Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Lifting quality in our sector is at the heart of my agenda as the Minister for Building and Construction. This is a challenging time for everyone, and we’re facing disruption and uncertainty. On top of COVID-19 impacts, we have a sector continuing to face systemic challenges that are holding us back from meeting the needs of New Zealand and New Zealanders. The building and construction sector is New Zealand’s fourth-largest employer, accounting for 10 percent of New Zealand’s workforce, and our fourth-largest industry by GDP. We are responsible for delivering much-needed housing infrastructure and commercial buildings, the places where New Zealanders live, work, and play.

I want to thank the Environment Committee for their work and consideration of this bill. I also want to thank those who took time to submit and to provide their feedback. This bill seeks to address some longstanding challenges in the building and construction sector. Through the Building System Legislative Reform Programme, I am progressing major changes to New Zealand’s building laws, the biggest since the Building Act was introduced in 2004. These reforms will see a more efficient building system, a lift in the quality of building work.

This bill amends the Building Act 2004 in multiple ways. First, the bill introduces building product information requirements to better support and make more informed decision-making to help builders and designers choose the right products and install them in a way intended to support faster consenting. Secondly, it introduces a new voluntary scheme for modular component manufacturers to provide a faster, more consistent building consent approach. Third, it introduces new registration requirements for product certification bodies and provides the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment with greater oversight over the CodeMark products certification scheme to improve confidence that building products and methods will comply with the building code.

The bill introduces new offences, higher maximum penalties, a longer period to file a charge to provide greater protection for users, and other amendments to widen the scope of the building levy and enable public notifications to be carried out online.

Phase two of the Government’s reform programme will progress reforms of occupational regulation focused on ensuring people have confidence in the engineers and the regulated building practitioners and their work. I look forward to presenting these reforms to the House in due course.

During the course of the consideration by the Environment Committee, the bill underwent a number of changes to address issues raised by both submitters and the committee itself. The first modification is to change the commencement date from 12 to 15 months after the date of Royal assent. This will ensure sufficient time for the development of the regulations required to implement the changes to be developed and consulted on. A number of changes were made to the sections relating to the modular component manufacturer scheme. These changes will improve integration with building consent processes and clarify how the scheme aligns with consumer rights and the remedies under the Building Act.

The select committee process has been invaluable in improving the bill. A building system that inspires trust and confidence and can deliver safe, durable, and affordable buildings is a necessity for New Zealand.

Before I commend the bill to the House I’d like to thank the officials for all the work that they have done on this and other pieces of legislation that will help us to reform the building and construction sector. I look forward to progressing this further. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s lovely to be able to take a call on this bill. It’s a critical industry, the building and construction sector. I’m proud to be a spokesperson for it for National, and I do commend the Minister for Building and Construction for the work that’s been done in this space. It is an area that offers huge potential, and I’ve been quite excited, actually, as I’ve been learning more through this portfolio. I met with PrefabNZ, and their enthusiasm in particular for the modular construction space was really interesting.

I think what this bill is doing is a great step towards helping to reflect the changes, the modernisation, the new technology, the different building practices that have come into our system here in New Zealand over time. It’s appropriate to now be setting up the modular component manufacturer certification scheme for them to better reflect, I guess, the ability to turn out consistent products in a safe and efficient manner that can then give confidence to those building consenting authorities—the BCAs—to be able to sign those off in a fast-tracked process, I suppose.

One of the things I hear consistently when I talk to people in the industry, or those who are just wanting to build a house or any number of construction projects, is the time it takes to consent. That is a sticking point consistently around the country. The ability to shorten it in instances down to 10 days is fantastic, so having that within this bill is good.

I do just want to highlight one of the concerns that was raised by I think it was PrefabNZ, actually, during their submission, around how you ensure where the liability sits within that process. Of course, the construction of a particular modular component versus the installation may be done by a person who is not necessarily adhering to how the manufacturer anticipated that module would be assembled or installed into whatever site it is, and so, yeah, there’s just a question mark over that. But the process itself, I think, is good.

We’re supporting this—I will say that. So, you know, there’s been some good—

💬 Hon Member: Hooray!

—work done on it and—thank you. Thank you. Well done to all the officials and the select committee for their work on it, as well, throughout this process.

