Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBuilding Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14964. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Building Amendment Bill (No 4)Instruction to CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that consideration of all parts and schedules of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be taken as one debate in Committee.Motion agreed to.In CommitteeParts 1 and 2 schedule and clauses 1 to 3Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I am pleased to take a fairly brief call at the beginning of this. I hope I will cover off what I think are the key issues in this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). It is indeed a piece of reform that got started well and truly before this Government came into office. I give some commendation to the Hon Shane Jones who was my predecessor. In fact there are many people out there who will say that I am the best Minister for Building and Construction since Shane Jones. Given that I am the only one since Shane Jones that is at least a compliment.The reform of that whole sector which started with the Building Act 2004 now has to have a number of other things added to it. This bill has got some elements about consumer protection and about needing written contracts if the work you are engaged in with a builder is worth over $20000. But there are some issues that I think were raised along the way. I just want to try to cover them off quickly and then I will shut up and allow the members to make their comments.First I think the almost slightly valid criticism was that this bill is a bit piecemeal in dealing with the sector because it is only a certain part of it. I make no excuse for the fact that I have had to do this in tranches. When we did the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) this bill’s predecessor it had stuff about risk-based consenting which by theway we can trigger only once this bill is through. That has enormous impacts for Christchurch. If we are going to really make some progress in the Christchurch rebuild we do want to have risk-based consenting—that is the very very low-risk stuff will have almost no relative scrutiny compared with stuff that is at the very high end of the risk. So this bill completes probably the last of the criteria needed to trigger the regulations for risk-based consenting.But I could not get it all done in one hit even though I would have loved to. I would love to have had one huge building amendment omnibus bill. So we did the No. 3 bill got that through got it in place and when the No. 4 bill tonight is finished it will allow us to trigger things like risk-based consenting. So I would hope that instead of members seeing this as being a bit piecemeal this was stuff that needed to be held over while we got through.The second thing is that I have heard people say that the bill should provide for proportionate liability in the building sector particularly in light of the Supreme Court decision on The Spencer on Byron Hotel and so on. Can I say that this is the greatest bugbear of my life about the building sector: I think that joint and several liability is wrong. I think you should be held accountable for the things that you do but you should not be held accountable for things that you did not do. But sadly under our current liability rule which is called joint and several liability you are joined with everybody else and if they did something wrong you can be caught in that web as local authorities found to their chagrin.It is a harder issue than any of the members of this House will give credit for. We have kicked it off to the Law Commission and it is doing an in-depth piece of work and will report back to us—hopefully by the end of the year maybe or early in the new year—as to whether we could go to proportionate liability. I want to say to members that other jurisdictions around the world do have proportionate liability and it works so I do not see why we could not. I will repeat it again: you should be held accountable for the things that you do; you should not be held accountable for things that someone else did wrong but then you are the last man standing. I know that a number of territorial local authorities got caught up in all the leaky home syndrome when in fact they ended up being the last man standing.I think that one of the other issues raised before the Local Government and Environment Committee was that the bill should require mandatory home warranties. That is pretty closely related to that whole liability issue and it is again a real pet hobby of mine. I would love to go to some mandatory warranties. If you buy a new car you get a warranty. If you buy a new plasma screen you get a warranty and it is guaranteed fit for purpose. But sadly under the current regime if you get a new house there are some issues about what liabilities are sheeted home to whom and whether there is a warranty. So we will have to wait for the Law Commission’s report but I give members an absolute watertight guarantee that if the Law Commission gives us some room to move then I will be pushing to move to proportionate liability.One of the other issues raised at the select committee I think was that the bill does not go far enough in protecting consumers. Although I think that that is always going to be an issue I am hopeful that this bill has got the balance right. It requires everybody involved in work over $20000 to have a written contract. I think the amendments in the bill will be supported by the consumer information that is there. Education and advice over the next few years will tell people involved in the building sector what their rights are and how to get better information. And I think an effective monitoring regime also in place to track improvements in consumer awareness is part of what we are bringing in here.There are two or three other items. All parties—that is consumer building professionals and building