Building Bill

I am most appreciative that the Chair should mention how extensive this part is, with its numerous subparts—hundreds of clauses, in fact—because in many ways it is the core of the bill. So we on this side of the Chamber are looking forward to a detailed and forensic examination of these provisions, noting their worthwhile features, and also noting their numerous and extensive deficiencies.

I guess it would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers. He has filed at least four and, quite extraordinarily, Supplementary Order Paper 241 is dated Tuesday, 10 August 2004. Members should note that; it is today’s date. Yet even before we got to vote on it, a further amendment was filed, which is noted as the proposed amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 241. So here we have a Government that puts a bill into the House and, on the day it is to be debated in the Committee stage, the Government puts down a Supplementary Order Paper. That is not so unusual, but what is unusual—and I guess it tells us something about the management by the Minister of the ministry—is that he has to have a Supplementary Order Paper, to amend the Supplementary Order Paper, filed literally within hours of the first one. I think that that speaks volumes about the whole tenor of this bill.

Now, contained within this part are two things: the role of the ministry and extensive provisions. Essentially, it is the replacement of the Building Industry Authority but, as we have noted previously, it is very much the statist solution. Perhaps of greatest concern, however, to members on this side of the Chamber, is the whole idea of the comprehensive and bureaucratic system of the registration of building practitioners. That is where the bill falls down. This is the part that will kill that great and fine tradition of do-it-yourself New Zealanders. They have been doing that for over a century, but now will be caught by the bill. They will have to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to have their work approved by registered building practitioners.

💬 Dianne Yates: So?

There was a reference—which the interjector from the other side will well know—about a saying in relation to weathertightness. We referred, somewhat colloquially, to “the man, his dog, his radio, and his ute”—that being the classic start-up position of many, many successful New Zealand builders. The Government has now put in place a regulatory regime that will stifle those people. That is exactly what it is doing.

This is an industry that has been available for people to enter, provided they have a trade certificate. That is one of the things that is desirable, and that is typically all that is really wanted. A guy—occasionally a girl—who has a trade certificate can get into the industry and start building for consumers. Their good name will get around quite quickly. Many of those people grow their businesses from the one-person business to one of two, three, or five people or, indeed in many cases, to a business of hundreds of people. That is the epitome of the Kiwi dream—the person who builds his or her own business, the person whom the Minister keeps saying he supports.

The Minister fancies himself as the advocate for small New Zealand businesses—those hard-working entrepreneurs—yet here tonight he is presiding over legislation that will make it very difficult for those people to get ahead. This is a Minister who is killing initiative by this legislation. Maybe he does not recognise that. Maybe that is a possibility. Maybe he does not know what he is doing.

I will be seeking a number of calls, because as Dr Mapp said, this is a very important part of the bill. I want to carry on from the point I made earlier about clause 159, “Building on land subject to natural hazards”. I said the bill does not include land subsidence or geothermal hazards, and although the Minister has indicated in a Supplementary Order Paper that he will include a provision for subsidence, I say it is very, very important that the Committee accepts my amendment, which does include land subsidence and geothermal hazards.

In areas like Taupō, where there has been major geothermal activity, caused through man-made activities rather than natural causes—the bill talks only of natural hazards—a number of activities have adversely affected property. They have adversely affected the value of property, and in that area they have also caused a major change in compliance costs for the local authority.

It is interesting to note from the submission the Taupo District Council made to the Government Administration Committee that the council referred to subsidence areas: underground mining; dewatering of quarries and mines; rubbish dump sites; areas of geothermal and volcanic activity—this bill does not cover volcanic activity—compaction of poorly consolidated fill; and compaction of weak, sedimentary layers, such as peat. So there are plenty of examples around the Taupō region. As I mentioned in an earlier debate, areas like Huntly are also affected by this issue, as is the Waihī area in particular. There are plenty of examples of what has happened in those areas.

