Franks Stephen: Building Bill — Second Reading 
Franks Stephen: Building Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14539] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to speak on the second reading of the Building Bill. We were not on the Government Administration Committee that considered the bill. As I look at the huge report produced by that committee and the pathetic analytical quality of it I am rather proud to have been able to avoid being associated with such a parody of process. 
I look at the dissenting reports and I have to say that in 5 years’ time when its impact is at its greatest probably no one will remember those warnings. People will take it as just another one of those mysteries as to why it costs so much more to get a house in New Zealand why people emigrate why they feel poorer in New Zealand. No one will remember those warnings. I have to say that I believe that New Zealand First has made the most sensible comments; the National comments while they are good comments would have been helped if they had been a little more expansive—and it does surprise me. 
Shane Ardern 
: More are coming. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am glad to hear that more are coming from the National Party. I have to say that the United Future contribution is also extensive. I wonder whether the committee allowed it to be indulgently long because in it that party betrays itself. It is such economic nonsense. 
A Government body went out and got a professional cost-benefit report which says this bill will add—and I would imagine it would be conservative because it would not want to be scaremongering—an average of 2.9 percent to building costs across the board. Then we look at the benefits: 0.3 percent. It is almost elementary. 
Common sense tells us that although this bill is the response to the leaky building syndrome its biggest impact is probably on New Zealand’s culture; on the assumption that used to underpin this country that we could do anything that was not expressly prohibited that we did not have to ask anyone if we could do the normal things in life. I suggest that probably many members of this House have had the satisfaction that I have had over the last couple of years of building a substantial building. There is very little that can be more satisfying than going to bed exhausted having puzzled one’s way through construction problems then getting up the next morning and undoing some of what was done the previous day because one had got it wrong then calling in the neighbour who is a builder or calling in someone else who has expertise and asking how to do it. That is at the very essence of being a New Zealand man. I think it is hilarious that this bill is sponsored by that red-blooded man Tamihere who believes that men need support groups and Government agencies to help them be men. He thinks that only official authorised licensed builders should be allowed to build. 
We have a bill that on the very face of the report is tripe in terms of its analysis. I believe that Mr Roy Hanns is a very reliable and experienced man in this area. I look at his submission and see that he thinks approximately 0.1 percent maybe 1 percent in the worst areas of new buildings have been affected by leaky building syndrome. Let us assume that they are all total write-offs. Let us assume that the people ought to be fully compensated irrespective of whether they went to shonky builders in the first place or did not take any precautions. Let us assume that the owners should bear no responsibility whatsoever. Let us assume also that this experience has no demonstration effect—in other words that out of this people have not changed their attitude towards building. Let us assume that the new Building Act requirement will save all those kinds of problems in the future and fully compensate those who have suffered. On the numbers the benefit will be one-tenth of the cost. We could provide to every owner of a leaky building 10 entirely new houses for the cost of this Building Act. 
United Future’s laughable analysis says that it is going to look after all these people that it would have made sure they had good buildings that we should never have deregulated and that the fact that building inspectors cannot get insurance is a reason to put the whole responsibility on local authorities. Well I say to United Future that the reason they cannot get insurance is that the insurers know that these kinds of risks happen that there will be bad builders unless we totally gold plate the industry that there will be unanticipated effects and that there will be losses. To insure them is simply too expensive for any commercial person to take the risk. 
So where is the Father Christmas going to come from? Well United Future knows all about that. It comes from rates. Rates of course in United Future’s world are the answer to all problems. Rates are the answer to United Future’s image problem at the moment. United Future wants the Government to take GST off rates; it thinks that will appeal to people who do not realise that their rates will go up by three or four times the rate of inflation. Taking off GST is simply a way of forcing everyone else to subsidise the inefficiencies of local authorities. United Future would rather add the entire inspection role under this new Building Act to local authorities and pretend that the cost had just disappeared because it meant that one did not have to get insurance. It does not seem to have crossed those members’ minds that the entire cost would then fall on ratepayers many of whom would have no intention of building or would have taken all the precautions necessary to have a safe building and most of whom would be wondering why their rates were so much higher than they ever used to be in the past. 
This Buildings Bill will be the end of do-it-yourself building. This legislation requires that councils when they are administering it go through the Greens’ wish list. They will have to take into account heritage energy conservation and efficiency use of renewable energy water conservation and efficiency efficient use of materials and waste reduction. So from now on when the guy or the woman—many women have enjoyed building too—builds the deck or puts up the kitset farm building or extends the house that work will have to be done by a building practitioner. We know what will actually happen inside houses: whether or not alterations are structural people will stop going for consents. As long as the work cannot be observed in a satellite photo New Zealanders will deal with this law in the way that they have always done—by hiding the work completely from the authorities. But let us assume that it is work that cannot be hidden from the authorities and will be obvious in a satellite photo. That work will have to be done by a member of this new profession of registered building practitioners. 
The word “builder” I take it was just too simple for words; did the select committee consider it? I have a young builder friend who is really looking forward to being a building practitioner. He is quite aware of the monopoly rents that will accrue to those in this rare category as they take a much easier life and swan around looking at other people’s work. He is quite confident that over time as disasters continue to occur—United Future the Labour Party and the Mr Parkers of this world having increased the rules and having promised people that these sorts of things will never happen again—as a building practitioner he will get himself into the sort of privileged position that until now has been held by people like surveyors lawyers and others who do not need to dirty their hands but make a living out of interfering in those who do. 
That is what this bill is about; it is about a bunch of probably mostly well-intentioned but politically ambitious people being Father Christmas to homeowners—that is offering them the myth of the costless solution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I remind members that cellphones are to be switched off in the Chamber. I heard cellphones ring in two instances.