As I said, this sector has huge potential, and the Minister touched on this being part of phase one. I am excited to see the progression of that, and I look forward to seeing phase two as well, the next steps. There’s always more that can be done around some of that regulation, because what I hear, as well, when I’m out there talking with participants in the industry, is that we have seen a significant increase in the level of compliance and the time it takes to get things done, but, actually, we’re still seeing issues slipping through as well. So the additional compliance hasn’t solved all of those concerns we’re having around some of the standards and ensuring that we’re delivering safe products and that our consumers can have confidence in that. So I look forward to seeing phase two, which, hopefully, will address some of those aspects and give a bit more certainty and take out some of those areas where we are still, unfortunately, seeing issues coming through the sector, not just in this particular modular construction space, of course, but more broadly across the industry.

So in terms of this bill, the product certification scheme was one area that I thought was really good to see work done alongside the minimum requirements for information. Right, so this was all about trying to speed up the ability to get the process signed off and also to give confidence to those people using whatever products or methods they are using that they comply and adhere to the standards necessary. So those aspects were great.

The other one that I really wanted to touch on in my contribution here was around the broadening of the scope of the levy. That’s an area that, again, has come up in numerous discussions I’ve had around the ability to utilise I think it’s about $60 million - odd worth of surplus levy at the moment to make some proactive changes, or improvements, in different areas, rather than just having that levy there and maybe offsetting it and reducing the levy over time until it dwindles down. But broadening the scope, as proposed here, enables some practical changes to be brought forward, in my view, and I’m really excited by that particular aspect, to give a bit more flexibility to, I think, tick some of those boxes that we’re hearing from industry need to be explored in more detail and, obviously, funded alongside that.

Lastly, the other aspect I wanted to touch on was around the penalties and offences and some of the changes made there, obviously, around the levels of fines but, more specifically, around the extension from six months to 12 months to investigate a potential offence. Again, this comes back to giving confidence and certainty to those participants in the industry that standards are being met. So that additional six months, I think, gives a good balance between, of course, wanting to proceed and to have an appropriately compact investigative time frame and also ensuring that any necessary process can be gone through to cover off—well, firstly, to take up and explore the potential of an offence but also to look at whether multiple offences have occurred and to gather appropriate evidence. So that extension of a further six months I think provides a nice window to enable that to occur without it being an unduly long time to work through that process.

All in all, there’s some really good stuff in this. I’d like to acknowledge all the submissions that came in—96, I think it was—from a whole range of different sectors, so I thank them for their contribution as well. I’m excited to see this progressing through, and I’m very keen to see the next phase as well, Minister. I look forward to seeing that in due course, but I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like Tim van de Molen, the member that’s just been speaking, I’m also very excited to be talking on and about the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Member: Long name.

It is a long name, and I’m going to talk a little bit about some of the acronyms that are used in the Act and some of the processes around the prefabrication, which I think is so important. But, first, I really want to start by saying one of the reasons why I’m so excited is that in my previous life I worked in a law firm that did a lot of work for local government, in particular. So, of course, when the then Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa—who was just in the Chair but has vacated now—was the Minister, she really had that wide-ranging process for people to submit on how to improve our building legislation. Now this has come from part of that, so it’s great to be involved, and I’m involved in my role on the select committee. Unfortunately, I wasn’t on the Environment Committee last term when they heard all the submissions, but I understand that they were very in-depth and well considered by the select committee. So I thank the select committee members of this current Environment Committee and of previous select committees, and I know there’s a number of members across the rows.

What I really want to talk about tonight is the prefabrication and off-site manufacturing that’s called the non-traditional building methods that this bill is really trying to help encourage. So it’s doing that by producing this voluntary scheme for modular component manufacturers and for faster building consents, and that is a good thing. There’s a lot of prefab builders—or you can’t call them builders, really. Manufacturers of prefabrication have been held up by the Building Act as it currently stands because they’re making these components off site, so the normal checks that the Building Act currently provides for don’t fit neatly with that prefabrication. Prefabrication is going to help us as a country deal with our housing crisis and that supply side. You know, we heard today that we need to build more houses. In the House we heard, as well, that the Government’s doing a lot to support investment in the trades and training and apprentices. We heard Minister Hipkins say at question time today that many, many new training spots are in that construction industry. This is a good thing. The future Resource Management Act reforms, they’ll be a help as well, although they’re longer off than this particular help.