consent authorities—continue to be financially exposed even for defects that are not their making. Again that is under the liability aspect. I think it is fair to say that we have just got to wait for the Law Commission. Hopefully we will get a good report.The bill does not address the huge skill deficit in the sector. That is true but it is not the role of this bill. I was with my colleague Steven Joyce today out inPētone where we were launching a new construction training unit at WelTec. The new apprenticeships scheme has got 8000 more enrolled in the building apprenticeship scheme than we had anticipated. So yes there will be a skills shortage from time to time. That is just the nature of this industry—peaks and troughs. And Christchurch is coming on stream. When it does come on it will be huge. With the shortage of housing in Auckland there will be a big demand.I can forecast now—and I want to go on record now—that the big complaint that will occur in about 18 or so months from now is that there are not enough skilled practitioners in the field. But let me actually add the next complaint. In about 3 years from there maybe 4 years from there there will be a complaint that there is not enough work for all the skilled practitioners. That is just the nature of the cyclical beast of the way this industry works.There are a couple of other bits in the bill that are sort of almost add-ons but I just want to cover them quickly in the 2 minutes I have got. There was a complaint that the bill is weakening a dam safety scheme that is currently in the Building Act. I want to make it clear that we think that this is about the right level of risk management without imposing unnecessary compliance costs. A number of local authorities and regional councils have been to me and said “Please don’t make it that we have to get involved in a lot of bureaucracy on quite small pools of water that shouldn’t be called a dam. But we understand that if they are big pools of water with a lot of height and a lot of volume they can pose a risk.” I think that what we have done in dam safety in this bill will target dams that are higher risk and that should be subject to the scheme and improve the effectiveness of the dam safety scheme.Finally the last of the complaints was that a select committee change to the definition of a large dam captures even more small dams making the regulation more onerous. I would say that amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 357 will remove that unnecessary compliance cost while ensuring the select committee’s intent—that is to address potential safety concerns.I am going to sit here. I am not going to take too many more calls because I think people get sick of hearing from me but I think this is an integral part of the Building Act reforms. It is a very exciting night for me with this No. 4 bill going through because I think it completes them. I want to repeat that I give some credit to my predecessor Shane Jones and actually a number of building Ministers before him because I think Labour had about six building Ministers within 6 years. This was the path that had already been set out when I read my briefing as an incoming Minister. This reform of the sector was already in train. I am delighted that we are going to get it through the House tonight.RAYMOND HUO (Labour):Ni hao. Following the good spirit of the Minister for Building and Construction who has just resumed his seat I would like to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones Labour’s spokesperson on building and construction who was an experienced Minister for Building and Construction as the current Minister just acknowledged. I am lucky to be his associate and to be his understudy.I would also like to acknowledge the current Minister for Building and Construction. I should say that the more I have got to know about the issues involving building andconstruction the more I appreciate the complexity involved in the Building Act review. I do feel for the Minister for Building and Construction especially whenever he was accused of taking a piecemeal approach for various reasons as he just outlined in his contribution. But that does not mean that he is exonerated.Last but not least I would like to thank the officials for their thorough analysis for their thorough departmental report and for their advice which was very very helpful. The departmental report on this particular bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is one of the best of this kind. The departmental report and indeed the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) itself covered a number of issues. Some of them are outside of the scope of this bill but are a very important part of the Building Act review.Labour supports the Building Act review but our position remains the same and that is that we cannot—at least at this stage—support the passage of this bill. Two events would have played a certain role in affecting our position. As stated in our Local Government and Environment Committee minority report given the range of serious issues that have been raised by the submitters and the fact that the Government would be considering the findings of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes it would make more sense to separate off the elements of the No. 4 bill that relate to dams and to hold back the provisions that deal with consumer issues in relation to residential properties. If that happened as indicated in our minority report we would have no problem in supporting the provisions in relation to classifiable or referable dams.The second event is related to the review of the non-ductile column buildings built between 1982 and 1995 with three storeys or more. The purpose was to establish whether there were any buildings with similar design flaws to the CTV Building which collapsed in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake killing 115 people. I should say the approach taken by the Minister for Building