Building Bill

National is opposing this legislation. It has become over-prescriptive. The bill is 358 pages long. It is raising the bar and it does absolutely nothing for consumer confidence or protection. My first reading speech the other day identified some of the reasons why National is opposed to this legislation. Part 1, which we are now debating, has some major discrepancies, and at the time I brought the Government Administration Committee’s attention to why stopbanks were not included under the definition of “dam”. Members will find a definition of “dam” in clause 6, which mentions artificial barriers, flood control dams, natural features, and canals, but paragraph (c) states: “does not include a stopbank designed to control floodwaters”. I would have thought that with the current floods in areas like the southern North Island, Rangitīkei, Manawatū, and Wanganui, stopbanks would be an integral part of the protection for the surrounding land, property, and lives that were affected, and I argued in the select committee that stopbanks should have been included, or covered by this legislation. I have yet to hear any reason why stopbanks should not be included.

Bearing in mind the floods I have just mentioned, and also the recent floods in the Whakatāne area—and I have visited both those flood-prone areas—I do not know why stopbanks are excluded, especially as there are provisions for the other points I mentioned that are in clause 6. If the Minister is able to tell me why stopbanks are excluded, then that would certainly satisfy the interest I have in that particular area.

I have a press release that is a consequence of what has happened in the Bay of Plenty area, and Environment BOP has commissioned an independent investigation to find out why the Rangitīkei river stopbank breached during the flooding in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. The chief executive of Environment BOP, Jeff Jones, said that it needs to know exactly what happened so that it can take steps to make sure that it does not happen again. It is extremely important both to Environment BOP and the communities living in the shadow of its stopbanks. Stopbanks are designed to hold flood water, not to fail. The Rangitīkei stopbank should not have breached as it did, even with the huge amount of pressure on it. It did not fail because water overtopped it, as can sometimes happen; it just blew out.

That is where property and lives have been affected. This is a serious matter and I would like to know from the Minister why stopbanks in this particular case—and I have visited the sites and seen what has happened—are not included under the other measures that refer to constructions to hold back water or other fluids under constant pressure so that they can form a reservoir, or whatever.

A lot of stopbanks have been used as a means to get irrigation water on to farms, so in that sense stopbanks are holding water. Canals are included, and I would have thought that a canal would have a measure of support around it to stop it from overflowing. That would be a stopbank. Canals are included, but stopbanks specifically are not included. It is interesting to note that with the devastation that happened in the Rangitīkei area a farmer will be suing the regional council.

I rise to support my colleague Lindsay Tisch and the National Party’s opposition to the Building Bill. In my mind it is the most cynical, useless legislation that the Labour Government and its supporting parties of New Zealand First and United Future will be involved in during this term of Government. The bill is now before Parliament—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: The most useless bill.

Richard Prebble interjects. [Interruption] I suspect that this will be the most useless legislation. It affects so many New Zealanders and it is just such disastrous legislation designed entirely to take the leaking-home problem off the front pages of the newspaper. The Government’s response to that problem is 350-odd pages of legislation. We do not have builders any more. They have to be licensed building practitioners! This sort of nonsense will only add to the cost of building homes. We now have a situation where it is becoming more and more difficult for people to purchase their first homes, and the Government is passing legislation that will make it worse. When I look at the commencement date of this legislation—this goes to show the mess and the disarray this Government is in—it states that the provisions come into force on 1 July 2004. I do not think we will have this bill through by 1 July 2004, considering that that was about 6 weeks ago.

💬 Murray Smith: Have a look at the Supplementary Order Paper.

I have had a look at the Supplementary Order Paper and it states that we will pass it by November. This legislation was originally brought into the House under the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She has not been a Minister for some time. What a disastrous response from a Government to put a huge piece of legislation into the House cynically to try to allay the fears of the owners of these leaky homes! It does nothing to do that. All the Government has achieved is to take that scandal off the front pages of the papers and try to tell those people who own leaky homes that the problem is under control and new legislation is on its way that will fix the problem.

This legislation does nothing to fix those problems. All it does is to make it far worse from now on for anybody to try to buy his or her first home. Government Administration Committee members were told that it cost $6,000 for a relatively small first home, and typical of what New Zealanders buy as their first dwelling—that is, an additional $6,000 of red tape that delivers nothing.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Probably closer to $10,000 now.

Lindsay Tisch and Shane Ardern were the members of the National caucus on the select committee. They did the work when Government members would not do the work.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: They agreed with it.

They do not agree with it. They think it is just a crock. This sort of legislation should really be given due scrutiny by the Government, or at least the Government should acknowledge that it will not solve the problems for the people who have leaky homes—$10,000 of additional costs. One has only to look at clause 3, which is the purpose of the legislation. Clause 3 contains a whole lot of words that mean very, very little. It is my contention that the purposes as listed in clause 3 will not be at all satisfied by this legislation. Mark my words, shortly after the next general election when National is in Government—after we have passed all the other important stuff—this will be some of the first legislation we will have to come back and tidy up because the Government is simply intent on conning New Zealanders with this legislation.

