Standing Orders—Suspension

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

In order to address that in its widest sense, we believe, as I have said, that the vast majority of councils will, by the given date, be in the process of meeting accreditation, or may well be accredited, or will be in the process of transferring, as I have said—and the member may want to take note—their building functions to other councils. However, although the vast majority of local authorities are on target to meeting those original deadlines, some councils, particularly small, rural councils with capacity and capability limitations, may not complete accreditation or transfer their functions to a registered building consent authority on time.

Making the leap to the higher standards the Government has set for building consent inspection and approval, so as to protect homeowners, is a stretch for some. A few councils simply need more time to come up to speed and make the necessary changes, and the Government makes no criticism of those councils. By extending the registration date, there is a consequential amendment to the Building Act that will also allow more time for territorial authorities to transfer to regional councils the responsibility for issuing building consents for new dams built in their areas. A fail-safe provision allows for the extended deadline to be extended by regulation, rather than by coming back to the House in the unlikely event that that may be necessary.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

Although I do not challenge the ruling at all—and I am almost concluding the speech, as it were—it is, I think, helpful to the House to provide a little background to answer that question. The two are rather interlinked, I would have thought. But I am not challenging the ruling. I take it on board. There is no problem with that. Therefore, I propose that the House consider a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the Building Act by extending the date by which territorial and regional authorities have to be accredited and registered as building consent authorities from 30 November 2007 to 30 June 2008. Extending the registration date by 7 months does not alter the accreditation process or affect its credibility or integrity by lowering accreditation standards, which, again, are designed to protect homeowners. It simply reflects that councils are committed and working hard towards achieving accreditation or transferring the building consent functions, but that some are unlikely to be able to achieve that by 30 November.

Allowing councils an additional 7 months will ensure certainty, continuity, and confidence for the building consent activity, the building industry, and the people who are building and renovating. It is a prudent measure to provide certainty swiftly, some months before the deadline occurs, and that is why this has been done. It is logical and efficient to use as a vehicle a current piece of legislation before the House. Of course, one could argue that we could use the Building Amendment Bill, which was debated just yesterday. However, we in the Government feel that that is a large piece of legislation that deserves quite a degree of scrutiny, and I am sure even Dr Smith would accept that.

It is important now, some 4-odd months before the deadline, to provide certainty to the building industry, to local authorities, and to the community that this will be set in place and expedited. What we are talking about here is the movement of a date to allow more time. The alternative, of course, could be to not do that and to create havoc. That may be the motivation of the Opposition; it is not the motivation of the Government.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

I have heard Darren Hughes ask what that has to do with the Government. Well, the Building Act mess is causing record increases in housing prices—a 20 percent increase. We have seen the Government—under the Building Act that it has now botched up and is trying to fix by breaking Parliament’s rules—treble the building levy. Well, hello, hello: if the building levy is trebled from $6 million a year to $18 million a year, surprise, surprise, house prices will go up.

This Parliament has not suspended its Standing Orders for more than 4 years. Members of this House—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

The member—I cannot remember her name; she is the temporary member from down south somewhere—says that this is no big deal. It is a big deal. The Government is saying that it does not want to follow the rules that govern this Parliament and that it wants to cheat those rules. It is a bit like the Government’s electoral bill. It cannot win an election next year under the ordinary rules, so it wants to cheat, and change the rules to suit itself. The Minister Clayton Cosgrove cannot manage his building laws under the normal rules of Parliament, so today he proposes to cheat and throw the rule book in the bin. On this side of the House we say that is not good enough.

I have to challenge the Minister. His problem is that he put a stupid law in place that said building consent authorities needed to be accredited by 30 November. That is a long way away; that is 4 months away. Why can we not have a bill put in for its first reading, and put through the proper process? I ask the Minister why we cannot do it properly. Why has he not simply introduced a bill rather than breaking the rules of this House?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

The member says that the Government just makes up the rules as it goes. That is what the Minister says. That is not quite what I thought Geoffrey Palmer was asking for when he wrote about unbridled power. This Minister says that if he does not like the rules of our House of Representatives, he will just pass a majority motion to throw the rule book out. His botch-up does not come into effect until 30 November and there is ample time for him to introduce a bill and send it to a select committee. We members of this side of the House would properly scrutinise that bill, and we might save him from another one of his botch-ups.

