Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill

on behalf of the Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 31 March 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

This bill corrects an inadvertent addition to three Acts. As at present worded, sections of the Building Act, the Commerce Act, and the Health Act all require those with delegated or statutory responsibility to make material incorporated by reference under those Acts, such as building standards, available free of charge on the Internet. Despite those well-intentioned additions, it has become apparent that those changes have, of course, given rise to concern as to the level of copyright protection afforded third parties, both in New Zealand and internationally.

The amendments proposed in this bill endeavour 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. The changes are minor, but they are also urgent. Although the inadvertent addition has yet to take effect, with reference to the Building Act, it will do so if not removed by 31 March 2005.

The Government is grateful to United Future for supporting the bill. Its provisions, as they affect the Building Act, have been improved as a result of our discussions. The Government and United Future both agreed that copyright protection needed to be restored, and I am sure that all members would agree with that. We also wanted to ensure that builders had ready access to standards for design and construction, in a way that did not impose additional costs on the industry. The agreement reached allows precisely that.

The Government has also agreed with United Future to consider a further change to the Building Act, in order to require the publication of compliance documents on the Department of Building and Housing’s website to be free of charge, and for the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to report to Parliament, through the department’s annual report, on the measures taken to facilitate access to material incorporated by reference.

The bill proposes amendments to the Building Act in order to remove the positive obligation on the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to make material incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. Instead, there will be a requirement on the chief executive to make available for inspection free of charge at the department’s regional offices, 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.

The chief executive will also be required to make copies of all material incorporated by reference available for inspection free of charge, at the department’s head office at Wellington, and to make copies of all material incorporated by reference available for purchase, either online or by way of request form, at all the department’s offices. In addition, the chief executive may also make material incorporated by reference available in any other way that he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances.

The bill also proposes amendments to the Health Act and the Commerce Act, in order to remove the positive obligation on the Director-General of Health and on the chairperson of the Commerce Commission to make material incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. That will be replaced with a provision allowing the director-general or chairperson to make material incorporated by reference available in any other way they consider appropriate in the circumstances.

Further, the bill proposes an amendment to the Copyright Act. Legal advice has indicated that there are two possible interpretations of section 27 of the Act. That raises doubt as to the status of the copyright of third parties whose material has been incorporated by reference into legislation. Therefore, the bill amends the Act to clarify that the copyright of third parties is not affected when material subject to copyright is incorporated by reference into legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

What a disgraceful stuff-up we have in one of New Zealand’s most important industries. The building industry represents $18 billion of economic activity per year, and this Government’s track record on building law is simply appalling. What the Minister has said in the House today is that when the Government rushed through the Building Act last year, it stuffed it up. It made a mess that has compromised New Zealand’s intellectual copyright to its building standards, so we have to rush a bill through the House in 12 days in order to fix that. That is what he should have said. He should have apologised to the House, to the building industry, and to the people whose intellectual property this Government’s botched law has compromised.

It is interesting to note that when I asked the Parliamentary Library who has been the Minister in charge of building law under this Government, it contacted the Building Industry Authority. Do members know the response I received from the library? The authority was not sure who the Ministers responsible for the building industry have been for the last 5½ years. Can members believe that? The authority does not know who has been the Minister in charge of an $18 billion per year industry. We know that Mark Burton, George Hawkins, and Lianne Dalziel were responsible for a while. We know that Steve Maharey was the responsible Minister for a while. We also know that Margaret Wilson was the Minister for a while. We know that John Tamihere was the Minister too, and we know that it is Chris Carter now. But are any of those Ministers in the House today to speak on the bill? No, Paul Swain is doing that. It is little wonder that we have this sort of chaos within the building industry when that is the sort of game of pass the parcel that this Labour Cabinet plays in its approach to building issues.

Let us just recite this Government’s record in this important area of law. We know the history of the botch-up with George Hawkins. People were writing to George Hawkins, stating that there was a huge problem with leaky homes, and he did not get the letter.

Brian Connell: He didn’t get the letter?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, he replied that he had not read the letter, and nor, it seems, did he respond to the issue. Let us remind ourselves of how serious that botch-up was. I know of families whose homes were built after the Minister and this Government were told of the problems, and who are now bankrupt because of the Government’s failing. That is the human toll of this Government’s mess in the area of building law. But it goes on and on. I am disappointed that the Government has not fronted up with regard to all the other problems in the new building law that will come into effect in 13 days’ time. This bill is just the tip of the iceberg. The industry is in chaos. Yesterday I visited the Auckland City Council and met with its building consent department. Those people are pulling their hair out with frustration because of this Government’s incompetence in the area of building law.