I draw the attention of members to geothermal hazards. Although the Minister has indicated that subsidence is in his Supplementary Order Paper, there is no mention of geothermal hazards. Those words encompass defined areas of what is known as hot ground, but there is also the prospect of emerging geothermal hazards, which in some cases might possibly be identified through appropriate monitoring. The issue is that there is no protection for the local authority. There is no way a local authority can say that it cannot grant a building consent for that property because of subsidence or geothermal activity. That is a real issue.

When we are talking about consumer protection, there is no protection from liability, which is a major defect in this whole bill. If in the current Building Act we were to look at section 36, we would see that it says there is protection; and clause 159 in this bill is meant to carry over from that. But if members have ever had a section 36 slapped on the title of their properties, they would know exactly what that means. We saw it in the Rangitīkei area, when Simon Power and I went through the devastation there, and where local authorities after the floods were able to slap a section 36 on the title, which simply meant the Earthquake Commission would not cover the properties. Insurance companies were turning down applications for insurance, because local authorities were slapping a section 36 on the property titles.

This bill does not protect the local authority from that, and this is a two-edged sword. Those properties were affected subsequent to the flooding. It was no fault of the owners that their properties were flooded. But subsequently they were caught by the current legislation when the local authority came through and put a section 36 on those titles. Clause 159 in this bill carries that on, but the protection against liability that is not in this part, and which councils will pay, and at the end of the day ratepayers will pay, relates to land subsidence and geothermal hazards. They are missed out and that is a major defect with this bill.

I would just like to speak briefly to two amendments that the Green Party has to Part 1A. Firstly, we would like to amend clause 119C to insert a subclause (1) that states that solely for reasons of resource conservation a territorial authority may require building work to achieve performance criteria in addition to that of the building code. It would empower territorial authorities to ensure that buildings built in their geographic region could be adjusted to the resource conditions of their area, for example related to water shortages, or heat loss in cold climates. One could imagine that in parts of the South Island, a territorial authority might want higher insulation rates. In other parts, for example in Marlborough, one might want mandatory water tanks or something such as that, but unfortunately, under the provisions of this bill, that is prohibited.

The amendment will not set different standards for different parts of the country—it would only allow a variation for specific reasons of resource conservation that would enable an authority to require some additional work to achieve various performance criteria. So I think that if we do not introduce such an amendment we will live to regret it. I believe that territorial authorities will wish to have this power. We have already had some territorial authorities contacting us to support this amendment very strongly.

The second amendment, to add a subparagraph (iii) after clause 195(1)(a)(ii), is simply saying that if one is going to undertake significant alterations to existing buildings, they should comply, as nearly as is reasonably practical, with the provisions of the building code related to energy efficiency and energy conservation. Basically all we are saying is that if one is going to do significant work in a building—and only significant work that requires a resource consent—the energy efficiency provisions should apply to those alterations just as much, for example, as they will have to apply in relation to fire safety, and disability access standards. So really all this amendment is doing is saying that energy efficiency standards have to apply to significant alterations.

Once again it seems to us that this is just basic common sense. When we are, as we know, at a stage where energy shortage is fast becoming a way of life, where we are looking at damming rivers by building hydro stations and so forth, why are we not doing basic things such as properly insulating and applying energy efficiency to our homes? Half of our houses are not even properly insulated, so why would we not do something as simple and as logical as requiring simple energy efficiency principles standards to be applied when we are doing significant alterations? It simply does not make sense to build new dams at great cost before we have done simple things, such as trying to introduce energy efficiency, not just into new homes, but also into substantial alterations to existing homes.

As I have previously said, we would have liked to see further energy efficiency requirements in new homes, but at least let us apply the existing energy efficiency requirements and energy conservation requirements to significant alterations. So we will be seeking those two amendments to this part.

As was pointed out, this particular part is a substantial one, and I flag now that I intend to take a number of calls on it. At the start of this call I would like to thank some people it was remiss of me not to thank in my first call.