So the Building Act has needed a hand to get on with the prefabrication, and we’re doing that here now. The bill establishes a new regime in new Subpart 7A in clause 7. This is to deal with the prefabrication that the previous speaker and I have just been talking about. But we don’t call it prefabrication; we call it modular component manufacturing, and so there’s quite a detailed scheme in the bill that I’ll talk a little bit about.

Subpart 7A and the other parts and other clauses of the Act are relevant as well to make the current Building Act line up with these provisions, but, basically, the new scheme is all in this new Subpart 7A. So there’ll be a modular component manufacturer certification accreditation body—that is a lot of words, so in the bill this is referred to as the MCMC accreditation body. Now, the MCMC accreditation body can accredit and audit a person as a modular component manufacturer certification body, so that is an MCMCB. So that’s two steps, and we’re going to get to some more acronyms involving MCs. But the point here is that the MCMC accreditation body has some powers over the MCMC certification body.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: That’s right—say that again.

Thank you. I’m going to come up with some more MCs, I promise.

💬 Hon Member: Is it MC Hammer?

Yeah, no, I’m not MC Hammer—thank you, though, for the reference.

So the accreditation body, they can suspend the certification body, and there’s a process established in this Subpart 7A for that and it can involve the chief executive. Then, the MCMCB can certify a person as a modular component manufacturer, so that’s an MCM. How this goes about is that if the components can comply with the building code and other requirements, if there are any prescribed by legislation, then they can become a modular component manufacturer. So, again, this part of the bill establishes provisions for audit, for suspension, and for revocation of that certification.

Then, the next step in this hierarchy of MCs is that the certified MCM—so that’s the modular component manufacturer—can become registered. Now, in its certification of that registration, it’s limited as to what they can do. Once again, this new subpart introduces provisions for audit of that MCM, suspension if they’re not complying with matters, and revocation of that certification. Then, that registered MCM—and I’ll remind you that the MCM in this case is the modular component manufacturer, so it’s the person building the prefab—can issue a certificate relating to compliance with the building code, and that’s the trick that’s going to help us get more prefab buildings around our country.

The MCM scheme rules can be found at new section 272ZG. They can be made by the chief executive, including how to evaluate MCMs and rules that supplement regulations. So there’s a process here to establish the rules, and that includes public notice submissions and then those submissions being considered and some justification for those rules.

Now, if we go to new section 272ZG, “MCM scheme rules”, in clause 71, there’s a nice little definition that I thought—well, a nice clause that helps with all these MCMCs. So this section is talking about scheme rules and how they can be made, and I’ve just gone over that very briefly, but then at subsection (3) it says, “In this section, ‘scheme party’ means any of the following:”—this is useful—“(a) the MCMC accreditation body: (b)”—[Bell rung]—“an accredited MCMCB:”—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Thank goodness!

—“(c) a registered MCMCB: (d) a certified MCM: (e) a registered MCM.” I think that’s very helpful too, because this language is complicated and repetitious in terms of the use of the word “building”, and we’ve got definitions of “building product” and “building method”, and the members across will be pleased that I won’t go through those in detail.

But it’s very important that we understand this language, because it’s powerful. This is really going to help the building of houses more quickly in New Zealand by enabling this prefabrication. Although the legislation has a lot of acronyms, we can get through it, and it’s all totally logical, as, hopefully, I’ve outlined today. So, with that, I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Hallelujah! Thank goodness that the MC-ing has been completed for the evening. That was an awful lot of MC-ing, and Rachel Brooking, the Labour MP who has just resumed her seat, is a new MP. She has yet to behold the delights of Resource Management Act reform, and there will be plenty more opportunity for her to give speeches along those lines as we progress through that pathway over the next 10 years or so, although she probably won’t be in Parliament by that stage.

But I want to try and move from the MC-ing and the theory of this bill to the practicalities of it and why we’re supporting it, and what it means in practical terms, because, yes, it’s got some quite complicated features about it, this piece of legislation. But the intent is good, and I think that it will have a positive effect on the speeding up of construction of, particularly, modular homes in the years ahead when the bill is eventually enacted and put into place.