We need only to talk to the families that are dealing with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service to know the sort of botch-up we have in this area of law. The Government promised that the resolution service would offer a speedy resolution of the problems experienced by the owners of homes that were leaky, rotten, affecting people’s health, and driving people to emotional torment. How fast has it been? Of the 2,800 claims before the resolution service, do members know how many have gone to adjudication? Fourteen. Do members know that eight times as many claims are being lodged per month than are being settled? Eight times as many claims are being lodged each month than are being resolved. That is a disgrace, and thousands of New Zealand families are at the end of their tether because of the mess the Government has made in this area of the law.

Then there are problems for the building industry itself. There are requirements in the Building Act that are in contradiction with contracts. So the poor builders have the choice of either breaking the law or breaking a contract. That is the dilemma that this Government has created for the thousands of people who work in the building industry. Homeowners are also caught. The Waitakere City Council, one of the great friends of the Labour Party, has put out a news release today, stating that there is no way it can process the number of consents applied for, as there is mad chaos as we approach 31 March.

This is a disgraceful bill. Let us recall what the Minister said. He said he would move that this bill be reported back by the Government Administration Committee not in 6 months, which our Standing Orders require, but in 12 days. That is what the Minister said.

Simon Power: That’s exactly what he said.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is exactly what he said. I say to the Government that it is no wonder it keeps screwing things up and getting things wrong. How can we possibly scrutinise this legislation and make sure that in these pages of law there is not yet another stuff-up, when the Government will give the select committee only 12 days to fix it?

I say to the Minister that we knew about this problem 3 months ago. It was in the Aussie newspapers. The Australians were able to pull down intellectual property information from the Internet and print it for nix. The Government knew about that 3 months ago, and 12 days before the new building law comes into effect, it puts forward a sneaky little bill, just before a recess, to try to cover up its incompetence. That is not good enough. Where is the Minister? Chris Carter has been in charge of this area for the last 4 months.

Hon Ken Shirley: Oh, no!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That gives Ken Shirley great confidence that all will be hunky-dory! But where is Chris Carter in this debate—and why has nothing been done for 3 months?

Hon David Carter: It’s in the name of Pete Hodgson.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague David Carter points out that this legislation is in the name of Pete Hodgson. Let us hang on a sec! According to the ministerial list that I have here, the Minister for Building Issues is Chris Carter. I know we have had eight Ministers in charge of building in the course of the 6 years of this Labour Government. Do we now have a ninth? What is going on?

Finally, I say to the Government that it is absolutely inevitable that the Department of Building and Housing will be breaking the law on 1 April. What sort of Mickey Mouse Government do we have? It knew 3 months ago that there was a problem in the legislation, and 12 days before it comes into effect it has sneaked in a bill to try to fix it—a bill that, because of the way it is drafted, will give the Department of Building and Housing no choice on 1 April but to break the law. That is how much respect for the law this Government has. It says people should do as it says, not as it does. Why is it OK for the Labour Government to break the law, when everybody else in New Zealand has to follow it? The scandal that is breaking out in the building industry through this Government’s incompetence will be one of the reasons why New Zealand will reject Labour at the election later this year. This bill is about the Government’s rushed legislation being wrong, and having to be patched up in a way that is quite unsatisfactory and will involve the Crown breaking the law. It is just further evidence that this Government has absolutely no competence to deal with New Zealanders’ most important assets: their homes.

I am delighted to speak in warm support of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. This legislation amends four existing Acts: the Building Act, the Health Act, the Commerce Act, and the Copyright Act. In all those situations it restores copyright protection. It ensures that builders have ready access to standards for design and construction in a way that does not impose additional costs on their industry. It amends Acts that require somebody to make material that is incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. These are minor changes to the legislation.

The issue at the heart of this bill is that it is important to strike a balance between enabling access to material incorporated by reference, and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyrighting standards and other material that may be incorporated by reference. The process being undertaken through this bill can best be described in one word: tweaking. This is a tweaking of legislation. This bill is turning very good law into excellent law, and I commend it to the House.