First, I acknowledge the enormous amount of work that the chairperson, Dianne Yates, did on this bill. Without her input, the whole bill would probably never have got to this stage so early. Dianne Yates and the other members of the Government Administration Committee have already been mentioned, but I also acknowledge all the work carried out by the clerks and the officials. We constantly sent them away with reams and reams of questions and issues to revisit, and they came back with the answers very quickly. I thank them very much for all the work they put into the bill.

The New Zealand First minority view highlights some particular issues we had with this bill. We feel that it is a sound bill—as sound as the Building Act of 1991, which was basically adequate for the construction of the day. The only problem with the old Act was that it was very light-handed and relied too heavily on regulation in the name of the building code. It was that building code that was very poorly administered by the Building Industry Authority, which failed to pick up on some major issues.

It is sad that the original Minister who began the inquiry into the weathertightness of buildings was of the opinion that if a house was built to the building code, it would never leak. But everybody in New Zealand knows that every single building develops a leak in it at some stage in its lifetime—if it is not a leak in the roof, it is a leak from a water cylinder inside the walls. Every building will leak at some stage during its life, so to think the building code will solve that problem is pretty far-fetched.

Unfortunately, the Building Industry Authority did not have the teeth to administer the building code to the extent expected, and the building code, therefore, is to be rewritten. I know for a fact that large parts of it are already under the pen at this very moment, because of issues that are starting to come out. Technically, that rewrite is supposed to be completed within 2 years of this bill being enacted but I hope it is completed long before that, because some parts of the building code really need to be rejigged to prevent the problems that came up in relation to weathertight homes.

Compliance documents are another area that is heavily canvassed within this bill. In the past compliance documents have been found wanting. In fact, during the time of submissions on the Building Bill we asked territorial authorities and local councils how many outstanding cases there were in relation to codes of compliance, and we heard that there were literally tens of thousands outstanding, where the building work done had not matched up to the consents given at the start of the work. It was an issue that desperately needed to be tidied up, and this bill does tidy it up in a significant way.

There is a particular region that has a large number of substandard houses. Unfortunately, this bill puts that region in the awkward position of having to identify all those homes and to progress towards getting them up to standard. Technically, many of those houses need to be bulldozed and rebuilt, but I would hate to see the occupants of those homes thrown out because of the strong conditions in the bill on that one issue. I believe that councils are working through it now to try to match the requirements in the bill with the requirements of their areas. I will not name that one particular area, because it would not be fair to it, but I say it is essential that codes of compliance documents are in place.

I rise to speak in support of the bill. This bill is a most important bill and we are speaking to Part 1A. Most MPs on both sides in Parliament would acknowledge that a Kiwi has no greater asset than the family home, so I think we should keep politics out of this bill. I know that some landed gentry over on that side of the Chamber have multi-home ownership and multi-ranch ownership, and they do not like it when we point that out. However, as we refer to Part 1A, we know that the average Kiwi man and woman in this country—

💬 Dianne Yates: All their life savings.

CLAYTON COSGROVE:—have all their life savings invested in the family home, as my colleague said. The next biggest asset is probably the family car. Unlike Mr Carter, the average Kiwi family does not have four four-wheel drives, three BMWs, a couple of Porsches—or a tractor; they have the family home.

I commend the Minister in the chair, Mr Tamihere, who has inherited this bill. It is a clarion call to the DIY’er and the Kiwi battler who wants high standards in building practice. A builder in my electorate, who was a builder of 30 years’ experience and a tradesperson brought up under the old apprenticeship laws—which, of course, that mob over there abolished thanks to Lockwood Smith, but which we reintroduced so now have 9,000 young apprentices on the go—told me that he did not want shonky builders in his industry, because that would lower his professionalism and tar all builders with the same brush. It is a bit like politicians—a bit like Don Brash, who with his substandard behaviour tars the whole National Party with the same brush.

