Building Bill — In Committee 
Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14767] 
Building Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National is opposing this legislation. It has become over-prescriptive. The bill is 358 pages long. It is raising the bar and it does absolutely nothing for consumer confidence or protection. My first reading speech the other day identified some of the reasons why National is opposed to this legislation. Part 1 which we are now debating has some major discrepancies and at the time I brought the Government Administration Committee’s attention to why stopbanks were not included under the definition of “dam”. Members will find a definition of “dam” in clause 6 which mentions artificial barriers flood control dams natural features and canals but paragraph (c) states: “does not include a stopbank designed to control floodwaters”. I would have thought that with the current floods in areas like the southern North Island Rangitikei Manawatu and Wanganui stopbanks would be an integral part of the protection for the surrounding land property and lives that were affected and I argued in the select committee that stopbanks should have been included or covered by this legislation. I have yet to hear any reason why stopbanks should not be included. 
Bearing in mind the floods I have just mentioned and also the recent floods in the Whakatane area—and I have visited both those flood-prone areas—I do not know why stopbanks are excluded especially as there are provisions for the other points I mentioned that are in clause 6. If the Minister is able to tell me why stopbanks are excluded then that would certainly satisfy the interest I have in that particular area. 
I have a press release that is a consequence of what has happened in the Bay of Plenty area and Environment BOP has commissioned an independent investigation to find out why the Rangitikei river stopbank breached during the flooding in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. The chief executive of Environment BOP Jeff Jones said that it needs to know exactly what happened so that it can take steps to make sure that it does not happen again. It is extremely important both to Environment BOP and the communities living in the shadow of its stopbanks. Stopbanks are designed to hold flood water not to fail. The Rangitikei stopbank should not have breached as it did even with the huge amount of pressure on it. It did not fail because water overtopped it as can sometimes happen; it just blew out. 
That is where property and lives have been affected. This is a serious matter and I would like to know from the Minister why stopbanks in this particular case—and I have visited the sites and seen what has happened—are not included under the other measures that refer to constructions to hold back water or other fluids under constant pressure so that they can form a reservoir or whatever. 
A lot of stopbanks have been used as a means to get irrigation water on to farms so in that sense stopbanks are holding water. Canals are included and I would have thought that a canal would have a measure of support around it to stop it from overflowing. That would be a stopbank. Canals are included but stopbanks specifically are not included. It is interesting to note that with the devastation that happened in the Rangitikei area a farmer will be suing the regional council. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support my colleague Lindsay Tisch and the National Party’s opposition to the Building Bill. In my mind it is the most cynical useless legislation that the Labour Government and its supporting parties of New Zealand First and United Future will be involved in during this term of Government. The bill is now before Parliament— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The most useless bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Richard Prebble interjects. [ 
Interruption 
] I suspect that this will be the most useless legislation. It affects so many New Zealanders and it is just such disastrous legislation designed entirely to take the leaking-home problem off the front pages of the newspaper. The Government’s response to that problem is 350-odd pages of legislation. We do not have builders any more. They have to be licensed building practitioners! This sort of nonsense will only add to the cost of building homes. We now have a situation where it is becoming more and more difficult for people to purchase their first homes and the Government is passing legislation that will make it worse. When I look at the commencement date of this legislation—this goes to show the mess and the disarray this Government is in—it states that the provisions come into force on 1 July 2004. I do not think we will have this bill through by 1 July 2004 considering that that was about 6 weeks ago. 
Murray Smith 
: Have a look at the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have had a look at the Supplementary Order Paper and it states that we will pass it by November. This legislation was originally brought into the House under the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She has not been a Minister for some time. What a disastrous response from a Government to put a huge piece of legislation into the House cynically to try to allay the fears of the owners of these leaky homes! It does nothing to do that. All the Government has achieved is to take that scandal off the front pages of the papers and try to tell those people who own leaky homes that the problem is under control and new legislation is on its way that will fix the problem. 
This legislation does nothing to fix those problems. All it does is to make it far worse from now on for anybody to try to buy his or her first home. Government Administration Committee members were told that it cost $6000 for a relatively small first home and typical of what New Zealanders buy as their first dwelling—that is an additional $6000 of red tape that delivers nothing. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Probably closer to $10000 now. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Lindsay Tisch and Shane Ardern were the members of the National caucus on the select committee. They did the work when Government members would not do the work. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: They agreed with it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: They do not agree with it. They think it is just a crock. This sort of legislation should really be given due scrutiny by the Government or at least the Government should acknowledge that it will not solve the problems for the people who have leaky homes—$10000 of additional costs. One has only to look at clause 3 which is the purpose of the legislation. Clause 3 contains a whole lot of words that mean very very little. It is my contention that the purposes as listed in clause 3 will not be at all satisfied by this legislation. Mark my words shortly after the next general election when National is in Government—after we have passed all the other important stuff—this will be some of the first legislation we will have to come back and tidy up because the Government is simply intent on conning New Zealanders with this legislation. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 As David Carter rightly pointed out the catalyst for the rewrite of the Building Act was the leaky homes problem. We had a rather extensive inquiry into that and we highlighted a large number of issues that were desperately needed to try to alleviate the problem of additional people becoming caught by leaky homes. Sadly Mr Carter who was not on the Government Administration Committee has basically rubbished all of those people— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: I thought he was. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: No he definitely was not on the committee he did not take part in the inquiry nor was he part of the committee that looked into the rewrite of this Building Bill. Therefore he was just blowing hot air when he said that this would not solve any problems for people in the future. He obviously does not care whether people in the future have a leaky home. He would rather see those people who have bought a leaky home now be able to flick it on later and hide it under the carpet. 
It is sad that he has taken that approach because this bill has tried to sort out the leaky homes problem. Maybe we will not get it right this first time but we have gone a long way to ensure that there are not tens of thousands more people who will have leaky homes built for them in the future. Just the threat of this bill coming through Parliament has meant that the territorial authorities have tightened up on their requirements for buildings and therefore the bill has already achieved a great deal. 
We see further expansion in this bill on a number of issues and I will talk about those later on. One of the issues that I would like to pick up on is the one that Lindsay Tisch mentioned to do with stopbanks. Although it was discussed during the select committee we did not believe that the stopbanks should have been in there and I think that was a mistake. We have just seen some major issues with stopbanks giving way both in the Manawatu and in the Bay of Plenty. In both cases stopbanks gave way and in the case of the one in the Bay of Plenty it was a dam. A lot of work has been done on it and under this bill the servicing of that dam will now be required and the local territorial authorities along with the dam examination team will be looking at different ways of ensuring that existing dams are up to standard—once again an issue that this bill is addressing and will address further in the future because of the way it is structured. 
It is a case where the bill has set a goal to try to prevent more leaky homes and also look at ways of preventing structures like dams giving way. I believe that the stopbanks should have been part of those structures. The immediate area around the dam is part of that but beyond the dam and the immediate area those stopbanks should have been looked at and considered more deeply in this bill. I look forward to bringing up some of those issues later on. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 This very substantial bill offers consumer protection and it was extraordinary to hear the member from the National Party sort of dismiss it and say that it might add $10000 or something to the building of a new home—never mind that we had submitters come to the Government Administration Committee who had lost $100000. It has gone right down the tubes because they had bought shoddy houses the result of which is that people have a home that is worth absolutely nothing. So we do need consumer protection and the overwhelming majority of submitters wanted that and strongly supported it. I think that National is right out on a limb in that regard. 
We are very pleased with many aspects of this bill; particularly we are pleased that sustainable development and health have been added to the purpose clause. When we look at the principles we see a whole raft of them many of them as a result of Green Party amendments and we are absolutely delighted that they are. I would like to talk about one where we say we need to ensure that any harmful effect on human health resulting from the use of particular building methods or products of a particular building design or building work is prevented or minimised. 
 Until this moment in time there have been no regulations looking at the health effects of building materials in our homes. Basically we know that we use many many toxic materials in building our homes but nobody has actually assessed whether the building materials that we are using in our homes might have adverse effects—indeed might even in some cases be slowly poisoning us. We know that there are literally thousands—we are assured thousands—of building materials used and many of them resins glues and flame retardants give off a gas formaldehyde which was recently classified as a carcinogen and so forth but none of these have ever been assessed. When I asked the question: “How many of these building products are registered and how many of these are assessed for their health effects?” the answer to my astonishment came back: “Absolutely none.” 
So this is really a major step forward that we are finally requiring that the new building department will have to take account of the health effects of building materials. We spend 80 percent of our time inside buildings and so it is quite extraordinary that we have ignored this quite major contributor I am certain to ill health. 
