Dalziel Lianne: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1831. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I thought that was an extraordinary contribution because the member Nikki Kaye stood to describe what the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) was apparently designed to address and this is what the member quoted from the regulatory impact statement: “While consumer support was emphasised in the Building Act 2004 through a purpose statement and implied warranties no specific measures were included to assist consumers to understand their rights enforce their rights or hold practitioners to account other than through the disputes tribunal (for small claims) and the courts.” And actually nothing that this bill does addresses that issue. There were three things that she said were designed to address the flaws in the original legislation which was a major reform in 2004 taking over from the 1991 building legislation which I think National passed in that year obviously with the contribution of a previous Labour Government having done some of the groundwork. This is not something that I would reflect on with any sort of particular goodwill actually because I think we both made terrible mistakes and as a result people have paid for them with their lives and with their livelihoods. So I do not think anyone has anything to reflect on with any particular joy in that regard.  
But she talked about penalties going up for building consent issues. Well that does not improve things for consumers at all. She talked about better information for consumers. Well that does not actually protect them when the company has got no money when it actually collapses. And I would like to refer her to the particular section of the regulatory impact statement that she has avoided reading to the House: “Officials have also considered arguments for shifting to proportionate liability which would be a major change to the liability framework. While not without benefit it would also have drawbacks including likely requiring mandatory surety”.  
And that is what this Government cannot stand. It cannot stand anything that provides real protection. It is all smoke and mirrors. We are going to let this bill go to a select committee but I am saying that we are going to be certainly calling on people—not just consumers but people in the building industry themselves—to have a real good look at this legislation and ask themselves the question whether it provides protection for anyone. I can speak as somebody from Christchurch who has had the recent experience—not so pleasant experience—of having lived through a series of earthquakes that have caused great damage to our city. I am deeply concerned that the Minister who is responsible for this bill Maurice Williamson heads a department that is about to be folded into this new big— 
Darien Fenton 
: MoBIE 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: MoBIE—what does it stand for? The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I want the next speaker from the National Government to answer this question: why would you roll in the two departments that are the subject of royal commissions of inquiry before they have reported and before they have made a single recommendation to the Government? Why would you fold them into a single department before that? Well I have to say that the commission of inquiry into Pike River obviously relates to the Department of Labour practices and that is why it is so vital that this concept is put on hold in the meantime.  
But let me also say that the royal commission into the Canterbury earthquakes and the building failures that occurred there is going to produce some extremely useful information not just to this current Government but to Governments in the long term. It is the most resourceful of commissions of inquiry because it has actually managed to bring together in one resource a range of informants and information people who have made submissions and people who have been asked to make submissions and we are gathering the best possible information in relation to building safety that this country will ever have the opportunity to have. And if we are to actually respect those who lost their lives in that earthquake then to learn the lessons from what that teaches us is the most important thing that we can do. I urge the House to think on this very carefully.  
The reason why Labour unlike New Zealand First is supporting this bill to select committee is that we want to show good faith to a Minister who has shown good faith to us. He briefed us on this legislation; the Green Party mentioned that he had done so. He has worked I think in a very open way with members of this House in ways that perhaps some of his colleagues do not always see as important. But when you are dealing with buildings which are not just around the safety issue but people’s lifetime savings are committed to their family homes you know these issues are important and it is important to engage with all political parties. So that is why we are going to let the bill go to a select committee. But I have to warn this House that unless there are substantial changes to the detail within this legislation then our support for it will not carry on beyond its report back to this House. 
 But I believe that we actually have a Minister who has taken the issues of building and construction very seriously and does want to see significant changes in this area of the legal framework which is so important to our daily lives. We are willing to work with him to get the changes to this legislation that will make it work.  
I want to say that the legislation itself does focus very much on residential homes but we still have major problems with buildings in this city in Christchurch and in Auckland that have been built to a standard that is not sufficient to stand up to the seismic activity that—we now know—parts of our country are exposed to. There are buildings in this city where I will not go and the reason is that I believe they are not safe. I believe it is important that we understand all of these issues very carefully so that we are able to provide the best possible support to those in the industry who require that support and also to enable them to speak out without fear of having their reputations destroyed as it were by those who want to avoid fronting up to the issues they are raising.  
So I think it is very important that we take this bill very very seriously. But it is not good enough. I am actually quite concerned about the issues that New Zealand First has raised. Members have been talking about self-regulation but in the environment that we have been in in respect of Pike River and the collapses in Christchurch I think one should be very very careful about going down that track.  
Although we are not talking about self-regulation it does not have to be expensive. It does not have to be difficult. It does not have to be problematic. It actually can be done in a way that is commensurate with the degree of risk that is faced and it can be risk-based and it can be proportionate in that regard. We have a real difficulty in Christchurch at the moment. We have detailed engineering evaluations being carried out on buildings on a daily basis at the requirement of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. I know there are engineers who are refusing to do those reports. They are refusing to do them not because they are not competent to do them but because they are fearful of the consequences of not getting it right and ending up in front of a royal commission at some time in the future.  
I am saying this out loud because I think we in this Parliament have to be very cautious sometimes about what we do here and the impact that it has on behaviour out there. I think it is really important that we get the regulatory balance right so that we offer the protection that needs to be offered in these circumstances but also enable industry to develop in a way that supports the economic growth of our nation. We have got to get that balance right. I think it is really important that we think about this carefully. So we will support the bill’s referral to a select committee but we really want to see significant change before we support it any further.