The Green Party will be opposing this bill, for many reasons. I have to say that I am astonished that a member of Parliament whom I greatly admire, Tim Barnett, would stand up and utter such—in my opinion—twaddle. He said that this bill is just tweaking the legislation, that it will just make minor changes to the legislation, and that builders will have ready access to the Building Act.

I want to raise an issue here. Yes, the Green Party acknowledges that there are some copyright issues and that these do need to be addressed. But this bill, in the guise of addressing copyright issues, actually removes freedom of access to heaps of important information. Instead of basic standards—building standards and so forth—being available on the Internet, where people can have access to them, suddenly this access is being taken away. And guess what? It will now be possible to charge people to get access to basic information, such as building standards. It will be extraordinarily difficult.

Far from what Tim Barnett said—that builders will have ready access to Building Act material—a great deal of it will, in fact, be available for inspection at the office in Wellington. How will that benefit a builder in Dunedin or in Whangarei? That builder will have to fly to Wellington and sit in the office there to look at the material. Maybe, if they are lucky, some of the material will be available in the regional offices.

Murray Smith: All.

SUE KEDGLEY: No, the bill does not actually say that it will all be available. Would that it did! It says that some of the material will be available in the regional offices.

I have recently had some experience of this sort of legislation, with the Food Act. Recently, as members know, we lost our sovereignty over making decisions about our food. All these decisions are now made over in Canberra by Food Standards Australia New Zealand, a body on which New Zealand has one vote out of 10. Nick Smith constantly goes on about what a great success this arrangement is. His Government, the former National Government, negotiated for New Zealand to hand over our sovereignty to a body on which we have one vote out of 10—and Nick Smith constantly holds this up as a good piece of legislation. We have one vote out of 10. Have we no self-respect, that we gave up our sovereignty and gave ourselves one vote out of 10?

Anyway, as a result of that, I have tried to get access to various documents held by Food Standards Australia New Zealand—for example, applications for genetically engineered foods. These documents are available at the office in Wellington—700 pages. So I have to go there, sit in the office, and look through 700 pages. As if that were not bad enough, now when we want to get basic information about food labelling and other such issues—standards that were freely available on the Internet—we suddenly find that we have to pay for it. This is what this legislation is all about. Where things relating to the Health Act and other areas were freely available, suddenly we will have to pay for them. And they are using the guise of copyright.

Certainly, in respect of the Building Act, there are some standards that are international and could breach copyright, and we accept that we do not want to breach international copyright. However, most of the standards are owned by the New Zealand Government, so why could all those standards not be available free of charge? Why should we have to fly to Wellington, or pay in order to look them up on a website? One of the reasons behind the leaky building scandal, which Nick Smith has told us about, was that people had not looked at the standards. They were not properly aware of the standards, and what we are doing here is making it more difficult to access and to know what the standards are. We will be setting ourselves up for another leaky building issue.

Why should we not make every single New Zealand standard available for nothing on the Internet? Why are we not making it absolutely easy and simple for builders all through New Zealand to access these standards? Instead, they have to fly down to Wellington, or pay to see them on the Internet. This is a basic issue of freedom of information. It is also setting a precedent, so that instead of having information available, for example Health Act information from the Ministry of Health—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your protection. I am being distracted by a conversation.

Madam SPEAKER: Order!

SUE KEDGLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought members were not supposed to speak right next to the person who has the call.

Hon Ken Shirley: Particularly the Leader of the House.

SUE KEDGLEY: Particularly the Leader of the House—absolutely. He is setting a very bad precedent.

The point is that this bill has been rushed through the House in 12 days. There should be legislation that prohibits rushing legislation through in 12 days. It is a disgrace. The ink on the Building Act is barely dry, and we are rushing through an amendment to try to change the law in 12 days. It is absolutely disgraceful. We are sneaking in a Trojan Horse. We are setting up a precedent so that we will suddenly have to pay for information that is owned by the New Zealand Government—statutes, building codes, and so forth—and should be freely available on the Internet. We will have to pay for it or fly to Wellington to see it. What nonsense!

Why should aspects of the Health Act no longer be freely available on the Internet? Everything in respect of the Ministry of Health is owned by the Government. This bill is setting up a situation whereby we will have to pay to get information that ought to be freely available. Surely, in respect of the Building Code, one would think that we would have learnt from the leaky building disaster and would be doing everything in our power to make the information available to builders around New Zealand. We should enable them to look it up on the Internet. If builders are required to go to a couple of regional offices, or to fly to Wellington, they will not do it. Guess what happens then? They will not comply with the standards and we will be setting ourselves up for a leaky building sequel.