and Construction was sensible and professional. There are two building owners who have refused to engage with the review despite the council asking them to get an engineering assessment. The status quo does not give councils or the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the power to compel at-risk building owners to have their at-risk buildings assessed and their problems addressed. I agree with the Minister who found it unacceptable and I understand he has been investigating options to increase accountability.The options that the Minister has been investigating are either a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill or stand-alone legislation. If the Minister introduces such a Supplementary Order Paper it may affect our position with regard to the bill in its entirety. It is more in sorrow than in anger that we have no other choice but to decide to vote against this bill. Having said that I should reiterate that our position as stated in our minority report in the Building Amendment Bill (No 3)—now the 2012 Act—has remained the same as well. It is an opportunity lost in that the Minister has so far taken a piecemeal and uncoordinated approach.I do find the Minister’s explanations to some extent acceptable. However I am not quite sure how many stand-alone bills the Minister is going to introduce or when he is going to introduce for example the Building Amendment Bill (No 5) (No 6) or (No 7). It sounds like the Minister is competing against Steve Jobs in releasing iPhones 5 5s 6 or 7 but the building sector needs certainty. We legislators need to look beyond the status quo to introduce effective measures to prevent a repeat of the man-made leaky buildings saga and to prepare us for rainy days both in the literal and figurative sense.There are some other issues that I would like to touch upon at this Committee stage. The first one is related to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. The No. 4 bill states that owners of dwellings that suffer from building defects that are not remedied by the liable parties can seek redress through arbitration the Weathertight Homes Tribunal or thecourts. These courses of action are already fully available to aggrieved owners. But certainly in the case of the courts and even the Weathertight Homes Tribunal they are ruinously expensive.This bill does nothing to reduce this cost to improve the technical ability of these judicial bodies to arrive at technically correct findings or as stated above to ensure that responsible parties are held accountable. Whereas the Government could reasonably claim that a review of joint and several liability vis-à-vis proportional liability—by the way I do accept the explanations given by the Minister in his earlier contributions—and the technical performance of the courts are matters for the Law Commission to consider the effectiveness of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal should have formed a major part of the Building Act review and as a consequence this suite of legislation.The other related matter is a mandatory home warranty. I support Wellington City Council and Christchurch City Council two of our largest city councils and a number of other submitters who have called on the Government to introduce a home warranty insurance scheme and urge the Minister to refer the matter to the Law Commission for review. As pointed out by the Home Owners and Buyers Association if the parties responsible for defective building work have either gone out of business died or left New Zealand the consumer is left exposed and faces having to cover the costs. Building law should be amended to offer greater protections. Oddly the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) now before the Committee to be passed under urgency was forced to amend its report to the House. The committee and public were led to believe that the Minister had referred the matters of both joint and several liability and the mandatory home warranty scheme to the Law Commission for review. However the Law Commission later informed the chair that mandatory home warranties had never been referred.For the general public it does not matter as to who misled the committee but I continue to urge the Government to refer this issue to the Law Commission and establish a system that provides meaningful and effective protections and guarantees for consumers and consenting authorities. We must legislate to prevent a repeat of the man-made leaky buildings saga especially in light of an imminent construction boom in parts of the country. New Zealand consumers deserve protection and the Minister needs to make sure that the law ensures that contractors and suppliers will be held accountable. The Government’s piecemeal approach will not work and introducing inadequate measures or partial instalments is not the answer.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I would like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction and my colleague Raymond Huo who until recently was shepherding this shadow portfolio through our caucus and I endorse a number of the things that he has pointed out this evening. I am quite sure that the Minister himself realises that it is a work in progress.I would say that the difficulty with this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is that the train has left the station and it is on its trajectory. This debate is about how to get the balance between those consumers who want efficiency speed and the delivery of the product because many of them have upset wives or husbands at home and they do not want the hammers being bashed around too long for renovations etc. and those—and my colleague Raymond Huo has highlighted their identity—who believe that the fallout of the leaky homes saga is such that we should always go for a belts and braces approach.It is a rather unique collection of individuals we have here. We have Mr Cosgrove a former building Minister; we have the Hon Maurice