This legislation is about preserving high standards in Kiwi workmanship. It is about a clarion call to Kiwis. The age of a building does not matter—contrary to what we heard Opposition members talking about today. We want high standards in building practice and tradespersonship. That is what this legislation is about, despite all the bleating from some Opposition members.

I know that Shane Ardern is always placed in the difficult position of saying, firstly, either what he believes or, secondly, what the new whip, Simon Power—who has put a gun to Mr Ardern’s head—has told him he has to say. I know that Shane Ardern is from good old-fashioned Kiwi stock, and is a good old-fashioned farmer who has employed a number of tradespersons in his life. He knows that average Kiwi battlers out there want some assurance that their homes are their castles, that they are of a high standard, and that they will be preserved for them.

That is what this legislation is all about, despite the politics and all the puffery around this Chamber. That is the fundamental issue that Part 1A is about—as is this entire bill. I support this bill, and I invite Opposition members to get off their high horses—or out of the Land Rovers, Range Rovers, and BMWs that a few of them over there have, along with three or four homes and a bach in the Sounds—and think of the ordinary Kiwi battler who has put $50,000, $60,000, $100,000, or $200,000 into his or her own home, and who says “This is my castle. I want to ensure that I am looked after. I want to ensure that what I’ve invested for my family, and maybe what I hand on to the kids, is a solid resource that is looked after and is of a high standard, and that I don’t have to go back to look for the developer, the architect, or the three or four “subbies” who did not do a good job and who maybe ripped me off.”

Tonight, Part 1A is about a Government and a Minister saying that they will stand behind the Kiwi battler, and provide some guarantees where others would not. I tell that crew over there that if they are going to stand up for the ordinary Kiwi, then I pose the question: why, after 9 years, did they not do something? Why did they not do anything? Why did they not hunt down the architect, the developer, the “subbie”, or the contractor, and look after the ordinary Kiwi?

After this legislation is passed, I tell members that in my electorate—the fastest-growing electorate in the South Island with lots of buildings, developments, and subdivisions—the average Kiwi man and woman will sleep a lot easier in their beds knowing that there are some minimum standards, that their homes will be their castles, and that the Government will look after them.

I support the bill. I commend the Minister who inherited the bill. I ask those who stand up from now on to front up for the ordinary Kiwi man and woman in the street and tell us, as my colleague said, what their policy is on this bill.

The member who just resumed his seat is suffering from severe delusions. I am sure he is genuine in what he said, but it just exposes his delusions. He said this legislation is a clarion call in favour of the do-it-yourselfer. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill absolutely dumps on the traditional Kiwi do-it-yourselfer. Far from being a clarion call, it is a bell falling on their head. It is an outrage. The member said the bill will protect the greatest asset of the average Kiwi, and his good folk in Waimakariri—Mike Moore’s battlers. He forgets that the building industry has been operating under a highly regulated regime. We already had all these registered plumbers, builders, local body building inspectors and their signed-off plans, yet the leaky building syndrome happened under those regulations. It is actually a function of regulation. To suggest that somehow this bill, with its new layer of heavy-handed regulation, is the answer, is deeply worrying.

The speaker from the Green Party made an interesting contribution, focusing on energy, and saying that we had to have legislated insulation requirements up and down the country. That does not make sense, either. The best way to get good insulation is to have proper pricing mechanisms in energy, rather than just relying on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and public relations programmes. The best way is to think about the problem; whether Invercargill requires the same standard as Kaitāia. I do not think so. There are differences throughout the country.

I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Tamihere. He is a good Kiwi battler, and that is what we like about him. Let us hear about when he was running the Waipareira Trust and representing the good “westies”. What do they think about this bill? They would say it is an outrage. It stops them being that good Kiwi do-it-yourselfer; the red-blooded heterosexual—what was the rest of that saying? They are the very people whom this bill dumps on. It emasculates the good old red-blooded, heterosexual Kiwi male. What does Mr Tamihere have to say about that? All the namby-pambies, and his colleagues like Mr Cosgrove, think it is wonderful, but it is very, very damaging to the traditional red-blooded heterosexual Kiwi “do-it-yourselfer” bloke ethos.

