Twyford Phil: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Twyford Phil: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16056] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I move that all the words after “Committee” be deleted. I acknowledge the work of the Hon Maurice Williamson in bringing the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House. Labour will be supporting this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We see this bill as a modest and positive contribution to the ongoing process of reform of regulation in the building sector. 
I also acknowledge the work of the honourable and modest Shane Jones who started much of this work when he was the Minister for Building and Construction. He set up a number of task forces and began a whole process of consultation and discussion with the industry which has led to many of the reform proposals that are contained in this bill. Shane Jones in his earlier contribution on the weathertight homes legislation was quite right to point out that if he were to join colleagues on the Government side of this House the average quality of contribution on that side would rise and the average quality of contribution on this side would diminish. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It would be a change because none of you seem to be able to get to the committee at all. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I have to say that it was a great relief to finally hear a 10-minute contribution from the Minister who opened this debate. It makes a refreshing change from the rather desultory contributions we have heard from Government members this evening. 
We support this bill. We think it is a modest step forward in the ongoing process of reform in the building and construction industry. However it lacks ambition. I want to go on and say exactly why we support it and what is good about it and raise some questions about the bill. Let us look at the context of what is happening in the building and construction industry. It is a hugely important part of our economy. It accounts for about 5 percent of our GDP and something like 70000 New Zealanders are employed in the sector yet this is an industry that is in crisis. The building consent figures that came out last week show that construction activity in the residential sector has fallen through the floor. We have appallingly low levels of productivity in the building and construction industry. We are killing people on building sites at two to three times the rate of Australia. This is an industry that is in desperate need of assistance. Although the measures contained in this bill are positive and worthwhile in general they are woefully lacking in ambition. 
The question I have for Government members is why we are not seeing some kind of plan to rescue the building and construction industry in order to address the deep-seated productivity problems in the industry and the entrenched health and safety problems in this industry. Currently in the economic crisis besetting the building and construction industry we are seeing the departure of large numbers of skilled tradespeople at the moment who are going off to Australia. We are seeing apprentices being laid off at the moment because this Government does not have a plan not only for the wider economy but also in particular for this vital industry that we are talking about tonight. 
The historical context is that in 1991 the National Government of the time deregulated the building sector and as we know the response was a disaster for New Zealand. It was a disaster for homeowners and we are still feeling the effects of it. When the fifth Labour Government came in we set out to address the problem. We saw in the Building Act 2004 a genuine attempt to restore a decent building regulation regime. We recognise that in hindsight that legislation is too prescriptive and too heavily focused on compliance. The result was that the industry generally stopped building leaky homes but the heavy compliance regime slowed down the whole industry and added costs that were ultimately passed on to homeowners. So it is appropriate at this time that the reform process will swing the pendulum back towards the centre and give us a more thoughtful and light-handed approach that will be better for the industry and better for the consumer. 
We are supporting this bill in general and we look forward to a good debate in the select committee but we want to raise some questions at this point. One of them asks why the Government has opted for the much more light-handed approach of requiring home warranties to be made available to homeowners. The builder is required to have a home warranty scheme in their back pocket to offer it to homeowners at the point of purchase. A much more comprehensive approach would be to make home warranties mandatory and to back that up with a fidelity fund. I think that is the option that most people in the industry recognise would solve the problem. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Heavy-handed. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It is heavy-handed and there would be some risk involved in such a big intervention but I think that is an interesting debate. I would like to hear why the Government has gone for a much more insubstantial and light-handed approach that will arguably have less of a chance of solving the problem and providing real consumer protection. I am not convinced that this will provide the level of protection that is needed. Arguably mandatory home warranties backed up by a fidelity fund that could invest in productivity certification and health and safety could potentially offer a much more thoroughgoing solution to the deep-seated problems of lack of productivity and poor consumer protection that we see in the industry today. 
I think there are other issues. Reflected in the bill is an attempt to better balance the spread of accountability and responsibility across the different players in the industry and that is a worthy attempt to reform the problem in the industry which is that accountability has not been aligned with levels of responsibility and that is what we need. If we want to drive behaviour change in the industry accountability has to be aligned with responsibility. I want to give members an example of this. In the bill new section 14D inserted by clause 10 places on designers and architects the responsibility for ensuring that the plans and specifications that they deliver to the client if followed correctly will result in building work that is compliant with the building code. At the same time clause 24 lets councils off the responsibility of carrying out inspections and issuing a code of compliance. This is a major change to the regulatory regime that has not been discussed publicly by the Government. It puts a huge amount of responsibility and liability on to designers and architects and I wonder whether that is a sensible apportionment of accountability and whether the unforeseen consequences of that might undermine the objectives of this bill. 
We have talked about home warranties. One of the other major pieces of the reform process that has been discussed is risk-based consenting which the Minister outlined in her opening speech. We support that. The attempt is good and it will mean that we will see a much lighter and differentiated approach to consenting. It will mean that for instance certain things will be able to be done that will not even require a building certificate any more. They are things like car ports porches verandas simple houses and free-standing barns. I know that the leader of the Labour Party the Hon Phil Goff will be extremely relieved. He was most upset at being whacked with a huge building consent charge by his local council when he built a barn on his property so that is one New Zealander who will be happy to see that change. 
The bill also makes some further improvements to the licensed builder practitioner scheme which is worthwhile. It prescribes a code of consent.