Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10838] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 That was the voice of the man who alone delivered to this country hundreds of thousands of leaky buildings. That was the man who as Minister in the last National Government ushered in a hands-free no-responsibility Building Act. That was the man who put— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I notice that the member on his feet is making all sorts of accusations about my former role as a Minister. I seek leave of the House to table a speech by the Hon George Hawkins given at the time the Building Act was passed in 1991. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a deliberate attempt to break up the speech from my colleague Russell Fairbrother. That sort of request to the House should have been made at the conclusion of the member’s speech. I think it would be only fair if Mr Fairbrother got to start—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Smith should not interrupt me during a point of order. I think it would be fair and reasonable for Mr Fairbrother to be able to start his speech from the top. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you for providing some assistance to the Speaker Mr Hughes. I had considered that myself before you actually raised the issue. Frivolous interjections designed to break up speeches are not a good thing and they lead to disorder. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: We have just heard from that member the reason why so many householders in this country have lost their homes because of leaky buildings—it was the “I don’t take responsibility” speech. He says that because George Hawkins gave a speech some long time ago it absolves him Dr Smith from responsibility for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders losing their homes their incomes and their lifetime savings because of his total failure to take responsibility for regulating the industry. 
What is worse is that Dr Nick Smith is the man whose free-for-all leaky home Building Act was preceded by volumes of building regulations. Before the Building Act came in the building regulations the building compliance codes—as Bob Clarkson would know because he used to jack his car up with them—were in many volumes which took a desktop or a table to house. That man the last speaker said National could do away with that bring in the Wild West and let anybody have a go. In his time a builder was a man who had a utility a dog and a radio—that is all a person had to have in order to build high-rise buildings. 
In 2002 and 2003 we had an inquiry into the tragedy of leaky buildings. That man did not sit on the inquiry but Dr Wayne Mapp did. Many many decent people and qualified architects came before the inquiry and said that the leaky homes syndrome was part of a worldwide trend caused by legislatures abrogating their responsibility to pass laws to govern the construction of every family’s major asset. In 2002 and 2003 the country knew what had gone wrong. 
But what did we have last weekend? Did we have the National Party saying it had learnt from the inquiry of 2002 and 2003? No we did not. We had the leader of that party—who wishes he were leader of the Labour Party—Mr John Key saying on 4 August that a high legislative priority for National will be to amend the Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality through greater commercial accountability. John Key has been reading the speeches of Dr Nick Smith in the early 1990s. That was the mantra that gave us the Building Act of 1991. That was the mantra that gave us the tragedy of the leaky homes syndrome. That was the mantra that drove many hard-working couples professionals trades and businesses to near bankruptcy as they moved into homes and buildings where the water came in before their own furniture did. 
What do we have under this very responsible Minister Clayton Cosgrove? We have legislation that takes up this Parliament’s responsibility to set up an infrastructure that will guarantee that people who are buying a home do not need to also be engineers architects and lawyers just in order to stay dry inside their homes. The Building Act that we now have and the weathertightness legislation enable ordinary people to invest their savings in their houses and to get on and live their lives safe and secure in homes that will last longer than that man’s term of Parliament. 
Darren Hughes 
: Well certainly as deputy leader. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Certainly as deputy leader. 
I am delighted that this bill is coming for consideration to the select committee that I chair. We will call for submissions and I can guarantee that the submissions will mostly concentrate on the provision that says it is not appropriate to exempt durability matters such as weathertightness repairs from building consent requirements. What is wrong with that provision? Nothing is wrong with it; it is basic. We have more complex building styles than previously and we have buildings built by people who did not have the advantage of trade training which was removed by that man and his Government in the 1990s. Those builders did not have the experience of formal training. It is important therefore as those men and women have acquired their skills on the job rather than by formal training that issues such as durability and weathertightness always remain subject to building consent requirements. However what this bill does do—and I would imagine from what the last speaker said that we will receive submissions on this as well—is to ensure that councils can apply their discretionary powers to exempt work from a building consent in a manner consistent with the principles in and the policy intent behind the first schedule of the Act. 
So this finely tuned amending legislation—the Building Amendment Bill—which is having its first reading in this debate gives us two things. One it ensures durability. Who when buying a home does not expect it to be durable? I ask Mr Clarkson this: who when investing in a home does not expect it to last? Who when buying a home does not want it to be dry? Those fundamental requirements for a building will now have to be part of the building consent requirements. Who can object to that? Nobody. But secondly of course there is the discretionary power that Dr Nick Smith was baying for in his last speech so that work does not need to be subject to the building consent requirements if the work is consistent with the principles and policies in schedule 1 of the Act. This bill is finely tuned legislation that builds on the Building Act passed in 2004 by this House an Act that had learnt its lessons from the weathertightness inquiry of 2002 and 2003. 
It is strange is it not that that last speaker should stand up and lambaste this Government for the effect of market forces? The Opposition is clearly trying to find its way into the centre road. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s not market forces—it’s your taxes and levies! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The member asks “What market forces?”. Mr Smith should say that to his land agent colleagues. Market forces push the price of land up because there is demand for good-quality land. That is the open market. I do not necessarily agree with it but surely the member’s basic principle is one of open market accountability. [ 
Interruption 
] It may not be Mr Smith’s principle but it certainly is his leader’s principle. John Key wants commercial accountability to replace any guarantee to homeowners of weathertightness and durability. Commercial accountability is another key phrase that means the market rules. Commercial accountability which that leader wants to replace the safety and durability requirements of the Building Act means just that: anything goes and only when people are caught out do they pay for it.