We want to hear from Mr Tamihere on this. He speaks out about the subject, but we want to hear from him in relation to the Building Bill. That is where the rubber hits the road. This bill is one of the most draconian, heavy-handed, regulatory frameworks that I have seen in this Parliament.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Looking after your mates.

No, it is not about looking after my mates. This bill introduces restrictive trade practices. Why do members think the building industry is welcoming it. I have spoken to chiefs of major construction companies and they said: “Philosophically we think it’s rubbish, but we love it. We love it because this is all about restrictive trade practice and new entries.”

This bill will slap more costs on for Kiwi battlers and make it more difficult for them to get into their first home. It is absolute bureaucratic pap. It is a misdiagnosis, and a misanalysis of the leaky home syndrome. The Government wants to be seen to be doing something, and as a typical Labour Party, it can only think of heavy-handed regulation. It cannot think smarter. It takes the approach: “If there’s a problem, make a law to ban it and somehow it will go away.” That has never worked. It is nonsense, but that is what this bill is all about.

Mr Cosgrove contradicted himself at every turn. Every time he uttered a new sentence he contradicted himself. He is not representing the battlers of Waimakariri; he is working against their interests. He is not protecting New Zealand society from rapacious industry people; he is actually protecting those rapacious industry people, who are now locked in and have added protection.

I, too, have to take a call following the contribution made by the Labour member Clayton Cosgrove. I note his whips have been trying to silence him since to make sure that he does not take another call.

Let me raise a couple of points against Clayton Cosgrove’s argument. The first thing he said was that National did not do anything about it and had 9 long years to do it. I take the opportunity of reminding the member that this problem actually came to light in 2000. In the year 2000 the leaky home saga hit the headlines. That was a time when the Labour member was part of the Labour Government, so it is the Labour Government’s problem. The second point I make is that if that member is so keen to help solve the problem, why is it 9 years before parts of this bill are enacted? Some of the commencement dates are in 2009.

The other point he raised was that this legislation was designed to help the battler obtain his or her first home. I had a call an hour or so ago from a man called Stan Scorringe. He is the Mayor of the Mackenzie District Council. That council has met over the last 2 days and tried to analyse the cost it thinks this legislation will impose on the average dwelling. He confirmed to me today—independent of the work done by the members on the select committee—that the council estimates that, on average, a house price will increase by $7,000 because of this restrictive legislation. I ask Clayton Cosgrove how that will help the Kiwi battlers, whom he says he is here to represent, obtain their first home.

I want to address a question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Tamihere, who at this stage obviously does not have Helen Clark’s permission to answer a question, but I will try. I refer in particular to clause 175, “Licensed building practitioner to certify restricted building work”. When I go back to the definitions and look at how “restricted building work” is defined, I see that it is defined as any building work that requires a building consent. That suggests to me that effectively all the do-it-yourself work—which the member Clayton Cosgrove said this legislation supports—under that definition becomes restricted building work and therefore it can no longer be done by the do-it-yourself person, or in fact by his mate who might have been a builder for 10 or 20 years but may never have gone through a formal qualification.

💬 Murray Smith: Read on!

I have read on, and I raised the point earlier, and the Minister has not answered. I carried out a significant renovation a few years ago—and I do not want to make the member Clayton Cosgrove any more jealous and spiteful than he was—and when we undertook that renovation we used a builder who has never done an apprenticeship but had had about 10 years’ experience, and the building does not leak, by the way. He will not now be able to carry on doing that work because he is no longer a licensed building practitioner. I say to that member—

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Did you pay him under the table?