In summary, we are totally opposed to this hastily cobbled together legislation. We believe that it undermines freedom of information. We believe that one of the intentions of the bill is to sneak in the precedent that we will pay for information that should be freely available on the Web. We have had experience of this through Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and it is a disaster. If there are international statutes that have copyright, then, sure, that is OK, but this bill applies to all New Zealand legislation and all New Zealand standards that are owned by the Government. Frankly, it is a disgrace.

It is interesting to note that in this debate it seems the National Party is opposed to the bill, New Zealand First is opposed to it, the Greens are opposed to it, and—I can tell the House—ACT is opposed to it. This is shoddy, shoddy catch-up legislation that the Government has brought to the House on the last day before we rise for an adjournment. Quite frankly, I do not think that the Government has the numbers. I see the Leader of the House scurrying around. He has suddenly realised that he does not have the numbers on this bill. I think the Government is in trouble. The key question is whether it is a supply or a confidence issue. The Government could fall by the end of the day over such an important piece of legislation.

We heard from the Hon Nick Smith that there are eight times more complaints being received by the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service per month than are being resolved.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I have just had confirmation from that member. There are eight times more complaints being lodged each and every month than are being resolved. That highlights the enormity of the problem, and really underscores and emphasises the botch-up that this Government has made of the whole tragic leaky home problem.

I think we all know that the problem is grossly under-reported. People are very reluctant to rush off to their council and declare that they have a problem. They might want to sell their house, but they know that if they do rush down to the council the problem will go on the LIM report or on the building file, and that it will certainly be discoverable. They are living with the problem and hoping it will be resolved. It is a terrible, billion dollar - plus problem and, right from the start, the Government has done a botch-up on it.

The Government has done some foolish things like banning Oregon pine timber. What on earth was the purpose of banning untreated Oregon pine, when it cannot be treated and it does not need to be treated? That was a key point. But one of the first things the Government did was to run out and ban Douglas fir, which is Oregon pine. It was a very foolish move.

I suspect that the Government has never actually got to the core of what the problem is with the leaky home issue, because there is a whole lot of nonsense spoken about the use of untreated timber. In fact, we never ground-treated our framing timber with copper chrome arsenate—it was only boric treated. Boric treatment was not meant to combat moulds, slimes, fungi, and algae, which is the problem with the lack of weathertight homes. Boric never protected people from that; it was only copper chrome arsenate that did that. We used to add a substance called pentachlorophenol, known as PCP, which was put in the boric bath in the sawmill. It had nothing to do with leaky homes. It was to combat the blue stain that timber gets, which makes it unattractive in the marketplace. Because of lobbies from people like the Greens and others, and because it is a toxin—and yes, it is—it was banned. So since about 1990 it has been a banned substance, which has really triggered the problems that we now have with leaky homes, because the pentachlorophenol prevented the mould, the slimes, the fungi, and the algae from growing in our walls.

The Greens would argue, of course, that it was toxic so it had to be banned. But I put it to the House that the health risk and the risk to humans from the diseases spread by some of those slimes and moulds, which are naturally occurring, is actually much greater than the risk from the pentachlorophenol, which we banned. It is just cause and consequence. Some of the issues have not been thought through properly. Some people argue that we should ground-treat all framing timber with copper chrome arsenate. Again, that would be foolish.

What also happened through the 1990s was that we changed our architecture. We dropped eaves off designs, so water was more likely to get into the wall cavity. But the other reason was also a function of the Greens’ lobbying, if you like. It was that incredible drive for energy efficiency and insulation to the point where there was no vapour movement. The traditional Kiwi home always breathed, but as the designs changed through the 1990s, the walls stopped breathing. If we put in impermeable vapour barriers so that hot air condenses immediately in the wall cavity, there is moisture. Very significant volumes of water are trapped in the wall cavity, and that is when the moulds, the slimes, and the fungi take off. That move coincided with the use of air-dried timber, and the dropping of the pentachlorophenol because of the boric treatment that we used to provide. So those are the real reasons, and I observe that this Government has never actually got on top of the cause.

The Government has rushed around doing foolish, political knee-jerk reactions, but it never really got on top of the cause of what I believe is a huge problem in this country. It is much greater than most people are prepared to admit, because people do not like advising the council. They keep quiet, they do not want it recorded on the LIM report or on the building report, and they live with it until the walls virtually start falling apart. I believe that in years to come, and progressively over the next few years, there will be a lot more exposure of some very serious problems in our buildings.

