism that allows the territorial authority to alter the consent and allow a certificate of public use, so that the building can be used while those lines are still to be put in.

There is also another mechanism that allows a notice—I cannot find the actual terminology—enabling the site to be used. The territorial authority can alter the consent to take that into account. Of course, it makes a bit of a mockery of the process when a council is allowed to change the original consent and to actually take out a part of that consent. Why would anybody put the painting of the lines into a consent in the first place, when that person could just apply later on to put them in later, to prevent occupation of the whole building being halted. That particular example is one that was highlighted to me, and I think it really needed to be looked at a bit further.

That is why New Zealand First is opposing this legislation now—because there are errors. We have just had a whole raft of those errors highlighted in the House very quickly last night and this morning. The Building Bills were rushed through in such a hurry that errors were allowed to slip in. The original building legislation went through a select committee. A lot of errors were picked up during the drafting stage, and we on the select committee picked up a lot of errors. However, by putting through under urgency a Supplementary Order Paper—and, as has been noted by other members, it is a substantial Supplementary Order Paper—without it going to a select committee, we are making rushed alterations to the Act. Yes, the Act has some errors and has some problems, but we have already discovered that the legislation going through the House now is exaggerating some of those errors. Unfortunately, by not sending the Supplementary Order Paper to a select committee we are allowing errors to slip in.

The industry will be confused—the confusion will continue—because it will find other big holes that could have been picked up if the legislation had gone to a select committee. The whole process of this Parliament involves select committees that invite the public, and particularly those members of the industry who are affected, to make submissions. Through that process we sort out most of the problems and get legislation that is right, and is very close to what the industry requires, and what the public expects. But we have rushed this legislation through the House over the last day and a half, and I think we have made a huge error in not allowing the Supplementary Order Paper to go to a select committee so that the errors it contains could be corrected.

It is unfortunate that the officials were put under so much pressure to get the legislation here in such a short time, when they should have been given a lot more time. The first phase of the Building Act came into force on 30 November last year, and the next major phase came into effect on 31 March this year. Some of the issues had already been discovered long before the second phase came into effect, but it was as it came into effect that everybody started to panic. That, of course, put pressure on the officials to come up with corrections. I know they were working right up to the last minute to try to get the legislation right before it was sent out to several members of the House to have a look at, but we did not have time to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and put it out to very many people in the industry for their feedback. I managed to get some feedback last night. I discussed it with a few people and they picked holes in it straight away.

I am afraid that as we have not put the legislation to a select committee, those holes will reappear and will require another piece of legislation to come before this House very soon.

Just to recap, we have a mess here. The Building Act was passed some 8 months ago. Part of it became operative on 30 November last year, just a few months back. Another significant part of it became operative on 31 March, only 13 days ago. If anyone needs to be given proof that this is legislation on the hoof, here it is. We are making a significant amendment just 13 days after that part of the legislation became operative. Moreover, we now have a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times bigger than the amendment itself. It is the sticking plaster on top of the sticking plaster on top of the festering wound.

United Future proudly claims credit for all this good work. The United Future members call it good work. They imply that it would not have happened if it had not been for their efforts, and I suspect that that is right. But that is nothing to claim credit for; it is something to be deeply ashamed of and apologetic for. And, in fact, we even had an amendment tabled by Mr Smith of United Future this morning during the Committee stage—scribbled out in his handwriting—after he had proudly claimed that he had worked on the legislation. He was very proud of the legislation, and implied that he had put it right. Yet here we have, even today, a handwritten further amendment. This legislation is a mess, and the building laws are a mess.

Perhaps what I found to be the most revealing comment came in this very third reading debate this morning, in response to an interjection from, I think, Dr Smith, who wanted to know why home handymen and women cannot continue to do the work that they have always done on their homes. Kiwis have great aptitude for building, and great experience at it that has been passed down from father to son. What was the response from Mr Cunliffe, the “junior Minister of Commerce” who actually has a responsibility associated with this bill? He said that oh no, the Government could not allow Kiwis to do building at home because they do a crap job. That is what he said. What a gross generalisation that was! What arrogance it was! I have never heard such arrogance in this House, but it typifies the thinking of this Labour Government, which somehow believes that only nanny State can control and direct those sorts of things. We need another regulation and more prescriptive controls from nanny State, to protect us all from ourselves—that is what the Labour Minister Cunliffe said here in the House today.

