Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13257] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Obviously the preceding three speakers have not taken the time to read the Building Amendment Bill. If they have read the bill then they do not understand it and that is an even sadder situation. They should admit to not having read it rather than to not understanding it. Nowhere in this bill or the Act it amends does the legislation prevent anybody from building his or her own home. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it does. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Can the member show me where? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: OK. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Nowhere does the bill prevent that; nor would it have prevented Norman Kirk from building his own home. There is the power for regulations— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Fairbrother has challenged us to explain how this bill will prevent people from building their own houses. There are provisions in the Standing Orders for a member to yield. If the member would yield to me I would be happy to point that out to him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that he is perfectly entitled to ask for that but the member does not have to yield. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I listened to the member’s earlier speech and it had no content whatsoever. Why should I give up my time to allow him to further waste the time of this country with the inability to concentrate on the matter at hand? 
Let me repeat that there is nothing in this bill to stop a person from building his or her own house—fair and square full stop end of story. So those members should stop the fearmongering stop trying to gain votes and panic the populace and stop rushing out there with their fear—and I would say ignorance but it may well be highlighting the level of intelligence of the people opposite. 
I really want to make clear that this bill puts right that which that party on that side of the Chamber allowed to drift on for 9 long years. The rains came down and that party did nothing; houses leaked and that party did nothing; houses rotted and that party did nothing; balconies collapsed and that party did nothing. Dr Hutchison had the temerity to stand up and say that we are shifting the costs on to local government. That member should tell me about section 28 of the Building Act 1991. That section of the Act was the fulcrum of the regime that was ushered in by the National Party. That section cast upon territorial local authorities the responsibility for administering this open slather Act under the guise of free-market enterprise. It was a disaster waiting to happen and it happened with tragic consequences to so many decent and proper New Zealanders. 
There is nothing in this amending bill that further adds to the bureaucracy. There is nothing in the Act that this bill amends that makes it more difficult for homeowners to build a home or have a home built. This legislation defines and refines the areas of responsibility so that for homeowners who find they have been built a home that is not satisfactory the lines of responsibility are crystal clear. No more expensive inquiries need to be embarked upon; no more time of this Parliament has to be wasted on inquiries before our select committees; no more specialists need to be appointed to take 2 years to find the cause of the problem; no more territorial local authorities need to run for cover and blame everybody else; and no more builders need to pay off huge debts at $10 a week to couples who trusted their life-savings and their ambitions to builders who were unable to build to a building code that had insufficient regulation. 
This is remarkably good legislation. It amends a good Act. It does nothing to complicate that Act. Let us concentrate on just one aspect of this bill. Let us talk about putty. Members opposite obviously have no idea what putty is. Putty to them is probably the poor electorate constituent who comes to their offices and has fear bred into him or her by having the feeling engendered that there is a nanny State out there and that the Labour Government is responsible for it. That is the sort of putty those members know about. 
The putty that this bill refers to is the putty that used to be applied to hold windows into the window frame. These days most windows are retained by an aluminium strip. However the bill does not prevent one from putting putty into a window. If the member does not know where to look to discover this I will take him to clause 6 and the definition of restricted building work. [ 
Interruption 
] There should be restricted MPs on that site I say to Mr Henare. Restricted building work means building work that is critical to the integrity of a building. I ask members opposite to tell me the way puttying a window pane into a window frame becomes integral to the integrity of a building. I ask members opposite to tell me the way a pane of glass is critical to the integrity of a building. It may be very good to stop the draughts or to keep the rain out but it is not critical to the integrity of a building. So to fearmonger on that angle alone shows the folly of the arguments opposite.