This legislation does absolutely nothing to address the basic problem that we have in buildings. I am appalled. I think Mr Tamihere was the Minister for Building Issues for a short period of time. I ask Mr Tamihere whether that is right. He seems to be enjoying himself today in the House, but he was the Minister on watch for a short period and he was in charge of building. Again, how many Ministers has the Government had in charge of the building industry?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Eight.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Eight Ministers! It is like revolving doors—the Government just moves them on. Any Government that took this problem seriously would have appointed a senior Minister and left that person there to address the problem. Instead, we have fits and starts and bad policy, and what we have before us today is just a continuation of that approach. The bill fails to address the basic problems, and it does not address the issue that it purports to address.

I want to begin by thanking the Minister for his recognition of United Future’s role in the drafting of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. That demonstrates the very good working relationship that United Future and the Government have had during this term of Parliament, and United Future’s effectiveness in bringing about positive changes to legislation. After eight meetings with the Government and numerous telephone calls, United Future’s involvement has dramatically altered the original bill. I want to thank particularly Michael Parker, who intervened after we started to get a bit frustrated, and Suzanne Townsend, who knew exactly what I was trying to achieve with this bill, agreed with me, and helped to bring about a workable solution.

The background of this bill is that building compliance documents, the documents that all trades people and designers have to follow, refer to standards such as New Zealand standard NZS 3604, which is the basic standard used by builders. The Government Administration Committee, when considering the Building Bill, felt that if building practitioners were expected to follow those standards, then they needed to be readily available at a reasonable price. At the time, officials thought that could be done by making them available free of charge on the Internet, and the select committee added provisions to the bill to enable that to occur. I must say that the National members on the committee agreed with that point of view without dissent, and were therefore aware of the provisions at the time. However, it has become clear to all concerned that copyright prohibits that from happening, simply because standards associations rely on the sale of standards in order to fund their production of standards. If they were made available by New Zealand free of charge on the Internet, then the whole world would be able to access them and standards associations would not be able to profit.

The Government’s solution initially was to delete the requirement for free Internet access and to simply replace it with a discretion on the part of the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to make copies of the material available in any way he or she considers appropriate. New section 410(1)(d), inserted by clause 5 of the bill, would have been the solution. United Future was not prepared to agree to that course. The Government then proposed that the materials be made available for inspection in Wellington, as shown in new section 410(1)(b), also inserted by clause 5. But as far as the material referred to in section 410(1)(a) of the Act is concerned, it was also unsatisfactory to us that copies of that material be available for purchase only in Wellington.

The problem that United Future saw and wanted to be covered by this legislation is this. “Bob the builder” may wake up on Friday morning, receive a phone call to say that the job for the Browns is off, see it is a fine day and say that in that case he will get the retaining wall done for the Blacks. He may then dig out the engineer’s plans and suddenly find that the retaining wall is an unusual one; it has to be built in accordance with “NZS 5678”. He scratches his head. Usually he builds retaining walls under “NZS 1234”, so he does not know what the unusual standard “NZS 5678” is about. Under the Government’s first proposed solution, there was no guarantee that Bob would be able to get a copy of “NZS 5678” without writing to Standards New Zealand and waiting for it to arrive. Under the Government’s second option Bob could go to the Department of Building and Housing in Wellington in order to get a copy of the standard, which also would be clearly unsatisfactory, or he could hope that the local council had a copy. It may or it may not have one. He may then decide that he does not want to waste his time in trying to track a copy down, and go ahead and say he wants to build the wall on that day, so he will build it in accordance with “NZS 1234” and hope for the best.”

United Future’s solution, which is implemented in this bill, enables a builder to inspect any standards that he or she needs to access on a computer at any Department of Building and Housing office throughout the country, or to arrange the purchase of them through that department. I would have liked to have stocks on hand at each office, but was convinced by the Government that that was impractical and would be too costly, given the number of standards involved. However, “Bob the builder” can go to the local Department of Building and Housing office, knowing for certain that he will be able to access the standard free of charge and get the information that he needs. The result is that Bob is encouraged to build his wall correctly. The wall is built correctly, and everybody benefits. Better still, through United Future’s negotiation with the Government, the Government agreed to provide the extensions to availability within its existing Budget constraints, so that there is no additional cost in terms of an increase in the building levy in order to provide this additional information.