As David Carter rightly pointed out, the catalyst for the rewrite of the Building Act was the leaky homes problem. We had a rather extensive inquiry into that and we highlighted a large number of issues that were desperately needed to try to alleviate the problem of additional people becoming caught by leaky homes. Sadly, Mr Carter, who was not on the Government Administration Committee, has basically rubbished all of those people—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: I thought he was.

No, he definitely was not on the committee, he did not take part in the inquiry, nor was he part of the committee that looked into the rewrite of this Building Bill. Therefore, he was just blowing hot air when he said that this would not solve any problems for people in the future. He obviously does not care whether people in the future have a leaky home. He would rather see those people who have bought a leaky home now, be able to flick it on later and hide it under the carpet.

It is sad that he has taken that approach, because this bill has tried to sort out the leaky homes problem. Maybe we will not get it right this first time, but we have gone a long way to ensure that there are not tens of thousands more people who will have leaky homes built for them in the future. Just the threat of this bill coming through Parliament has meant that the territorial authorities have tightened up on their requirements for buildings, and therefore the bill has already achieved a great deal.

We see further expansion in this bill on a number of issues, and I will talk about those later on. One of the issues that I would like to pick up on is the one that Lindsay Tisch mentioned to do with stopbanks. Although it was discussed during the select committee, we did not believe that the stopbanks should have been in there, and I think that was a mistake. We have just seen some major issues with stopbanks giving way, both in the Manawatu and in the Bay of Plenty. In both cases stopbanks gave way, and in the case of the one in the Bay of Plenty, it was a dam. A lot of work has been done on it, and under this bill the servicing of that dam will now be required and the local territorial authorities, along with the dam examination team, will be looking at different ways of ensuring that existing dams are up to standard—once again, an issue that this bill is addressing, and will address further in the future because of the way it is structured.

It is a case where the bill has set a goal to try to prevent more leaky homes, and also look at ways of preventing structures like dams giving way. I believe that the stopbanks should have been part of those structures. The immediate area around the dam is part of that, but beyond the dam and the immediate area, those stopbanks should have been looked at and considered more deeply in this bill. I look forward to bringing up some of those issues later on.

This very substantial bill offers consumer protection, and it was extraordinary to hear the member from the National Party sort of dismiss it and say that it might add $10,000 or something to the building of a new home—never mind that we had submitters come to the Government Administration Committee who had lost $100,000. It has gone right down the tubes because they had bought shoddy houses, the result of which is that people have a home that is worth absolutely nothing. So we do need consumer protection, and the overwhelming majority of submitters wanted that and strongly supported it. I think that National is right out on a limb in that regard.

We are very pleased with many aspects of this bill; particularly we are pleased that sustainable development and health have been added to the purpose clause. When we look at the principles, we see a whole raft of them, many of them as a result of Green Party amendments, and we are absolutely delighted that they are. I would like to talk about one where we say we need to ensure that any harmful effect on human health resulting from the use of particular building methods or products of a particular building design or building work is prevented or minimised.

Until this moment in time, there have been no regulations looking at the health effects of building materials in our homes. Basically we know that we use many, many toxic materials in building our homes, but nobody has actually assessed whether the building materials that we are using in our homes might have adverse effects—indeed, might even, in some cases, be slowly poisoning us. We know that there are literally thousands—we are assured thousands—of building materials used, and many of them, resins, glues, and flame retardants, give off a gas, formaldehyde, which was recently classified as a carcinogen and so forth, but none of these have ever been assessed. When I asked the question: “How many of these building products are registered, and how many of these are assessed for their health effects?”, the answer, to my astonishment, came back: “Absolutely none.”

So this is really a major step forward that we are finally requiring that the new building department will have to take account of the health effects of building materials. We spend 80 percent of our time inside buildings, and so it is quite extraordinary that we have ignored this quite major contributor, I am certain, to ill health.

The other thing the bill deals with, and many of these issues were Green amendments, are heritage, energy conservation, energy efficiency, the use of renewal energy, and so forth. These things are absolutely fundamental, and it is extraordinary that we did not have something as fundamental in the building code as energy efficiency. It is quite extraordinary that half of our houses in New Zealand are not even properly insulated. Here we are trying to build new dams, and damming the remaining rivers in New Zealand, but what about something as basic as insulating our homes so that we reduce the energy usage?

Any energy efficiency that we make in building our homes will be cost-effective because we will, over time, be reducing our energy bill, at a time when we know that energy shortages are becoming a way of life. It is extraordinary that we are ignoring such fundamental things as the energy usage in our homes. We would like the bill to go further. We are happy with it as far as it goes, but we think we need a system of energy ratings for all new homes, so that anyone buying a home knows how energy efficient or inefficient it is, and other issues such as that. We also believe that any significant alterations to existing homes should be required to match the energy efficiency standards in the building code, just as they match the fire safety, disability, and access standards. We will be moving amendments to that effect. The other area where we will be moving an amendment is to enable territorial authorities, if they wish, to set standards.

