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

The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought the Minister might have been jumping to her feet to enlighten us all on this lovely piece of legislation passing before the House. But that’s quite all right. I’m happy to delve in and ask a few questions on it. Broadly, we’re pretty supportive of this. Ultimately, the building industry has huge potential at the moment to contribute to our economic recovery.

Having said that, there are a few little constraints that are holding back businesses—compliance, red tape bureaucracy; typical things that every business, every industry, faces, actually. But this is an encouraging step to look at streamlining some of that. So, broadly, we’re supportive of that. We have supported the stages so far, and haven’t seen any particular amendments proposed in the committee stage that would alter that for us.

But there were a few questions I had of the Minister, because some of the concerns raised by submitters, particularly in the definition of “building products” and “building methods”—that’s one of the key areas that I just wanted to get a bit of clarification from the Minister on, because it, to me, seems like one of the most critical areas. Again, the concept of this bill is good. But, as with most things, the devil is in the detail. So how do we have confidence, or what confidence does the Minister have, around the accuracy of the definitions in terms of—we heard from some submitters, actually, that they were too broad, but other submitters said they were too narrow. Then other submitters, again, said they were actually defined adequately elsewhere so didn’t need to be included in this bill.

I’m really keen to get the Minister’s take on how she’s landed where she has with those definitions, and any particular concerns she had around whether the wording of that was ambiguous or might lead to a slowing down or overburdening of the process by adding red tape into it, if people are actually taking longer to navigate through what is or isn’t a building product or method in their particular instance. Then, ultimately, we’re trying to streamline the process here. The risk is that we don’t if they don’t have a clear picture on that. So if we could start with that one, that would be wonderful.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for his question, and I thank members in the House. I just want to make a few opening remarks, and then I will come to answering the question that’s been posed by the member.

This is, as you will appreciate, part of the wider reform—as you, Madam Chair, will appreciate—programme to improve the efficiency and quality of building work, and to provide fairer outcomes when things go wrong. It is a matter of wanting to ensure that there is trust and confidence in the system and it also lends itself very well to the Government’s programme to speed up the supply of housing and create an economy that grows and works for all New Zealanders.

The bill amends the Building Act in three main ways. Firstly, a new system for building product information, the requirements for that, and to support better and more informed decision-making, particularly around what may happen within the building consent authorities (BCAs); secondly, it introduces a new voluntary scheme for modular component manufacturing, to provide faster, more consistent building consent approaches for manufacturers who are able to meet the quality and performance standards that we’re setting; and thirdly, to introduce new registration requirements for product certification bodies. That allows, also, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to have greater oversight over the product certification scheme.

To speak directly to the question posed by the member with regards to building product information requirements, it is really important that manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors set a minimum set of information about building products, and make that publicly available. There is a lot of information in the wider sector, and it’s about us accessing information that has already achieved requirements and has already met standards in other jurisdictions. So allowing us to leverage off that work is part of the issue—that we are ensuring that product information that’s already available, that is already part of another jurisdiction, is readily available so that when it comes to making decisions about the use of products, someone can make a much more informed decision about that, and also providing evidence that that product and the product claims are accurate and up to date.

Around the comment that the member made with regards to ensuring there is some confidence about that, we are asking building consent authorities to look at their building decisions much more quickly, and to be much more better-informed of product information, because they will have access to information that is publicly available which hasn’t been in the past. So building owners will benefit from having better-quality building work, saving time and money on less re-work, and much more efficient consenting. That’s where this piece of work really sits. Providing certainty and much more consistency across the BCAs is a really important part of this work—it’s actually what we all want, isn’t it, at the end of the day, because there is variance in BCAs and how they address this. So if we have some consistency around product information, that’s more readily available, people can make great decisions, much more better-informed decisions, about that, and build a level trust and confidence in the system.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that information. I guess where I’m wanting to go with it is just to delve into a bit more around the definition as well. I agree that, yes, having that product information at hand is very useful and trying to streamline or get more consistency across the numerous building consent authorities that we have would be fantastic. I don’t think there’s many industry players that wouldn’t wish for that.

But I’m just mindful of the submission from the Frame & Truss Manufacturers Association of New Zealand and their view around building products versus building methods. So they’re putting together a wall frame or a truss system by utilising a number of different products in terms of the nail plates and the timber, for example, that they might be using to build that, but they are then producing a separate building product, even though they’ve gone through a method, and they’re saying, “Well, is what we’ve produced a building product or a building method because of the system in which we’ve done that, and how is that being considered from a definition perspective in relation to this bill?”