The further point I have for the Minister is that Local Government New Zealand told me last November that councils would not be able to meet this deadline. The Minister has known this for months. There is no good reason to throw out the Standing Orders of this House—he has known of this problem for months. He knew of this problem even before the bill that we are attempting to amend was to come into effect. I say to the Minister that he should not expect this Parliament to change its rules to fix up his and his department’s botch-ups. It is not right.

I further have to say to the Minister that this was a stupid policy in the first place. In 2004 the Government said that the way in which it would get better quality processes in building consent authorities was to threaten them with non-accreditation. What does that mean? It means that if a council is not accredited, there can be no building consents issued in that area. That would be a disaster for any community. It was a stupid provision. The reminder I give the member is that one does not make threats to one’s children that one cannot carry out. Here the Government has broken that golden rule. It threatened councils and said that if they did not get accredited they would not be able to issue any building permits. But, of course, it cannot carry out that threat, because of the damage it would do to the community. It would not punish the council; it would simply punish the people in that community who wanted to get a building consent. It was a stupid provision then, it is a stupid provision now, and the reason that the Minister wants the House to suspend its rules is that he has locked himself into this stupid corner.

This is a true sign of a tired Government that is on the way out. When else would a Government want to throw the rules of Parliament to one side? This is not something that a Government does willy-nilly. A Government using a simple majority in the House to throw out our Standing Orders and the proper process for legislation is the sort of thing that Geoffrey Palmer wrote of in Unbridled Power.

I challenge the members of minor parties. They justify their existence by saying they will keep the Government honest. We have not heard one argument from the Minister as to why we should suspend the Standing Orders of the House. I have outlined perfectly how the Minister can introduce a bill to the House and meet that deadline of 30 November. He simply wants to cheat. I say that a Government that wants to cheat on the rules of this House is a Government that has had its day. It has made an absolute botch-up of the building laws in New Zealand.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

I say to Mr Fairbrother that this is the fourth bill that we have had to try to implement changes in the Building Act. The Government has had to continually defer the introduction of those provisions. New Zealand builders and Local Government New Zealand right across the board have had enough of this Minister and his Government botching up these building laws. I say to the House that this Parliament should not suspend its normal rules to bail out a Minister who is not on top of his portfolio and not doing his job.

PHIL HEATLEY Link to this

The member should be aware that Gordon Copeland is supporting this Government on confidence and supply. I know that the member has no confidence from his party. I want him to know that this Labour Government is a ragtag group of individuals. We do not support the idea of running roughshod over New Zealand’s democracy. We will not be supporting this motion at all. We believe that legislation should have the full scrutiny of the public and Parliament.

We are disappointed that this Minister in particular would rush it through, because, quite simply, his track record of getting legislation right is not good. Nick Smith mentioned the number of times the member has tried to address the leaky homes crisis, and failed—three times. Three strikes and one is out, normally. We have no confidence in the Minister getting it right this time. We know that local councils are quite capable of issuing building consents. They have been doing it for decades. Why the Minister needs to accredit them is beyond us. It is not the councils that have been getting it wrong all this time. Perhaps we could ask that the Minister withdraw his motion. The National Party will certainly support him if he does put his tail between his legs and backs down on this strategy to avoid public scrutiny.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

I accept that, but the suspension of the Standing Orders of the House in a unicameral Parliament is a very serious resolution for the House to make. In my 17 years in this Parliament I find it unprecedented that a Government would not even give any justification for this Parliament to suspend those Standing Orders.

BOB CLARKSON Link to this

It is quite good. We have been and settled the ulcers, after listening to that bunch over there—we have had a bit of a feed. So that is good, as I said before.