One of the things that did take place at the Environment Committee was that the committee recommended, and the Government have agreed, to extend the commencement date. Because of the fine detail in the legislation, the select committee heard from submitters who were concerned about the need to bring up to speed, particularly in terms of regulations and rules, and that it would take a bit longer than was being given in the original bill that was presented to the House and considered by the select committee. So, initially, the plan was to have this legislation take effect 12 months after the Royal assent. The committee has recommended that that be extended to a 15-month period after Royal assent, and I think that’s sensible. I’m pleased that the Government have agreed to accept the select committee’s proposal in that regard.

But I too want to talk a little bit about the prefabrication provisions because that’s the area that I think will have the greatest impact. Rather than go into the sort of the detailed analysis of it, I would like to relay to the House the situation that I well remember when meeting with a business owner who owns and operates a building construction business in my electorate in the Coromandel, in Thames. This is a business that builds holiday homes—baches—and they are largely of the same design. There are, I think, seven or eight designs that this builder builds and, essentially, you can have design No. 1, design No. 2, design No. 3, or design No. 4, and so forth, but that’s pretty much it. Really, the only thing that changes in the design of each of those homes is you can maybe, as a purchaser, choose a different coloured paint on the exterior, or different types of taps on the sinks, taps on the bath, or taps in the laundry, but, essentially, the floor layout, the design, the construction, and the plan is exactly the same. So if you buy plan No. 1, you’re going to get plan No. 1, and that building will be constructed in a way that is identical to every other one, as I say, with only cosmetic changes.

I remember going to visit this builder, and in the Coromandel, we have several district councils. The Thames-Coromandel District Council is one, the Hauraki District Council is another, and in those days, the electorate boundaries included a big part of the Matamata-Piako District Council. This builder was at pains to show me, and he said, “Scott, here is the planning consent work for my building No. 1 from the Thames-Coromandel District Council.”—and you’ll forgive me a little latitude, Mr Speaker, because I can’t remember which was which. But there was a relatively small pile of paper and that was the planning consent work that was required for building No. 1. Then he said, “But building No. 2, if I take it to the Matamata-Piako District Council, they require this much paperwork, and if I take it to the Hauraki District Council, it’s actually this much paperwork.”, and yet the buildings were exactly the same. In fact, the only thing that really differed between each of those buildings that were going to be built in different district council areas was, in fact, the piece of land that they were being built on. The actual dwelling was exactly the same.

Although this builder was not prefabricating, the design for all was exactly the same, and he couldn’t understand why it was that he needed to go through three different consenting processes for three separate district councils for what was, essentially, the same building. I, at the time, was sort of flummoxed and thought, well, he made a lot of sense, and of course the whole essence of this piece of legislation is to try and streamline that process.

If you look, as people sometimes do, at what happens in other parts of the world, you would go to North America, go to Canada, and see some of the work that is done there in terms of prefabricated houses that are built in huge, big warehouses using all the modern, efficient tools that come with, essentially, almost a production line—in fact, well, it is a production line—of housing. The houses are designed to a plan, to a template, a bit in the same way that a car may be built. You get to choose the colour, you get to choose the interior layout, and maybe the carpet and the curtaining and what have you, but the basic plan and design is identical and is the same. Then, those prefabricated homes are built efficiently, and priced effectively as well. They are put on large trucks, and they are then delivered to the building site in a way that we don’t see much of at all in New Zealand. Part of the reason that we don’t see much of it in New Zealand is because it’s been difficult to get consent, it’s been difficult to get the regulatory approval, and it’s been difficult to get through the red tape.

This piece of legislation, I think—I hope—will cut through much of that red tape in a way that will have a meaningful benefit to homeowners, to first-time buyers, and even to people who are looking to maybe downsize in the older age group. Maybe they’re empty nesters and they’re looking forward to building a beautiful home in the lovely Coromandel electorate, where the quality of parliamentary representation is infamously good, and they will find that they can build a prefabricated home in a less expensive, more efficient, more effective way, and then free up what was maybe their old family home for another family. So this is all part of, I think, a good piece of legislation that when put into effect, notwithstanding all the MCs and all the technical terminology—I think if we cut through what the primary objective of the legislation is and think about what the practical benefits will be, I think that it won’t be too long after the bill receives the Royal assent, and 15 months into it, we’ll start to see reasonably quickly the benefits in a tangible way of this piece of legislation.