Particularly, they were concerned around new section 9B(1)(a) of clause 7 just being a bit vague, and that’s where it comes back to that first comment I’d made around having consistency or certainty that we aren’t just getting ourselves into a bit of an ambiguous space. That particular clause specifies that “(1) In this Act, building method means a method—(a) for using 1 or more products or things as part of building work;”, but “products or things” has no definition under this bill. Whereas what they’ve proposed in their submission was actually to change that to “for using building products as part of building work;”, which just gave it a little bit—it felt like it was a bit tighter.

I wonder if the Minister has any comment specifically around that proposal from them but also around the broader concern, then, around the variance between building products and building methods, how that sits for businesses who are going through that pipeline or different aspects of the supply chain and merging some of that together and then creating something else, and how that sits under the certification process.

Thank you. I just want to confirm with the member: we’re talking clause 7, inserting new section 9A and 9B?

Tim van de Molen: Yes. Yeah. It was 9B(1).

Yep, cool. Thank you for that. I just want to let the member know that new section 9A defines the building product as a product that “could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building;”—the definition of a building product. But new section 9A also outlines the matters that must be considered when determining whether something could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building, and these are the components of that: “(3)(a) the purposes for which the thing is ordinarily used: (b) the purposes for which the manufacturer or supplier intends the thing to be used: (c) the purposes for which the thing is represented as being used for: (d) the purposes for which the thing is likely to be used (because of the way in which it is presented or for any other reason).”

In terms of building method, this is defined as “a method—(a) for using 1 or more products or things as part of building work;”. The bill allows for specific products and methods to be or not to be declared building products and building methods by Order in Council, should this be necessary. I also want to just advise the member—who will be aware of this anyway, I’m sure—that there is, sitting alongside this, a set of regulations which are currently out for consultation, and that will allow much more specificity and assist in the definitions and the purposes which this bill intends to effect.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Madam Chair.

Tim van de Molen: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call—

Tim van de Molen: Madam Chair, just on that same topic, if I may.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): OK, if it’s on the—I call on Tim van de Molen.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the member there. Just to finish on this particular topic, just exploring the regulations side of it, because there was a bit of concern that was raised by the Regulations Review Committee in relation to the “Henry VIII” power in terms of the outline under the Order in Council being made, around that particular definition. So just wondering if the Minister in the chair, Poto Williams, can give a bit of confidence to the committee in terms of that—how we can ensure that we’re getting that balance right between, obviously, wanting to enable innovation with new products coming on board, to adapt to that, but also ensuring that we’re still able to have confidence in that underlying legislation. Of course, then, sitting alongside that, a question of, well, are we then proposing that every building product will be clarified or named under that process or not? And the time frame—what is her expectation of how long it would take to have a product certified, coming back to that original question of are we actually producing a more timely system here? Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair; tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill, but I want to raise a really specific issue that I know I’ve discussed with the Minister in the chair, Poto Williams, before, and that has to do with the submission from Master Plumbers and specifically on how this regime could help ensure that people can be assured that their tapware for drinking-water is safe. My understanding is that some tests that have been undertaken of random products in New Zealand have shown that there are tapware products for drinking water that are leaching unsafe levels of lead, sometimes as high as 18 times higher than what the Ministry of Health currently deems is safe. But on top of that, what is deemed safe and our current tolerable limit for lead is, arguably, way too high. You know, the United States, Canada, parts of Europe, and now Australia are moving towards a zero-lead or a lead-free standard for all drinking-water tapware products. Within Australia, my understanding of the way that their compliance regime works is that there has to be mandatory third-party testing to ensure that the products are safe.

Minister, what I’m concerned about is that this is somewhat voluntary, the system that it’s setting up. So the purveyors of certain products can provide a certificate saying that it’s safe, but there’s no requirement or regime set up by which there’s an independent third-party body that’s responsible for testing that. The reason I raise this is—I mean, we don’t talk about it enough here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but there is no safe level of lead exposure for young children, and there’s no way of remediating it once they have been exposed to lead. It has irreversible impacts on brain development. So it’s extremely concerning, and I don’t think that consumers are aware of just how random it could be that they could be purchasing a product or have a contractor who’s purchasing a product off Trade Me that they’re using in their kitchen to fill up water glasses to drink from, and it could be leaching unsafe levels of lead. I think it’s definitely worth addressing, and so I’m wondering if the Minister can comment on that.