I think a lot of New Zealanders will take deep offence at that. I am certainly offended by that statement, as someone who built his own home over 30 years ago—a house that is still standing and does not leak. I know many of my friends did likewise. In fact, most of the homes in the Hutt Valley were built by soldiers returning from the war, who formed gangs and built each others’ homes. They reciprocated, and then went down and built the house next door. A lot of Hutt Valley homes were built in that way. But this Labour Government is saying that no, there is to be no more of that. We might have had 100 years in this society of good, innovative Kiwis doing a good job, yet the Government is saying that they cannot do that because they do a crap job. That is deeply insulting.

Of course, the building industry agrees with the Government. It says that yes, it wants there to be more restrictions and more controls. Well, of course it would want that. Has it not heard of restrictive trade practice? The bigger the building company, the more the industry supports it. There are so many laws and controls here that one now needs to employ one’s own bureaucrats in order to get approvals through city hall and through the various Crown agencies. Of course, that is economy-of-scale stuff. That gears things more—weights them more—in favour of the larger construction companies. So the home handyman is gone, and the small construction guy is at a serious disadvantage with this type of legislation. It is all about more central control—more central control from the Labour Government.

The United Future party members are proud. They are trying to say that this legislation is really their handiwork—that it is their work, and they did it. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be hanging their heads low, in deep shame. Perhaps what is even more disgraceful—and I think this underscores the arrogance of this Government—is that having messed up the original Act passed only 8 months ago, and having brought an amendment to the House and then a Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times bigger than that bill, the Government is not even letting Supplementary Order Paper 361 go to a select committee. Government members are saying this legislation is so urgent that they have to ram it through under urgency, without any select committee hearing or submissions from the public.

We had the Minister in the chair, earlier this morning, try to excuse that by saying the amendments were just to correct minor numerical and grammatical errors. Well, they are not; they are more substantive than that. We have things such as penalty clauses where one can be liable for a $100,000 fine or $10,000-a-day fines. Are those perhaps just numerical problems, and do they have the decimal point in the wrong place, a nought or two dropped off, or a nought or two added? Who knows? Those sorts of errors impact hugely on Kiwis’ lives every day, and the Government is ramming this legislation through under urgency.

The Minister, of course, was tossed aside. The Minister for Building Issues, Chris Carter, was tossed aside, and we had Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of Peter Hodgson. We had a bit of a discussion last night about the Minister being tossed aside. Was he actually the “tossee” or the “tossor”? We could not actually decide on that. He is clearly one of those: either the “tossee” or the “tossor”.

This is shameful legislation, and the ACT party will be opposing it. I notice that the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Greens are opposing it. The only reason this legislation is going through Parliament under urgency is that the United Future party somehow thinks the legislation is good. It has not been able to convince us of that or tell the House what is good about it. The United Future members proudly claim this legislation as their own handiwork. Every builder, every home handyman or woman, and everyone who has any involvement with building structures out there should know that this bad legislation is a direct result of the United Future party, and should say: “Shame on United Future.”

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third readings of this legislation, which started life as the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. It has now become four bills: the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4), the Copyright Amendment Bill, and the Health Amendment Bill.

I come to this speech with a particular interest in building issues that I brought to Parliament through my background of having been a lawyer for 26 years. During that time I acted for literally hundreds of home purchasers, home vendors, land developers, owners who were contracting builders, and builders—including one builder I fell out with because of substandard buildings that were being built, and who actually fell foul of the leaky homes legislation. I have been involved in drawing up contracts to purchase buildings and to build buildings. I have acted for purchasers and for builders in disputes, in mediations, arbitrations, and court proceedings, and I have even acted for a tradesman in a disciplinary hearing. So I came with a particular interest in the building industry.