Williamson; and we have my good self. The problem I have is that I was also the Associate Minister of Immigration and I can tell you that that was far more hazardous than being the building Minister. Buthaving said that quite a few of the things in the bill we do think will work but it did not quite get there from our perspective.But having said that we are conscious of what the Minister said. A number of these refinements—it is the genuine belief of the Minister and his colleagues and I guess the professional advisers—will expedite work in Christchurch but not the highly technical demanding work that needs a whole panel of engineers. And I am not talking about the disgraced engineer Alan Reay whose name unfortunately blighted the splendour and majesty of this Chamber recently. But that aside I am talking about those who are proud of their profession. I am talking about those who realise that to have a durable city you need accountable professionals.I do feel that we should if we can at all times enhance the importance of consumer protection whilst at the same time giving a bit scope and space because as we go forward during this transition nothing is static and there will be a need to refine it as we go forward.I will not talk too much about dam safety although unless Nick Smith’s stewardship of the Ruataniwha dam fiasco proposal improves this bill will not ever have any application in Hawke’s Bay in terms of dam safety. That is a bit of a shame because I was born and bred on a farm and I realise the importance of irrigation etc. but now that I am a professional politician and a member of the august Labour Party caucus the importance of process has been brought home to me as well. The processes that we had in Awanui and Kaitāia were possibly a tad more pragmatic than what I have learnt to accept is resource management law—but that is for another discussion.I would say that this is work that we initiated and the Minister for Building and Construction has carried it on. Phil Twyford looked at it and more recently Mr Huo has looked at it. Let us acknowledge that there are areas that we slightly agree on. We are all deeply committed to ensuring that the building framework meets not only the needs of consumers but also the needs of the regulator. I hope that they can make a call and shift the balance. I am of the view that if you can rely on an electrician and if you can rely on a plumber then what we thought we were doing—the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and I in Helen Clark’s time quite apart from listening to every word that she ever uttered—[Interruption] Well there were one or three words that I conveniently overlooked. But it was as the Minister for Building and Construction that I recall saying: “I don’t think it’s a good idea that we should actually regulate for the amount of water that comes out of the showerhead.” I was acquainted with the fact that it was Green Party policy and I should defend it—it is sad that nobody came to my defence when I was caught in the trenches but you learn these things when you are No. 18. We cannot support the bill but we support the sentiments in there. Kia ora tātou.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I would like to make a short contribution. The Green Party is opposing this legislation and I want to just briefly set out why for the Committee’s information. The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) deals with consumer protection recommendations from the Building Act review. We supported the bill at its first reading and we were interested to hear the submissions and the response to the legislation because there had been concerns with the previous bills that came out of the review about the piecemeal approach to dealing with the original review’s recommendations. So we did support the bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We have heard the responses from submitters. It is our view now that the bill does not deal with consumer protection sufficiently to justify our vote so we will not be supporting it any further.We did support the original bill because we are very much in favour of increased consumer protections. It is crucial that the regulatory environment for building and housing in New Zealand is first class. There is no room for substandard regulatoryreform. There is no room for substandard consumer protections. Of course we have had far too many lessons in this country that prove how necessary it is to have a first-class set of regulatory laws around building and housing.We have the substandard quality of most of the rental housing stock in this country which is largely old stock that is poorly insulated often poorly built damp and makes our kids and our families sick. We have had the debacle of the leaky homes which was the direct result of a previous National Government’s deregulation obsession. It has cost families and councils and communities millions and millions of dollars. Of course there are the weaknesses tragically discovered after major events like the Christchurch earthquakes. Given the very dynamic nature of New Zealand’s environment and our land and the importance of housing and building to the safety and protection of our families there just is no room for a substandard approach.So from our point of view having looked at the bill and heard the submissions we do not believe that this bill makes the sufficient reforms to justify the support. We did want to see a higher minimum standard if you like set in place. We agree with the Home Owners and Buyers Association that a mandatory warranting scheme with an independent authority was a better option. We do understand that there is likely to be more reform in the future and we are pleased about that. We welcome that and we will look very seriously at supporting future measures where there are stronger consumer protections. We look forward to more debate on that in time. But until those protections are genuinely stronger and provide sufficient support we will not support something that is substandard. So unfortunately this is not the bill that provides the kinds of protections that we would like to see put in place. We look forward to future legislation that does that. Until that time we will be voting against this bill. