Ardern Shane: Building Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14776] 
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.