Carter David: Building Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Building Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14546] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The Building Bill will in time prove to be the most stupid legislation the Labour Government has passed. I predict that within a very short time of the commencement of the new National Government members will be back in this House tidying up this very messy costly legislation. 
Darren Hughes 
: Of course! This bill will be 20 years old by then. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I assure the member that the job will have to be done far earlier than that. 
This is very cynical legislation that was rushed into the House in a desperate attempt to take the leaky homes issue off the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
and other newspapers up and down the country. When we analyse this legislation carefully we find that it will do nothing to stop the further construction of leaky homes and absolutely nothing to cure the problems of those poor unfortunate people who own leaky homes. 
One has only to look at the commentary that has been presented to Parliament by the Government Administration Committee. Every party represented on the committee apart from the Labour Party has presented a minority report on the legislation expressing some degree of concern about various aspects of it. The amazing contribution from members of New Zealand First was a 10-minute speech criticising every aspect of the Building Bill—quite rightly so I might add—but those members then proceeding to vote for it. 
So this legislation ultimately will be passed because the Government and its mates United Future and New Zealand First support the legislation without actually having analysed what effect it will have on the building industry. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Tell us what you would do. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member now asks what it does. Well Mr Catchpole was on the select committee so he should know what the legislation will do but I will tell him. I am happy to tell him exactly what the legislation will do. To a small family home it will add a cost of $6300. On average it will add that sort of cost to construction. That is what it will do and that in my mind is just stupidity. 
A huge section of the legislation is devoted to a new occupational group called the licensed building practitioner. I have just completed a significant home renovation and I used builders. But now there will not be many builders in this country; there will be licensed building practitioners. The interesting thing about my personal experience with the construction of my property was that we used a builder who has been in the industry for years and years but who has never got himself qualified. That guy can no longer control my building project because he will not be a licensed building practitioner as he does not have the qualifications. Yet he has done a pretty good job—the house certainly does not leak and I am just pleased I got in and got the job done— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Is it level? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is absolutely level. Lindsay Tisch wants to know whether the builder did a good job in that regard and he did. I am just thrilled that I got in and got my job completed before the passing of this stupid legislation. 
I spoke to members of my own caucus who were on the select committee and I asked them to clarify for me the issue around the do-it-yourself industry. New Zealanders have a huge industry now—in retail etc.—associated with people doing the odd renovation on their own home in a most cost-effective and satisfactory manner. There now appears to be doubt as to the continuation of the DIY industry because many of the jobs that are tackled by the homeowner on Saturdays and Sundays will now have to be inspected by a licensed building practitioner. Those jobs have been done quite satisfactorily— 
Brian Connell 
: What’s that going to cost? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Who knows what it will cost. The members of the select committee should have asked that question and should have been supplied with the information. A person who has a rotting window frame and who has some capability with a hammer a nail and a saw will not be able to go down to Carters buy the timber required replace the window frame and re-glaze it him or herself. That person will not be allowed to do it because the Labour Government says that he or she was the cause of the problem of the leaky homes syndrome. I say to Labour members that nothing could be further from the truth. 
The reasons we have trouble with leaky homes are fourfold. In many cases the design was inadequate. That will not be fixed by the Building Bill. In many cases as referred to by my colleague Shane Ardern untreated timber was used which was a stupid notion brought on by the “greenies” of the world who demanded the option of using untreated timber and then expressed surprise when the untreated timber rotted when it got wet. How dopey can the “greenies” be? The third reason for leaky homes was the huge number of products that simply were inadequate for the job they were destined to do. There were not enough procedures there. And of course the fourth reason in some cases was bad workmanship. Here we have 350 pages of costly legislation to tackle the fourth reason which is the bad workmanship aspect of the leaky homes syndrome. 
So I say that this is probably the most cynical legislation this Government has presented so far. It has been brought into the House as an instant response to the headlines around the leaky homes syndrome which caused the Government huge embarrassment. At the end of the day after sitting in the select committee for 9 months the bill has come back before the House not hugely improved at all. It puts huge costs and regulation on to the construction sector and will not provide the answers required for the leaky homes mess whatsoever. 
Brent Catchpole 
: How many submissions? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Three hundred and fifty.