The other thing the bill deals with and many of these issues were Green amendments are heritage energy conservation energy efficiency the use of renewal energy and so forth. These things are absolutely fundamental and it is extraordinary that we did not have something as fundamental in the building code as energy efficiency. It is quite extraordinary that half of our houses in New Zealand are not even properly insulated. Here we are trying to build new dams and damming the remaining rivers in New Zealand but what about something as basic as insulating our homes so that we reduce the energy usage? 
Any energy efficiency that we make in building our homes will be cost-effective because we will over time be reducing our energy bill at a time when we know that energy shortages are becoming a way of life. It is extraordinary that we are ignoring such fundamental things as the energy usage in our homes. We would like the bill to go further. We are happy with it as far as it goes but we think we need a system of energy ratings for all new homes so that anyone buying a home knows how energy efficient or inefficient it is and other issues such as that. We also believe that any significant alterations to existing homes should be required to match the energy efficiency standards in the building code just as they match the fire safety disability and access standards. We will be moving amendments to that effect. The other area where we will be moving an amendment is to enable territorial authorities if they wish to set standards. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is opposing this bill. We believe it is thoroughly bad legislation. It is unnecessary and like so much of what this Government produces it is an overreaction and a faulty analysis of the problem. 
The Government says that this bill is to overcome the leaky homes syndrome but there is nothing in it that really addresses that issue. The pernicious provisions in the bill which virtually outlaw the traditional Kiwi do-it-yourself attitude are appalling. They reflect really restrictive trade practice which is what this bill is substantially about. 
It is little wonder that the building industry welcomes the bill because this compliant Government has dished up the industry’s wish list of constraint more regulation and restrictive trade entry so that those who are already in the trade have a natural advantage. That is not sensible. 
The issue of leaky buildings has substantially been mis-analysed because like it or not New Zealand has a cool temperate wet climate and our houses are cold and damp relative to other countries. Visitors from overseas shiver in our winter. They cannot believe we are so hardy—and we are—that we live in those cold damp wet houses. I believe New Zealand’s high incidence of asthma is actually a direct reflection of the cold damp wet housing we have in this country. 
We used to have the traditional Kiwi bungalow that served us well when we had big roaring log fires and all the rest of it. But what happened in the 1970s and 1980s? Progressively because of concerns over energy conservation we moved towards tighter insulation and vapour-proof barriers. The one salvation that our traditional housing had was that air could move pretty freely actually between the inside and the outside. That is partly why houses were so cold. But as soon as we tightened up on our insulation and enforced that with vapour-proof barriers we moved to having that damp air being heated condensing on that vapour-proof barrier and rotting inside the frame cavity of our housing—and now the problem has been totally misdiagnosed. 
The other aspect is that we thought we would ban the treatment of timber. People used to think we did copper chrome arsenate treatment of our framing. We never did. We only ever did boric treatment which is boron treatment for insects. That treatment did nothing against fungi and algae but it worked indirectly because in the boric bath treatment we also used to give the timber pentachlorophenol which is an anti-sap stain and very effective. We did that for cosmetic reasons we thought because the market did not like the blue stain in the wood. But once we banned pentachlorophenol in treating our wood we discovered that that was what had been killing the mould and the algae. 
Since about 1990 there has been no pentachlorophenol used because of the Green lobby whose members said it was bad it was terrible and it was a persistent organochlorine. It is very persistent but it is not particularly toxic. It is very persistent in the environment and it is not nice stuff but I tell members that those natural moulds and algae now in our wood frames give off a lot more natural toxins that are much more deadly and much more toxic than is the risk of pentachlorophenol—the organochlorine. That is the reality of the situation. 
We in this country now have an appalling situation. We have misdiagnosed it and now we have this other layer of bureaucracy control and regulation. Some people feel warm and fuzzy inside that this bill will solve the problem. Let me tell members that it will not. All this bill represents is restrictive trade practice and limitations on entry to the industry. 
The way that this bill pings the traditional do-it-yourself Kiwi I think is appalling. I built my first house at about age 20 and many other Kiwis have done the same thing. My house is still standing and it is very robust. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 All we have heard from National and ACT members tonight is railing against this bill without actually looking at it and coming up with some alternative solutions that they may want. In fact it was quite hilarious when Mr Carter was speaking. He said “When National gets in we’re going to we’re going to”—I was waiting for the word “repeal” but it did not come—“we’re going to make amendments to this bill.” I think that inevitably there will need to be amendments when the new Act settles down. With a piece of legislation that is as far-reaching as this and changes so many facets of life in this country it is naive to think that we will not have a bedding-down process and that there will not need to be some adjustments and changes come through. So I think National’s bet on that is really an even-odds bet. 
However as the bill stands what has been produced by the Government and refined heavily by the Government Administration Committee—and I worked out that we had actually changed over 100 clauses in this bill—is I think a very good start towards addressing a very key problem that we have in New Zealand. The problem is that prior to 1990 we had a very prescriptive regime that would not allow flexibility and required homes to be built in the same sort of manner everywhere. Then after 1990 we just opened the floodgates without adequate regulation or oversight despite the intentions at that time that there would be such oversight. History has proved that the oversight of the industry by the Building Industry Authority was inadequate but that was not necessarily all its fault; there was a lack of legislative power as well. So it was a laissez-faire situation where anything went. As the euphemism went—and it was repeated dozens and dozens of times—all one needed in order to be a builder was a ute a dog and a radio. That was very true in terms of the way that we built things. 
It was important and the weathertight homes inquiry showed that it was important for us to redress the situation not just because of the weathertightness issue but because that issue was symptomatic of the fact that our building controls had failed generally. If it were not for this bill coming through we would find that after the weathertightness issue suddenly we would be hit with another issue that had not been dealt with and we would be faced with exactly the same problems in terms of that issue. So it was important to address the weathertightness issue. That has taken a long time because this is a big bill and it makes a big change in the way that things are done in our society. The Government Administration Committee tried carefully to get a balance that would provide a situation that was not too prescriptive but was not laissez-faire. I think the bill provides a good balance. 
The purpose clause sets out very very clearly exactly what is expected of everybody—people will all know their roles. The lack of clarity in terms of roles was part of the confusion before whereby the Building Industry Authority did not recognise its role and the important part it played in oversight and auditing and local authorities were remiss in addressing their obligations. So there were big gaps. The purpose clause sets out clearly the key issues. The legislation is to ensure that buildings can be used safely by people and without endangering their health that buildings have attributes that contribute appropriately to people’s health physical independence and well-being that buildings provide adequate fire protection and also that sustainable development is promoted. So the purpose clause contains the key aspects of what we are trying to achieve in terms of our built structures. 
The select committee inserted new clause 3A setting out a wide range of principles that the chief executive has to look at and that local authorities have to take cognisance of. It is a holistic approach. The committee was very ready to add provisions to the clause to cope with the wide range of considerations that should be taken into account in New Zealand design and construction and the considerations needed in order to build holistic environments for people to live in. Some key provisions include the importance of the effect on human health the importance of durability—and this is something that will appeal to the National and ACT league—the importance of enabling innovation in design and construction and also the importance of taking note of the costs of building. The principles also provide for people with disabilities as well. 
Some of the key provisions that United Future strongly supported are firstly those concerning heritage. In my role in Petone which has one of the foremost heritage streets in the country I was very conscious of the deficiencies in the building code in terms of heritage. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 In looking at Part 1 of the bill I am just astonished that we are dealing with a bill that in its first draft is 358 pages long with a raft of Supplementary Order Papers and amendments on the Table. I would have thought and maybe I am a bit optimistic that in 358 pages the Government might get it right and that the need for Supplementary Order Papers at the last minute would be very small indeed. But no it appears that despite 358 pages of definitions and clauses the Government did not get the legislation right and has been forced once this bill came out of the Government Administration Committee to table a number of Supplementary Order Papers and amendments. I can only imagine the disappointment of the officials who will be crushed by the fact that they have worked on this behemoth of a bill for months on end only to have Supplementary Order Papers thrown in at the last minute. 
Let us turn to Part 1 and have a quick look at some of the provisions. My colleague Lindsay Tisch informs me—and I checked this myself because I have to confess I did not believe him—that the definition of “dam” does not include a stopbank. 
Jill Pettis 
: In Wanganui they worked very well. 
SIMON POWER 
: Let me just explain to the members present in the Chamber how much effect—in my electorate of Rangitikei in the Manawatu and in the chief Government whip’s electorate of Whanganui—stopbanks and the way that they are built put together monitored and the like had during the February floods in our areas. 