For that reason I joined the Government Administration Committee in its consideration of the inquiry into weathertight homes, and also joined it for consideration of the Building Bill. As part of that I was privileged to visit Australia and meet, among other people, the Australian Building Codes Board, and I got a feel for what was happening both at an Australian-wide level and also at a state level in Australia in terms of the building industry, and for furthering the way that it cooperates with New Zealand. I hope and think that through that, and through the 26 years’ experience that I have had, I understand a bit about New Zealand homeowners, what their needs are, and how they think, and also understand a bit about the building industry in terms of its needs and the way that it thinks and works. My time in the House has enabled me also now to see the issues from a policy perspective, from a nationwide perspective, and from a perspective of the needs that we have as a nation as we move forward in terms of the building industry.

Being privileged to be with United Future means that I have been able to be in a position of having some influence in terms of the direction of legislation—to provide support for the Government but also to provide restraint on the Government at times. That is the role we have. As a centre party we are in a position where we are able to prevent the excesses of the major parties, and to promote good, common-sense solutions. With only eight out of 120 MPs we are not always able to get our way, and, in particular, where Labour has wanted to push extreme ideological issues it has been able to find the support of the Greens, who specialise in extreme ideological issues, in order to do things that we do not think make common sense. Our goal is, with the help of the New Zealand public, of course, to have greater ability to be the party of restraint, and to keep Labour and National on a centre course rather than their being pulled to the extremes that the Greens and ACT respectively would pull them, or being reliant on the proven instability and unpredictability of the New Zealand First Party.

In terms of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, in my first-reading speech I went into detail on the considerable input United Future had had in the development of that legislation, and, in particular, the extent of the input we had had to make sure that, as far as possible, all information would be readily available free of charge to building practitioners. We required of the Government that the legislation be changed from the position that it had drafted, which would have allowed the chief executive discretion in terms of how that information was to be made available, to one that made it mandatory for the chief executive to make as much of that information available to building practitioners at a local level as was possible. So the restriction that was necessary, in terms of the copyright issues that incorporation by reference documents give rise to, was kept as narrowly as possible to the standards, which were, effectively, the ones that needed to have copyright protected. Beyond that, everything was readily available.

I am delighted that we have reached that position—in particular, with the amendment bill to the Building Act that has been agreed to. We are now in a position where, effectively, even compliance documents that are produced by the Government mandatorily have to be made available free of charge on the Internet. I am delighted that as of 2 weeks ago all compliance documents are now on the Internet, available free of charge for building practitioners to access. That is making information more available than it has been in the past, and, indeed, one of the changes that has been made by this legislation—in particular, the change to the Copyright Act—removes the Crown’s hold on documents that it has copyright in, so that those documents are freely available to be copied and used by the general public. So the Crown has abandoned its right to copyright, and that, too, will further the ability of that information to be made available and put into public hands.

So United Future members are pleased with the changes we brought about in the primary legislation in terms of incorporation by reference, and the fact that we have now been able to achieve the goal we set out to achieve, which was, as I said before, to make as much of this information as possible available free of charge at a local level for all New Zealanders, in particular building practitioners, to access.

National speaks with a degree of righteous indignation about the amendments to the legislation and the way in which it has happened, but it did exactly the same thing itself. It is inevitable that, in legislation as comprehensive as the changes to the Building Act, there will be mistakes and they will be picked up. It will not stop now. Even at the passing of the Building Act, I made it clear in my speeches that I envisaged there would need to be amendments as the legislation settled down. As I said previously today, it is not surprising that, as the legislation starts to come into operation, which it did on 31 March, and the rubber hits the road, suddenly issues come to light as local authorities and others have to start implementing it. Suddenly they find there is a hole that needs to be plugged, or an ambiguity, as in the case of section 363, that needs to be clarified. That is an inevitable result of legislation as complex as this that has changed the building regime from the laissez-faire regime we had in the 1990s to something that tries to provide a balance between the prescriptiveness that operated before 1990, and the looseness that operated after 1990.