No, I certainly did not pay him under the table, nor would I have done so. Those sorts of filthy tricks are the things one would expect from the Lianne Dalziels of this world. I would not operate that way. The point I want to make is that while there seem to be very imperfect definitions of restricted building work, I note that a discussion document came across my desk this morning in the name of the Hon John Tamihere. He now proposes to go out to the industry and say: “Help us to define what restricted building work is.” Here we are, passing the legislation now, and the Minister, by his own admission, does not have a definition for “restricted building work”. So we are going to ask the industry: “Should a hayshed be a restricted building work?”. Does that mean to say that a farmer can build it with his mate, and pay correctly, or does he have to have a licensed building practitioner? What about a carport? That was mentioned in the Minister’s own discussion document. He himself does not have a clue whether a carport is a restricted building work. This is a mess.

I think it is quite amusing to listen to some of these speakers who clearly either have not read the bill or, if they have read it, have misunderstood it, and Mr Carter’s contribution falls directly into the latter category. If he looks at the definition of restricted building work, he will see that it is building work that requires a building consent, relates to an element of a building that is critical to the integrity of the building and the health and safety of its occupants, and is declared by the Governor-General to be restricted building work. That means that if it does not require a building consent, it is not building work; if it requires a building consent but it does not relate to an element of the building that is critical to the integrity of the building and the health and safety of the occupants, it is not building work that is restricted; and if it is not those two things and is declared by Order in Council, it is not restricted. That is a very restrictive definition.

It is disingenuous for National to tell the public that restricted building work is all building work that requires a building consent. That is just totally misleading the public. Every time that members of ACT have spoken in this debate—in the second reading debate as well as in the Committee stage—they, too, have demonstrated that they have simply not read the bill, and if they have read it, they simply have not understood what it is all about. A lot of bluster has come through in terms of what ACT is saying with regard to the situation, and it is quite clear that they do not understand what this legislation is trying to achieve.

I reiterate that United Future believes this is a responsible and restrained way of going about having some criteria within our building system that provide a measure of safety for the public and the ongoing building of the housing stock in this country. For the benefit of those members who clearly have not read the bill, I want to point out some of the other benefits that are contained in this bill, and in particular in this part. One of the areas that I think is a really good development is this whole area of compliance documents. Up until now, we have had a situation where people can apply and get approved solutions, so the fact that the building work or the material is an approved thing by the Building Industry Authority means it can be used without criticism in building work, but very few people have done that. Very few people have done that because of the cost of doing that. So hardly any of those approved building solutions have gone through.

Having compliance documents in here means—we in United Future believe, and think it will be proved; and clearly the Government believes it—that compliance documents will become the norm. We will get into a situation where local authorities, when they are confronted with a design that is a little out of the ordinary, will say: “Does this methodology, in terms of building, or does this product qualify in terms of being compliant as far as the chief executive is concerned?” If the answer is no, I would expect that most local authorities will take a much closer look, probably at some cost, in terms of determining whether they believe it will meet the building code. That will slow the process down and prove more costly. If suppliers of products and suppliers of systems have got compliance through the chief executive, they will already have that there upfront, so when they go to the local authority they can say: “This complies, the chief executive says it does, and you can sign off on this without any worry.” The bill provides that if in fact there is a compliance document with regard to it, then it is deemed to comply.

I hope that that will turn this whole situation round, and we will see some of these new systems—and the monolithic cladding system is the classic one—having compliance recognised by the chief executive before they go on the market, so that the suppliers can more easily market their products, so that there is an investigation into those systems at an early stage to see whether they will meet the requirements of the building code, and so that will not get the retrospective problems where somewhere down the chain we find, all of a sudden, that they do not meet the requirements and we have massive problems on our hands.

There is also a provision in the bill for mandatory requirements—and that was a bit lacking in the old bill, as well—where the chief executive can in fact make compliance mandatory. It is intended that that will be used very rarely. But nevertheless it is an important tool in the chief executive’s box.