The ACT party is opposing this bill. We believe it is thoroughly bad legislation. It is unnecessary, and, like so much of what this Government produces, it is an overreaction and a faulty analysis of the problem.

The Government says that this bill is to overcome the leaky homes syndrome, but there is nothing in it that really addresses that issue. The pernicious provisions in the bill, which virtually outlaw the traditional Kiwi, do-it-yourself attitude, are appalling. They reflect really restrictive trade practice, which is what this bill is substantially about.

It is little wonder that the building industry welcomes the bill, because this compliant Government has dished up the industry’s wish list of constraint, more regulation, and restrictive trade entry, so that those who are already in the trade have a natural advantage. That is not sensible.

The issue of leaky buildings has substantially been mis-analysed because, like it or not, New Zealand has a cool, temperate, wet climate, and our houses are cold and damp relative to other countries. Visitors from overseas shiver in our winter. They cannot believe we are so hardy—and we are—that we live in those cold, damp, wet houses. I believe New Zealand’s high incidence of asthma is actually a direct reflection of the cold, damp, wet housing we have in this country.

We used to have the traditional Kiwi bungalow that served us well when we had big roaring log fires and all the rest of it. But what happened in the 1970s and 1980s? Progressively, because of concerns over energy conservation, we moved towards tighter insulation and vapour-proof barriers. The one salvation that our traditional housing had was that air could move pretty freely, actually, between the inside and the outside. That is partly why houses were so cold. But as soon as we tightened up on our insulation and enforced that with vapour-proof barriers, we moved to having that damp air being heated, condensing on that vapour-proof barrier, and rotting inside the frame cavity of our housing—and now the problem has been totally misdiagnosed.

The other aspect is that we thought we would ban the treatment of timber. People used to think we did copper chrome arsenate treatment of our framing. We never did. We only ever did boric treatment, which is boron treatment for insects. That treatment did nothing against fungi and algae but it worked indirectly, because in the boric bath treatment we also used to give the timber pentachlorophenol, which is an anti-sap stain and very effective. We did that for cosmetic reasons, we thought, because the market did not like the blue stain in the wood. But once we banned pentachlorophenol in treating our wood, we discovered that that was what had been killing the mould and the algae.

Since about 1990 there has been no pentachlorophenol used because of the Green lobby, whose members said it was bad, it was terrible, and it was a persistent organochlorine. It is very persistent, but it is not particularly toxic. It is very persistent in the environment and it is not nice stuff, but I tell members that those natural moulds and algae now in our wood frames give off a lot more natural toxins that are much more deadly and much more toxic than is the risk of pentachlorophenol—the organochlorine. That is the reality of the situation.

We in this country now have an appalling situation. We have misdiagnosed it, and now we have this other layer of bureaucracy, control, and regulation. Some people feel warm and fuzzy inside that this bill will solve the problem. Let me tell members that it will not. All this bill represents is restrictive trade practice and limitations on entry to the industry.

The way that this bill pings the traditional do-it-yourself Kiwi, I think, is appalling. I built my first house at about age 20, and many other Kiwis have done the same thing. My house is still standing and it is very robust.

All we have heard from National and ACT members tonight is railing against this bill, without actually looking at it and coming up with some alternative solutions that they may want. In fact, it was quite hilarious when Mr Carter was speaking. He said, “When National gets in we’re going to, we’re going to”—I was waiting for the word “repeal”, but it did not come—“we’re going to make amendments to this bill.” I think that inevitably there will need to be amendments when the new Act settles down. With a piece of legislation that is as far-reaching as this and changes so many facets of life in this country, it is naive to think that we will not have a bedding-down process, and that there will not need to be some adjustments and changes come through. So I think National’s bet on that is really an even-odds bet.

However, as the bill stands, what has been produced by the Government, and refined heavily by the Government Administration Committee—and I worked out that we had actually changed over 100 clauses in this bill—is, I think, a very good start towards addressing a very key problem that we have in New Zealand. The problem is that prior to 1990 we had a very prescriptive regime that would not allow flexibility and required homes to be built in the same sort of manner everywhere. Then, after 1990, we just opened the floodgates, without adequate regulation or oversight, despite the intentions at that time that there would be such oversight. History has proved that the oversight of the industry by the Building Industry Authority was inadequate, but that was not necessarily all its fault; there was a lack of legislative power, as well. So it was a laissez-faire situation, where anything went. As the euphemism went—and it was repeated dozens and dozens of times—all one needed in order to be a builder was a ute, a dog, and a radio. That was very true in terms of the way that we built things.