I would like to point out to the House—and particularly to enlighten the “Dark Greens” on this—that the list in new section 410(1)(c), inserted by clause 5, is a restrictive list on the face of it, in terms of the standards that it provides. However, as explained in the explanatory note of the bill, the standards that are set out in that section are all the standards that a builder or designer will need to access. The officials advised us that some 378 standards were incorporated by reference, but the vast majority—indeed, all but about 40 of those standards—relate to product standards and to product-testing standards. Clearly, those standards need to be available only to manufacturing companies, and it is reasonable that they obtain them from Wellington only. The companies are able to do that because those standards will not be needed at short notice. What is needed at short notice by architects, designers, and trades people are the standards that relate to design and construction, and all those standards will be available for inspection, free of charge, from every Department of Housing and Building office throughout the country—some 22 of them.

There is also a requirement, which United Future insisted on, for the chief executive to report to Parliament on an annual basis as to the steps that he or she is taking to facilitate access to such standards. That flows on from the requirement in the bill for the chief executive to make copies of material available in any other way that he or she considers appropriate. The chief executive must respond in terms of how he or she has carried out that requirement.

The Minister also acknowledged that he had agreed to consider, in terms of future amendments to the Act, a provision for all compliance documents that do not incorporate standards to be made free of charge on the Internet. That was something else that United Future wanted to have included, but we were advised that it was outside the scope of this bill, in so far as this bill amends a number of Acts regarding incorporation by reference. We thank the Minister for that acknowledgment and for looking at that issue.

This bill also amends three other Acts, the Commerce Act, the Health Act, and the Copyright Act, and it would be helpful for me to make some comments on that. In regard to the Commerce Act, the only requirement is for the materials to be available in Wellington. The Commerce Act provisions relate solely to the pricing thresholds for large electricity lines generators. At present there are no standards incorporated, and clearly if there were such standards they would apply only to large corporates involved in electricity lines generation. It is quite appropriate, therefore, that the standards be made available in Wellington, but there is no necessity that they be made available on a local basis. The Health Act provision is similar. It applies solely to the National Cervical Screening Programme. Again, there are no standards currently in place, and no standards that are expected. Even if there were, then the district health boards would be the ones that would require them, and again it is appropriate that they be available in Wellington, but there is no necessity that they be available on a local basis. As has already been indicated, the changes to the Copyright Act simply correct a doubt that existed as to whether the Government, by incorporating material by reference, was effectively breaking copyright. There had been some legal argument that simply incorporating material by reference into a document effectively incorporated the material itself, and copyright was lost. The amendment to the Copyright Act simply puts beyond doubt the issue that the incorporation of documents by reference does not take away the copyright that producers of the standard have.

In conclusion, I say United Future has demonstrated through the changes to this legislation the value of having a small party under the MMP electoral system. United Future has shown its concern for small trades people rather than the bureaucracy and, in particular, its concern to stand against a tendency by Governments to give chief executives discretion instead of obligations, so that they are less accountable. United Future has always been concerned to ensure, since the Building Bill was tabled, that the Building Act—as it is now—is workable in practice, and concerned to encourage compliance with its provisions at a grass-roots level. The changes that United Future has brought about in this legislation do that. We have also been concerned to keep costs down, and the fact that there is no levy increase as a result of the changes we have made is a real plus in terms of the industry. United Future commends this bill to the House, and will support it going through the select committee process.

I commend the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill to the House for its first reading and, in so doing, want to acknowledge that very fine contribution by the member from United Future. I listened very carefully to it, and I accept that members were not as diligent, whilst working on the Government Administration Committee that reported the initial bill back to the House, as they should have been. I was the Minister in the chair that oversaw the last of the Committee stage and the third reading so, to that extent, if there is any blame or difficulty for an error in the legislation as it went through, I accept Murray Smith’s apology. But, no—I acknowledge that we are having to correct the legislation at this stage, because of an oversight. Oversights do happen and mistakes do happen. [Interruption] Yes, that is right; Helen Clark never calls me an oversight!

I want to make a number of other contributions, though. The Building Act came about because of an implosion in standards, not only on the supply side but also in the standards and ethics of our actual trades people. It required a significant legislative change.