Jill Pettis 
: In Wanganui they worked very well. 
SIMON POWER 
: That may be the case but let me just say that farmers in my electorate had no compunction in driving bulldozers through the stopbanks when they needed to ensure the waters flowed properly across the other—- 
Jill Pettis 
: In Wanganui they worked very well. 
SIMON POWER 
: I am pleased to hear that. The question for Mrs Pettis is why this legislation does not include stopbanks. If they worked so well—and I take the member at her word—why not throw them into the definition of “dam” and allow the bill to operate in a way that covers off those types of situations? 
I can tell Government members that any legislation like this operates in a practical working environment—like construction stopbank work flood protection dams and the like. This bill just relating to lifting is going to be the bane of every developer every builder and every home handyperson in New Zealand. How on earth can people who are practically inclined get on with the job at hand in respect of a building construction a lean-to on the farm or stopbanks and the like during flooding situations? The Minister should answer those questions and tell us how such individuals will deal with and work under legislation that requires two people to lift. There is no way that practical working people who want to put a lean-to up against the cowshed to protect themselves from the rain—and I am sure we will hear more on this from Shane Ardern later in the debate—are going to get by with legislation such as this. 
The tighter that the Government squeezes the industry with the bigger and more complex legislation it puts forward the more will slip through that grasp. That worries me because this bill is another indication that this Government does not trust individuals to get it right. This Government does not trust the fact that other people can make decisions about the quality of buildings dams and the like without the Goody Two-Shoes Labour Government producing 358 pages plus Supplementary Order Papers to tell them how to do that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill as many of my colleagues and indeed I guess even the Government would acknowledge has its genesis in the leaky buildings crisis. At that time I was heavily involved in that issue. It would be fair to say that I have had several different portfolio responsibilities! This particular report was comprehensive and it had a lot of recommendations. One of them the final one recommendation 63 said there ought to be a review of the Building Act so that an amendment to the Act could be completed. Prior to that it talked about the role of the Building Industry Authority and recommended that it be reviewed so that it had overall responsibility for the administration of the Act. That was where the solution lay. Everyone would acknowledge I think that the 1991 legislation did have some problems. It was perhaps part of the over— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not like to interrupt my colleague’s speech but a member is standing and talking to another member. It is interrupting his flow. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated when he is talking to another member. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Thank you. I would like to thank Mr Tisch for assisting me in that regard and producing order in the Chamber when order was required. 
A solution was suggested by the inquiry of the Government Administration Committee into the weathertightness of buildings. It was essentially an amendment to the Act to strengthen the role of the Building Industry Authority and to provide better prudential supervision. That would not have required and did not require the level of reform that the Government has in fact produced. In fact part of the reform is effectively to abolish the Building Industry Authority and bring control back into the ministry. The weakness is as the Minister in the chair Dover Samuels will recognise the classic statist solution that we have seen so much of from this Government. In fact the previous debate was precisely about statist solutions. Here we are presented with yet another statist solution where the idea is to have massive volumes of regulation and statute and to centralise the management of this matter into the Ministry of Economic Development. That is not the right way. National in the course of this extended Committee debate will be putting forward the way that we think this issue needs to be fixed. We will put forward a modest and reasonable amendment to strengthen the Building Industry Authority help the independent certifiers do their job more effectively and provide clearer guidance to local authorities as part and parcel of their process. 
Frankly a lot of the issues are not legislatively based in any event. Much of the solution actually rests on the quality and skills of the people in the industry. This piece of legislation will not fix that. What is required is a more proactive approach through the industry training organisation and through the polytechnics to boost the skills of the workforce. That is what the weathertightness inquiry recommended and we do not need legislation to do that. We simply have to fix the educational issues and strengthen the industry training organisation itself. If we do that we solve a whole lot of other problems simultaneously because the weathertightness issue had multiple causes but perhaps the most apparent to those on the inquiry and to those in the industry was a lack of knowledge on the part of the people in the industry. That reflects the fact that skills had declined through the 1980s and the 1990s. That can be repaired. In addition there are practical measures around design solutions—the sort of thing in fact that the Building Industry Authority was actually empowered to do. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 When I was speaking before I talked about some of the principles in the bill that United Future was particularly glad to see. I referred to heritage and to the importance of the chief executive and local authorities when looking at building regulations and the building code taking note of the important role that heritage plays in our society. 
Other issues are energy efficiency and energy conservation which are mentioned in subclause (2)(m) of clause 3A. That is also an area where we as a nation have to address some key problems. We all know about the problems we are having in terms of the generation of energy supply in New Zealand and also its transportation around the country. Those problems as the select committee found when we went to Australia are things that the Australians are very closely aware of as well. They have actually made further strides in energy efficiency than we have particularly in New South Wales where houses have to comply with a certain level of energy efficiency. Whether we want to go to that level of prescription I have real questions about. I am always one for not being too prescriptive unless there is an important need to do so. But certainly we cannot ignore that issue and this bill does provide a first step in terms of the chief executive’s principle that requires that this whole area of energy efficiency and energy conservation be taken into account in the way we design our houses. It will become a more and more important area. 
Water efficiency and water conservation are also areas that United Future is pleased to see in the bill. We do need to be very conscious of the environmental impacts of our living. We cannot just take things for granted. In New Zealand we have been privileged to have unlimited supplies of water and I think it is important that we do not just take that for granted. We need to realise that as with any resource water does have some limitations. 
One of the very very key issues one of the hinge provisions in this bill—and it has been referred to by other people already—is the definition of “restricted building work” in clause 6. If there is one area that exercised the select committee perhaps more than almost any other it is this whole idea that we do not want to create something that is too restrictive of New Zealanders. We recognise that New Zealand does indeed as some have said have a culture of owner-builders. How can we provide enough flexibility to enable people to construct their own homes to work on their designs and to have that degree of freedom and innovation but at the same time protect future generations and our housing stock generally? This bill is not about just the immediate owner of a house; this bill is about the housing stock of New Zealand and ensuring that our housing generally maintains standards for the benefit of future purchasers of homes and for the benefit of our society in general. It is not good for our society to have leaky homes and therefore extensive damage to buildings. It is disruptive to our society. It is important we have a regime that provides ongoing protection for our society. 
What the select committee has come up with in terms of restricted building work is to confine the building work that has to be signed off to building work that “relates to an element of a building that is critical to the integrity of the building and the health and safety of its occupants;”. That is the test. Areas that are critical to the building and critical to health and safety are the areas that have to be signed off. It is not the case that everything—as some who are misinformed about this bill have said—has to be signed off by a licensed building practitioner. There are substantial areas in terms of construction that do not meet that criteria and that people will be free to deal with. But I think that in terms of confining this issue what we need to do is make sure that the structures of houses and the building envelope are sound and that means that although we want flexibility for people to build their own places it is important that we build houses that professionals licensed building practitioners can look at and say that yes at least the envelope and the integrity of the building on the outside are up to a certain standard. Then we let people do work beyond that. I think that is a good balance. Obviously some people will not be happy with it. There are very competent home builders who are not licensed building practitioners who will be affected by it. But there are also home builders who are not competent to do that work. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I will expand upon the issue of stopbanks which Lindsay Tisch mentioned. Stopbanks are quite different from dams as many people will realise. A dam controls the continuous flow of water in a river whereas stopbanks may well be alongside a river that has no water in it at all. They are there for flood control. There are occasions when floods as we have seen recently exceed the abilities of those stopbanks. The same can happen with a dam but stopbanks are there for flood control and can be along a river that has no water in it at all for most of the year. Occasionally the river will fill up and then those banks come into effect. 
Another issue that I will pick up on and one that we laboured long and hard over is the description of cable cars. There is some confusion as to whether a private cable car falls into the same category as those in public buildings because the description in the bill at the moment does not clarify that. I hope something will be put in before the end of this whole—[ 
Interruption 
] There is no point in voting against it over one small point as a National member was suggesting; there are a number of issues that this bill really does solve and we would not vote against it for the sake of one small issue. I would ask the officials to clarify the description of a private cable car and whether it falls into the same category as a cable car in a public building. 
