Faafoi Kris: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Faafoi Kris: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:647. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the Building Amendment Bill (No 3). It was going to be a relatively short contribution but for the benefit of Mr Henare seeing as he has asked for more we will try to extend it as far we possibly can—as far as we possibly can for the benefit of the member.  
I rise following David Clark for the second reading of this bill. As he stated we do oppose this bill. We did not oppose this bill at the first reading but upon hearing evidence and submissions at the select committee it has become clear to us that there are a number of concerns around the fullness of the measures being taken in this bill and that they do not in fact tackle a number of the issues that have come about by as David Clark has mentioned concerns around the leaky building phenomenon in New Zealand. So we believe that in its current state this is a piecemeal piece of legislation.  
Unfortunately as I said it was a piece of legislation that we did support. It entered this House with high hopes that it would take some very concrete measures to ensure there was a certain degree of accountability across the industry and also with homeowners to ensure that there was accountability around the issue of leaky buildings but as became clear in the Local Government and Environment Committee this bill did not meet those requirements. Labour supported this bill’s referral to a select committee and although we are in broad agreement with the direction of the Building Act review—which of course began under Labour—we will not be supporting this Building Amendment Bill (No 3) any further at this second reading stage.  
I believe it was a New Zealand First member earlier on in this debate who said that the onus is on us to make sure that we do get regulations— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I didn’t say anything. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Pardon? Sorry; that is a former New Zealand First member on that side of the House. It is a current New Zealand First member in the Parliament who said the onus is on us to make sure that we get regulations around building right. Given recent history with the leaky building experience and when we are talking about the likes of schools and homes and hospitals it is a responsibility of this House to make sure we get this legislation right. And that is why at this stage we have chosen not to support it because of its piecemeal nature.  
After listening to those submitters at the Local Government and Environment Committee we believe—and a lot of submitters agreed with Labour at the select committee—that this bill should be scrapped and we should be starting again and that we should have a broader package of measures around regulations for the accountability of the building industry and protections for consumers in a new building amendment bill.  
The purpose of the bill as Mr Clark said is worthy and that is why we did support it at the first stage. For those listening at home at quarter to 10— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How many? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: They are listening for interjections from Mr Henare but the purpose of the bill—it is your bill so maybe they might want to hear what the purpose of the bill is—is to change or clarify the building consent and inspection requirements that building design and construction requirements are also changed and clarified that the licensed building practitioners regime is changed and clarified and that the law relating to DIY projects—which I am sure Mr Henare is a dab hand at dab hand not dab fist—is also changed to ensure that there are the appropriate requirements for better protection. And I guess it is as David Clark said adequate protection for consumers.  
As a number of our speakers have said we will not be supporting this legislation because of its piecemeal nature. We believe that there is significant change needed in this area and that although we did commend the bill for select committee deliberation it has become clear to us that it no longer meets the requirements of this side of the House indeed to support it in terms of that significant change. We also think that it is risky and unwise to legislate this piecemeal legislation this set of measures at a time when the industry is facing a rather large surge of demand around the increased needs of Christchurch and nationally the repair of leaky homes.  
Of course there is a huge skills deficit one that we do not think is being addressed and concern and uncertainty about whether there will be sufficient builders entering the new licensing scheme— 
Colin King 
: Rubbish—heaps of young people being trained. Heaps of people being trained. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: I hear the member for Kaikoura Mr Colin King someone whom I respect personally who says that it is rubbish that there is a skills shortage. It is a fact that there is a skills shortage and that under the 49th Parliament National actually decreased the number of training places. So it is a complete fact that there is a significant shortage of skills especially in this area when we are looking at a significant rebuild of Christchurch and the repair of leaky homes.  
It is an onus on this Parliament to make sure that we do have a set of thorough regulations and legislation around building and the accountability of those who are involved in the building process. We do not believe that this bill supplies the people of New Zealand with that. We thought it might do at the first reading but as submissions went forward in the select committee hearings it became clear to us because of the volume and the nature of the concerns of the submitters at the select committee that this legislation will not achieve what it set out to achieve and it is for those reasons that we will not be supporting this bill—because of its piecemeal nature. We think significant change is needed in the law and that is why we will not be supporting this bill any further.