I thank the member for the question. I guess, like myself, the Master Plumbers have been huge advocates of this work in ensuring that lead is not in our drinking water. Some of the recent issues that have happened across the country would lead us to have sympathy for that point of view. I do have to say that the process we’re hoping to initiate here will give the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) much more opportunity to monitor and then consider whether to take prosecutions or penalise those suppliers and those manufacturers of that tapware that doesn’t meet standards.

With regard to having a voluntary code as opposed to something that is far more regulated and monitored, we’ve decided to go for a balance here. We believe that there is lots of information out there that is available for people to make the rights kinds of decisions for the tapware and the products they use. However, the balance we need to have here is about having a fully regulated system where all products are put through a particular process, and that would be hugely onerous and would not meet our intentions of being able to build quickly and build quality in as well.

I think with regard to the discussion that I had with the Master Plumbers, and you may have had this conversation with them as well—apologies, Mr Chair. This may have been a conversation that the member had with them as well, in that some of the products that they talked to me about were products that they purchased over the internet, not through what we would call the usual supply market, and we know that our suppliers and our manufacturers are self-regulating in the way they produce their products. So in this regard, if they are not, then our process puts in a level of ability for MBIE to then do the work they need to do to ensure that those products are no longer available for purchase.

That’s the impression I got from them in the discussions. They were quite concerned about the product standards for products that come from overseas for plumbers that were purchasing over the internet and did not have the normal safeguards you would have going through a normal process.

I thank the Minister. Just in slight reply, my understanding is that 80 percent of the people supplying into New Zealand are supplying into Australia, where they would be required to get the third-party independent testing to show that it’s safe. So I’m just curious about the assertion that it would raise costs in some way to ensure that we’re eliminating from our market any products that might be leaching lead into drinking water. I don’t know a single parent who would say that they prefer to save money and cause their child irreversible brain damage by having public health impacts.

So I really question whether or not this is striking the right balance when there is no safe level of lead and it’s impossible to remediate once someone’s been exposed. Arguably, the most vulnerable people in our community are the ones who are least likely to know the products and to have the means to ensure that the products that are being installed in their homes are to the standard that we would expect. I hear what the Minister is saying—that this regime will enable the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to do more—but I would argue very strongly that we are far behind the rest of the world on this and that we need to move towards a lead-free standard for all drinking-water products. Of course, there are other issues around lead and drinking water which might be the responsibility of councils, but there are very widespread, long-terms public health impacts from lead that we have to confront and do something about.

I completely concur with the member on that. With regard to the products that come through the Australian system, we will leverage off that system in terms of product safety.

With regard to lead in the water, you’re absolutely right, and I completely agree that there is no safe level of lead in our drinking water. I support local authorities, local councils, in their testing of water. I think there is a co-relation the member is wanting to draw with some of the products that are used by plumbers that may then lead to leaching of lead into drinking-water supplies. I have to say that some of the information that I have seen with regard to resting doesn’t demonstrate that, doesn’t prove that.

However, I think that part of the issue is the selection of products that people put into their homes, and there’s no way—I’m wanting to say to the member—that the balance is cost versus health. That is not the argument here. The argument here is ensuring that we get the best product information, that people can make well-informed decisions, and that we have systems set up that leverage off all the information that is available that can then be put out to the public so they can make the best choices that they can in terms of the products that go into their homes.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to explore what my colleague Tim van de Molen talked about in clause 7, which inserts new sections 9A and 9B. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to new section 9A(3), which says, “In determining whether something could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building, the following are relevant considerations: (a) the purposes for which the thing is ordinarily used: (b) the purposes for which the manufacturer or supplier intends the thing to be used: (c) the purposes for which the thing is represented as being used for: (d) the purposes for which the thing is likely to be used (because of the way which it is presented or for any other reason).” But it goes on into subsection (4), saying that “The matters listed in subsection (3) are relevant, but not determinative, considerations and do not limit what may be considered.”