In talking to this motion, or whatever people like to call it—all these things get a bit tricky here—I tell members that I am sick of coming into this debating chamber and hearing amendment after amendment on various bills. I had great trouble this morning trying to sort out which amendment this is. Is it to sort out the foul-up in 2002 when the bill first came to this debating chamber, is it to fix the amendment in 2005, or is it to fix the stuff-up in 2007 that we are still trying to sort out? Maybe it is this new-deal Government Notice of Motion No. 1 with regard to the weathertight homes legislation—heaven’s me timber!

I believe that the latest suspension of the Standing Orders will be a sad reflection on the Labour Government. I will need to talk to my senior colleagues on what is happening here. I believe it is true that the Labour Government wants to override the rules of Parliament. This shows that the Government is arrogant and heavy-handed. A good example of the arrogance of this Labour Government was the smacking legislation. That, for example, was a form of home invasion, with bullying tactics and arrogance. It is time the Minister got the bill and the amendments correct.

The original bill came to this House before I came to Parliament. In fact, I was quite young when I came to Parliament, and when this bill first came here, and the Minister still has not got it right. A TV programme could be made about this bill and its multiple amendments. The programme would be called “Believe it or Not”. It would be as simple as that. With this Government it could be an ongoing TV series. But, thank goodness, that series would run out in 2008 when this Labour Party leaves Government.

The whole Building Act, weathertight homes legislation, amendments, more amendments, extra amendments, motions, and suspensions of the Standing Orders is a mess. I am a new MP and I do my best to keep up with all those bills, multiple amendments, the going outside of the Standing Orders, and all that stuff. But I would ask the Minister to number his bills and his amendments in the future, because I just cannot keep up.

BOB CLARKSON Link to this

Ha, ha! I have to try to keep up to speed on which amendment is being altered and at what time. “Do it once, do it right”, does not mean much to this Minister. I ask him please to listen to Nick Smith and Bob Clarkson on how to fix these problems—they are great guys, by the way, and they know how to do it—it is quite clear that this public relations man, Mr Cosgrove, does not know how to fix the problems.

The National Party will solve all these problems and will not go outside the Standing Orders to do it. The answer is “Look, listen, and learn.” The last time there was a suspension of the Standing Orders in England was in the 1800s. The Standing Orders were lifted to allow an amendment to the law in order to allow somebody’s head to be chopped off—the Minister is warned.

BOB CLARKSON Link to this

Yes, but trying hard—trying hard!

To finish off, I say that this Government is quite happy to move away from normal standards. I can remember its corrupt act, for example, of overspending by $800,000 in the election, and then changing the law to legalise itself. Labour Government members are now legalised crooks. The Government that moves away from the normal rules is a corrupt Government and is heading towards becoming a dictatorship. God forgive, and help this country, if that happens.

PITA PARAONE Link to this

Of course, but so will their temperatures be boiling. I would say to National members that although their comments suggest that they think they will be the next Government in 2008, whoever will be sitting on the Treasury benches will not be able to do so without the support of the caucus that I represent in this debate tonight.

New Zealand First will be supporting this motion. We understand the position the Minister is coming from. It is important that we initiate the intent of this motion as quickly as possible, not only for the betterment of Parliament but also for those local bodies who may not be able to meet the present deadline to become accredited. This move is important not only to the building industry but also to the people of New Zealand. Again New Zealand First will be supporting this motion.

TARIANA TURIA Link to this

—and the Government.

We have stood throughout this debate and supported the amendments to ensure that deficiencies caused through the penetration of water into a building, and the associated damage or loss of value caused by these problems, are properly dealt to. We have acknowledged how such amendments are necessary, to give adjudicators and the tribunal the same abilities as courts of law to make awards for general damages for relevant mental distress. But we cannot stand up for the rights of those affected by the leaky home syndrome and turn a blind eye to the crisis of substandard housing or overcrowding that is collapsing around us.

