Smith Murray: Building Bill — In Committee 
Smith Murray: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14771] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 All we have heard from National and ACT members tonight is railing against this bill without actually looking at it and coming up with some alternative solutions that they may want. In fact it was quite hilarious when Mr Carter was speaking. He said “When National gets in we’re going to we’re going to”—I was waiting for the word “repeal” but it did not come—“we’re going to make amendments to this bill.” I think that inevitably there will need to be amendments when the new Act settles down. With a piece of legislation that is as far-reaching as this and changes so many facets of life in this country it is naive to think that we will not have a bedding-down process and that there will not need to be some adjustments and changes come through. So I think National’s bet on that is really an even-odds bet. 
However as the bill stands what has been produced by the Government and refined heavily by the Government Administration Committee—and I worked out that we had actually changed over 100 clauses in this bill—is I think a very good start towards addressing a very key problem that we have in New Zealand. The problem is that prior to 1990 we had a very prescriptive regime that would not allow flexibility and required homes to be built in the same sort of manner everywhere. Then after 1990 we just opened the floodgates without adequate regulation or oversight despite the intentions at that time that there would be such oversight. History has proved that the oversight of the industry by the Building Industry Authority was inadequate but that was not necessarily all its fault; there was a lack of legislative power as well. So it was a laissez-faire situation where anything went. As the euphemism went—and it was repeated dozens and dozens of times—all one needed in order to be a builder was a ute a dog and a radio. That was very true in terms of the way that we built things. 
It was important and the weathertight homes inquiry showed that it was important for us to redress the situation not just because of the weathertightness issue but because that issue was symptomatic of the fact that our building controls had failed generally. If it were not for this bill coming through we would find that after the weathertightness issue suddenly we would be hit with another issue that had not been dealt with and we would be faced with exactly the same problems in terms of that issue. So it was important to address the weathertightness issue. That has taken a long time because this is a big bill and it makes a big change in the way that things are done in our society. The Government Administration Committee tried carefully to get a balance that would provide a situation that was not too prescriptive but was not laissez-faire. I think the bill provides a good balance. 
The purpose clause sets out very very clearly exactly what is expected of everybody—people will all know their roles. The lack of clarity in terms of roles was part of the confusion before whereby the Building Industry Authority did not recognise its role and the important part it played in oversight and auditing and local authorities were remiss in addressing their obligations. So there were big gaps. The purpose clause sets out clearly the key issues. The legislation is to ensure that buildings can be used safely by people and without endangering their health that buildings have attributes that contribute appropriately to people’s health physical independence and well-being that buildings provide adequate fire protection and also that sustainable development is promoted. So the purpose clause contains the key aspects of what we are trying to achieve in terms of our built structures. 
The select committee inserted new clause 3A setting out a wide range of principles that the chief executive has to look at and that local authorities have to take cognisance of. It is a holistic approach. The committee was very ready to add provisions to the clause to cope with the wide range of considerations that should be taken into account in New Zealand design and construction and the considerations needed in order to build holistic environments for people to live in. Some key provisions include the importance of the effect on human health the importance of durability—and this is something that will appeal to the National and ACT league—the importance of enabling innovation in design and construction and also the importance of taking note of the costs of building. The principles also provide for people with disabilities as well. 
Some of the key provisions that United Future strongly supported are firstly those concerning heritage. In my role in Petone which has one of the foremost heritage streets in the country I was very conscious of the deficiencies in the building code in terms of heritage.