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). It was somewhat disappointing to hear the Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Maurice Williamson use most of the time in his address to talk about what was not in this bill rather than what was in this bill. To hear the Minister say that low-risk building will have next to no scrutiny—low-risk building will have next to no scrutiny—really does raise alarm bells for New Zealand First and indeed for many New Zealanders throughout New Zealand who have seen the effects on building such as with the leaky building situation that came out of the National Government in the 1990s.This bill is more about excluding things and if you read the bill it seems to exclude more things than include things. When you start looking at what is exempted you see that it exempts in the future any compliance requirements from a local authority to build the likes of carports pergolas outbuildings 10 square metres or less and interior alterations to non-residential buildings. It moves into retaining walls and all sorts of other things that become excluded. When you start excluding all these various things you open up a situation where consumers the public of New Zealand start being put at risk. People do stand on decks. People do stand under pergolas. People do walk through or park in carports. And if many of these structures start to be thrown up by any old person without any compliance requirements at all we will end up with a very very Mickey Mouse situation in building in this country. I can foresee that as we saw in this last decade with the leaky home situation when much of this is now going to be self-regulating—the likes of the Registered Master Builders Federation and other such entities will be self-regulated—there will be far less scrutiny by local authorities and councils. As a result of that we have the potential here of setting up for the next decade and the decade after that another whole leaky building situation brought about by yet another National Government.It would seem that the National Government does not learn from its past mistakes. Minister Williamson certainly appears not to having been in a National Government in the 1990s which changed the building code which allowed monolithic cladding to be applied directly to kiln-dried timber and then we ended up with that very monolithic cladding cracking and moisture getting into the untreated timber and rotting houses as a result. That same National Government some 15 or 20 years later now is saying: “Let’s take away a lot of the safeguards. Let’s remove a lot of the local authority controls in terms of oversight of building. Let’s have a much more self-regulated building industry.” on the premise that this will reduce building costs. Although it might on the face of it reduce some compliance costs of building what is the long-term cost to New Zealand? What is the long-term cost in terms of health and safety of New Zealanders if structures are put up that basically do not come up to scratch?This bill as the Minister also said does not address building skills in New Zealand. So we could be faced with a situation during this whole period through this decade as a result of this legislation that builders may not necessarily have qualifications that would be expected of them because they may for instance not have been trained in this country. They may have been trained under different circumstances in other countries where perhaps their building codes are not quite the same or their building practices are not quite the same as in New Zealand. We may well find in the future that questions are asked as to why a carport fell down or why a pergola suddenly dropped—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Andrew Williams.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chair. You did not have to look around—I was the only one standing. But thank you Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I always look around.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Yes. It is very fortunate this debate will be inHansard because if it is inHansard where the warning bells are given and where the Government is on notice that what it is doing is once again revisiting a potential situation of putting New Zealanders at risk then let us look at thisHansard recording perhaps in 10 years’ time and ask how this happened. And why did we change all these things bring in self-regulation and bring in this legislation that basically saw the leaky homes thing revisited all over again?It mentions in this bill that contractors who exceed $20000 worth of work will be required to provide a written contract. But what happens if the contract is for $19999.99 and that contractor does one bit of the work and his brother who is a different contractor does another bit of the work for $19999.99 and then his cousin does some more of the work for another $19999.99 and multiples of that? What happens then? Where is the written contract for that and where are the safeguards for New Zealand for multiples of that? The bill also says that these entities will be required to give written contracts and their background as to their capabilities. Again how often have we seen Mr XYZ Builder 2008 Ltd. not being around and then disappearing and starting up a new thing as Mr ABC Builder 2010 Ltd. in a totally different guise? How will that be addressed? I would ask the Minister to take a call on this and tell us how these sorts of things will be addressed.How will multiples of under $20000 be addressed? How will people going under various names or through various window companies or through various other entities that they may be operating—how