Another point that I will pick up on quickly is to do with the private building certifiers. Opinion was divided as to whether they should be included. We were of the opinion that private building certifiers do play a very valid part in the whole process and therefore they have been retained in this bill. That I believe was a sound move. The only problem that private building certifiers have is to do with the insurance that is required and there lies an issue. At the time of the discussions I wanted us to look into the possibilities of changing the liability status from joint and several to proportional but that was quickly thrown out unfortunately. I would have liked to see it explored a lot further but sadly it was not. Therefore private building certifiers have an issue with getting insurance. In the past the Building Industry Authority was charged with finding run-off insurance. Well that never happened as the authority was never able to do it. To chop private building certifiers at this very point would leave exposed the very large volume of work that they have done in the past because it would cut off the only possible recourse they have at this point of time. To do that immediately on the instigation of this legislation would be a tragedy because they have certified a huge volume—in the billions of dollars—of buildings. 
I must add that out of all the complaints we could not find anybody who could show that the private building certifiers were the cause of the problems. The Building Industry Authority said that it monitored only the private building certifiers and that it did not monitor complaints about the territorial authorities so there was absolutely no comparative opportunity there. I think the authority did itself a disservice by not monitoring both sides to get a fairer deal. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It was very good of my colleague Wayne Mapp to introduce a few facts into this debate a few moments ago. It was quite refreshing to see that somebody had taken the time to read some of the detail. 
The Building Bill came about as a result of the leaky houses inquiry. That inquiry described the problem as systemic. A number of issues had caused the problem. The answer to the problem according to the socialists on the other side of the House is 358 pages of bureaucratic nonsense that do not actually address the issues identified in the inquiry. Those of us on this side of the House find that to be quite amazing. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: United thinks the same. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well it is interesting that United Future is voting for the bill. I say to its member who spoke recently Murray Smith that I am pleased he has kept up his legal ability to read through the 358 mindless pages because he will need it after the next election. Certainly I wish him luck in his future law profession. The bill came about as a result— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It came about from the select committee inquiry. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is exactly right. The bill came about as a result of the leaky houses inquiry. Over 220000 building consents were issued in the previous decade with an average value of $132000 per consent. Forty-two percent of those building consents were in the Auckland region. So we have here a bill that tries to fix what was primarily an Auckland problem where big developers came in and employed substandard contractors who then used substandard materials in a way that those materials were never designed— 
Jill Pettis 
: Give us the solution then. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The member over there is carping on. Monolithic coatings and no eaves— 
Jill Pettis 
: Give us the solution. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The member cries out for the solution. If she holds her horses I will tell her the solution. The solution is to put some investment into our industry training organisations and upskill our builders. We admit that the 1991 Act had some deficiencies and needed to be addressed. It had become too lax in terms of regulation. But 358 pages of bureaucratic regulation are not the answer. 
Jill Pettis 
: What’s the answer? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The answer is to give the Building Industry Authority the teeth to carry out the job that it was intended to do. It never had the legislative power to do it. Therein lies the answer. We had a select committee process where a whole heap of submitters came in and said just that; that if the Building Industry Authority was given the depth to go forward regulate and self-govern a lot of these problems would be fixed. So this legislation is absolutely unnecessary. 
I note with interest the comments from the Green member who touched on the fact that the legislation does not cover a lot of the safety aspects of building particularly around health. She is right to a certain extent but the leaky building inquiry identified that the most problematic issue regarding health was toxic mould growing on rotting timber that had not been treated. On the other hand the Green member said we should not treat timber because the chemical used is a toxin in itself. But the overwhelming evidence from the inquiry is that when untreated  
Pinus radiata 
 used anywhere in a building gets damp it rots and emits a toxic mould that creates health problems. It also creates a hazard of course because people can fall through the floor the wall the balcony or whatever it might be. It also causes the building to become very unstable. So she is right in one sense but the proposals that she put forward are in direct contrast to the line that the Green Party would take and that is that we should not allow tanalising and other chemicals to be used to preserve  
Pinus radiata 
 which is the main material used today in the frames of all of our houses. I am not sure how the Green Party will get round that one. It is an interesting issue. 
 The second issue she raised was that of insulation. Well she was right again. Houses that are insulated are more healthy. I think there is an overwhelming amount of evidence on that and nothing that I know of in this legislation requires houses now to be insulated up to a certain standard. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I chair the Government Administration Committee that looked into this legislation and I tell members that we have a large piece of legislation before us. But I am somewhat disappointed by members of the committee who I believe are putting themselves down in this debate. I thank the members of the committee—Mr Lindsay Tisch Mr Shane Ardern Mr Murray Smith Mr Brent Catchpole and Ms Kedgley—for the contributions they made because the committee worked hard and long. 
I also note that Mr Mapp made a speech. He came to the inquiry on weathertightness and I noticed that when the cameras were there he had a considerable contribution to make. But we did not see hide nor hair of him—which is a pity really—during the whole of the consideration of the legislation. I would have thought that Mr Mapp would make a much greater effort to be on that committee during that consideration where I am sure he could have shared with us his experience of being on the inquiry and his experience of being a lawyer. 
I thank Mr Tisch and Mr Ardern in particular and Mr Catchpole and Mr Murray Smith. People worked very very hard on this legislation. Ms Kedgley made a considerable contribution. I also thank the officials who worked extremely hard as well. It is a very technical and long piece of legislation. The committee had a lot to consider and I think it did an extremely good job. 
As Mr Mapp just pointed out a number of issues needed to be corrected. They came from the general atmosphere of 10 years’ deregulation under the previous Government. Since the building boom and the development that has gone on in Auckland and Tauranga with their rapid growth in homes we have seen that there is a need to bring in tighter legislation and a greater degree of regulation in order for Kiwis to have sustainable housing. Most Kiwis still believe that the greatest investment of their life is their home. They want to buy a home that they know has been built by skilled builders and that is built out of good materials. They want a home that will last them and their families. I believe too that they should be able to have a home that will last them at least for more than one generation. 
That is why I thank all Government Administration Committee members. I know that tonight members of the committee have to grandstand and make speeches because they belong to a certain political party and feel they must oppose the bill. But I say to those Opposition members on the select committee that when they were present they made considerable and useful contributions to this bill—which I believe is a very good bill. 
The bill deals with skills training materials design and qualifications and it is a very very large bill. We know that the building code and the regulations that will follow from it will also be long and complex but they are very important to Kiwi families who are building or who own their homes. The members of the committee as well as all those who made submissions shared their experiences. Professional people ordinary people and homeowners all shared their experiences. 
I have heard tonight about things that are not in the bill. We have heard about dams. The committee went to great trouble to listen to people who made submissions both from local government and from dam owners with hydro dams. We visited hydro dams— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: We never talked about those sorts of dams. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I say to Mr Tisch that we went to a considerable deal of trouble. He was there too. We went to considerable trouble to find out a lot of detail about the bill. We also learned about the Building Industry Authority and about some of the problems it had had under Sir George Chapman who was a National Party chairperson. I think some people on the other side of the Chamber now have a very selective memory about what happened not only in the weathertightness inquiry and in the select committee stage but in their own personal contributions about which I will take a constructive view tonight and say that all members during the committee stage contributed extremely well to the committee. 
I especially say a big thankyou to the staff who went back and back to get all the expertise; we asked loads of questions throughout the inquiry. I particularly thank those who were involved in the weathertightness inquiry. The work done by committee members was extremely difficult but I must say very interesting. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that the chair of the Government Administration Committee has just told us to wait for the regulations to come out because they will be long. They will be long all right because that is the nature of this bill. The regulations and the costs associated with it will be horrendous but that is not in the bill. The regulations will be absolutely horrendous and that is one of the reasons why National will not support the bill. 
The compliance cost regime in this bill is quite outrageous. When we consider what is actually entailed we see that it is absolute overkill and as Dr Mapp said it is a consequence of the leaky homes situation and the weathertightness report. 
I want to pay a tribute to the advisers. They spent a lot of time on the legislation and gave a lot of advice to the committee. National appreciates that. Although they did that we did not agree with the bill so during the process we brought up questions. We did not agree with the outcomes and we voted against the bill when we deliberated. So it is not new that National is opposing the bill now because in the select committee deliberation we voted against it and voted against it right through—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I apologise Mr Tisch. I say to members that if they want to talk to other members would they please keep away from the speaker and give him the opportunity to speak. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I want to draw attention to the definition of “natural hazard”. Clause 6 states: “natural hazard has the meaning given to it by section 159.” Specifically clause 159(3) mentions a number of points that relate to what a “natural hazard” is: erosion; falling debris be it soil rocks snow or ice; flooding—and that is why we mentioned stopbanks earlier on—overland flow storm surge tidal effects and ponding; and slippage. But it does not include—as is currently included in the Building Act of 1991—land subsidence and geothermal hazards. 