The Regulations Review Committee, as the Minister will be aware, was very concerned about the “Henry VIII” powers in this particular clause. My question to the Minister is: how can this be justified? While we’re supporting the bill, I certainly have concerns about this. Always the officials would like to expand their ability to make regulations and do it, and the regulations won’t have the same scrutiny that this bill has. I certainly have concerns about this, because overreaches are something that happens over time. I think this is a relatively small but actually quite important step down that path, and it’s something I’m not that comfortable with. I don’t understand how that can be justified in this bill to that extent.

The Regulations Review Committee recommended that it be much more strictly defined than in this iteration of the bill, and I think that’s a very fair observation from the Regulations Review Committee. I’ve not been a permanent member on the committee, but I have sat on it from time to time—and I note one of the members on the other side who is on the committee. It is a good committee, and they, quite rightly, spend a lot of time on the stuff that, quite frankly, would bore most people to tears. But it’s really important, and it’s important because the overreach in these things—these bits of legislation are around for a long time, and the justification for this being in here is that building methods and components will change over time; therefore, they need the flexibility. I accept that to a point, but the devil is going to be in the detail of those regulations, and we aren’t debating that. We’re debating the overarching legislation, and the Regulations Review Committee said it needed to be tighter.

I would just like to hear the justification as to why it doesn’t meet the standard that the Regulations Review Committee thinks it should.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I also would like to talk about clause 7 inserting new sections 9A and 9B into the Act.

In particular, I wonder if the Minister could explain the thinking behind having two pathways for a thing becoming a building product or a method becoming a building method. If we look at the new section 9A(1)(a), it says, “In this Act, building product means a product that— … could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building;”. It then goes on in section 9A(3)(a) to (d) to say, “In determining whether something could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building, the following are relevant considerations: … the purposes for which the thing is ordinarily used: … the purposes for which the manufacturer or supplier intends the thing to be used: … the purposes for which the thing is represented as being used for: … the purposes for which the thing is likely to be used (because of the way in which it is presented or for any other reason).” It then goes on to say that that list is “relevant, but not determinative, considerations and do not limit what may be considered.”

So, so far, what the law tells us is that a building product is something that could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building. It then goes on to give quite a list of possible considerations, and says these are “relevant, but not determinative,”—we could ask anything else—and then it goes on to say, “An Order in Council”—well, actually, we’ll get to that.

Then it says that in section 9A(1)(b), it could also be that a building product is something “declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be a building product.” Now, this leads to a very interesting conundrum. So a building product can be something that fits the definition of being expected to be used as a component of a building, according to the list that is relevant but not determinative, and, presumably, that would ultimately be interpreted by the courts.

But if something doesn’t fit that criteria, then the Governor-General, by Order in Council—which really means “the Minister”—can override all of those judgments and say that something is a building material after all. Logically, the second method of becoming a building material—having the Governor-General determine that something is a building material—could only be relevant if there was a will to define something as a building material that, according to all of the other considerations listed in the Act, wasn’t a building material. So something is a building material unless it’s not, but if it’s not, the Governor-General can still say that it is, and one has to ask what sort of criteria would be used in the Order in Council to decide that something was a building material, other than the definition that’s in the law.

The difficulty with this is that people already face enormous difficulty with confusion caused by regulation, and I know that people who look at this are going to say, “Well, how do you actually know whether something is a building product or not?”, because if it’s normally expected to be a building material, well, that sounds sensible. Then there’s a list of things that might form your expectation. Then it goes on to say, “But it’s not just those things. It might be something else.”, and then it goes on to say, “Actually, forget all of that. A Minister can just decide that something’s a building material.”, but it’s not clear why the Minister would want to do that if something wasn’t already a building material according to the first set of criteria.

So if the Minister could explain that, I think it would be inordinately helpful to people out there who are just trying to build houses and work out what they can legally use to do it—to have her explain it. I know I would certainly appreciate it, and I hope that she can.

New section 9B talks about what a “building method” is, and we face a similar level of confusion over what a building method is. It says that a building method is something that, of course, is a method of “using 1 or more products or things as part of building work;”, and that sounds like a sort of self-evident definition of building work. So it sounds as though something for using one or more products or things as part of a building work would be a building method. It’s really putting one or more things together. That is almost a definition of building—very helpful.

Then it says, “(b) for carrying out building work that is declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be a building method.” So there could be something that’s not using one or more products or things as part of building work, but, nevertheless, the Governor-General declares that it’s a building method after all, and it’s difficult to know what sort of criteria the Governor-General—or, at least, through the Minister—would use to decide that something was a building method, even though it didn’t fit the definition that’s already being given in the law.

