Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13264] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 With considerable care Opposition members have avoided looking at any particular clause in the Building Amendment Bill presently before this Committee. I want to bring them back to clause 12 which deals with this issue of do-it-yourself builders. Clause 12 does not prohibit do-it-yourself builders. Clause 12 merely says that a building consent will be required if the Governor-General by Order in Council determines certain work to be restricted building work. There is no such Order in Council so at the present time and with the passing of this bill into law there is no restriction on do-it-yourself builders. It is a simple clause in the bill. If Opposition members had cared to read it we would have saved ourselves 20 minutes or even longer tonight and could have looked to some substance. 
But what is the substance of this bill? Let us go to clause 19. Who in New Zealand can object to clause 19? Not even “Bob the Builder” from Tauranga. Clause 19 provides that a licensed building practitioner who carries out or supervises restricted building work under a building consent must on completion provide that the work—I am paraphrasing—meets the purpose required and he or she must give a certificate to that effect. So the licensed building practitioner is taking upon his or her shoulders the obligation of guaranteeing the work that was promised to be built. This is not loading compliance on local body authorities. This is not adding to costs. This is a simple guarantee to homeowners and people building homes that what they get is what they asked for and what they expected they would get. It is simple accountability—it asks licensed building practitioners to stand by their work. 
Then Opposition members talked about building bureaucracy adding to time delays. But the Opposition forgot to look at or omitted to look at clause 24. Clause 24 amends section 104 of the Building Act. It says: “A territorial authority that receives a copy under section 104 of a compliance schedule must within 5 working days after receiving the compliance schedule provide the owner of the building for which the compliance schedule was issued with the statement in relation to the compliance”. So this puts an obligation on the territorial authority to provide a certificate within 5 working days. How will that add to the time period? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s a joke. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: It is not a joke—it is in clause 24. I tell Mr Smith that he should pick up the bill and read it. He should cast his mind to the bill and read it and he will find that clause 24 answers his every concern. What do we find in clause 41? We find that territorial authorities must keep information about buildings. A territorial authority once it has supervised the procedure to ensure that the building is built as expected by the homeowner must then keep records so that if something does prove to be faulty the identification of fault and responsibility can be made quickly and economically. 
So if we look at the Building Amendment Bill before this House we see that nowhere does it limit the right of do-it-yourself builders. We see that nowhere does it add to the cost of local authorities. We see that nowhere does it extend the time span. Not one clause in this bill fits any of those three descriptions. I listened with careful attention for the last half hour or more—40 minutes—and none of the Opposition speakers could take their argument to any clause in the bill. Instead they ran off to other sources and made broad sweeping statements as they propagated fear among people out there who may happen to have been listening to the radio until this speech came along. 
The other interesting thing about “Bob the Builder”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: —the member for Tauranga—is that he took the opportunity to speak in this Chamber using prepared notes but he failed to accept an opportunity from the Minister’s office to come and discuss his concerns with those officials. No he wants to avoid the nitty-gritty to avoid getting down to the detail and to avoid addressing the issue. He saves his carping criticism for this Chamber and speaking in generalised forms again avoiding reading the bill. 
What the debate tonight has shown is that there is an abject failure to address the simple things that this Building Amendment Bill does—or a determination not to do so. The bill simplifies the process of consents. It sets up a simplified regime for licensed building practitioners so that those practitioners can carry responsibility for that which they certify. It dictates the simple way in which they must do it and it sets up a register of licensed building practitioners.