It was important, and the weathertight homes inquiry showed that it was important, for us to redress the situation, not just because of the weathertightness issue but because that issue was symptomatic of the fact that our building controls had failed generally. If it were not for this bill coming through we would find that, after the weathertightness issue, suddenly we would be hit with another issue that had not been dealt with, and we would be faced with exactly the same problems in terms of that issue. So it was important to address the weathertightness issue. That has taken a long time, because this is a big bill and it makes a big change in the way that things are done in our society. The Government Administration Committee tried carefully to get a balance that would provide a situation that was not too prescriptive but was not laissez-faire. I think the bill provides a good balance.

The purpose clause sets out very, very clearly exactly what is expected of everybody—people will all know their roles. The lack of clarity in terms of roles was part of the confusion before, whereby the Building Industry Authority did not recognise its role and the important part it played in oversight and auditing, and local authorities were remiss in addressing their obligations. So there were big gaps. The purpose clause sets out clearly the key issues. The legislation is to ensure that buildings can be used safely by people and without endangering their health, that buildings have attributes that contribute appropriately to people’s health, physical independence, and well-being, that buildings provide adequate fire protection, and also that sustainable development is promoted. So the purpose clause contains the key aspects of what we are trying to achieve, in terms of our built structures.

The select committee inserted new clause 3A, setting out a wide range of principles that the chief executive has to look at and that local authorities have to take cognisance of. It is a holistic approach. The committee was very ready to add provisions to the clause to cope with the wide range of considerations that should be taken into account in New Zealand design and construction, and the considerations needed in order to build holistic environments for people to live in. Some key provisions include the importance of the effect on human health, the importance of durability—and this is something that will appeal to the National and ACT league—the importance of enabling innovation in design and construction, and also the importance of taking note of the costs of building. The principles also provide for people with disabilities, as well.

Some of the key provisions that United Future strongly supported are, firstly, those concerning heritage. In my role in Petone, which has one of the foremost heritage streets in the country, I was very conscious of the deficiencies in the building code in terms of heritage.

In looking at Part 1 of the bill, I am just astonished that we are dealing with a bill that in its first draft is 358 pages long, with a raft of Supplementary Order Papers and amendments on the Table. I would have thought, and maybe I am a bit optimistic, that in 358 pages the Government might get it right, and that the need for Supplementary Order Papers at the last minute would be very small indeed. But no, it appears that despite 358 pages of definitions and clauses the Government did not get the legislation right, and has been forced, once this bill came out of the Government Administration Committee, to table a number of Supplementary Order Papers and amendments. I can only imagine the disappointment of the officials, who will be crushed by the fact that they have worked on this behemoth of a bill for months on end, only to have Supplementary Order Papers thrown in at the last minute.

Let us turn to Part 1 and have a quick look at some of the provisions. My colleague Lindsay Tisch informs me—and I checked this myself, because I have to confess I did not believe him—that the definition of “dam” does not include a stopbank.

💬 Jill Pettis: In Wanganui they worked very well.

Let me just explain to the members present in the Chamber how much effect—in my electorate of Rangitīkei in the Manawatū, and in the chief Government whip’s electorate of Whanganui—stopbanks, and the way that they are built, put together, monitored, and the like, had during the February floods in our areas.

💬 Jill Pettis: In Wanganui they worked very well.

That may be the case, but let me just say that farmers in my electorate had no compunction in driving bulldozers through the stopbanks when they needed to ensure the waters flowed properly across the other—-

💬 Jill Pettis: In Wanganui they worked very well.

I am pleased to hear that. The question for Mrs Pettis is why this legislation does not include stopbanks. If they worked so well—and I take the member at her word—why not throw them into the definition of “dam”, and allow the bill to operate in a way that covers off those types of situations?

I can tell Government members that any legislation like this operates in a practical, working environment—like construction, stopbank work, flood protection, dams, and the like. This bill, just relating to lifting, is going to be the bane of every developer, every builder, and every home handyperson in New Zealand. How on earth can people who are practically inclined get on with the job at hand in respect of a building construction, a lean-to on the farm, or stopbanks and the like during flooding situations? The Minister should answer those questions, and tell us how such individuals will deal with and work under legislation that requires two people to lift. There is no way that practical working people, who want to put a lean-to up against the cowshed to protect themselves from the rain—and I am sure we will hear more on this from Shane Ardern later in the debate—are going to get by with legislation such as this.

The tighter that the Government squeezes the industry with the bigger and more complex legislation it puts forward, the more will slip through that grasp. That worries me, because this bill is another indication that this Government does not trust individuals to get it right. This Government does not trust the fact that other people can make decisions about the quality of buildings, dams, and the like, without the Goody Two-Shoes Labour Government producing 358 pages plus Supplementary Order Papers to tell them how to do that.