will that be addressed? How will the building skills requirement be addressed? How will we know that builders who may not have been trained in New Zealand and who may have come from other jurisdictions with other practices in building are doing what is right by New Zealanders? And how will we know for instance because there is no requirement for any permit in the case ofbuildings that are less than 10 square metres—and that is a reasonably sized room—that these small structures will not be going up all over the back lawns of Auckland because of the housing shortage?For many people in Auckland who are currently squeezed into three-bedroom homes with large families how will we ensure that they are not themselves putting up substandard 10-square-metre outhouses on their back lawn for children or family or extended family to live in with next to no scrutiny by any local authority as to how that structure was built whether it is fire-code compliant whether it is structurally sound or anything? Tell us Minister how will we stop people putting up such structures of under 10 square metres across Auckland back lawns all through Manukau and all through your electorate Minister? So there are a lot of questions in this.The Minister also mentioned about the situation of joint and several versus proportionate liability. Again that is long overdue and it should have been addressed before now as it has been in other countries because the last man standing in this country always tends to be the local authority because everybody else has disappeared. They have gone west. They have closed their companies or they have shot through to Australia or wherever else and the only one remaining tends to be the local authority that perhaps was involved in signing it off. So New Zealand First would like that addressed as well. But there are many many things—you could drive a bus through half of this.But at the end of the day this bill is more about exempting things. This bill is more about National making it easier for things to be done without compliance and this basically means that New Zealanders face another risky decade or so coming up where perhaps New Zealanders will be asking how we lowered the standards once again.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 1 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the schedule be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I moveThat the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. We have just been through the Committee of the whole House stage of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) and I was asked by one of the speakers to put a bit more time into what is in the bill. I do not intend to take a long time going through the bill but I do want to say that the most important ingredient in this bill makes it mandatory for a builder to provide a written contract for any work if it is over $20000. So it is not mandatory if you are getting your kitchen cupboards redone or you are getting a door to the laundry changed and so on but it is mandatory for any work that is more than slightly trivial.There are some really important ingredients. First of all the builder must provide to the consumer a checklist of what information is available to the client including their rights and their obligations under the building work process so that the consumer becomes well-informed. They need to disclose to the client information about their skills their work history and their business. They need to show to the consumer: “This is what I am in terms of a skilled qualified practitioner. This is the history of my work programme”—which the client can go and look at—“and this is what my business is structured like.” in terms of whether it might fold because it is so delicate. That is I think vitally important to the consumer. Finally the builder has to enter into an absolutely written contract so that it is actually watertight.I thank the House for processing this through but I think it is worthwhile covering just a couple of points especially the points raised by Metiria Turei from the Green Party about National’s deregulation of the building sector. These points that I want to make now are not to try to play silly games or anything; they are just straight factual. The Building Bill of 1991 was introduced into Parliament by Labour by the Hon Margaret Austin. She introduced it in 1990 because Labour thought that the whole building sector needed dramatic reform and to be absolutely honest National agreed with that. So when we became the Government in 1990 we finished off the bill by passing it through its third reading and making it become an Act. But it was not ours to start with.In fact I have got some wonderful quotes from George Hawkins when he became the Minister later on saying: “National don’t dare claim credit for that Act. That was ours. Yes it might have been passed when National was in Government but it was our bill which Margaret Austin introduced and Labour deserves the credit for it.” So be very careful about accusing National of being the deregulating Government that changed the legislation in 1991. We did not introduce that bill. We did not put it through its first few stages including through the select committee. We gave it its third reading only because we agreed with it. So it was a Labour Act.The second thing that I think is worthwhile covering is that the key cause for our leaky homes syndrome was not anything to do with this Parliament it was not anything to do with a Minister and it was not anything to do with a member of Parliament or anything else. There was an independent agency—completely independent of Ministers and this Parliament—called Standards New Zealand. It was Standards New Zealand after a lot of advocacy from the big timber companies Fletcher’s and Carters saying that treated timber had all sorts of arsenics carcinogens and all sorts of ghastly stuff that could leech into the builders’ skin and so on and that we did not