Flavell Te Ururoa: Building Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Building Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14928. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. I am pleased to take a call on this Building Amendment Bill. During the debate I have been thinking about who will benefit from this legislation. Although I know this House would be fascinated I am not going to spend any time today on discussing the 45 minor amendments and technical drafting corrections related to the future setting of accreditation fees. 
The bill makes minor changes to the Building Act 2004 that will improve the workability of the current regulatory framework. I want to spend some time on clause 10. This clause amends the content requirements for project information memoranda to include the need to have a statement on how buildings are complying with the disability access provisions of the building code. It reminds builders of the compliance requirements relating to access and facilities for people with disabilities. 
It is more and more common that at any gathering of tangata whenua there will be a group of people whom we might refer to as the “Walking Frame Club”. I am talking about those of our people who are impaired or affected by conditions related to diabetes gout gangrene hip fractures hip and knee replacements arthritis and other factors that could slow us down—too much kina and paua they say. This bill is a step in the right direction for the “Walking Frame Club”. For far too many tangata whenua with disabilities independence is compromised by buildings and access points that are simply too difficult to negotiate. Jutting edges uneven surfaces and obstacles make access to a building difficult. 
It is great that the bill requires project information memoranda to include a reminder about access provisions for disabled people. This is of particular interest to us in the Maori Party as we know that for tangata whenua adult disability rates are higher than national rates. One-third of Maori aged between 45-64 years report a disability compared with one-quarter of the total population. 
The litmus test of any access provisions is if the target groups respond positively. It was pleasing to see the National Assembly of People with Disabilities and CCS disability action support the amendments in the bill. Clause 10 provides for the requirement to show how buildings are complying with the disability access provisions of the building code and that has to be good. 
The other point I raise is around the process being followed in this House in supposedly improving the workability of the 2004 Building Act. We know that on the basis of the 30 submissions received generally there has been strong support across the relevant industry groups. However we also know that many of those 30 submitters raised concerns. The problem is that because there is no commentary on these issues in the Social Services Committee report to Parliament it is very difficult to ascertain what issues have been addressed through recommended changes to the bill what issues have been discussed but did not result in any recommended changes to the bill and what issues have not been addressed at all. 
Let me share an example. Concerns were raised by the Registered Master Builders Federation about the watering-down of the definition of restricted building work. Its view was that the weasel words made the building licensing scheme less practical and less certain. An amendment was then recommended by the committee that would seem to address these concerns but it is difficult to ascertain its effect or how it is qualitatively different from the current wording in the Act given there is no commentary in the select committee report. The amendment specifies that restricted building work is building work that is critical to the integrity of a building—for example its envelope and structure. One would think that the intention would be to make the definition more precise yet the key words “critical” and “integrity” are not defined. That is pretty ironic given the purpose of the bill is to clarify the language and the rules relating to the licensing of building practitioners. The people working in the building industry need straightforward information on what licensing is about and what it will mean for them and it needs to be in terms that do not leave any doubt. 
In summary let me build—excuse the pun—on the concepts I have raised. As a non-builder I would be reliant on a licensed building practitioner to nail down a definition for me that one could hammer home. If the words “critical” and “integrity” are part of the foundations of a building practice concepts that have a clear trade meaning one would have thought it would be useful to define them in the glossary of this bill. If the basic architecture of the bill is “floored” and paints us into a corner because of the cracks in understanding no amount of putty applied during this late stage of the debate will seal it for us. We in the House need to step up. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Excellent! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I thank Mr Woolerton. The concern for us as a smaller party that does not have membership on the Social Services Committee is that we are not in a good position to evaluate whether the amendments suggested are in keeping with the advice received. We want a level playing field—thank you for laughing Madam Assistant Speaker; I appreciate that. We would have thought that the whole debate was a window of opportunity for framing some alterations to keep the builders building happily ever “rafter” but is hard to see the wood for the trees in the final report of the select committee. 
We have to however measure these issues up against the total design of the adjustments that will improve the safety of any future dam constructions clarify the legal liability and accountability of licensed building practitioners and give more detail around building consent exemptions. In drawing our comments to a close we in the Maori Party will support this bill to ensure that we have appropriate diagrams and plans for success in the building and construction industry.