I know that the Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper that includes subsidence but it does not cover geothermal hazards—or “hot ground” as it is called—in those areas that have geothermal activity. I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that includes an amendment on subsidence and geothermal hazards because in some parts of the country those are major issues. It is all very well for members to say that this bill will protect people because it will do A B C D and E. If people can build on subsiding land and if people can build where there are geothermal activities and hazards it does not matter how good the building is or what the building is made of because it will disappear. One of the major concerns National has about this bill is that those areas are not covered. 
As an afterthought the Minister in the chair John Tamihere has come up with a Supplementary Order Paper. He might like to comment on why he includes subsidence in his Supplementary Order Paper but has not considered geothermal hazards. The Taupo District Council in particular is very concerned about geothermal activity in its area. It has already had to pay out on what is called “differential subsidence” and that is also the concern of other areas. In my electorate we have problems in the Huntly area which are a consequence of the shafts in former coal mines. Over in Waihi in Sandra Goudie’s electorate of Coromandel there are problems. We know where houses have disappeared and where there have been huge payouts to re-house affected people. The things we are talking about are not included in this bill. 
So it does not matter how good the bill may be at trying to protect the consumer in relation to building materials or the way in which houses are to be built. If district councils and city councils are still able to give consents—and that is what the bill allows—to build on those particular types of land there is no guarantee of protection. One of the major concerns we have about the bill is that that protection is not included. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I have been listening to the debate and particularly to the contributions from United Future members and the very odd contributions from Labour members and they keep talking about this legislation offering protection to the consumer. That sounds pretty good if that is what it does. Murray Smith particularly spoke about licensed building practitioners. Then when I look at clause 2 “Commencement” I am puzzled to find that some significant sections of the legislation come into effect on 30 November 2009—5½ years away. That will be well after the Labour Government has been defeated at the polls and well after many of those speaking in this debate tonight have ceased to be members of Parliament. 
Dianne Yates 
: It gives time for you to complete your apprenticeship. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well Dianne Yates has the reason! I was wondering what the reason was; it is for me to complete my apprenticeship. I have news for that member. I am not about to embark on an apprenticeship but that member may well need to. She comes from one of those marginal Hamilton seats. 
Darren Hughes 
: Like Banks Peninsula. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Banks Peninsula is very marginalised. I thank the junior Government whip for his contribution. It is a very marginal electorate; we are looking forward to the battle. 
But back to the Building Bill and I would really like a contribution from the Minister. The Hon John Tamihere is now in the chair so that is the third Minister we have had in about an hour of this debate—three of them. Not one of them has stood to answer a question and I have a very serious question for John Tamihere to answer. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: He does not know anything about the bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: My colleague Dr Wayne Mapp says that Mr Tamihere does not know anything about it but Supplementary Order Paper 241 is in his name. So I think he has a duty to rise and explain to members because it is a genuine question I am raising. I was not involved in the Government Administration Committee and all I want to know is why members are debating legislation now when a significant portion of it does not come into effect until the end of 2009. I cannot recall other legislation such as this bill being debated with a 5-year enactment path. I just cannot believe that members of the Government supported by United Future can stand and say hand on heart that this legislation is all about delivering protection to those people who are suffering from leaky homes and can then say: “Oh and by the way we won’t be doing much about it until 2009.” I just do not think that is appropriate. 
It reinforces the first point I made that this legislation is designed for no other purpose than to try to con the public of New Zealand that the leaky home saga has now been resolved and put to bed by the Building Bill because that is clearly not the case. So I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere to rise to his feet. I would appreciate a very clear concise simple—and no doubt it will be simple; there is no doubt about that if it comes from the Minister—explanation as to why any portion of this legislation requires 5½ years before it comes into effect. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 241 in the name of the Hon John Tamihere to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 1A Building 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This part comprises clauses 116 to 242F and includes debate on schedules 1 and 2. I also mention that the part includes eight very extensive subparts.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I am most appreciative that the Chair should mention how extensive this part is with its numerous subparts—hundreds of clauses in fact—because in many ways it is the core of the bill. So we on this side of the Chamber are looking forward to a detailed and forensic examination of these provisions noting their worthwhile features and also noting their numerous and extensive deficiencies. 
I guess it would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers. He has filed at least four and quite extraordinarily Supplementary Order Paper 241 is dated Tuesday 10 August 2004. Members should note that; it is today’s date. Yet even before we got to vote on it a further amendment was filed which is noted as the proposed amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 241. So here we have a Government that puts a bill into the House and on the day it is to be debated in the Committee stage the Government puts down a Supplementary Order Paper. That is not so unusual but what is unusual—and I guess it tells us something about the management by the Minister of the ministry—is that he has to have a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the Supplementary Order Paper filed literally within hours of the first one. I think that that speaks volumes about the whole tenor of this bill. 
Now contained within this part are two things: the role of the ministry and extensive provisions. Essentially it is the replacement of the Building Industry Authority but as we have noted previously it is very much the statist solution. Perhaps of greatest concern however to members on this side of the Chamber is the whole idea of the comprehensive and bureaucratic system of the registration of building practitioners. That is where the bill falls down. This is the part that will kill that great and fine tradition of do-it-yourself New Zealanders. They have been doing that for over a century but now will be caught by the bill. They will have to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars to have their work approved by registered building practitioners. 
Dianne Yates 
: So? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There was a reference—which the interjector from the other side will well know—about a saying in relation to weathertightness. We referred somewhat colloquially to “the man his dog his radio and his ute”—that being the classic start-up position of many many successful New Zealand builders. The Government has now put in place a regulatory regime that will stifle those people. That is exactly what it is doing. 
This is an industry that has been available for people to enter provided they have a trade certificate. That is one of the things that is desirable and that is typically all that is really wanted. A guy—occasionally a girl—who has a trade certificate can get into the industry and start building for consumers. Their good name will get around quite quickly. Many of those people grow their businesses from the one-person business to one of two three or five people or indeed in many cases to a business of hundreds of people. That is the epitome of the Kiwi dream—the person who builds his or her own business the person whom the Minister keeps saying he supports. 
The Minister fancies himself as the advocate for small New Zealand businesses—those hard-working entrepreneurs—yet here tonight he is presiding over legislation that will make it very difficult for those people to get ahead. This is a Minister who is killing initiative by this legislation. Maybe he does not recognise that. Maybe that is a possibility. Maybe he does not know what he is doing. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I will be seeking a number of calls because as Dr Mapp said this is a very important part of the bill. I want to carry on from the point I made earlier about clause 159 “Building on land subject to natural hazards”. I said the bill does not include land subsidence or geothermal hazards and although the Minister has indicated in a Supplementary Order Paper that he will include a provision for subsidence I say it is very very important that the Committee accepts my amendment which does include land subsidence and geothermal hazards. 
In areas like Taupo where there has been major geothermal activity caused through man-made activities rather than natural causes—the bill talks only of natural hazards—a number of activities have adversely affected property. They have adversely affected the value of property and in that area they have also caused a major change in compliance costs for the local authority. 
It is interesting to note from the submission the Taupo District Council made to the Government Administration Committee that the council referred to subsidence areas: underground mining; dewatering of quarries and mines; rubbish dump sites; areas of geothermal and volcanic activity—this bill does not cover volcanic activity—compaction of poorly consolidated fill; and compaction of weak sedimentary layers such as peat. So there are plenty of examples around the Taupo region. As I mentioned in an earlier debate areas like Huntly are also affected by this issue as is the Waihi area in particular. There are plenty of examples of what has happened in those areas. 
I draw the attention of members to geothermal hazards. Although the Minister has indicated that subsidence is in his Supplementary Order Paper there is no mention of geothermal hazards. Those words encompass defined areas of what is known as hot ground but there is also the prospect of emerging geothermal hazards which in some cases might possibly be identified through appropriate monitoring. The issue is that there is no protection for the local authority. There is no way a local authority can say that it cannot grant a building consent for that property because of subsidence or geothermal activity. That is a real issue. 
When we are talking about consumer protection there is no protection from liability which is a major defect in this whole bill. If in the current Building Act we were to look at section 36 we would see that it says there is protection; and clause 159 in this bill is meant to carry over from that. But if members have ever had a section 36 slapped on the title of their properties they would know exactly what that means. We saw it in the Rangitikei area when Simon Power and I went through the devastation there and where local authorities after the floods were able to slap a section 36 on the title which simply meant the Earthquake Commission would not cover the properties. Insurance companies were turning down applications for insurance because local authorities were slapping a section 36 on the property titles. 