I remind National that, at the end of the day, it created the mess we had, through the former Building Act and the changes made in 1990. That created a situation where there was complete, free, unrestrained ability of people to build what they wanted with scant, inadequate policing through the Building Industry Authority and through local authorities, which themselves were not held to account. Those huge problems resulted in the whole leaky homes problem that has arisen; it originated out of the National Government’s changes. The recent Building Act tightened the processes in a way that tried to provide some balance. Now we have the early, teething problems, and we need to make minor corrections to the direction of the Building Act in order to clear up some of those problems.

It will not stop here. I have always said, and I said previously, that this will not be the last legislation amending the Building Act. It is absolutely inevitable that, as it beds down, other issues will arise and some clarifications and changes will need to be made. That will be simply as a matter of course. It happened with the National Government’s legislation, with the Resource Management Act, the Local Government Act, and all those things; major changes need some bedding down.

That shows that big parties need a centre party to second-guess them, to provide some restraint, and even to give an independent view so that Governments can do their job better. That is the sort of role that United Future can provide, and will provide, in terms of both Labour and National—both of them having said they want to work with us. That is the sort of role we can provide in Parliament. It is an absolutely vital role—to ensure that the big parties maintain a centre position and do not get pulled to their extremes.

In terms of section 363, clearly there had to be some urgent change because of the ambiguity. That prompted the need to make these changes in a prompt manner, and the Government has, not surprisingly, taken the opportunity to correct some of the technical and administrative problems that have arisen that are not matters of huge significance but, nevertheless, in being corrected bring the Building Act to what it was always intended to be. This legislation is not perfect. I am sure that faults will continue to be found in it—in both the original Building Act and even the legislation that is being passed. It is unfortunate that it has had to be done urgently. Nevertheless, United Future supports the need for the changes, so that we can get the Building Act under way in the best possible way now.

One of the reasons for the leaky building fiasco, which Parliament had an inquiry into, was that builders and developers were not following the standards and rules that were in place. That was one of the main reasons, we concluded, that this fiasco of the leaky building syndrome came about. Therefore, to try to ensure that all builders would have access to all the standards, and would not have the excuse that they did not see them, we made a provision under the Building Act that the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing must make all material incorporated by reference—and that includes all building standards—available free of charge on the Internet. Let us be under no illusion, despite all the bland reassurances from Murray Smith, a United Future member, whose party is propping up this legislation, that all documents would be available free of charge. I assure him and also any listeners that it is not true. Building standards will no longer be provided free of charge on the Internet.

Just to confirm that—because Murray Smith was busily saying last night that that was not the case—this morning we tried to download a basic building standard. Instead, we could not do so, because it was blocked. Instead, we would have to pay $232, plus GST, to get a basic building standard that all builders in New Zealand would be expected to comply with. Murray Smith has just told us that that is not true. He has just told us that every compliance document and all of the rules will be available free. [Interruption] He says that a building standard is not a compliance document, but it is. The building standard is the standard. It is the rule that everyone must follow. It is the most important document—the building standard that builders must follow. Some builders do not have access to those standards. Already, we have spoken to some builders who have said there is no way that they will spend $232, plus GST, to download a basic standard. They will rely on old knowledge.

That is completely contrary to the objectives of the Building Act, and the reason why we said that important material like building standards should be available free of charge on the Internet. That is why, in the debate on the Building Act, we went to considerable lengths to say that we must make it an obligation on the chief executive to make documents such as standards freely available on the Internet. This bill removes the obligation on the chief executive to make building standards available free of charge; now, they no longer are. It sets a precedent. It allows not only Standards New Zealand but others to start charging for information that should be freely available. The building standards in New Zealand are owned by Standards New Zealand. They are already owned by the Government, so there is not a copyright issue. They are owned by the New Zealand Government, and are standards that we require everyone to follow so that, we hope, we can avert another leaky building fiasco. But now builders are not allowed to download the standards for free from the Internet, which was the purpose of the legislation. Not even the standards that are owned by Standards New Zealand will be published online.