It then goes on to say, at new section 9B(2), “However, a method that would otherwise be a building method under subsection (1)(a) is not a building method if it is declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council not to be a building method.” So it seems that a building method is putting one or more things together, and if it’s not, the Governor-General can say that it is. But if it is, the Governor-General can say that it’s not, but it’s not clear why the Governor-General would say that or on what grounds they would use, other than the law that people can actually read before them.

Now, I think it’s incredibly important that people who are trying to get on with the business of solving the housing crisis have some clarity about what the law is so that they know what a building method is that they’re allowed to use and they know what a building product is that they’re allowed to use, because at this point they certainly don’t seem to get much guidance from the law. If they did, then it wouldn’t be necessary for the Governor-General to be able to override them. On the other hand, if the Governor-General can just decide that something is or isn’t a building product or a building material, without any of the criteria that they use being defined, then one has to wonder why we bother putting any definition in the law in the first place.

So if the Minister could explain why her Government did the initial drafting this way—it’s been changed very little by the select committee—I think it would be enormously helpful for her to put it on record so that people can get a common-sense view of what a building product or a building method actually is. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I find it curious that the member who’s just resumed his seat, David Seymour, wants to place impositions upon people who build houses that won’t allow them to build in innovative and creative ways. Perhaps that member knows something about the future of building that the rest of us don’t know? I’m not sure that he does. I don’t know whether that member has built a house or not, but I know that over the course of my lifetime, the way we build houses, the things that go into them to make them warmer and drier and healthier for us, has changed over time. Now, part of this discussion is about ensuring that we don’t close off opportunities for innovation and creativity into the future. I mean, you know, I think about things like the options of the way we do things with regards to technology—being able to 3-D print major components of things as well. I know the member is shaking his head, but it is an important point to note that we should not close off our options to innovation if we are wanting to make sure that we build for climate change, that we build for futureproofing.

💬 David Seymour: Ha, ha!

And the member mocks and laughs, but that’s the whole point—that the select committee did very little to change this, because they were sure that there is an appropriate amount of scrutiny within this. Because, let me just say to the member, the safeguards within this bill include the obligation to consult and, as a disallowable instrument, may be reviewed by the Regulations Review Committee and disallowed by Parliament. Now, if that’s not scrutiny in terms of the definition that would be appropriate to people, I’m not entirely sure what is.

Now, before I go any further, I didn’t say this beforehand, but I do want to thank the committee for the work that they have done on this and I want to thank the officials who’ve worked on not only this part of the building reform but other pieces of work to ensure that at the end of the day, we build safely; we build buildings that we can futureproof, buildings that actually don’t cost us a lot to heat, buildings that, in terms of their maintenance and energy costs, help us to meet our obligations, and at the end of the day help us to build more homes for Kiwis.

That is a very good example, for people watching, of how not to answer a question in committee. The question was put. It was fair. I thought it was reasonable; it just wasn’t answered. Instead we got a Minister engaged in personal attacks, saying that maybe I had some intention to not support innovation and questioning whether I myself had built a house. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to actually reading the law. Many members haven’t built a house but they still have to vote on laws. Then she talked about a range of things such as climate change, which are completely irrelevant to the question.

The question is simply: if the law that we have defining a building product and a building method, as set out in this legislation that the Minister has brought to the committee, is adequate, why does the Governor-General need the ability to change it? If, on the other hand, the Governor-General has the power to define by Order in Council, then why is it that we have these definitions put in place? It is a simple question. It’s either one or the other. People will look to this and they’ll say, “Well, I actually want to know by reading the law what a building method or a building product is.”, and we don’t want to see that a building product can be defined in one way but then that definition can be cancelled. We don’t want to see that a building method can be defined in one way except if it’s not, and even if it’s not, the Governor-General by Order in Council can say that it is. People who read this law are really none the wiser as to whether it’s the courts or the Governor-General that decide, and if it’s the Governor-General, what criteria they use.

