Connell Brian: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Connell Brian: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14851] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I listened to Clayton Cosgrove’s contribution earlier and I have to say that there are occasions when 5 minutes is a long time for a member to be on his feet and that was one of them. It was clear that the member did not have a clue what he was talking about. He obviously has not been a member of the Government Administration Committee. [ 
Interruption 
] No it reminded me of Peter Sellers when I heard it—it was quite clever but the content simply was not there. 
I turn my attention to what the New Zealand First member said. He told us that the 386 clauses in this bill are not enough and that there would be more if New Zealand First had its way. 
I also refer to what Mr Smith had to say. When I took an earlier call I talked about the builders warranty insurance. He picked up on that concept and I congratulate him on having the initiative to do so and to start looking at it. His concern was that it was for only 7 years. Well the whole point of having the builders warranty insurance is to provide certainty to people who buy houses on spec that those houses were built to a standard that will stand the test of time. It is to ensure that quality building practices are in place and that shonky builders do not have a market in which to ply their wares. That is why I say that the builders warranty insurance would be a very suitable alternative. Certainly it would be an alternative to the 358 pages of bureaucratic nonsense that we have in front of us. 
Some of the powers that the chief executive has under Part 4 are almost more than those of the Building Industry Authority. One would have to say that the chief executive probably replaces the authority. I know that Dr Mapp was a critic of the Building Industry Authority but when he was criticising and bringing down that shonky regime I do not think he expected that this type of legislation would replace it. 
The other thing that concerns me about this legislation is simply that although it is really a response to leaky homes nowhere in it has that issue been addressed. Nowhere in the 358 pages I have gone through clause by clause page by page have I found any mention of that issue at all. Rather than concentrating on shonky design the legislation puts in place an inspection regime. The leaky homes issue was not about treated timber or lack thereof it was about poor building design. This bill is a very poor way of addressing that issue—a very poor way indeed. 
This bill will take from the New Zealand landscape that icon of the do-it-yourself builder—the New Zealand handyman. I would have thought that people like the New Zealand First member who spoke previously would stand up and fight for those types of people. But no he told us that he was comfortable with what is being suggested and that somewhere between $6000 and $7000—it might be a small cost to him; I would love to see his bank balance—is just a small cost that New Zealanders will be prepared to pay with absolutely no guarantee that they will get a better building as a consequence. All it is is a compliance cost and when he talks with his boss this evening which I hope he does I hope he wears a very thick coat because he will get tanned something awful. Essentially he stood up in the Chamber this evening and argued for a compliance regime that will stop the average Kiwi from being able to afford his or her own home. Even Clayton Cosgrove is nodding in affirmation. He knows I am right. He knows this will put people in Waimakariri who want a home 10 years further behind and that their dream will just be that—a dream. 
Poor old Norman Kirk must be turning in his grave. He was a guy who had that Kiwi spirit. He was prepared to get out and build a home. But under this regime no he would not be able to do that—and the irony is it is a Labour Government that is doing it.