Browning Steffan: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14981. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to take a short call on the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). The Green Party opposes this bill. We are not against the general premise behind the bill and the aims of it—the consumer protection aspects—and we look forward to a much better bill in the future that will address those issues.The bill has brought up some things for me from when I was an owner-builder. I have watched from the side because it is not the area that I normally work in but I have noticed the flip-flops through the building regulations and also through the materials aspect. The Minister for Building and Construction mentioned earlier what has gone. We had gone to kiln-dried. We had had the chemical issue and we have gone back to that. I wanted to use as you might expect fairly natural products. I wanted to use naturally resilient timbers and the like and then some of those got ruled out I would say by the industry groups that somehow managed to organise that we had a Pinus radiata - focused industry which clearly led us into trouble later on.I am looking forward to when we get into ensuring that there are consumer protections. We can have a really good relook at the same time at the materials that are allowed in building and the style of construction. I have got friends who are fairly creative in their building styles and of course some of the regulations some of the legislation that we look for can actually constrain that. I think that the building law needs to have a fairly wide provision and in a way in some aspects this bill may allow for that.Underlying all of that regardless of the bill’s breadth and its creativity it has got to have a strong consumer protection part. That is just inadequate in this bill. It might be that the liabilities that are not adequately covered in this bill—that may be difficult for some creative home building—need to be addressed through future legislation. I look forward to that at some time. I find it appalling that at the moment in New Zealand so much is based around the Fletcher’s-type products and the Hardie’s-type products—the sheet sizes and everything—to suit a vested interest rather than maybe around what could really happen from a localised building and timber industry.We are importing as well at the moment through the free-trade agreements Chilean plywood that does not even meet the standard—it is going up. There is not enough work being done around that. I ask the Minister whether it going to be addressed by this bill. Are we going to deal with the fact that we are allowing it? We have got a massive timber industry and wood processors are going to the wall and yet we are importing—because of being open to competition it appears—Chilean timber into New Zealand and Australian timber into New Zealand when we already have the same species. If there is something unique and beneficial for New Zealanders for New Zealand home builders and there is other construction that cannot be done here you might say fine let us look at that. But to be opening up our borders allowing rubbish material to come in and pushing our own timber processes out is concerning.I am looking forward to a better bill. The Green Party was supportive of this bill through to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We seriously wanted to hear what the options were and what the possibilities were. There are some good aspects in the bill but obviously we have spotted the things that are not adequate. We want better consumer protection and we will be opposing this bill. Thank you.