Fairbrother Russell: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21339] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 It is correct that the old Building Industry Authority should share some responsibility but not all the responsibility for the weathertightness issue. The speakers before me have neglected to observe that under the Building Act 2004 the Building Industry Authority became disestablished as a stand-alone authority and was brought under the new Department of Building and Housing. That makes clear of course a line of authority and that line of authority is important as we discuss the current Building Industry Authority and the situation of weathertightness. And it is apposite not to leave out the cry for tax cuts because the old Building Industry Authority represented the policy of “fewer taxes let the market decide let anarchy rule let the consumer suffer and let the devil take the hindmost”. 
Those who bothered to listen to the submissions during the weathertightness inquiry and those who bothered to read the careful report of the Government Administration Committee on that inquiry which took place a year or two ago and which gave rise to the Building Act 2004 and to the re-establishment of the Building Industry Authority as part of the Department of Building and Housing would have discovered that in the mesh of responsibilities under the 1991 Act the ultimate responsibility for the working of that Act fell not on the Building Industry Authority—which was an advisory body not an enforcement body—but on the territorial authorities. I recall that was in section 28 of the 1991 Act. Territorial authorities had reposed in them the enforcement responsibilities—that is they were the co-parent in the old Building Act—for establishing a safe regime for building houses and homes for people in this country. 
What we have in the anarchy of the marketplace which is controlled by tax cuts is a situation whereby everybody looks after themselves and tries to evade responsibilities. Of course it is easy to sheet responsibility home to the Government today for the failure of Governments over 14 years before this Government addressed the issue. It is easy for people to say they will point the finger at this Government. 
 But let us go back to the old Building Act to see what that structure was and how it failed. It failed dismally and many good citizens are paying the price today of that failure. However let us not spread alarm by blaming the materials and the building industry or by making people lose confidence in the houses they presently have and in the houses that are being constructed. The number of homes that failed the test of weathertightness is relatively small compared with the number of houses that were built in the period. Sure the failures are spectacular and the losses for individuals are huge but there are many competent builders out there who did a good job. 
Of course the competency of builders was hindered by another tax-cut measure: that of abolishing the apprenticeship scheme. In the anarchy that resulted from that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was never abolished. Absolute rubbish! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Even Nick Smith could have become a builder. All he would have needed to set himself up as a builder was a ute a dog and a radio. But if people do not have the skills they cannot interpret the plans tell the designer where the plans are defective or know which materials should be used for internal or dry spaces. They do not have the skills to know which materials should not be used where they will get wet. 
The problems in this whole scenario are those of the abandonment of responsibility and of leaving it to the imperial politically correct social engineering thing called “the marketplace”. Those who bang on about social engineering forget that the ultimate weapon of social engineering is tax cuts.