Huo Raymond: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Huo Raymond: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:637. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 If the Minister who is responsible for the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Hon Maurice Williamson had listened to the submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee he would not be standing there with respect reading out his half-baked speech on his half-hearted bill which falls well short of the reform required in the building industry. I outlined those views expressed by those submitters in my media statement released this afternoon and I do agree with those submitters who correctly called on the Government to withdraw the bill and bring it back to the House once a more comprehensive package of reforms is available. Labour opposes this bill. It appears that the Minister has presented two personas. The one I like is the Minister who was quoted in the media as complaining that leaky homes are still being built—in his own electorate to be precise—and that “a ‘dramatic overhaul’ of the Building Act is needed desperately to end the crisis”. There is another persona whose rhetoric is much more powerful than the actual work he delivered. 
At a time when the building industry is under huge pressure with the Christchurch rebuild leaky building remediation work and a huge skill deficit all looming large a comprehensive reform of the industry is required not a banded and piecemeal approach. What we need is genuine leadership to address the fundamental problems. It seems to resonate well with the warnings of professionals such as Mr John Scarry and some of his colleagues that most leaky buildings had faulty designs and that structural engineering in New Zealand is about to become the first profession in the modern world that will cease to be a profession. Poor standards of construction and deficient building materials were the main contributing factors towards the collapse of the CTV building. Hollow core slender concrete walls brittle cold-worked welded wire mesh and deficient floor diaphragms were the main issues which apply to other at-risk buildings as well. It is appalling to read the  
New Zealand Herald  
reports that deregulation of the industry had allowed manufacturers to pay for the development of standards to justify their own products. Even according to Minister Maurice Williamson himself as I touched upon earlier leaky homes are still being built and therefore a dramatic overhaul of the Building Act is needed desperately to end the crisis. However this bill together with the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is miles away from being a broad reform package. Rather they are nothing but partial instalments.  
Talking about leadership I would like to acknowledge the work and efforts made by our officials and thank members of the select committee former and current ones for the work they have done. In particular I would like to acknowledge Green and Labour members who presented the minority report which is necessary meaningful and responsible. I would also like to acknowledge the O’Sullivan brothers who exposed the rotten-timber crisis that has devastated our country.  
 It is said shall I add that many of us have been made aware that the multibillion-dollar rotten-timber disaster in housing is merely the tip of the iceberg. In the 1990s New Zealanders moved away from traditional weatherboard and brick houses. Instead builders began using flat lightweight panels with a plaster finish to give a more Mediterranean look. Many builders say the leaky building problem goes back to the introduction of a new building code in 1991. Instead of telling architects and builders how to design and construct houses it concentrated on results. The Hunn report in 2002 said it highlighted problems that occurred when a performance-based code did not keep pace with rapidly changing building technology. We do support and are in broad agreement with the direction of the Building Act review which was initiated under a former Labour Government. More important we must ensure that we fully understand what went wrong in all instances not to apportion blame but to learn valuable lessons that will minimise the risk of failure in the future. To that end we need genuine leadership to address the fundamental problems.  
I read rather earnestly the open letter to the Institution of Professional Engineers by Mr John Scarry in 2002. The letter which had nearly 80 pages exposed widespread unacceptable bad practices in the structural engineering profession and the construction industry in New Zealand. I acknowledge the contributions made by Mr Scarry and his colleagues over the past years seeking to work for positive reforms. I have learnt a lot from that letter. I have also learnt a lot from the two reports by the Building Industry Authority and the Institution of Professional Engineers that examined what they called significant design and construction issues arising out of a review of the Scarry open letter. The media reports offered some grim reading. Since the Scarry open letter the Waitakere City Trusts Stadium collapsed during its erection. The Stadium Southland which collapsed under its own weight in 1999 before repairs were made collapsed in 2010 under a moderate snow load luckily on one of the few days of the year when the stadium was not full of people. The headline of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 story on 22 December 2010 says it all: “Roof collapse raises building code fears”. The news report went on to say: “The Southland collapse came after design faults had to be fixed during the construction of Vector Arena and Waitakere Trusts Stadium several years ago.”  
This bill includes only some parts of the reform agenda that has been widely discussed with the industry over the last few years. The bill attempts to shift responsibility and accountability away from building consent authorities towards builders and consumers. The role of these authorities is being reduced but until there is more genuine reallocation of accountability this bill risks exposing the consumer to greater risk by reducing the role of councils. We think it is risky and unwise to legislate such a piecemeal set of measures at a time when the industry is facing a surge in demand from the Christchurch rebuild leaky building remediation work a huge skill deficit and uncertainty about whether there will be sufficient builders entering the new licensing scheme. We are not talking about statistics. We are talking about a problem that may have affected most housing schools museums airports and seaports and Government and commercial office space. We are talking about safety and we are talking about human lives.