I can assure members that architects and builders are mystified. They are also angry about it. Why should they be required to pay for a standard that they must follow? What is the sense of that? With this silly little issue, which is presumably all about allowing the Government to earn money by charging builders $232, plus GST, for a basic standard, are we putting the desire to make a little bit of money from selling a standard that is supposed to be free on the Internet ahead of the whole intention of our new Building Act? That intention was to try to prevent a leaky building fiasco from happening again. We are telling all the builders in New Zealand that they have to pay through the nose for the standards, but there will be builders who do not do it. They will not spend the money, and will instead rely on their old knowledge. We may very well find that we are contributing, through this niggardly, miserly provision, to further examples of leaky buildings.

As the Greens have stated before, we have no problem acknowledging that international standards that are not owned by Standards New Zealand have copyright issues, and therefore cannot be freely available unless the Government purchases them. To buy all the copyrights for all international standards is probably not realistic. But the standards owned by Standards New Zealand are owned by the Government. Every builder and developer in New Zealand is obliged to follow those standards. Now we are changing this legislation to say that builders and developers can no longer get the basic standards free of charge on the Internet; now they will have to pay $232, plus GST, to download them. These standards are already blocked on the Internet. Murray Smith might like to check that he can no longer download from the Internet the basic standards that all builders are expected to comply with. The intention of the Building Act was to enable building standards to be freely available on the Internet—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you protect me from the constant interruptions from the member to my left. He is obviously agitated. I ask you to get him to contain himself.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The crosstalk does distract. I ask the member to desist.

Murray Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have not been constantly barraging the member, but when I hear so much drivel coming from the Green Party I cannot help but make some response.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I also remind Mr Power that I am ruling on the point of order; he is not. He should not call out: “That is not a point of order.” when a member is speaking to a point of order.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think we adequately resolved that issue. The member on her feet quite rightly called for the protection of the Chair from barraging from the cross benches. I am sitting between the members and the noise was deafening. It was a constant barrage of drivel. I think the member is entitled to protection from the Chair in that situation.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before Murray Smith rose to speak to the point of order, I had indicated to him that the barraging across the cross benches was not acceptable. That had already been dealt with.

SUE KEDGLEY: Thank you for your protection and intervention, Madam Speaker. Some of the regulations, legislation, and compliance documents will be available for inspection only in Wellington. Will we have builders flying to Wellington from around New Zealand? Will people from Whangarei fly to Wellington to look at these regulations? Obviously, they will not. The Government has said it is trying to reduce compliance costs in New Zealand. It has a mantra that it is reducing compliance costs and protecting small businesses. With this legislation it is increasing compliance costs. It is charging small businesses—as builders often are—around New Zealand for a basic standard that they have to comply with. They will have to pay $232. That increases compliance costs; it does not reduce them. It goes against the Government’s stated mantra about reducing compliance costs.

It is also against the intention of the Building Act, which was to ensure that materials such as standards were available free of charge on the Internet so that we could avoid a repetition of the leaky building syndrome. Evidence was presented to us that one of the reasons for the leaky building fiasco was that builders were not following standards. We wanted to make it absolutely easy and simple for all builders to follow standards, so that they would have no excuse for not doing so. That is why we wanted to make the standards available free of charge on the Internet. It is ridiculous that we require builders to pay to look at basic standards on the Internet, for which reason the Greens will be opposing this bill.

It is not often that I agree with a Green Party member, but in this instance I think she is absolutely right. The Government has produced this legislation in a hurry and, as a consequence, more compliance costs have been built into the day-to-day lives of average New Zealanders.

I take issue with the United Future member, Murray Smith, who got to his feet and spent the last 5 minutes of his call speaking self-righteous drivel. He talked about why his party exists in this House. He did not even speak about the bill—he did not mention the bill for nearly 5 minutes. Instead, he spoke about why it was important to have minor parties like United Future in the House to keep the major parties honest. The thing I found most appalling was his contention that he knew, when he supported the passage of the Building Act, that it had errors in it and that it would be coming back to the House soon thereafter for correction. He is taking some pride in the fact that we are now here, under urgency, speaking about the changes he forecast. He said that that was the way we did things in this House.

