Mapp Wayne: Building Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Building Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8426] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill of 386 clauses is the tombstone for Mr Hawkins. That is the reality. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister of Commerce might say “Oh!” but we know the truth of this. That Minister who spoke on this issue was brought in because of the failure of Mr Hawkins. The weathertightness tribunal had to be driven into being by this side of the House. A reluctant Government and Prime Minister kept saying the issue was simply a beat-up. Those are the facts and those are things the Government cannot deny. There are now 3000 claims for individual buildings before that tribunal and many others before the High Court. 
Brian Connell 
: How many resolved? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is a very important question. How many have even been assessed? Very few have been assessed and virtually none have been resolved and that is an indictment on the Minister. The Minister herself now seems to be in trouble so we now have to ask when she will be deemed to have been caught out by this bill by her responsibilities in relation to the weathertightness tribunal and by the complaints of house-owning consumers about the time delays of that legislation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s not my responsibility. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I guess that that says everything! Sometimes it pays not to interject too much or too loudly. This side of the House recognises that there was a necessity to reform the legislation. That is why we will support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Well done! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Did the Minister expect anything else? The Minister should know that National has been asking for a considerable amount of time for reform of this legislation. 
Jill Pettis 
: You had 9 years! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will not bring me into the debate. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I should not respond but I remind the previous interjector that the previous Act was a Labour Act. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No it wasn’t; it was brought in in 1991. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It was the result of a taskforce created by the previous Labour Government and Labour voted for it because in essence it was its legislation. We know there have been problems with the current legislation and in particular they relate to the skills within the building industry and the way that the building code has worked. There are some good things in this legislation but we will seek the advice of the industry on it. 
One of the things I would like to raise with the Minister is why a $10000 limit was chosen before the new regime—which the Minister did not actually talk about—where every building has to be constructed under the supervision of a licensed building practitioner. What can one build for $10000? Almost nothing! It is effectively saying to homeowners who simply want to add a room on to their homes that they now have to do that under— 
Brent Catchpole 
: A garden shed! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —or a garden shed but an expensive one I would suspect—the supervision of a licensed building practitioner. That is on top of the inspection by the local authority or the building certifying company that has been chosen. The Government has added substantial cost at a very low threshold. The Government has to think again about that $10000 limit. It is simply too low and will add costs. There has been an estimation that in general terms it will add 2.9 percent to the cost of all buildings. That is pretty significant. A typical house in New Zealand costs $100000 to $150000 to build. 
Brian Connell 
: $200000! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am talking about construction. That means there will be additional costs of $3000 to $4500 just because of this legislation. That is a pretty significant impost. The select committee will be looking very carefully not only at that balance of consumer protection a legitimate and proper role for any Government but also at the cost of it. Does this regulatory regime go too far? I flag to the Government that one area we will be particularly looking at is that threshold of $10000. 
The other issue I am particularly concerned about which I raised at the time is the overreaction in relation to the Building Industry Authority. I hardly need to tell this House of the shambles that that authority got into firstly because of the incompetence of the Minister and secondly because there were some difficulties with the competence of the authority itself. But is the right response then to disestablish the Building Industry Authority and bring it under the direct control of the Minister who is obviously looking forward to being able to extend her ministerial tentacles to even higher and greater levels of control than ever before? If that is her plan I can only hope she does a better job of it than she does with immigration. There is a dysfunctional department if ever there was one. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I’m “Mrs Fix-it”! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No the Minister is not “Mrs Fix-it”; Dr Cullen is “Mr Fix-it”. The Minister should not get an overblown sense of herself. The reality is that Dr Cullen is “Mr Fix-it”. This Minister is “Minister Bungle”. She needs to get the ranking right. 
We are particularly concerned about the issue of the level of ministerial control over the new organisation. By all means reorganise the Building Industry Authority; I think that was necessary. But it was not necessary to disestablish it. In fact the proof of that is that once the organisation of the Building Industry Authority was somewhat reformed at an administrative level the problems of the authority largely disappeared. So now we have a whole swathe of legislation that adds substantial costs of 2.9 percent to correct something that has already been corrected. That is again something the Opposition will be looking carefully at during the select committee process. 
We would like to think that the Government does have flexibility about some of the things that are mentioned in the bill and that the more extreme elements whereby the Minister extends her tentacles in order to have ministerial control are effectively deleted because if her immigration portfolio experience is anything to go by then her having such control is dangerous; it is simply dangerous for this Minister who says she did not participate in a cover-up in relation to immigration but conversely whose staff did not even know of the dysfunctionality of her department. 
Brian Connell 
: Was she conscious? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Was she conscious of it? If that is the case in her immigration portfolio how well will she manage this process? Not well at all I would have to say. We will support this bill going to the select committee. We do have significant reservations. I would like to think they could be corrected because legislation of this nature has to run across different Governments over time. It is important that we get it right at the select committee.