The National Party presided over a Building Act in 1991 that destroyed more than just the training arm and apprentice system of this country. We have a lack of capacity, capability, and competency because of what those people on that side of the House—and they will stay there a very long time, I might say—did, and failed to do. We in the last wee while have had to effect some significant change, a shift, both in standards and apprenticeships and in the way in which we regulate the building industry. I can say that the building industry has been awfully supportive in that regard.

The problems with leaky buildings have come directly out of a National-led Government, with its henchmen ably supported in the ACT party. The problems that we have, and that we are having to fix up, I tell the Hon David Carter, are all of the National Party’s making. I regret saying that, particularly this late on a Thursday.

I commend the bill to the House for a first reading, and I acknowledge my colleague Tim Barnett. I do not accept what the member of the Green Party said about his contribution; I do not believe that he talks twaddle. Again, I commend the bill to the House.

I am rising on behalf of my colleague Brent Catchpole, who will be sitting on the select committee that considers this bill and hears submissions, but I have a couple of things to say in reply to the debate that we have had—and let me make that very clear.

Is this it? Is this bill the United Future party’s election winner? Is this the one that will move mountains, bring the mountain to Mohammed, and ensure that Murray Smith claws his way back into Parliament after this next election? Is this the issue? I have just heard the Minister of Labour, in introducing the bill, heap laurels and bouquets all over the United Future party, which describes itself in its own words as a small party; I heard some unkind person say “small poodle”, and that is the way it will be seen. I have listened to every word uttered by Murray Smith in support of this bill—as long, and as boring, and as well read out as his speech was. There was a time when people would come into this House, stand on their own two feet, and articulate their views, without once looking at notes, but not that man. He gave me a great, detailed rundown on what this legislation will do, by reading out his speech. He could have saved us all the problem of taking an unwanted Mogadon, by just tabling the speech.

But he did it, and he did it because he truly believes that this is it—that this bill is the one thing that United Future has done for New Zealand that will save that party’s bacon. It is nothing. That party campaigned vigorously on such moral issues as traditional family values. It was going to stop prostitution in its tracks, it was going to stop all the evils and the ills that are pervading New Zealand society, and the Christian coalition and all its entourage leapt on board behind the United Future party. And what do they get? They get the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. One cannot even read the title without being bored to tears. This is it. This is the United Future party’s last gasp. I have only one thing to say to the United Future party: it should roll up its sleeping bags, pull down its tents, pack up its placards, and go home. It is over. This House will not remember the United Future party for this bill.

What it will remember is a Government that rammed legislation through—the Building Act—in a great hurry. What it will remember is that successive Ministers have sat in the chair during the Committee stages of bill after bill, in urgency, and ignored pleas for changes, ignored Supplementary Order Papers, and voted them down, without ever once accepting constructive criticism from the Opposition benches. And only a few short months later we have to revisit the same legislation—passed under urgency—with the Government introducing a new bill that it wants to rush through in 8 working-days. The report back is expected to be tabled in this House in 8 working-days.

Our spokesperson has looked at this bill and has said: “Fair go; if this bill will help some people out there who have been ripped off and raided, who have had no assistance from the Government whatsoever in solving their problems, and who have been forced to the verge of, and sometimes over the top and into, bankruptcy, we will sit on the select committee and listen to it; we will support it going to a select committee.” But New Zealand First is looking for results, and New Zealand First is looking for accountability, because, after all, Prime Minister Clark promised us a new era of accountability.

I listened to the Hon Nick Smith’s speech, and he is quite right. We should look at the people who are behind this bill. Chris Carter has got this issue now, but, by golly, is it any wonder we hear George Hawkins has had involvement in it—George “Halfway House” Hawkins, the “Minister of Everything That Is Not Done Properly”. It is probably a good thing that some of these houses have to be demolished. We would hate to think that the occupants would ever have to dial 111 to get some help. Maybe that is the way people could get some help with their houses—dial 111 and say: “George, I can’t get any response from the Government in solving the problem, and now we’ve got this bill, the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill”—

Brian Connell: Scream loudly!

RON MARK: If they dial 111 and scream loudly, maybe George Hawkins will hear them.

I have to make a couple of other points about this bill. Firstly, this Government was notified of these problems in December, and now we are rushing legislation through and asking for a report back in 8 days. That is not good enough. If an amendment comes forward—and I think there probably will be one, from either the Hon David Carter or the Hon Nick Smith—then we will support it.

