Hughes Gareth: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:923] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. I rise to oppose this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) on behalf of our housing spokesperson new MP Holly Walker. 
Maggie Barry 
: No. 3. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: You are right Maggie Barry it is the Building Amendment Bill (No 3)—got to get it right. This is the problem; this is one of the reasons why the Greens along with Labour are opposing it because we have got a proliferation of bills. We have got No. 3; we have got No. 4. My question to the Minister for Building and Construction is what is the rush? Why did we not focus on digging good foundations getting those foundations ready getting the package all together and making sure it was weathertight before we went down this path of passing two separate bills? The Minister himself acknowledged that we are seeing a piecemeal approach in the drafting of legislation and this is not what the sector needs. It is not what the sector wants. Over hours of debate in this House we have seen to-ing and fro-ing between the red side and the blue side saying who is responsible for the leaky buildings crisis and who is responsible for cutting all that red tape that led to all those problems. After hours and hours of debate all we found out was that they were both responsible. The ideologies that captured both parties at that time were responsible for the housing crisis and were responsible for the leaky buildings and the billions of dollars of bills facing our councils our households and the Government. They were both responsible. So I would like to acknowledge the changes we saw in 2004 when the Hon Shane Jones amended the Building Act. What we needed to find was a balanced approach a solid approach and that is not what we have with this bill. It is a piecemeal approach—and that is what the Minister and Nicky Wagner said. 
The key change we are seeing under the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) is the shift in responsibility from councils the consenting authorities towards builders and consumers. The focus is on accountability but the questions arise around liability and responsibility. When you have a $100 fly-by-night building company that is responsible it does not really mean anything to the householder facing the bill. What I think people wanted was a balanced approach where they knew they were going to be covered. If we were going to see problems in the future there was a long-term body like a consenting authority like a council who would be there to support them. We saw in the Local Government and Environment Committee that the Government refused to have the genuine debate around proportional liability or the mandatory warranties. 
A key part of this bill is section 90D in clause 25 which deals with the owner-builder exemption. The Green Party supports this in particular. We like the DIY tradition of Kiwis being able to build their own house. But a note of caution because in the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) what we see is that original owner-builder responsible maybe six or more sales down the line for the original house they built. I do not think we are going to see that many owner-builders building their own homes when they know that six times down the line when the house is sold they are still liable for what has happened to that house. We support accountability but we have some big questions around the owner-builder clause in the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). 
Ultimately though what we see—and I think Nicky Wagner put the hammer on the nail—is that the bill is all about cutting red tape and cutting bureaucracy. It is the slogans we love to hear from that side of the House and I guess the analogy about building is that when you do all those things it is like building a house out of straw. I have a 4-year-old so I am used to reading about the three little pigs and I know what happens when you build a house out of straw and you do not have the solid foundations of a holistic solid build. What you get is your house being blown over. So I would like to thank all the officials who worked on the bill. I would like to thank all the submitters. It is real pity we cannot get consensus in the House— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It was the wooden house that survived in Christchurch not the brick building. So your little pig story’s got to be rewritten. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I will have to update the story as the Hon Maurice Williamson says for the New Zealand context. 
Just on a final note it is a pity we could not get consensus. I am sure the Minister would have liked to see the whole House pass this bill with all parties in support. It is disappointing that we could not get there but in the future I think what we will need is a solid approach to building. We will be opposing this bill. Kia ora.