This bill, as many of my colleagues and, indeed, I guess even the Government would acknowledge, has its genesis in the leaky buildings crisis. At that time I was heavily involved in that issue. It would be fair to say that I have had several different portfolio responsibilities! This particular report was comprehensive and it had a lot of recommendations. One of them, the final one, recommendation 63, said there ought to be a review of the Building Act so that an amendment to the Act could be completed. Prior to that, it talked about the role of the Building Industry Authority and recommended that it be reviewed so that it had overall responsibility for the administration of the Act. That was where the solution lay. Everyone would acknowledge, I think, that the 1991 legislation did have some problems. It was, perhaps, part of the over—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not like to interrupt my colleague’s speech but a member is standing and talking to another member. It is interrupting his flow.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated when he is talking to another member.

Thank you. I would like to thank Mr Tisch for assisting me in that regard and producing order in the Chamber when order was required.

A solution was suggested by the inquiry of the Government Administration Committee into the weathertightness of buildings. It was, essentially, an amendment to the Act to strengthen the role of the Building Industry Authority and to provide better prudential supervision. That would not have required, and did not require, the level of reform that the Government has in fact produced. In fact, part of the reform is effectively to abolish the Building Industry Authority and bring control back into the ministry. The weakness is, as the Minister in the chair, Dover Samuels, will recognise, the classic statist solution that we have seen so much of from this Government. In fact, the previous debate was precisely about statist solutions. Here we are presented with yet another statist solution, where the idea is to have massive volumes of regulation and statute, and to centralise the management of this matter into the Ministry of Economic Development. That is not the right way. National, in the course of this extended Committee debate, will be putting forward the way that we think this issue needs to be fixed. We will put forward a modest and reasonable amendment to strengthen the Building Industry Authority, help the independent certifiers do their job more effectively, and provide clearer guidance to local authorities as part and parcel of their process.

Frankly, a lot of the issues are not legislatively based in any event. Much of the solution actually rests on the quality and skills of the people in the industry. This piece of legislation will not fix that. What is required is a more proactive approach through the industry training organisation and through the polytechnics, to boost the skills of the workforce. That is what the weathertightness inquiry recommended, and we do not need legislation to do that. We simply have to fix the educational issues and strengthen the industry training organisation itself. If we do that, we solve a whole lot of other problems simultaneously, because the weathertightness issue had multiple causes, but perhaps the most apparent to those on the inquiry and to those in the industry was a lack of knowledge on the part of the people in the industry. That reflects the fact that skills had declined through the 1980s and the 1990s. That can be repaired. In addition there are practical measures around design solutions—the sort of thing, in fact, that the Building Industry Authority was actually empowered to do.

When I was speaking before I talked about some of the principles in the bill that United Future was particularly glad to see. I referred to heritage, and to the importance of the chief executive and local authorities, when looking at building regulations and the building code, taking note of the important role that heritage plays in our society.

Other issues are energy efficiency and energy conservation, which are mentioned in subclause (2)(m) of clause 3A. That is also an area where we, as a nation, have to address some key problems. We all know about the problems we are having in terms of the generation of energy supply in New Zealand, and also its transportation around the country. Those problems, as the select committee found when we went to Australia, are things that the Australians are very closely aware of, as well. They have actually made further strides in energy efficiency than we have, particularly in New South Wales, where houses have to comply with a certain level of energy efficiency. Whether we want to go to that level of prescription I have real questions about. I am always one for not being too prescriptive unless there is an important need to do so. But certainly we cannot ignore that issue, and this bill does provide a first step, in terms of the chief executive’s principle that requires that this whole area of energy efficiency and energy conservation be taken into account in the way we design our houses. It will become a more and more important area.

Water efficiency and water conservation are also areas that United Future is pleased to see in the bill. We do need to be very conscious of the environmental impacts of our living. We cannot just take things for granted. In New Zealand we have been privileged to have unlimited supplies of water, and I think it is important that we do not just take that for granted. We need to realise that, as with any resource, water does have some limitations.

One of the very, very key issues, one of the hinge provisions, in this bill—and it has been referred to by other people already—is the definition of “restricted building work” in clause 6. If there is one area that exercised the select committee perhaps more than almost any other, it is this whole idea that we do not want to create something that is too restrictive of New Zealanders. We recognise that New Zealand does indeed, as some have said, have a culture of owner-builders. How can we provide enough flexibility to enable people to construct their own homes, to work on their designs, and to have that degree of freedom and innovation, but at the same time protect future generations and our housing stock generally? This bill is not about just the immediate owner of a house; this bill is about the housing stock of New Zealand, and ensuring that our housing generally maintains standards for the benefit of future purchasers of homes, and for the benefit of our society in general. It is not good for our society to have leaky homes and, therefore, extensive damage to buildings. It is disruptive to our society. It is important we have a regime that provides ongoing protection for our society.