I have news for him and his party—it is not the way the National Party does things, at all. We believe very firmly that we should endeavour to write good legislation at the first pass. I accept that from time to time there will be errors, but to set out to achieve error strikes me as an absolute nonsense.

I want to talk a little about the press release that was put out by Minister Hodgson. I find it extraordinary that Pete Hodgson is the Minister in charge of this bill, when the actual Minister for Building Issues is Chris Carter. I do not know whether Chris Carter has been tossed out of that portfolio, or whether, to use the words of someone else in this House, he is just a tosser. But that is not something I would want to dwell on.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members that that word has been ruled out of order. I ask the member to withdraw it.

Hon Ken Shirley: I can be of assistance. I heard the member. He did not say “tosser”, he said “tossor”, as in a “tossee” or a “tossor”—one who is being tossed—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to be seated.

Hon Ken Shirley: It is an important point. It is language.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard the member previously. The context he used the word in and how he used it was OK, then; this is different. I ask the member to withdraw that.

BRIAN CONNELL: I withdraw that, if I have given offence. But the point I was making was about whether he has been tossed out or whether he was the “tossor”. I think the member is absolutely right; that is the point I was trying to make. However we dress it up, the fact is that Chris Carter no longer has that responsibility. Given that he is the Minister for Building Issues, I find that extraordinary.

The real point I was trying to make was that Pete Hodgson wrote a press release, which I thought was pretty sycophantic. In the press release, he said that United Future wanted to ensure that builders had ready access to standards and design, and that there would be no more compliance costs built into the lives of average Kiwis when it came to buildings.

That is simply not the case. The Building Act has brought about an average increase in costs of around $7,500 for the average person building a house in this country. That is a compliance cost, and it is quite an extraordinary compliance cost. It is clearly not right for the member to stand up and say that that it is not happening.

The other issue I want to mention is something that I believe has been an absolute abuse of process in this House. When one does things in a hurry, one gets a mess. We were asked, I think about 19 April, to consider this legislation for the first time. A bill with one clause was introduced to the House, with 12 working days for consideration. The bill went to a select committee, where it had 2 hours of consideration before it was reported back to the House. That is an abuse of process.

Then, at the Committee stage, we found there was a Supplementary Order Paper, with 21 clauses in it, which had not had any consideration by a select committee, at all—and the Government, with the help of the United Future party, is trying to tell us that that is due process. Well, it is simply not, and it should not be acceptable to any right-thinking member of this House, or anyone in the broader community across New Zealand. I am sure everyone would agree that that is not due process.

Let us examine the legislation in the first instance. Why did it come before this House? It was a knee-jerk reaction to leaky homes. There had been a number of incidences in Auckland. The problem was confined to Auckland, but it was not about the non-treatment of timber; it was about the poor design of homes. The Green member has already said that we had the law and regulations in place, but that some builders were not following those regulations.

What we got as a consequence was 400 pages—380-odd clauses—of bureaucratic nonsense that will not fix the problem, at all. It does not concentrate on the heart of the problem; it does not concentrate on design; it concentrates on rules and regulations, and an insistence on treating timber. We even got into the ridiculous position whereby the Government was insisting on treating timbers like Douglas fir. Anyone with an ounce of experience—and I note that Murray Smith is very quiet on this point—would have known that treating Douglas fir timber was totally unnecessary.

So what we have now is legislation that, by Murray Smiths’s own admission, will come back to the House again, and again, because it is simply not right.

Inherent in this bill is the death knell for one of New Zealand’s great icons, the home handyman. This Government, which purports to support average Kiwis, has now ensured that home handymen will not be able to build their own homes without having extra compliance costs, or inspectors looking over their shoulders saying they can or cannot do particular pieces of work.