The questions are not complicated. I think it would be really helpful if the Minister, rather than attacking me in the Chamber, could just get up and not impugn any motives and not talk about innovation or climate change but just say how people who want to build houses in New Zealand should understand this law. I’ll give the Minister another chance to do that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually thought that was a reasonably fair question from Mr Seymour, and had hoped for an answer on that. It actually comes back to the area I’d been seeking some clarity on earlier, as well, and I didn’t have answers on that, either—the two of those being in relation to new section 9A and around how someone can have certainty of their building product. Is there going to be a comprehensive or exhaustive list of all products? Because, based on what has just been canvassed by Mr Smith and Mr Seymour, if there is some uncertainty—and, as it’s written, there is—around the confidence someone can have in whether or not a product or a method complies, if there was an exhaustive or a comprehensive list of all products or all methods that they could use to then rely on instead, then that would be one way to provide some clarity. Obviously, part of the reason for having it written as it is is to allow for that flexibility for innovation, as the Minister has touched on, and that’s great. Innovation in the industry is fantastic, and I do want to ensure we support that.

So then my other question which I didn’t get an answer on was around what would be the likely time frame for actually having a building product or a building method determined as such. If a particular innovative product or method came up, how long would it take to have that determined to be, under this, as either being or not being a product?

Thank you for that question. I just perhaps want to clarify one thing, and that is the extensive set of regulations that sit alongside this piece of work—130-something pages of regulations that will help the member in terms of determining some of the answers to those questions. In terms of how long it will take to determine products, I cannot say that with any definition. My hope and my desire with this piece of legislation is that we make it easier and that we allow also for that innovation to come into the process, as well.

Excellent, thank you for that. Just a couple of other areas I just wanted to touch on briefly were in relation to the need for the modular component manufacturer certification body (MCMCB). This was one area that was touched on. I mean, we have the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—“MBIE”. That then comes down to the MCMC—so the modular component manufacturer certification accrediting agency. Then we have the MCMCB, which comes down from that, and then we have the modular component manufacturer, “MCM”, below that.

💬 Stuart Smith: Wouldn’t want to say that quickly.

No. It is quite complex, actually, and that was one of the things that came up from submitters: the different levels, the different acronyms, whether that was all necessary. I think I’ve just got that right going through there, but do we actually need to have that middle step of the MCMCB? There are a few submitters that said, “Well, what is the point of it?” I’d be really interested to get Minister Williams’ insight into why that particular aspect of it is critical.

But then I might also just delve into the next question. I feel there’s some desire to move on from the Chair, so while I’m on my feet, in regards to the levy use—so a separate topic—there was broad support for altering the ability of MBIE or the chief executive to utilise the building levy for different purposes to allow wider scope. I’d be really interested if the Minister could give some insight into some of the things that she would expect would be priorities for utilising that under the broadened scope that this bill provides for. What are a couple of the things that the Minister would see at the top of her list for utilising some of that additional building levy on? Thank you. [Bell rung] Mr Chair, whilst the Minister’s having a quick rummage through there, I’ll just give her a moment, if that’s helpful, perhaps?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Tim van de Molen.

Thank you, Mr Chair—very good. So just in relation to the MCMCB aspect, basically what I’m looking for there is to try to understand: are we actually complicating this a bit more? It comes back to those initial comments I made at the start that the support we have for this bill is on the premise that we’re trying to streamline and improve the industry, make things easier, speed up the process so we can just get stuff done. And broadly, that is fantastic. My concern is whether or not that is actually a part of that, aligned with, also, those other questions I’ve asked. I think the Minister looks ready to leap to her feet with some enlightening answers, so I shall allow for that. [Interruption]

Are you seeking a call?

💬 David Seymour: No, I’m waiting for an answer to the last question.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, there’s someone behind you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Minister: we certainly are still waiting for an answer to the last one from Mr Seymour, but I’d like to add a further question. During the discussion at select committee, the issue was raised about the modular component manufacturer having the opportunity to certify their own product as complying with the design. There was an issue raised by Engineering New Zealand and councils that having the designer check that the manufactured product actually met the design intent was an important safeguard. We were assured by officials that the auditing and checking functions included in this amendment bill were sufficient, yet there must still be a concern amongst stakeholders that, unfortunately, there is no role for the designer in checking whether a product they’ve designed and which is manufactured by an approved organisation actually meets the design intent and looks like the product they designed. So could the Minister provide some assurance that the controls in the bill are sufficient?

I’ll come to the building levy that Mr van de Molen raised as an issue. The intent of this is to allow for, you know, a broadening of the scope that the levy can be spent on, and I guess, in terms of top of mind, monitoring, overseeing, and improving the performance of the building sector is probably right up there at the top of the list.

The question is that

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2