What the select committee has come up with, in terms of restricted building work, is to confine the building work that has to be signed off to building work that “relates to an element of a building that is critical to the integrity of the building and the health and safety of its occupants;”. That is the test. Areas that are critical to the building and critical to health and safety are the areas that have to be signed off. It is not the case that everything—as some who are misinformed about this bill have said—has to be signed off by a licensed building practitioner. There are substantial areas in terms of construction that do not meet that criteria, and that people will be free to deal with. But I think that, in terms of confining this issue, what we need to do is make sure that the structures of houses and the building envelope are sound, and that means that although we want flexibility for people to build their own places, it is important that we build houses that professionals, licensed building practitioners, can look at and say that, yes, at least the envelope and the integrity of the building on the outside are up to a certain standard. Then we let people do work beyond that. I think that is a good balance. Obviously, some people will not be happy with it. There are very competent home builders who are not licensed building practitioners who will be affected by it. But there are also home builders who are not competent to do that work.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will expand upon the issue of stopbanks, which Lindsay Tisch mentioned. Stopbanks are quite different from dams, as many people will realise. A dam controls the continuous flow of water in a river, whereas stopbanks may well be alongside a river that has no water in it at all. They are there for flood control. There are occasions when floods, as we have seen recently, exceed the abilities of those stopbanks. The same can happen with a dam, but stopbanks are there for flood control, and can be along a river that has no water in it at all for most of the year. Occasionally, the river will fill up, and then those banks come into effect.

Another issue that I will pick up on, and one that we laboured long and hard over, is the description of cable cars. There is some confusion as to whether a private cable car falls into the same category as those in public buildings, because the description in the bill at the moment does not clarify that. I hope something will be put in before the end of this whole—[Interruption] There is no point in voting against it over one small point, as a National member was suggesting; there are a number of issues that this bill really does solve, and we would not vote against it for the sake of one small issue. I would ask the officials to clarify the description of a private cable car and whether it falls into the same category as a cable car in a public building.

Another point that I will pick up on quickly is to do with the private building certifiers. Opinion was divided as to whether they should be included. We were of the opinion that private building certifiers do play a very valid part in the whole process, and therefore they have been retained in this bill. That, I believe, was a sound move. The only problem that private building certifiers have is to do with the insurance that is required, and there lies an issue. At the time of the discussions, I wanted us to look into the possibilities of changing the liability status from joint and several to proportional, but that was quickly thrown out, unfortunately. I would have liked to see it explored a lot further, but, sadly, it was not. Therefore, private building certifiers have an issue with getting insurance. In the past, the Building Industry Authority was charged with finding run-off insurance. Well, that never happened as the authority was never able to do it. To chop private building certifiers at this very point would leave exposed the very large volume of work that they have done in the past, because it would cut off the only possible recourse they have at this point of time. To do that immediately on the instigation of this legislation would be a tragedy, because they have certified a huge volume—in the billions of dollars—of buildings.

I must add that, out of all the complaints, we could not find anybody who could show that the private building certifiers were the cause of the problems. The Building Industry Authority said that it monitored only the private building certifiers, and that it did not monitor complaints about the territorial authorities, so there was absolutely no comparative opportunity there. I think the authority did itself a disservice by not monitoring both sides to get a fairer deal.

It was very good of my colleague Wayne Mapp to introduce a few facts into this debate a few moments ago. It was quite refreshing to see that somebody had taken the time to read some of the detail.

The Building Bill came about as a result of the leaky houses inquiry. That inquiry described the problem as systemic. A number of issues had caused the problem. The answer to the problem, according to the socialists on the other side of the House, is 358 pages of bureaucratic nonsense that do not actually address the issues identified in the inquiry. Those of us on this side of the House find that to be quite amazing.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: United thinks the same.

Well, it is interesting that United Future is voting for the bill. I say to its member who spoke recently, Murray Smith, that I am pleased he has kept up his legal ability to read through the 358 mindless pages, because he will need it after the next election. Certainly, I wish him luck in his future law profession. The bill came about as a result—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It came about from the select committee inquiry.

That is exactly right. The bill came about as a result of the leaky houses inquiry. Over 220,000 building consents were issued in the previous decade, with an average value of $132,000 per consent. Forty-two percent of those building consents were in the Auckland region. So we have here a bill that tries to fix what was primarily an Auckland problem, where big developers came in and employed substandard contractors, who then used substandard materials in a way that those materials were never designed—

💬 Jill Pettis: Give us the solution, then.

The member over there is carping on. Monolithic coatings, and no eaves—

💬 Jill Pettis: Give us the solution.

The member cries out for the solution. If she holds her horses I will tell her the solution. The solution is to put some investment into our industry training organisations and upskill our builders. We admit that the 1991 Act had some deficiencies and needed to be addressed. It had become too lax in terms of regulation. But 358 pages of bureaucratic regulation are not the answer.

💬 Jill Pettis: What’s the answer?

The answer is to give the Building Industry Authority the teeth to carry out the job that it was intended to do. It never had the legislative power to do it. Therein lies the answer. We had a select committee process where a whole heap of submitters came in and said just that; that if the Building Industry Authority was given the depth to go forward, regulate, and self-govern, a lot of these problems would be fixed. So this legislation is absolutely unnecessary.