 This bill does not protect the local authority from that and this is a two-edged sword. Those properties were affected subsequent to the flooding. It was no fault of the owners that their properties were flooded. But subsequently they were caught by the current legislation when the local authority came through and put a section 36 on those titles. Clause 159 in this bill carries that on but the protection against liability that is not in this part and which councils will pay and at the end of the day ratepayers will pay relates to land subsidence and geothermal hazards. They are missed out and that is a major defect with this bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would just like to speak briefly to two amendments that the Green Party has to Part 1A. Firstly we would like to amend clause 119C to insert a subclause (1) that states that solely for reasons of resource conservation a territorial authority may require building work to achieve performance criteria in addition to that of the building code. It would empower territorial authorities to ensure that buildings built in their geographic region could be adjusted to the resource conditions of their area for example related to water shortages or heat loss in cold climates. One could imagine that in parts of the South Island a territorial authority might want higher insulation rates. In other parts for example in Marlborough one might want mandatory water tanks or something such as that but unfortunately under the provisions of this bill that is prohibited. 
The amendment will not set different standards for different parts of the country—it would only allow a variation for specific reasons of resource conservation that would enable an authority to require some additional work to achieve various performance criteria. So I think that if we do not introduce such an amendment we will live to regret it. I believe that territorial authorities will wish to have this power. We have already had some territorial authorities contacting us to support this amendment very strongly. 
The second amendment to add a subparagraph (iii) after clause 195(1)(a)(ii) is simply saying that if one is going to undertake significant alterations to existing buildings they should comply as nearly as is reasonably practical with the provisions of the building 
code related to energy efficiency and energy conservation. Basically all we are saying is that if one is going to do significant work in a building—and only significant work that requires a resource consent—the energy efficiency provisions should apply to those alterations just as much for example as they will have to apply in relation to fire safety and disability access standards. So really all this amendment is doing is saying that energy efficiency standards have to apply to significant alterations. 
Once again it seems to us that this is just basic common sense. When we are as we know at a stage where energy shortage is fast becoming a way of life where we are looking at damming rivers by building hydro stations and so forth why are we not doing basic things such as properly insulating and applying energy efficiency to our homes? Half of our houses are not even properly insulated so why would we not do something as simple and as logical as requiring simple energy efficiency principles standards to be applied when we are doing significant alterations? It simply does not make sense to build new dams at great cost before we have done simple things such as trying to introduce energy efficiency not just into new homes but also into substantial alterations to existing homes. 
As I have previously said we would have liked to see further energy efficiency requirements in new homes but at least let us apply the existing energy efficiency requirements and energy conservation requirements to significant alterations. So we will be seeking those two amendments to this part. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 As was pointed out this particular part is a substantial one and I flag now that I intend to take a number of calls on it. At the start of this call I would like to thank some people it was remiss of me not to thank in my first call. 
First I acknowledge the enormous amount of work that the chairperson Dianne Yates did on this bill. Without her input the whole bill would probably never have got to this stage so early. Dianne Yates and the other members of the Government Administration Committee have already been mentioned but I also acknowledge all the work carried out by the clerks and the officials. We constantly sent them away with reams and reams of questions and issues to revisit and they came back with the answers very quickly. I thank them very much for all the work they put into the bill. 
The New Zealand First minority view highlights some particular issues we had with this bill. We feel that it is a sound bill—as sound as the Building Act of 1991 which was basically adequate for the construction of the day. The only problem with the old Act was that it was very light-handed and relied too heavily on regulation in the name of the building code. It was that building code that was very poorly administered by the Building Industry Authority which failed to pick up on some major issues. 
It is sad that the original Minister who began the inquiry into the weathertightness of buildings was of the opinion that if a house was built to the building code it would never leak. But everybody in New Zealand knows that every single building develops a leak in it at some stage in its lifetime—if it is not a leak in the roof it is a leak from a water cylinder inside the walls. Every building will leak at some stage during its life so to think the building code will solve that problem is pretty far-fetched. 
Unfortunately the Building Industry Authority did not have the teeth to administer the building code to the extent expected and the building code therefore is to be rewritten. I know for a fact that large parts of it are already under the pen at this very moment because of issues that are starting to come out. Technically that rewrite is supposed to be completed within 2 years of this bill being enacted but I hope it is completed long before that because some parts of the building code really need to be rejigged to prevent the problems that came up in relation to weathertight homes. 
Compliance documents are another area that is heavily canvassed within this bill. In the past compliance documents have been found wanting. In fact during the time of submissions on the Building Bill we asked territorial authorities and local councils how many outstanding cases there were in relation to codes of compliance and we heard that there were literally tens of thousands outstanding where the building work done had not matched up to the consents given at the start of the work. It was an issue that desperately needed to be tidied up and this bill does tidy it up in a significant way. 
 There is a particular region that has a large number of substandard houses. Unfortunately this bill puts that region in the awkward position of having to identify all those homes and to progress towards getting them up to standard. Technically many of those houses need to be bulldozed and rebuilt but I would hate to see the occupants of those homes thrown out because of the strong conditions in the bill on that one issue. I believe that councils are working through it now to try to match the requirements in the bill with the requirements of their areas. I will not name that one particular area because it would not be fair to it but I say it is essential that codes of compliance documents are in place. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the bill. This bill is a most important bill and we are speaking to Part 1A. Most MPs on both sides in Parliament would acknowledge that a Kiwi has no greater asset than the family home so I think we should keep politics out of this bill. I know that some landed gentry over on that side of the Chamber have multi-home ownership and multi-ranch ownership and they do not like it when we point that out. However as we refer to Part 1A we know that the average Kiwi man and woman in this country— 
Dianne Yates 
: All their life savings. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—have all their life savings invested in the family home as my colleague said. The next biggest asset is probably the family car. Unlike Mr Carter the average Kiwi family does not have four four-wheel drives three BMWs a couple of Porsches—or a tractor; they have the family home. 
I commend the Minister in the chair Mr Tamihere who has inherited this bill. It is a clarion call to the DIY’er and the Kiwi battler who wants high standards in building practice. A builder in my electorate who was a builder of 30 years’ experience and a tradesperson brought up under the old apprenticeship laws—which of course that mob over there abolished thanks to Lockwood Smith but which we reintroduced so now have 9000 young apprentices on the go—told me that he did not want shonky builders in his industry because that would lower his professionalism and tar all builders with the same brush. It is a bit like politicians—a bit like Don Brash who with his substandard behaviour tars the whole National Party with the same brush. 
This legislation is about preserving high standards in Kiwi workmanship. It is about a clarion call to Kiwis. The age of a building does not matter—contrary to what we heard Opposition members talking about today. We want high standards in building practice and tradespersonship. That is what this legislation is about despite all the bleating from some Opposition members. 
I know that Shane Ardern is always placed in the difficult position of saying firstly either what he believes or secondly what the new whip Simon Power—who has put a gun to Mr Ardern’s head—has told him he has to say. I know that Shane Ardern is from good old-fashioned Kiwi stock and is a good old-fashioned farmer who has employed a number of tradespersons in his life. He knows that average Kiwi battlers out there want some assurance that their homes are their castles that they are of a high standard and that they will be preserved for them. 
That is what this legislation is all about despite the politics and all the puffery around this Chamber. That is the fundamental issue that Part 1A is about—as is this entire bill. I support this bill and I invite Opposition members to get off their high horses—or out of the Land Rovers Range Rovers and BMWs that a few of them over there have along with three or four homes and a bach in the Sounds—and think of the ordinary Kiwi battler who has put $50000 $60000 $100000 or $200000 into his or her own home and who says “This is my castle. I want to ensure that I am looked after. I want to ensure that what I’ve invested for my family and maybe what I hand on to the kids is a solid resource that is looked after and is of a high standard and that I don’t have to go back to look for the developer the architect or the three or four “subbies” who did not do a good job and who maybe ripped me off.” 
Tonight Part 1A is about a Government and a Minister saying that they will stand behind the Kiwi battler and provide some guarantees where others would not. I tell that crew over there that if they are going to stand up for the ordinary Kiwi then I pose the question: why after 9 years did they not do something? Why did they not do anything? Why did they not hunt down the architect the developer the “subbie” or the contractor and look after the ordinary Kiwi? 
After this legislation is passed I tell members that in my electorate—the fastest-growing electorate in the South Island with lots of buildings developments and subdivisions—the average Kiwi man and woman will sleep a lot easier in their beds knowing that there are some minimum standards that their homes will be their castles and that the Government will look after them. 