I’d like to thank the submitters. There were quite a few, and I did have the opportunity and the privilege of sitting on this committee in the last Parliament. So there were 93 submissions, and over the course of that time we heard from 28 submitters. I think that that was a useful process, it was an example of the select committee system working, I think, exceptionally well in quite a complicated area, but with a good positive outcome.

I will look forward, once this legislation eventually does pass through into law, to being able to take a copy of it back to that builder in Thames and saying, “Well, actually, hopefully, this will sort out your problem and your three piles of paper with differing consent requirements and differing district councils will no longer be required.” So we’re looking forward to supporting this bill. We’ll participate in the discussion of the committee of the whole House, and then look forward to its third reading in due course.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It is even more particularly, I guess, desirable to follow that member, because I know there are a number of new faces around the Chamber, but colleagues on this side asked me who that was. Well, the quality—oh, and there we get the bow of acknowledgment from Mr Simpson, the person who, in his own words, has the quality of parliamentary representation in the Coromandel. It is so good that people do not know who he is on this side of the House. The message for the Opposition, quite simply, is that my colleague Rachel Brooking will be here in 10 years’ time. It’s a little bit questionable for those on the other side of the House, and perhaps we could refer to him later as the former member for the Coromandel, in the future, at some stage. I think he is thinking it is coming sooner than he may hope.

It is a pleasure tonight to speak in support of the bill. In particular, can I acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Poto Williams, for her work in this space. But, in particular, it is an absolute delight to listen to the Minister’s agenda in relation to this piece of legislation, because we on this side of the House, in Government, do want to lift the quality in the sector. We are passionate and determined in lifting the quality, and this bill does exactly that. What this bill does is it seeks to amend the Building Act 2004 by playing its role in a wider suite of reforms that we intend to put to work moving forward so that the quality in that sector will do exactly what we want it do, and that is to improve and increase.

Can I acknowledge the work of colleagues on the Environment Committee. It was a pleasure for the committee that I sit on to progress some of this. I note that its first reading back in mid-May of last year has meant that it has perhaps been some time since it has come back before us. But the work that the Environment Committee has done in that space is none the less commendable.

The rationale behind supporting this bill is, as the Minister has said, to provide an increased level of quality alongside the fact that we actually want a building sector, industry, and structure that inspires confidence, that inspires trust, but, actually, that also inspires more than an ounce of integrity as well.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Knowledgeable.

Knowledgeable—thank you, Mr Webb. That’s right, knowledgeable—that’s what we want, indeed. This will be the first form of reform to the Building Act in around about 17 years. It is an Act that was put into place in 2004, and so it is pleasing that its time has come.

What this will do is it will not just provide that confidence but, actually, provide certainty, as well. When people are going about the conversation and the journey when it comes to construction and building their own homes, for example, what we want to make sure is that they are in the best position possible and that they are able to make well-informed decisions—not just any decisions, but well-informed ones. This particular bill goes quite some way in seeking to address that. Why? Well, simply because it introduces some specific product information requirements so that we end up with more informed decision-making as part of that process, and, actually, that the selection and choice will be correct, accurate, and fundamentally right. We shouldn’t just cursorily look at that and sweep that to one side, as well—but not just the selection or the choice of the products but the installation that will follow that, as well.

We’ve heard already some contributions that align to faster consenting. Now, my days in local government—and I know I’m not the only one that comes from that particular sector or has an interest. Actually, all members in this House will have an interest in the local government sector because it is about local communities, at its heart. But we all know that councils could do better when it comes to consenting. What this proposed legislation is doing is it is giving them another tool in the tool kit to deliver and do exactly that.

One of the interesting things that a member opposite has alluded to is that this bill will introduce new offences but also, along with that, the potential for higher penalties that will serve as a disincentive for those that wish to perhaps flout the rules and not follow what is expected. So those opportunities that came through the select committee process will mean that that is a good change, and it is proof that the select committee process is doing what it is intended to do.