I note with interest the comments from the Green member, who touched on the fact that the legislation does not cover a lot of the safety aspects of building, particularly around health. She is right to a certain extent, but the leaky building inquiry identified that the most problematic issue regarding health was toxic mould growing on rotting timber that had not been treated. On the other hand, the Green member said we should not treat timber because the chemical used is a toxin in itself. But the overwhelming evidence from the inquiry is that when untreated Pinus radiata used anywhere in a building gets damp, it rots and emits a toxic mould that creates health problems. It also creates a hazard, of course, because people can fall through the floor, the wall, the balcony, or whatever it might be. It also causes the building to become very unstable. So she is right in one sense, but the proposals that she put forward are in direct contrast to the line that the Green Party would take, and that is that we should not allow tanalising and other chemicals to be used to preserve Pinus radiata, which is the main material used today in the frames of all of our houses. I am not sure how the Green Party will get round that one. It is an interesting issue.

The second issue she raised was that of insulation. Well, she was right again. Houses that are insulated are more healthy. I think there is an overwhelming amount of evidence on that, and nothing that I know of in this legislation requires houses now to be insulated up to a certain standard.

I chair the Government Administration Committee that looked into this legislation, and I tell members that we have a large piece of legislation before us. But I am somewhat disappointed by members of the committee, who I believe are putting themselves down in this debate. I thank the members of the committee—Mr Lindsay Tisch, Mr Shane Ardern, Mr Murray Smith, Mr Brent Catchpole, and Ms Kedgley—for the contributions they made, because the committee worked hard and long.

I also note that Mr Mapp made a speech. He came to the inquiry on weathertightness, and I noticed that when the cameras were there he had a considerable contribution to make. But we did not see hide nor hair of him—which is a pity, really—during the whole of the consideration of the legislation. I would have thought that Mr Mapp would make a much greater effort to be on that committee during that consideration, where I am sure he could have shared with us his experience of being on the inquiry and his experience of being a lawyer.

I thank Mr Tisch and Mr Ardern, in particular, and Mr Catchpole and Mr Murray Smith. People worked very, very hard on this legislation. Ms Kedgley made a considerable contribution. I also thank the officials, who worked extremely hard as well. It is a very technical and long piece of legislation. The committee had a lot to consider, and I think it did an extremely good job.

As Mr Mapp just pointed out, a number of issues needed to be corrected. They came from the general atmosphere of 10 years’ deregulation under the previous Government. Since the building boom and the development that has gone on in Auckland and Tauranga with their rapid growth in homes, we have seen that there is a need to bring in tighter legislation and a greater degree of regulation in order for Kiwis to have sustainable housing. Most Kiwis still believe that the greatest investment of their life is their home. They want to buy a home that they know has been built by skilled builders and that is built out of good materials. They want a home that will last them and their families. I believe, too, that they should be able to have a home that will last them, at least, for more than one generation.

That is why I thank all Government Administration Committee members. I know that tonight members of the committee have to grandstand and make speeches because they belong to a certain political party and feel they must oppose the bill. But I say to those Opposition members on the select committee that when they were present they made considerable and useful contributions to this bill—which I believe is a very good bill.

The bill deals with skills, training, materials, design, and qualifications, and it is a very, very large bill. We know that the building code and the regulations that will follow from it will also be long and complex, but they are very important to Kiwi families who are building or who own their homes. The members of the committee, as well as all those who made submissions, shared their experiences. Professional people, ordinary people, and homeowners all shared their experiences.

I have heard tonight about things that are not in the bill. We have heard about dams. The committee went to great trouble to listen to people who made submissions, both from local government and from dam owners with hydro dams. We visited hydro dams—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: We never talked about those sorts of dams.

I say to Mr Tisch that we went to a considerable deal of trouble. He was there, too. We went to considerable trouble to find out a lot of detail about the bill. We also learned about the Building Industry Authority and about some of the problems it had had under Sir George Chapman, who was a National Party chairperson. I think some people on the other side of the Chamber now have a very selective memory about what happened, not only in the weathertightness inquiry and in the select committee stage but in their own personal contributions, about which I will take a constructive view tonight and say that all members during the committee stage contributed extremely well to the committee.

I especially say a big thankyou to the staff who went back and back to get all the expertise; we asked loads of questions throughout the inquiry. I particularly thank those who were involved in the weathertightness inquiry. The work done by committee members was extremely difficult but, I must say, very interesting.

It is interesting that the chair of the Government Administration Committee has just told us to wait for the regulations to come out, because they will be long. They will be long, all right, because that is the nature of this bill. The regulations and the costs associated with it will be horrendous, but that is not in the bill. The regulations will be absolutely horrendous, and that is one of the reasons why National will not support the bill.

The compliance cost regime in this bill is quite outrageous. When we consider what is actually entailed, we see that it is absolute overkill and, as Dr Mapp said, it is a consequence of the leaky homes situation and the weathertightness report.