Secondly, it worries us in New Zealand First that this problem has been with us for so long, and many promises have been made, but the solutions have been long in coming, and the Government has been short on delivery, and we ask ourselves why. Why is this Government so tardy in dealing with the leaky buildings problem? Maybe I have the answer. I have learnt one thing about this Government: it has no time for private citizens who are independent, and it has no time for private citizens who have the gumption to save money for a deposit to build a home. It considers them all to be rich. If they work they get no assistance. If they have children—and half the Labour caucus would not know what that is all about—if they save their money, the Labour caucus is not interested in them. The Government views a lot of those people with nice, flash homes as being rich, wealthy, and therefore not deserving of its protection or care. That is why we continue to see, as recently as last night on Close Up, more of the sad stories unfolding, and so few of those people getting satisfactory assistance, and so few of those claims being addressed. Does the Government care? No, it appears not.

It seems that United Future cares. United Future would have us believe that it has spent the last 2½ years beavering away producing this bill. Well, I simply say to United Future members that it is over, they should pack up their poodle and go home, and no one will remember this bill. The only thing people will remember is that for 5 years they waited in vain for meaningful assistance and meaningful help to rebuild their homes, rebuild their lives, and recover their lifetime investments—investments that they will never see. It does not matter about the protections that Mr Murray Smith talked about—the terms of the copyright, who has the information, or where it is accessed.

There is great suspicion in New Zealand First that this bill is just another revenue-gathering exercise by this Government. It has a long track record, supported by United Future, of dreaming up new revenue-gathering methods, such as the petrol tax, which United Future approved by giving supply of money, and by giving confidence in terms of the Budget. That is the bottom line for United Future. Those members can bleat on, harp on, pat themselves on the back, and congratulate themselves all they like, but the sad reality is that everything this Government has done—or has not done—that New Zealanders will be asking questions about in the election has been made possible by United Future. The only thing those members will be able to stand up and say is that they provided stable Government. In other words, they provided the doormat for Helen Clark to wipe her feet on every time she went into her office, every day of every week of every month of every year that she was in power. I say: “Well done, United Future!”. We thought it might have done something to stop some of the issues that were so dear to the Christian Heritage party.

From the perspective of New Zealand First, we will support this bill going to the select committee. We look forward to an adjustment right now in the report-back date, so that there can be meaningful examination and so that we can get to the bottom of what this bill really means. But, beyond that, our support will depend entirely on what the final product looks like, and entirely on how meaningful it will be in practical terms for those people who have invested their life-savings in their homes.

I say at the outset that this legislation will spell the death of United Future, because what we are witnessing today is the dodgiest legislative process that I have ever seen in my time in this House. There is an urgent mess to tidy up with the Building Act, and the Government is trying to avoid scrutiny and media damage by not passing the bill under urgency, thereby dodging the select committee process. Instead the Government comes into the House and says that it will refer the bill to a select committee for 8 working-days.

The Government knows full well that by introducing the bill at 5 o’clock on Thursday, 17 March, as the House is about to rise for an adjournment week, this legislation will not go to the Government Administration Committee until at least Tuesday, 29 March, which means that this Government, supported by United Future, is giving the Government Administration Committee 2 days—

Lindsay Tisch: How many days?

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is giving it 2 working-days to consider this legislation. [Interruption] Murray Smith says that that is not the case.

Murray Smith: It won’t even pass its first reading by 29 March.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I say to Murray Smith that that is exactly my point. The legislation will not be debated and finalised until 29 March, yet the Minister has instructed the select committee to report it back by 31 March. It is an absolute outrage.

The second point that I make for Mr Murray Smith concerns the name of the legislation. The Government could not be dodgier if it tried. The explanatory note states that the bill amends the Building Act. To anybody who has been here for any length of time, that means that this legislation should be called the “Building Act Amendment Bill”. But Murray Smith of United Future and the whole of the Labour Government are so embarrassed that they have dreamt up the name Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill, and have put the bill not in the name of the Minister for Building Issues—now the Hon Chris Carter—but in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson. Members cannot tell me that Pete Hodgson is now the ninth Minister for Building Issues that we have seen during this Government’s administration. Jim Anderton, Lianne Dalziel, George Hawkins, Steve Maharey, and John Tamihere have all been associated with the mess that the Labour Government has made of the building industry in 5½ long years.

The sad thing is that the leaky homes mess was on the front page of the New Zealand Herald day after day.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.