Shirley Ken: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19345] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 It is interesting to note that in this debate it seems the National Party is opposed to the bill New Zealand First is opposed to it the Greens are opposed to it and—I can tell the House—ACT is opposed to it. This is shoddy shoddy catch-up legislation that the Government has brought to the House on the last day before we rise for an adjournment. Quite frankly I do not think that the Government has the numbers. I see the Leader of the House scurrying around. He has suddenly realised that he does not have the numbers on this bill. I think the Government is in trouble. The key question is whether it is a supply or a confidence issue. The Government could fall by the end of the day over such an important piece of legislation. 
We heard from the Hon Nick Smith that there are eight times more complaints being received by the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service per month than are being resolved. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I have just had confirmation from that member. There are eight times more complaints being lodged each and every month than are being resolved. That highlights the enormity of the problem and really underscores and emphasises the botch-up that this Government has made of the whole tragic leaky home problem. 
I think we all know that the problem is grossly under-reported. People are very reluctant to rush off to their council and declare that they have a problem. They might want to sell their house but they know that if they do rush down to the council the problem will go on the LIM report or on the building file and that it will certainly be discoverable. They are living with the problem and hoping it will be resolved. It is a terrible billion dollar - plus problem and right from the start the Government has done a botch-up on it. 
The Government has done some foolish things like banning Oregon pine timber. What on earth was the purpose of banning untreated Oregon pine when it cannot be treated and it does not need to be treated? That was a key point. But one of the first things the Government did was to run out and ban Douglas fir which is Oregon pine. It was a very foolish move. 
I suspect that the Government has never actually got to the core of what the problem is with the leaky home issue because there is a whole lot of nonsense spoken about the use of untreated timber. In fact we never ground-treated our framing timber with copper chrome arsenate—it was only boric treated. Boric treatment was not meant to combat moulds slimes fungi and algae which is the problem with the lack of weathertight homes. Boric never protected people from that; it was only copper chrome arsenate that did that. We used to add a substance called pentachlorophenol known as PCP which was put in the boric bath in the sawmill. It had nothing to do with leaky homes. It was to combat the blue stain that timber gets which makes it unattractive in the marketplace. Because of lobbies from people like the Greens and others and because it is a toxin—and yes it is—it was banned. So since about 1990 it has been a banned substance which has really triggered the problems that we now have with leaky homes because the pentachlorophenol prevented the mould the slimes the fungi and the algae from growing in our walls. 
The Greens would argue of course that it was toxic so it had to be banned. But I put it to the House that the health risk and the risk to humans from the diseases spread by some of those slimes and moulds which are naturally occurring is actually much greater than the risk from the pentachlorophenol which we banned. It is just cause and consequence. Some of the issues have not been thought through properly. Some people argue that we should ground-treat all framing timber with copper chrome arsenate. Again that would be foolish. 
What also happened through the 1990s was that we changed our architecture. We dropped eaves off designs so water was more likely to get into the wall cavity. But the other reason was also a function of the Greens’ lobbying if you like. It was that incredible drive for energy efficiency and insulation to the point where there was no vapour movement. The traditional Kiwi home always breathed but as the designs changed through the 1990s the walls stopped breathing. If we put in impermeable vapour barriers so that hot air condenses immediately in the wall cavity there is moisture. Very significant volumes of water are trapped in the wall cavity and that is when the moulds the slimes and the fungi take off. That move coincided with the use of air-dried timber and the dropping of the pentachlorophenol because of the boric treatment that we used to provide. So those are the real reasons and I observe that this Government has never actually got on top of the cause. 
The Government has rushed around doing foolish political knee-jerk reactions but it never really got on top of the cause of what I believe is a huge problem in this country. It is much greater than most people are prepared to admit because people do not like advising the council. They keep quiet they do not want it recorded on the LIM report or on the building report and they live with it until the walls virtually start falling apart. I believe that in years to come and progressively over the next few years there will be a lot more exposure of some very serious problems in our buildings. 
This legislation does absolutely nothing to address the basic problem that we have in buildings. I am appalled. I think Mr Tamihere was the Minister for Building Issues for a short period of time. I ask Mr Tamihere whether that is right. He seems to be enjoying himself today in the House but he was the Minister on watch for a short period and he was in charge of building. Again how many Ministers has the Government had in charge of the building industry? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Eight. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Eight Ministers! It is like revolving doors—the Government just moves them on. Any Government that took this problem seriously would have appointed a senior Minister and left that person there to address the problem. Instead we have fits and starts and bad policy and what we have before us today is just a continuation of that approach. The bill fails to address the basic problems and it does not address the issue that it purports to address.