Can I just start by acknowledging the fine work of the officials. They did a lot of work for the National Party as well as for the rest of the Government Administration Committee in terms of answering questions during the select committee process. Can I also acknowledge the rest of the committee who worked hard under the chairmanship of Dianne Yates. There is no doubt that they went through hours of work—and then came up with this 358 pages of bureaucratic nonsense. Can I also challenge the member Clayton Cosgrove for his comments earlier on about sticking up for the Kiwi battler. Because, here is the interesting thing. On the Holmes show last night, I saw a Kiwi battler; a young mother who had lost her husband at a very early age, in the member’s electorate—

💬 Hon Member: Where was it?

It was on the Holmes show last night. Because of the fine work she had done for the community, post the death of her husband, under very tight circumstances, the community came together in a voluntary capacity and did her house up—did a major update of her house. Now the question I need to ask the Minister in the chair, John Tamihere, and the officials is: “Could they have done that work post this bill being passed?”. The answer is, “No, they could not.” That group of volunteers who went into that member’s electorate and upgraded that lady’s house would be severely compromised in doing their work under this legislation. That is the test; that is where the acid test hits the road. We have the do-it-yourselfers, like the group that went in over a weekend and completely rebuilt that house. They would now be put under so much red tape and regulation that that fine piece of community work could not take place.

I say to the Minister in the chair, John Tamihere—and I have not read his book yet; I promise that I will—that in his book I am sure it will refer to the Kiwi battler; the poor person who grew up in poor housing. Let me tell members that in no way could the sharemilker’s cottage of 800 square feet that I grew up in be described as a castle. The old man used to say that when one opened the fridge door the cold air rushed in! I know that that was one of the ways the cottage was described; but it was never described as a castle, I can tell members that!

Let me tell members that this legislation would make that very substantial dwelling of 800 square feet much more expensive. Let me tell members that it leaked like a sieve, was full of mould, and it was the most horrible house that one could live in during one’s life. This legislation will not stop that from happening. That house was built with untreated rimu, with the cladding of the time, which was rusticated weatherboard, with eaves, with sash windows, and a corrugated iron roof. It would have met all the standards that this bill meets in terms of a building standard. There was no insulation.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: It was well ventilated!

Well, when the southerly wind blew, one had to stand on the carpet to hold it down, otherwise it was up around one’s ears! Certainly the curtains moved when the wind blew from one direction or the other.

This bill will not improve that house, one iota. In fact, if the Green Party had its way the house would be treated as a heritage building and we would not be allowed even to alter it. It would have to stay in its original state.

Stopbanks are another issue. We have had this horrendous flood up in the Bay of Plenty and also in the Manawatū. We look for reasons why that happened—apart from the fact that it rained for 3 days on end, which is something the Government cannot be blamed for, unfortunately, otherwise we would, although we may be able to figure out a way to do that. The reason so much land went under water was that the stopbanks failed. As my colleague the member from Karapiro said, nowhere does this bill mention faulty stopbanks, or the construction of stopbanks. Clearly that issue could have been addressed but was not.

Small business is the backbone of this country, and it is interesting to note that the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Tamihere, is also the Minister for Small Business. For the benefit of Clayton Cosgrove, “small business” describes the man with the ute, the radio, and the dog. He is the Kiwi battler out there; the very person we are talking about, but he will not be able to survive under these heavy regulations. Imagine a copy of this legislation on the seat of the ute, underneath the dog!

As someone who had a particular interest in this legislation, I am very pleased to be able to speak to it in the Committee stage. I have listened to Opposition members with an increasing sense of incredulity. Who was in Government when the Building Act was passed in 1991? I wonder who that was! It is amazing hearing all these speeches coming across the Chamber laying blame at the feet of the Government. But it is this Government that has had to pick up the pieces. Who ignored the warnings of many of the old hands in the industry who said the laissez-faire approach was going to be a disaster, especially when one coupled it with the demise of the apprenticeship system in this country? I wonder who presided over that legislation?

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Bill Birch.

It was Bill Birch. The repeal of the Apprenticeship Act was done by Mr Bill Birch—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: And Lockwood Smith.

—and Lockwood Smith managed to deal to the industry training sector at the same time.

