Clark David: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:646. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of the Government bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 3). Labour opposes this bill for some very good reasons— 
Hon Members 
: What are they? 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —leaky homes—that I now wish to outline. The leaky homes problem which became apparent in the 1990s was a problem long before it was addressed. It came about as a result of inadequate legislation. My fear is that here we go again making more inadequate legislation—a risk that we should not be running in this sector. There is no doubt in my mind that building regulation is very important for our country. When we compare for example the earthquakes in Haiti and Christchurch we see both as tragedies but we can be somewhat thankful that we had stricter building regulation here. It is an important area of law and it is an important area to get right. 
There are aspects tied up with leaky buildings that relate to health poverty and our poor housing stock. The rates of rheumatic fever at the moment are of great concern so there is no doubt that we need to address these matters. When I think of leaky buildings I think of stories I have heard as I am sure other members of the House do where companies have disappeared overseas and individual builders have disappeared overseas. This is a problem that this bill does not seek to address. I can remember a story of a couple who built a house. They planned it as couples do. They spent a lot of time investing in the plans and in the final product. This couple perhaps unlike many other examples that have been used did not take a case to have the leaky building addressed by any kind of official mechanism. They have gone about fixing the house themselves but over time this has amounted to an enormous cost and as I have already said the builders had long since disappeared. I am sure we can all recount similar stories. 
The current proposal is to shift responsibility to builders and consumers and that in itself is a laudable goal. If it were to be effectively done it would be done in a way that allocated them their respective level of responsibilities as is appropriate to their responsibility in being part of the decision making around the building. But Labour has a view—which I believe has been wisely formed—that this reallocation of responsibilities needs to be looked at properly looked at hard and looked at long and it ought to be a genuine reallocation. That is what is required. That might be generated by something like mandatory home warranties or the introduction of proportionate liability and unfortunately the legislation as it is currently proposed does not deal adequately with such remedies. It does instead shift the responsibility in a way that stops short of the ideal solution. There is a risk of exposing consumers in this scenario in a way that they should never be exposed and of reducing council responsibilities in a way that is unhelpful. 
Submitters convinced those who did sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee that the benefits of a broader package should be considered more fully and this package here which we have before us in the legislation is not as full as it ought to be. That is why Labour opposes this bill and will continue to oppose this bill unless significant change comes forward.  
Just to reiterate the aim of the Building Act review is a worthy one: the better allocation of responsibility and accountability between regulatory authorities building professionals and consumers. It is the way in which this has—or rather has not—been done that we are opposing. Labour thinks that it is both risky and unwise to legislate in such a piecemeal fashion on such an important issue and at a time when the industry itself is facing a surge in demand and a lack of skills. We have also got simultaneously the issue of Christchurch and the rebuild. These are not insignificant issues and it is important rather than rushing into legislation that is imperfect that we face these other issues and generate legislation that is truly lasting and that will truly address the problems that we have. I can recall in my recent occupation as a head of a university hall trying to get hold of a structural engineer and even in Dunedin a town not that close to Christchurch it is difficult to locate the services of such a person because of the demand in Christchurch for that profession. That is just one aspect of the building profession. There are huge demands on those people right now and those pressures must be also addressed.  
These reasons are why Labour and the Green Party submitted their minority view—well at least I can say they are why Labour submitted its minority view—at the select committee and it is from a fear that as it stands the bill might allow the homeowner fewer remedies when left in the lurch by a $100 shell company. It is simply not acceptable that that be the case. We believe that a fuller and broader piece of work needs to be done so that we have adequate legislation to protect consumers and to shield them from the risks that this particular approach would generate. So that is why we will oppose this bill and I am very proud to stand here on behalf of Labour and deliver that message. Thank you.