I support the bill. I commend the Minister who inherited the bill. I ask those who stand up from now on to front up for the ordinary Kiwi man and woman in the street and tell us as my colleague said what their policy is on this bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The member who just resumed his seat is suffering from severe delusions. I am sure he is genuine in what he said but it just exposes his delusions. He said this legislation is a clarion call in favour of the do-it-yourselfer. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill absolutely dumps on the traditional Kiwi do-it-yourselfer. Far from being a clarion call it is a bell falling on their head. It is an outrage. The member said the bill will protect the greatest asset of the average Kiwi and his good folk in Waimakariri—Mike Moore’s battlers. He forgets that the building industry has been operating under a highly regulated regime. We already had all these registered plumbers builders local body building inspectors and their signed-off plans yet the leaky building syndrome happened under those regulations. It is actually a function of regulation. To suggest that somehow this bill with its new layer of heavy-handed regulation is the answer is deeply worrying. 
The speaker from the Green Party made an interesting contribution focusing on energy and saying that we had to have legislated insulation requirements up and down the country. That does not make sense either. The best way to get good insulation is to have proper pricing mechanisms in energy rather than just relying on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and public relations programmes. The best way is to think about the problem; whether Invercargill requires the same standard as Kaitaia. I do not think so. There are differences throughout the country. 
I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere. He is a good Kiwi battler and that is what we like about him. Let us hear about when he was running the Waipareira Trust and representing the good “westies”. What do they think about this bill? They would say it is an outrage. It stops them being that good Kiwi do-it-yourselfer; the red-blooded heterosexual—what was the rest of that saying? They are the very people whom this bill dumps on. It emasculates the good old red-blooded heterosexual Kiwi male. What does Mr Tamihere have to say about that? All the namby-pambies and his colleagues like Mr Cosgrove think it is wonderful but it is very very damaging to the traditional red-blooded heterosexual Kiwi “do-it-yourselfer” bloke ethos. 
We want to hear from Mr Tamihere on this. He speaks out about the subject but we want to hear from him in relation to the Building Bill. That is where the rubber hits the road. This bill is one of the most draconian heavy-handed regulatory frameworks that I have seen in this Parliament. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Looking after your mates. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No it is not about looking after my mates. This bill introduces restrictive trade practices. Why do members think the building industry is welcoming it. I have spoken to chiefs of major construction companies and they said: “Philosophically we think it’s rubbish but we love it. We love it because this is all about restrictive trade practice and new entries.” 
This bill will slap more costs on for Kiwi battlers and make it more difficult for them to get into their first home. It is absolute bureaucratic pap. It is a misdiagnosis and a misanalysis of the leaky home syndrome. The Government wants to be seen to be doing something and as a typical Labour Party it can only think of heavy-handed regulation. It cannot think smarter. It takes the approach: “If there’s a problem make a law to ban it and somehow it will go away.” That has never worked. It is nonsense but that is what this bill is all about. 
Mr Cosgrove contradicted himself at every turn. Every time he uttered a new sentence he contradicted himself. He is not representing the battlers of Waimakariri; he is working against their interests. He is not protecting New Zealand society from rapacious industry people; he is actually protecting those rapacious industry people who are now locked in and have added protection. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I too have to take a call following the contribution made by the Labour member Clayton Cosgrove. I note his whips have been trying to silence him since to make sure that he does not take another call. 
Let me raise a couple of points against Clayton Cosgrove’s argument. The first thing he said was that National did not do anything about it and had 9 long years to do it. I take the opportunity of reminding the member that this problem actually came to light in 2000. In the year 2000 the leaky home saga hit the headlines. That was a time when the Labour member was part of the Labour Government so it is the Labour Government’s problem. The second point I make is that if that member is so keen to help solve the problem why is it 9 years before parts of this bill are enacted? Some of the commencement dates are in 2009. 
The other point he raised was that this legislation was designed to help the battler obtain his or her first home. I had a call an hour or so ago from a man called Stan Scorringe. He is the Mayor of the Mackenzie District Council. That council has met over the last 2 days and tried to analyse the cost it thinks this legislation will impose on the average dwelling. He confirmed to me today—independent of the work done by the members on the select committee—that the council estimates that on average a house price will increase by $7000 because of this restrictive legislation. I ask Clayton Cosgrove how that will help the Kiwi battlers whom he says he is here to represent obtain their first home. 
I want to address a question to the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere who at this stage obviously does not have Helen Clark’s permission to answer a question but I will try. I refer in particular to clause 175 “Licensed building practitioner to certify restricted building work”. When I go back to the definitions and look at how “restricted building work” is defined I see that it is defined as any building work that requires a building consent. That suggests to me that effectively all the do-it-yourself work—which the member Clayton Cosgrove said this legislation supports—under that definition becomes restricted building work and therefore it can no longer be done by the do-it-yourself person or in fact by his mate who might have been a builder for 10 or 20 years but may never have gone through a formal qualification. 
Murray Smith 
: Read on! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have read on and I raised the point earlier and the Minister has not answered. I carried out a significant renovation a few years ago—and I do not want to make the member Clayton Cosgrove any more jealous and spiteful than he was—and when we undertook that renovation we used a builder who has never done an apprenticeship but had had about 10 years’ experience and the building does not leak by the way. He will not now be able to carry on doing that work because he is no longer a licensed building practitioner. I say to that member— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Did you pay him under the table? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I certainly did not pay him under the table nor would I have done so. Those sorts of filthy tricks are the things one would expect from the Lianne Dalziels of this world. I would not operate that way. The point I want to make is that while there seem to be very imperfect definitions of restricted building work I note that a discussion document came across my desk this morning in the name of the Hon John Tamihere. He now proposes to go out to the industry and say: “Help us to define what restricted building work is.” Here we are passing the legislation now and the Minister by his own admission does not have a definition for “restricted building work”. So we are going to ask the industry: “Should a hayshed be a restricted building work?”. Does that mean to say that a farmer can build it with his mate and pay correctly or does he have to have a licensed building practitioner? What about a carport? That was mentioned in the Minister’s own discussion document. He himself does not have a clue whether a carport is a restricted building work. This is a mess. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I think it is quite amusing to listen to some of these speakers who clearly either have not read the bill or if they have read it have misunderstood it and Mr Carter’s contribution falls directly into the latter category. If he looks at the definition of restricted building work he will see that it is building work that requires a building consent relates to an element of a building that is critical to the integrity of the building and the health and safety of its occupants and is declared by the Governor-General to be restricted building work. That means that if it does not require a building consent it is not building work; if it requires a building consent but it does not relate to an element of the building that is critical to the integrity of the building and the health and safety of the occupants it is not building work that is restricted; and if it is not those two things and is declared by Order in Council it is not restricted. That is a very restrictive definition. 
It is disingenuous for National to tell the public that restricted building work is all building work that requires a building consent. That is just totally misleading the public. Every time that members of ACT have spoken in this debate—in the second reading debate as well as in the Committee stage—they too have demonstrated that they have simply not read the bill and if they have read it they simply have not understood what it is all about. A lot of bluster has come through in terms of what ACT is saying with regard to the situation and it is quite clear that they do not understand what this legislation is trying to achieve.  
I reiterate that United Future believes this is a responsible and restrained way of going about having some criteria within our building system that provide a measure of safety for the public and the ongoing building of the housing stock in this country. For the benefit of those members who clearly have not read the bill I want to point out some of the other benefits that are contained in this bill and in particular in this part. One of the areas that I think is a really good development is this whole area of compliance documents. Up until now we have had a situation where people can apply and get approved solutions so the fact that the building work or the material is an approved thing by the Building Industry Authority means it can be used without criticism in building work but very few people have done that. Very few people have done that because of the cost of doing that. So hardly any of those approved building solutions have gone through.  
Having compliance documents in here means—we in United Future believe and think it will be proved; and clearly the Government believes it—that compliance documents will become the norm. We will get into a situation where local authorities when they are confronted with a design that is a little out of the ordinary will say: “Does this methodology in terms of building or does this product qualify in terms of being compliant as far as the chief executive is concerned?” If the answer is no I would expect that most local authorities will take a much closer look probably at some cost in terms of determining whether they believe it will meet the building code. That will slow the process down and prove more costly. If suppliers of products and suppliers of systems have got compliance through the chief executive they will already have that there upfront so when they go to the local authority they can say: “This complies the chief executive says it does and you can sign off on this without any worry.” The bill provides that if in fact there is a compliance document with regard to it then it is deemed to comply.  