More and more New Zealanders are going home to caravans, garages, and low-quality boarding houses, where health and well-being are compromised. The Child Poverty Action Group has identified the particular implications on children of overcrowding in South Auckland homes, and it has pointed out that admission rates at Starship Children’s Health for readily preventable diseases—the diseases of poverty—are a national disgrace. There are national and international studies that show a high association between the prevalence of certain infectious diseases, and crowded and substandard housing. We know that if our house is not weathertight, our home is likely to be cold and damp, resulting in poorer health status.

There are also educational impacts. If people are jostling for space in an overcrowded, substandard home, the chances are that there will not be a place for a young person to study, nor a warm, safe environment to help that young person achieve. Who are the New Zealanders most at risk from the substandard and overcrowded houses syndrome? Well, the Social Report 2006 makes it clear that 41 percent of those living in more severely crowded situations—that is, requiring at least two or more bedrooms—are Pasifika families, and 38 percent are Māori. A quick calculation makes that 79 percent of New Zealand families who are living in severely crowded situations, and they are Māori and Pacific families. So is there one standard for all? I do not think so.

So much has been said about violence this year, and I remind the House of the great soul of India, Mahatma Gandhi, who believed that poverty is the worst form of violence. Is it not time to consider the housing crisis as another manifestation of the violence of poverty that impacts adversely on our children? Children are more likely to live in low-income households than any other group of New Zealanders. Children bear a disproportionate burden of the costs of substandard and overcrowded houses, and because Māori and Pasifika children have a far higher likelihood of being in low-income families, it is therefore those children who are faring worst from the housing fallout.

The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill is primarily forward-looking, and the provisions of the bill will apply to claims currently lodged but yet to be determined. It is likely that the majority of those claims will be from middle-class families. In much the same way, would it not be a great day in the House if we could be forward-looking in addressing the chasm of despair that currently sits between those who have and those who have not? Would it not be a great day when we could look forward to a time when caravan parks were not overflowing, when Starship Children’s Health was seeing only children whose health was compromised by unpreventable conditions, and when families were stable rather than constantly shifting to find a place to live?

The Māori Party will support this bill at its third reading, and we will also continue to speak out about housing affordability, overcrowding, and the substandard housing that our relatives, our whānau, our constituents, and our people live in. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.

JOHN CARTER Link to this

Well, no, Labour did not, actually. I allowed the vote to be taken, and the vote could well have overturned the Government. I must confess that I was very embarrassed. The Prime Minister of the day, Mr Bolger, was, to put it succinctly, rather unhappy. At that stage we had to have—I cannot remember now; I think it was—75 percent of the House represented to vote to overturn the decision that had been taken. The Standing Orders now say that we need to have half of the Parliament, or 60, which is less than half, in support of a motion to overturn the Standing Orders.

I want the House to understand—and I want the member from New Zealand First to understand, as I do not think he has even considered this—the constitutional issue we are dealing with here tonight. I am not sure that I have heard any comment about this, and certainly not from the Greens. That surprises me, because the member who spoke is one who does take this place very seriously, and for whom I have a great deal of respect. Certainly, the member from the Māori Party who spoke, and gave good reasons for that party’s support of the motion, did not talk about constitutional issues.

This Parliament needs to be worried about the fact that we are here tonight correcting something that we have to actually suspend the Standing Orders to do, because the Government has made a mistake.

JOHN CARTER Link to this

Well, it is worse than damn naughty; it is actually constitutionally seriously important. Members of this Parliament and the public of this nation need to understand that tonight we are making a law change outside of our ability to do so, only because we give ourselves the power, and we do that by suspending our Standing Orders—which have stood us in good stead for years and years—so that the Government can have its way. [ Interruption] Well, it brings to notice the fact that—and this is the point I want to make—this Government, here again, is doing things that one would not expect a good Government to do—

JOHN CARTER Link to this

—under normal circumstances. I stress to those parties that have said they will support this step that suspending the Standing Orders is not something we do just to help a Government out; it is something we do because there is a crisis. It is something we do because the country is in difficulty, because we are threatened, or because the country may well not be able to operate unless Parliament takes this decision. But we are not passing this motion tonight for any of those reasons; we are doing it because the Government of the day has made yet another mistake.

