Shanks Katrina: Building Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Building Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13013] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Building Amendment Bill today. The National Party opposes this bill and put a National Party minority view into the report. 
The history of the building industry is actually quite interesting in terms of the number of Acts and the number of Ministers who have held the relevant portfolio in the last 8 years. A quick look at what has happened in the building industry and at the lack of understanding the Government has about the industry is quite enlightening. 
I should start back in 2002 when we looked at the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill which was brought in to stop leaky homes. From there in 2004 the Government brought in the Building Act. That was to improve the workability of building legislation. Then in 2006 what did we have? We had the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. And why was that? That was because the Government rushed through the 2002 legislation. It was rushed through no submissions were heard on it the Government did not listen to what the people of New Zealand were saying and of course the Government got it slightly wrong. 
Then in 2007 this year what happened? The Government brought in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill— 
Bob Clarkson 
: That’s four. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: That is absolutely right I say to Bob Clarkson from Tauranga who is sitting to my left. Why in 2007 did the Government bring in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill? The reason was that the last two pieces of legislation going back to 2002 did not quite cut it. Why was that? Once again it was because those pieces of legislation were rushed through. 
So what happened in this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill? Gosh there were no submissions were there? The legislation was rushed through again. Not only that but the Standing Orders were put on hold I do believe because the Government wanted to avoid the legislative process that we have in place. The Government put through Supplementary Order Paper 133 then Supplementary Order Paper 134 which split the bill into two bills. Then what did we have at the end of that? We had a Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill that had not been through the select committee and had no submissions. Is this truly listening to what the industry is saying? Did the industry even understand what these bills were about? 
Now again this year we have another building bill—another bill that hits this industry. The industry has had so much change already. The bill is the Building Amendment Bill and that is what we are looking at again. So that is one two three four five— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Six. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: The member is right. There have been six bills since 2002 to do with the building industry. No wonder the building industry is frustrated with this Government and no wonder it does not understand the regulations. The regulations are changed so fast so quickly and without consultation.  
 We can say the Labour Government does not understand the building industry—really it does not. We should look at Ministers that Labour has had in this portfolio since 1999. They are: Mark Burton 1999; George Hawkins 2000; Rick Barker 2001; Lianne Dalziel 2002; John Tamihere 2003; Margaret Wilson 2004; Chris Carter 2005; Clayton Cosgrove 2006; Mark Burton 2007; and now we have another Minister in 2007. And who would that be? That would be Shane Jones. We have had 11 Ministers working on the building industry since 1999. And how many bills have we had? Eleven Ministers have presided over six bills— 
Bob Clarkson 
: We’ve had more Ministers than bills. That’s good! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Bob is absolutely right. We have had more Ministers than bills in this industry. This industry deserves to be taken seriously and to be listened to. If it had been listened to the first time we would not be repealing and amending these bills like they were going out of fashion. 
The Social Services Committee did not have much to do with this bill actually. A few submitters came forward but not very many. We asked whether the public were aware that this process was in place and they were. There was quite a lot of confusion with the submitters in terms of what they thought this bill was doing. It is doing just a few things; it is actually quite a small technical bill. Basically it is about making technical changes in order to make the bill more effective—certification of builders the clearer role of central government licensing schemes dam safety accessibility the connection to the Australian scheme exemptions and LBPs or licensing building practitioners. 
The Minister assured the select committee that the bill would not affect DIYers—people who work on their own houses. He said his intention was not to limit DIY people themselves. At the very beginning of this select committee process we heard about “cowboy builders”—unqualified builders who do not produce high-quality houses. How will this bill help homeowners who have had tradesman come in who were not qualified to do the job and who built houses that were not quite adequate? This bill does nothing to protect those people because they are still considered to be DIYers. There is nothing wrong with DIYers; they build their own homes. 
Then a submitter came in who thought the interpretation of the law meant that if someone was going to change the putty in his or her windows he or she would have to get a consent to do that. So the select committee had quite a big discussion over whether one could change the putty in one’s windows without needing a building consent under this legislation. Then we had another discussion and it was quite an interesting— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: You’re putting your members to sleep! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Well the member should have been on the select committee because these people were quite passionate. The National Party members sitting on that select committee actually listened to the submitters and that is why we have a minority report in the commentary on the bill. Obviously those who voted for the bill—the Labour members on the select committee—did not listen once again. 
So how many Ministers have we had? We have had 11 Ministers and seven changes of law since 1999. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How long has this member been here—three weeks? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I do not think so—a little bit longer than that. Even I know what happens in select committees and even I know what happens to the building industry when one suspends the Standing Orders as happened in respect of this legislation. 
What did the submitters talk about when they came in? We had the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors the New Zealand Institute of Architects the Rodney District Council the Certified Builders Association Meridian Energy and someone called Alan Light. What was their big concern? Well they were quite varied in their concerns but the big thing was really about licensed building practitioners and whether if people are building their homes and need to be supervised because certain criteria requires it those licensed building practitioners would then be liable if that building was leaky or faulty and they had signed off on it. So there was big concern and confusion in that industry as to who would be liable if a building was signed off on. 
One of the good submissions that came through was from the New Zealand Institute of Architects. The institute had a lot to say about licensed building practitioners it brought forward really good points that were quite detailed and it went into clause 63 a lot in respect of whether the Building Act should be amended to recognise that licensed design practitioners and registered or chartered design professionals are separately empowered by their own legislation. That was really interesting because it was something that had not been raised at all in our discussions in the select committee. It will be interesting to look at this legislation when it comes back into the House again at the next stage and to have another discussion about it and talk more about some of these submitters. 
I say to all those travelling in Auckland who are stuck in their cars and waiting for the traffic to clear a little bit more and who are expecting to get home at 7 o’clock that they should listen on because there is more to come.