The other thing I find quite mystifying about this legislation is that nine ministers have lined up to take responsibility for it. Then, suddenly, they have all disappeared. No wonder it is in a mess, because no one is prepared to stand up and take responsibility for it.

What we have now is an absolute nightmare of legislation, which came to the House under the guise of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. The Opposition parties—with the exception of United Future that insisted it was good legislation—warned Government members that that bill was inappropriate. We warned them that if it were rushed through the House there would be problems. We warned the Government that, if the bill went through the House under this type of abusive process, it would come back with errors. Mark my words, we have not seen the end of it yet. This legislation will come back to this House again and again, because it is just bad legislation.

Of nine ministers, not one of them has stood up to take a call to try to justify why the legislation is good—because they know it is a dog’s breakfast. Nine ministers have circled through this legislation and out again, and I am not certain even now who is responsible for it. Looking around the Chamber, I cannot see a Minister who is putting his or her hand up and saying that he or she will take responsibility for it. That is simply because those Ministers know it is poor.

United Future members should hang their heads in shame. The way they have supported this process is simply shocking. It is a disgrace and an abuse of the parliamentary process, and the behaviour of members—particularly Murray Smith, who has tried to justify it by tabling handwritten amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 361 today—typifies why it is such a mess.

I want to refer to some of the problems that have been highlighted, which resulted in the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill being introduced to the House. First of all, when the original Building Bill was reported back, there were problems caused by the inclusion of standard clauses—that is, the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines were followed in preparing the bill. It was highlighted at that stage that those clauses could possibly infringe the copyright interests of third parties. The Department of Building and Housing and the Ministry of Economic Development took legal advice. There was a divergence of views, and, in order to clear up that matter, the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill came before the House, which has been split into the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4), the Copyright Amendment Bill, and the Health Amendment Bill.

This legislation assures us that we are complying with the copyright legislation and that, eventually, we will save New Zealand a good deal of money, should there be cases under the previous situation of costly legal action for breach of copyright. I point out that the stakeholders and Standards New Zealand were consulted in the formation of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. When the Government Administration Committee called for submissions the stakeholders did not appear before it, but they had said that they agreed with the bill. Standards New Zealand came and explained the legal implications around copyright.

There was a good deal of grandstanding about the Building Act. I note that Nick Smith said in this House, just a few minutes ago, that we are crying out for rules in the building industry. He said that, yet the previous National Government, of which he was a member, was responsible for the deregulation of the building industry, which was responsible for the multiple problems around weathertightness. That was not the result of poor design, builders, or timber, but of all those things that came about through deregulation and, then, a building boom. The member knows that his friend George Chapman, who is president of the National Party, was the chair of the Building Industry Authority in the late 1990s when the weathertightness issue was drawn to its attention—and what did he do?

Georgina Beyer: Nothing!

DIANNE YATES: Exactly. I have to thank the Labour Government for facing up to the crisis in the building industry and bringing in a better system.

I will just point out, too, a couple of issues. One concerns the issue of not being able to build one’s own house. That is actually rubbish. In the present situation, anybody can wire his or her own house. An electrician has to come in and sign off that the wiring is OK and that the house will not burn down. This legislation states that anybody can build his or her own house, but that a registered builder has to come in and say that it has been done properly, that it will not fall down, and that it will still have some resale value. That is terribly important to anybody who builds his or her own house. During the inquiry on weathertightness we heard that in New Zealand at the moment, anyone who has a ute, a radio, a hammer, and a dog can build a house. It does not require anybody to have any building expertise. The legislation states that people can build their own houses, but they just have to have someone sign off that they have done it properly. I just wanted to clear up that matter.

In respect of this legislation, Nick Smith and other speakers have been grandstanding for the National Party. Dr Richard Worth, who chairs the Regulations Review Committee, and members of that committee, which consists largely of lawyers, have said that in this case it is necessary to change the law in order to make sure that we do not infringe copyright. I thank Dr Worth and that select committee for their opinion on this legislation.