Quite honestly, the debate we are having now is a far more serious one than this Government gives it credit for, and I want to stress that. It is seriously important. This is about our constitution. This is about our nation. This is actually about the fact that we are going to change a law and override everything we are formed on because the Government decided it wants to fix something that it mucked up in the first place. That is the first and most serious point.

I want to make my second point. Let us have a look at what the Government is trying to correct: the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. Last night I spoke on another bill that Minister Cosgrove had brought in, the Building Amendment Bill. In fact, this bill is to become part of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill—this is one thing we are suspending the Standing Orders to do. I want to say to the Minister what I said last night, because tonight he is present. I say to him that he should be absolutely ashamed that we are debating this matter at all. I say to Minister Cosgrove that it is an absolute disgrace that we are here debating this issue. You have been told on many occasions—

JOHN CARTER Link to this

I beg your pardon, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Minister has been told on many occasions—and I have been one of those who have told him this—that local government would not be able to meet the deadline the Minister imposed on it. He has been told that by local government, by the building industry, and by the institute of building officers. This Minister has been advised by anybody and everybody that it would not be possible for local authorities to meet the date that he and his Department of Building and Housing set. But what did he do? He blindly went on irrespective of advice. He did not care; he did not worry. He did not worry about the cost, the stress, and the problems that he put on local government and the building industry. This Minister, who has failed them in every other way, has failed yet again.

It is an absolute disgrace that we are here tonight on this matter. This Minister has been hopeless and useless. Quite honestly, I stand by that statement entirely. This Minister is a complete failure. He talks about the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services. He needs to understand that more leaky homes are being built in this country right now than ever. His Department of Building and Housing, quite honestly, is failing him completely. This Minister is failing his Government. This Government is failing this country, and we are here tonight debating a constitutional resolution because this Government has failed the people of this nation.

I want the nation, the people who are listening, and this Parliament to understand that we are debating this tonight because this Minister and his department have completely let down the building industry and the people of this country. They will be brought to account in time. This whole issue will become known. It is already well known. Parliament should think about this, and the parties that are looking to support this resolution should think about what they are doing. It is not just an issue about passing a motion; it is actually an issue about us changing our whole constitution because we are changing the Standing Orders. That is something that we should not do lightly; we should not do it unless there is an absolute crisis. This is not a crisis. Thank you.

NATHAN GUY Link to this

I was listening, actually. Fundamentally, this is a key thing. The public should have a right to have its say, whether the matter is about a dam on a farm for drinking water, whether it is about an irrigation dam, whether it is about a recreation dam, or whether it is about a hydro dam. Labour wants to slip this through, yet the public does not have its chance through the select committee process to have its say. The Minister glossed over that very significant point very, very lightly.

The big thing that is holding up this whole process is the fact that this Government will not address the Resource Management Act and give it any sort of reform. We have some very good proposals, which were outlined by Nick Smith at the National Party conference in the weekend. They would allow for direct referrals to the Environment Court, and not allow vexatious and frivolous objections—

NATHAN GUY Link to this

—all good things—while still adhering to the principles of the Act.

The pendulum has swung far too far, and that is why this whole process is cumbersome. It looks messy for the Minister when he cannot sort out a very, very simple process and has to keep coming back to the House to get this sorted out, by means of collapsing the Standing Orders. In summary, the 85 territorial local authorities—which the Minister did not believe would be up to speed by November, so has extended the period out to June—all say they are not taking any more of this stuff. They have had an absolute gutsful of this sort of legislation being passed in the House. The provincial councils out there have to pick up the pieces. In my area of Horowhenua and Kapiti about 700 homes are built a year, and our building inspectors are bogged down by the whole bureaucratic process. Tonight the Minister is asking the House to suspend the Standing Orders for the first time in 4 years—all 402 of them—to fix up a shonky deal that has been done. This issue should be going through due process. That is why National has some real concerns and will be voting against the motion.