I have heard both the ACT party and the National Party say: “Let the market decide. Let the market determine all these matters.” Will we expect to see the market protecting homes from leaking? I wonder whether the market is capable of actually doing that. Is the market now some form of umbrella that is going to sit over and above shoddy workmanship that has not been properly undertaken and has not been properly inspected under the laissez-faire attitude that the previous Government introduced?

I am not prepared to trust the market in this case, because there is not an equivalent in the relationship between the consumer and the professional involved. The professional involved knows about building, knows about the quality of the product, knows about the processes that have to be put in place. As consumers, how on earth are ordinary New Zealanders—the Kiwi battlers whom my colleague spoke about—supposed to be able to protect themselves, when they do not know whether the particular product they are buying will stand up for the purpose? I prefer skilled tradespeople doing the job they are supposed to do, and inspection processes in place to protect as well.

My colleague Clayton Cosgrove, I thought, made one of the most telling points in this debate, thus far. He talked about the level of investment that ordinary Kiwis make in their home. He is absolutely right. It is the largest single investment that most people will make. The second-largest is usually the car, as my colleague pointed out. But with a car one has to have a warrant of fitness, look after the car, get the warrant of fitness renewed on a regular basis. But with a house what does one get from the real estate agent, from the builder?

What do people get in order to ensure that they keep their houses up to standard? Actually, there is a partnership that occurs post the purchase of a building, and it is important that consumers know what they have to do to maintain their properties, both inside and outside, to ensure that those properties are able to retain their fitness for purpose. I think it is amazing that there are still many people—and I am guilty of this myself—who have invested thousands of dollars into a property and did not have it inspected by a builder. But I would not buy a car without having it inspected by the Automobile Association. I think that is a culture change, an attitude change, that we need to see in this country, so that people get properties checked out for fitness for purpose before they actually invest that degree of money.

One of the things I am very concerned about—and, I think, one of things that this bill is trying to do—is to provide protection for consumers, the ordinary Kiwis. I have heard nothing from the Opposition that expresses any concern for ordinary New Zealanders who have been caught out in a situation where the legislation has not provided sufficient protection.

As for those who are volunteers or do-it-yourselfers, it is important to know that the house they build for themselves may be the home of someone else one day, and that person is entitled to have a protection, and what the legislation says is that if it is being built by a do-it-yourselfer and it does meet the criteria that my colleague quite rightly read out to the Committee, then it is important that a registered building practitioner oversees the process.

One of things I should perhaps remind the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, about is that she voted for the Building Act 1991. It is worth getting one’s history right, is it not? The legislation was introduced by the Labour Government of 1984-90 as a result of an inquiry. The Labour Party, not surprisingly, in 1991 voted for the legislation. Those members cannot disown their past, and they need to get their history right. I am not going to talk about incidents that Lianne Dalziel was involved in earlier this year, but it does seem that collective amnesia is a fault on her part.

We have heard a great deal about protecting Kiwi battlers—homeowners. That is a good thing. We agree with that. That is why we have said that there needed to be improvements to the Building Act. We wanted the Building Industry Authority strengthened so that it could undertake its supervisory role more fully. We wanted to have the quality of workmanship improved. Those are the practical measures that are required, not this huge piece of legislation that throws out the good with the bad—which is fundamentally what this bill does. It simply pretends that the past did not exist, chucks it all out, and tries to start again. Well, that is the way of tears.

I will turn now to the contribution, so-called, of Mr Smith from United Future. That was not very good. He calls himself a lawyer, and he went on about the sort of work that would be covered by restricted building work. The importance of that, of course, is that only building practitioners can do it. He made a great song and dance about the fact that it required a building consent; and, related to an element of the building that is critical to the integrity of the building; and, that it is declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be restricted building work. They have produced a discussion document on this issue. The blunt point is this: the reality is that any work that is likely to be covered by a building consent will involve some structural integrity. That is why people get building consents—that is the reality.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.