I want to pay a tribute to the advisers. They spent a lot of time on the legislation and gave a lot of advice to the committee. National appreciates that. Although they did that, we did not agree with the bill, so during the process we brought up questions. We did not agree with the outcomes and we voted against the bill when we deliberated. So it is not new that National is opposing the bill now, because in the select committee deliberation we voted against it, and voted against it right through—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I apologise, Mr Tisch. I say to members that if they want to talk to other members, would they please keep away from the speaker and give him the opportunity to speak.

I want to draw attention to the definition of “natural hazard”. Clause 6 states: “natural hazard has the meaning given to it by section 159.” Specifically, clause 159(3) mentions a number of points that relate to what a “natural hazard” is: erosion; falling debris, be it soil, rocks, snow, or ice; flooding—and that is why we mentioned stopbanks earlier on—overland flow, storm surge, tidal effects, and ponding; and slippage. But it does not include—as is currently included in the Building Act of 1991—land subsidence and geothermal hazards.

I know that the Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper that includes subsidence, but it does not cover geothermal hazards—or “hot ground”, as it is called—in those areas that have geothermal activity. I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that includes an amendment on subsidence and geothermal hazards, because in some parts of the country those are major issues. It is all very well for members to say that this bill will protect people because it will do A, B, C, D, and E. If people can build on subsiding land, and if people can build where there are geothermal activities and hazards, it does not matter how good the building is or what the building is made of, because it will disappear. One of the major concerns National has about this bill is that those areas are not covered.

As an afterthought, the Minister in the chair, John Tamihere, has come up with a Supplementary Order Paper. He might like to comment on why he includes subsidence in his Supplementary Order Paper, but has not considered geothermal hazards. The Taupo District Council, in particular, is very concerned about geothermal activity in its area. It has already had to pay out on what is called “differential subsidence”, and that is also the concern of other areas. In my electorate, we have problems in the Huntly area, which are a consequence of the shafts in former coal mines. Over in Waihī, in Sandra Goudie’s electorate of Coromandel, there are problems. We know where houses have disappeared, and where there have been huge payouts to re-house affected people. The things we are talking about are not included in this bill.

So it does not matter how good the bill may be at trying to protect the consumer in relation to building materials or the way in which houses are to be built. If district councils and city councils are still able to give consents—and that is what the bill allows—to build on those particular types of land, there is no guarantee of protection. One of the major concerns we have about the bill is that that protection is not included.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have been listening to the debate and particularly to the contributions from United Future members and the very odd contributions from Labour members, and they keep talking about this legislation offering protection to the consumer. That sounds pretty good, if that is what it does. Murray Smith particularly spoke about licensed building practitioners. Then, when I look at clause 2, “Commencement”, I am puzzled to find that some significant sections of the legislation come into effect on 30 November 2009—5½ years away. That will be well after the Labour Government has been defeated at the polls and well after many of those speaking in this debate tonight have ceased to be members of Parliament.

💬 Dianne Yates: It gives time for you to complete your apprenticeship.

Well, Dianne Yates has the reason! I was wondering what the reason was; it is for me to complete my apprenticeship. I have news for that member. I am not about to embark on an apprenticeship, but that member may well need to. She comes from one of those marginal Hamilton seats.

💬 Darren Hughes: Like Banks Peninsula.

Banks Peninsula is very marginalised. I thank the junior Government whip for his contribution. It is a very marginal electorate; we are looking forward to the battle.

But back to the Building Bill, and I would really like a contribution from the Minister. The Hon John Tamihere is now in the chair, so that is the third Minister we have had in about an hour of this debate—three of them. Not one of them has stood to answer a question, and I have a very serious question for John Tamihere to answer.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: He does not know anything about the bill.

My colleague Dr Wayne Mapp says that Mr Tamihere does not know anything about it, but Supplementary Order Paper 241 is in his name. So I think he has a duty to rise and explain to members, because it is a genuine question I am raising. I was not involved in the Government Administration Committee, and all I want to know is why members are debating legislation now, when a significant portion of it does not come into effect until the end of 2009. I cannot recall other legislation such as this bill being debated with a 5-year enactment path. I just cannot believe that members of the Government, supported by United Future, can stand and say, hand on heart, that this legislation is all about delivering protection to those people who are suffering from leaky homes, and can then say: “Oh, and by the way, we won’t be doing much about it until 2009.” I just do not think that is appropriate.

It reinforces the first point I made that this legislation is designed for no other purpose than to try to con the public of New Zealand that the leaky home saga has now been resolved and put to bed by the Building Bill, because that is clearly not the case. So I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Tamihere, to rise to his feet. I would appreciate a very clear, concise, simple—and no doubt it will be simple; there is no doubt about that if it comes from the Minister—explanation as to why any portion of this legislation requires 5½ years before it comes into effect.

I move, That the question be now put.