I hope that that will turn this whole situation round and we will see some of these new systems—and the monolithic cladding system is the classic one—having compliance recognised by the chief executive before they go on the market so that the suppliers can more easily market their products so that there is an investigation into those systems at an early stage to see whether they will meet the requirements of the building code and so that will not get the retrospective problems where somewhere down the chain we find all of a sudden that they do not meet the requirements and we have massive problems on our hands.  
There is also a provision in the bill for mandatory requirements—and that was a bit lacking in the old bill as well—where the chief executive can in fact make compliance mandatory. It is intended that that will be used very rarely. But nevertheless it is an important tool in the chief executive’s box. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Can I just start by acknowledging the fine work of the officials. They did a lot of work for the National Party as well as for the rest of the Government Administration Committee in terms of answering questions during the select committee process. Can I also acknowledge the rest of the committee who worked hard under the chairmanship of Dianne Yates. There is no doubt that they went through hours of work—and then came up with this 358 pages of bureaucratic nonsense. Can I also challenge the member Clayton Cosgrove for his comments earlier on about sticking up for the Kiwi battler. Because here is the interesting thing. On the  
Holmes  
show last night I saw a Kiwi battler; a young mother who had lost her husband at a very early age in the member’s electorate— 
Hon Member 
: Where was it? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It was on the  
Holmes  
show last night. Because of the fine work she had done for the community post the death of her husband under very tight circumstances the community came together in a voluntary capacity and did her house up—did a major update of her house. Now the question I need to ask the Minister in the chair John Tamihere and the officials is: “Could they have done that work post this bill being passed?”. The answer is “No they could not.” That group of volunteers who went into that member’s electorate and upgraded that lady’s house would be severely compromised in doing their work under this legislation. That is the test; that is where the acid test hits the road. We have the do-it-yourselfers like the group that went in over a weekend and completely rebuilt that house. They would now be put under so much red tape and regulation that that fine piece of community work could not take place. 
I say to the Minister in the chair John Tamihere—and I have not read his book yet; I promise that I will—that in his book I am sure it will refer to the Kiwi battler; the poor person who grew up in poor housing. Let me tell members that in no way could the sharemilker’s cottage of 800 square feet that I grew up in be described as a castle. The old man used to say that when one opened the fridge door the cold air rushed in! I know that that was one of the ways the cottage was described; but it was never described as a castle I can tell members that! 
Let me tell members that this legislation would make that very substantial dwelling of 800 square feet much more expensive. Let me tell members that it leaked like a sieve was full of mould and it was the most horrible house that one could live in during one’s life. This legislation will not stop that from happening. That house was built with untreated rimu with the cladding of the time which was rusticated weatherboard with eaves with sash windows and a corrugated iron roof. It would have met all the standards that this bill meets in terms of a building standard. There was no insulation. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It was well ventilated! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well when the southerly wind blew one had to stand on the carpet to hold it down otherwise it was up around one’s ears! Certainly the curtains moved when the wind blew from one direction or the other. 
This bill will not improve that house one iota. In fact if the Green Party had its way the house would be treated as a heritage building and we would not be allowed even to alter it. It would have to stay in its original state. 
Stopbanks are another issue. We have had this horrendous flood up in the Bay of Plenty and also in the Manawatu. We look for reasons why that happened—apart from the fact that it rained for 3 days on end which is something the Government cannot be blamed for unfortunately otherwise we would although we may be able to figure out a way to do that. The reason so much land went under water was that the stopbanks failed. As my colleague the member from Karapiro said nowhere does this bill mention faulty stopbanks or the construction of stopbanks. Clearly that issue could have been addressed but was not. 
Small business is the backbone of this country and it is interesting to note that the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere is also the Minister for Small Business. For the benefit of Clayton Cosgrove “small business” describes the man with the ute the radio and the dog. He is the Kiwi battler out there; the very person we are talking about but he will not be able to survive under these heavy regulations. Imagine a copy of this legislation on the seat of the ute underneath the dog! 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 As someone who had a particular interest in this legislation I am very pleased to be able to speak to it in the Committee stage. I have listened to Opposition members with an increasing sense of incredulity. Who was in Government when the Building Act was passed in 1991? I wonder who that was! It is amazing hearing all these speeches coming across the Chamber laying blame at the feet of the Government. But it is this Government that has had to pick up the pieces. Who ignored the warnings of many of the old hands in the industry who said the laissez-faire approach was going to be a disaster especially when one coupled it with the demise of the apprenticeship system in this country? I wonder who presided over that legislation? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Bill Birch. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was Bill Birch. The repeal of the Apprenticeship Act was done by Mr Bill Birch— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: And Lockwood Smith. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —and Lockwood Smith managed to deal to the industry training sector at the same time. 
I have heard both the ACT party and the National Party say: “Let the market decide. Let the market determine all these matters.” Will we expect to see the market protecting homes from leaking? I wonder whether the market is capable of actually doing that. Is the market now some form of umbrella that is going to sit over and above shoddy workmanship that has not been properly undertaken and has not been properly inspected under the laissez-faire attitude that the previous Government introduced? 
I am not prepared to trust the market in this case because there is not an equivalent in the relationship between the consumer and the professional involved. The professional involved knows about building knows about the quality of the product knows about the processes that have to be put in place. As consumers how on earth are ordinary New Zealanders—the Kiwi battlers whom my colleague spoke about—supposed to be able to protect themselves when they do not know whether the particular product they are buying will stand up for the purpose? I prefer skilled tradespeople doing the job they are supposed to do and inspection processes in place to protect as well. 
My colleague Clayton Cosgrove I thought made one of the most telling points in this debate thus far. He talked about the level of investment that ordinary Kiwis make in their home. He is absolutely right. It is the largest single investment that most people will make. The second-largest is usually the car as my colleague pointed out. But with a car one has to have a warrant of fitness look after the car get the warrant of fitness renewed on a regular basis. But with a house what does one get from the real estate agent from the builder? 
 What do people get in order to ensure that they keep their houses up to standard? Actually there is a partnership that occurs post the purchase of a building and it is important that consumers know what they have to do to maintain their properties both inside and outside to ensure that those properties are able to retain their fitness for purpose. I think it is amazing that there are still many people—and I am guilty of this myself—who have invested thousands of dollars into a property and did not have it inspected by a builder. But I would not buy a car without having it inspected by the Automobile Association. I think that is a culture change an attitude change that we need to see in this country so that people get properties checked out for fitness for purpose before they actually invest that degree of money. 
One of the things I am very concerned about—and I think one of things that this bill is trying to do—is to provide protection for consumers the ordinary Kiwis. I have heard nothing from the Opposition that expresses any concern for ordinary New Zealanders who have been caught out in a situation where the legislation has not provided sufficient protection. 
As for those who are volunteers or do-it-yourselfers it is important to know that the house they build for themselves may be the home of someone else one day and that person is entitled to have a protection and what the legislation says is that if it is being built by a do-it-yourselfer and it does meet the criteria that my colleague quite rightly read out to the Committee then it is important that a registered building practitioner oversees the process. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of things I should perhaps remind the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel about is that she voted for the Building Act 1991. It is worth getting one’s history right is it not? The legislation was introduced by the Labour Government of 1984-90 as a result of an inquiry. The Labour Party not surprisingly in 1991 voted for the legislation. Those members cannot disown their past and they need to get their history right. I am not going to talk about incidents that Lianne Dalziel was involved in earlier this year but it does seem that collective amnesia is a fault on her part. 
We have heard a great deal about protecting Kiwi battlers—homeowners. That is a good thing. We agree with that. That is why we have said that there needed to be improvements to the Building Act. We wanted the Building Industry Authority strengthened so that it could undertake its supervisory role more fully. We wanted to have the quality of workmanship improved. Those are the practical measures that are required not this huge piece of legislation that throws out the good with the bad—which is fundamentally what this bill does. It simply pretends that the past did not exist chucks it all out and tries to start again. Well that is the way of tears. 
 I will turn now to the contribution so-called of Mr Smith from United Future. That was not very good. He calls himself a lawyer and he went on about the sort of work that would be covered by restricted building work. The importance of that of course is that only building practitioners can do it. He made a great song and dance about the fact that it required a building consent; and related to an element of the building that is critical to the integrity of the building; and that it is declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be restricted building work. They have produced a discussion document on this issue. The blunt point is this: the reality is that any work that is likely to be covered by a building consent will involve some structural integrity. That is why people get building consents—that is the reality. 
Progress reported.