In terms of consenting, I just could not resist but have a look at my own electorate. Consenting numbers just generally are on the up, and we all know about that, but this will go some way to increasing consenting opportunities in my own electorate of Palmerston North, where if we look at the figures—[Interruption]—a fantastic place; it’s a fantastic place, thank you—in the year to December 2020, building consents in my city were approved for 524 new houses, which was 18 percent up on those stats in the previous year. With these changes, we are expecting and anticipating that we would see improvements in the sector and therefore that would flow on to those stats, as well.

Building and construction is, obviously, a really important sector to Palmerston North, and, actually, not just Palmerston North but to the wider Manawatū and Whanganui region, as well. So these changes will be well placed for regions such as mine to deal with the demand that undoubtedly comes our way, and continues to come our way, as well.

In terms of other proposed changes that have come through the select committee process, previous speakers have referred to modifying the commencement date. Now, it may seem that, actually, pushing 12 months out to 15 months is not a lot of time, but the feedback that the select committee received was that that would just be the sweet spot in terms of allowing those regulations to be developed—they are important regulations—as instruments and so that it is fair to everyone.

It also extends the filing time frame for a charging document where local council, for example, might want to go down the path or the particular route around investigating a potential breach. It means that it gives councils and inspectorates time to gather the information that they need to not be forced into making a quick decision on whether or not they should proceed with filing a charging document, and so it is well placed and another good addition to the piece of legislation coming back to the House, as well.

So, having considered all of those factors, I’m of the view that this is a fantastic piece of legislation. It is complimentary to the Government’s programme of reform in this space and is yet another example of this Government delivering for our community, delivering for local councils and local government, and that is something that all members of this House should be very proud to support. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā tātou, ōku hoa kaimahi.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all, my work colleagues.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. We are pleased and excited to support the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I realise that what we are trying to do here is set some certainty and some clear expectations on standards, not just giving the sector some certainty but actually our overall programme of modernising and increasing and scaling up the way we build, how we build, and what we build with. So we’re really pleased to support this bill in the second reading for that reason. But also, as others have noted, this bill will, hopefully, encourage and stimulate where we go in the whole entire construction industry, while also understanding that off-site construction, and prefab off-site construction in particular, offers a regional economic development thread which many around the regions have been calling for support for for quite some time.

So the introduction of legislation and regulatory frameworks such as this bill will all go towards encouraging that it’s not just about building; it’s about a broader vision for Aotearoa. It’s about broader economic development, including in the regions. I know, as my colleague Mr Utikere has pointed out, that speeches are always an opportunity to nail one’s flag to their region and their rohe, and certainly in Tai Tokerau, places like Kaikohe have been calling for some time for the sorts of opportunities that this bill will, hopefully, encourage.

I wanted to pick up on what some of the proposed amendments will be. I’ve also got a particular concern from our actual spokesperson on this bill, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, that I’ll also touch on. I wanted to mention that I got given only a moment’s notice that I would be speaking on this bill, so it’s been a good, quick bit of learning, which is not new to people in this House. But I was genuinely pleased to see in the proposed amendments how they will, as I said, provide that explicit, clear understanding regulating building products and methods. We know and have heard from the industry, actually, for well over a decade—probably decades—how that has been a systemic issue and how that has provided poor quality and a lack of consistency. That is another part of what the proposed amendments are going to try to address to ensure that the regulatory regime in itself is fit for purpose and for the way that the world, actually, is heading in terms of how we build and off-site construction.

I wanted to also add in here—and, as I said, it’s only been a moment’s notice, so I haven’t done the google yet—that my understanding a few years ago was that, currently, our off-site construction percentage across our whole construction industry was down around not more than 10 percent or maybe a bit more than 5 percent, while other parts of the world actually have off-site construction well up above 80 percent or sometimes often 90 percent of their overall construction method. I think that the off-site construction method, and the prefab in particular, is where we need to be heading in our enduring solutions to addressing the housing crisis, especially noting that other parts of the world are well ahead in utilising those particular methods. So fixing all the regulations up, fixing the frameworks up, and also drilling down a little bit into product quality as well, are vitally important to the enduring solutions.

I see that we’re also wanting to pull in and give some clarity on the investigatory powers of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), and we’re looking at increasing penalties for misleading statements about products and methods used. My goodness, have we heard that from the sector loud and clear about the sort of cowboy element that has been ruining it for all, in fact, across the sector. My goodness, have we heard that, and I was really pleased—well, first it was a bit of a shock to find out that, actually, the building levies that we have been charging have been more than recovering the costs. Therefore, we are reducing the building levy because we’ve been recovering more than what was actually needed for that purpose in the first place.

All these things are good things. All these things the Green Party are proud to support. It’s really, really important that there has been strong support from stakeholders across the sector as well, and other members in the House who have had the privilege of hearing that directly on the select committee have commented on that—really important. They are the absolute experts, with the insight and experience into making sure this bill is as good as it can be.

I notice that the first change lifts the burden off, leaving it to individual councils to have to regulate and to pick up that gap in our framework for building regulation, and we were leaving a lot of that to councils, which also then led to inconsistent standards and requirements around the country. Goodness knows what is wanted in one place and then in another place. So that was really important that we fixed that up as well.

There’s also a bit of duplication and, I guess, regulatory crowding where you’ve got several bits of regulation that mean the same thing in different words across different parts of legislation and in different parts of the country, so we’re tightening that up a lot, and also there is the potential threat to safety, depending on how materials are used in different situations. It’s quite boggling that this has been this way for quite some time. It’s really good that we are fixing this up in this particular bill at this time.

The framework of certification of modular building is one of the other major changes. We’re wanting to allow off-site inspection of components with deemed compliance of the building, and it’s if the components are assembled in accordance with approved methods. I noticed in the select committee report that that was quite a topic of conversation, as it should be. I think one of the other final changes that I wanted to highlight was where it talks about MBIE requiring information about building products and methods so that they can carry out their work and so that their regulatory functions are more effective.

I wasn’t—oh, how did I use all of that time up? I said I wasn’t going to speak for long, but OK.

It’s important that I raise one particular concern from our spokesperson on building and construction, the Hon Julie Anne Genter. I looked through the select committee report, and it didn’t seem to canvass it, but others who were actually on the select committee—you may not have written it in the report, but you may have discussed it. Please correct me if you have. She’s concerned about whether the Government will require mandatory, rather than voluntary, third-party testing for product certification for, for example, things like tapware, where there is some evidence to suggest that there is some cheap tapware that is flooding into the market and that that cheap tapware can also lead to leeching into drinking water. There is no safe level of lead exposure in drinking water. So if that was discussed, I look forward to others correcting me.

Apart from that, we absolutely celebrate the direction of this legislation and encouraging the certainty for the industry around off-site construction and prefab building methods. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the second reading of the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge all of the New Zealanders who work hard to provide homes for us in New Zealand: the builders, plumbers, drainlayers, electricians, architects, carpenters, tilers, bricklayers, project managers, suppliers, developers, and those who take on the risk and years of stress to see a project to completion. It’s all of their hard work that provides us homes for our families in this country.

A number of people from these industries took the time to make a submission on this bill, and I thank them sincerely for taking that time. Our democracy works best when we hear from New Zealanders who work in industries that would be affected by a change in law. It provides a “boots on the ground” perspective that lawmakers in Wellington need.

This bill seeks to amend the Building Act to support the building sector to shift to new, more effective and efficient building work and construction. It seeks to do this by strengthening the existing product certification system CodeMark to ensure products sold in New Zealand comply with the building code. It also establishes a new manufacturers’ certification scheme for non-traditional methods of construction, such as modular components and off-site manufacturing.

The ACT Party supports this reform of regulations around building products and methods for building homes. We think it’s an important part in addressing the housing deficit in New Zealand. Recent reports show not only that housing in New Zealand is unaffordable by international standards and getting worse but also the reason why: we are simply not building enough homes. This bill is a small but practical step towards addressing that shortage.

Because of submissions during select committee, the ACT Party still has a concern regarding the certification of a modular component manufacturer. Our concern is that a designer would not appear to have a role in certifying whether products manufactured in accordance with their design do, in fact, comply with the design intent. We will be putting forward an amendment in the committee of the whole House to address this issue and our concern.

This is an important bill that has the ACT Party’s support. Thank you.

Members, we’ve gone past 9.54. Therefore, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House will adjourn until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.