need to use it any more. Interestingly if you read the report—because I have read it with great interest—it said that borer was no longer an issue. That is why we had mainly treated timber up until 1995 for borer. So Standards New Zealand—and not any Minister in any Government or any select committee or any member of Parliament was involved in it—decided to allow kiln-dried timber as an acceptable solution under the Building Act.In hindsight that proved to be a huge mistake and the country is paying billions.PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated it to be $11.2 billion already and it could be double that. So be very careful of laying the blame on any political party and be very careful of laying the blame on any Minister for the decision to go to untreated timber. It was no Minister even if at the time they had known it—I do not know who the Minister was in 1995 but I do not think they would have even known that it was an issue because Standards New Zealand just did it independently and announced that decision.Then finally Andrew Williams said that he does not like the idea of risk-based consenting—that is things that are at the very low end of the risk curve. These are things that are using stock standard products using stock standard design treated timber three-bedroom—he does not like the idea of that having a lot less scrutiny than something that is at the high end of the risk curve. Well I say to Mr Williams that we used to have the full scrutiny the 18 inspections the building consent process and the actual code of compliance on all those buildings.And did that give consumers protection? Did that save them from the disasters that they have had? So why he would be advocating that we need to stay with the full set of consents and inspections and the code of compliance when it did not give thousands of consumers the protection—why would you then say: “Well that’s what we should stay with.”?Andrew Williams: Of course it gave protection.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It did not give them protection and if he thinks it did there are tens of thousands of people out there now who are dramatically out of pocket and hurt by it.The whole purpose of it—and this was the whole direction of the review—was to say: “Why don’t we look at things that are at the low end of the risk curve? Why don’t we look at things that are almost a guarantee not to be an issue?”. And we have already done it with a thing called MultiProof where we have said to people: “Come and get your consent for the building once and only once and then when you go out and build multiple copies of it around the country you don’t need to keep going to the local authority for each individual version of that building.” which is a good move.But I also say to them that what we have got now—and it is another thing I do not think Andrew Williams is giving any credit for—as of March last year is the licensed building practitioners scheme. What that says now is that if you are going to build a house and be involved in either the structural integrity or the weathertight envelope of that building you actually have to be a qualified practitioner. You have to have been through a whole series of processes to evaluate your skills your talents and your qualifications and you then become a licensed practitioner. Up until March of last year all you needed to do to build a house was to have a cellphone a dog and a ute. Anyone—anyone—could have gone and built a house up until March of last year. Nolonger can you do that. You now have to be a qualified person or be supervised by a qualified person. So why would we then say to a qualified practitioner: “The regime is like it is. You’re qualified. We don’t need all the scrutiny but in fact we still think we should have bureaucrats pour over you for something quite so simple.”In the end I thank some of the Labour members for their words. I know they have not thought that the bill goes far enough and let me say that I think I agree with them. But it is better that we make some incremental improvements as time rolls by than try to find a way of solving all of the problems in one hit. I would really hope that we get the Law Commission to give a report about moving away from joint and several and moving to a proportionate level. So I am really happy to move that the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): As Shane Jones said the Minister for Building and Construction heads up a unique alumni of Ministers for Building and Construction both present and past along with Mr Jones and myself and the Minister Mr Williamson. I cannot recall—I am sure Mr Williamson might—when we were in Government how many Ministers for Building and Construction there were. There were a few and I have to say from the outset that the intent I think of all those Ministers from both sides was to try to solve a series of difficult problems and particularly as the Minister says the weathertight homes issue which was visited on us for a variety of reasons.I accept the Minister’s thesis in part that it was for a variety of reasons and a variety of contributing factors. I would though mention one as it sort of latticed together those factors and that was that in the old days—possibly well before some of us were here—we had things called apprenticeships. We had a building regime that generally—and many of our State houses are living testaments to it. You could fire a howitzer at some of them and though they were built pre-insulation and though they are bit draughty they still stand up to most things today. But many of our houses throughout our history were build on a handshake and builders and construction folk came back if there was a problem and fixed it. They were constructed well and those builders were trained in a thing called an apprenticeship.Before I entered this Parliament—and I remember as Minister making a couple of points to the then Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who at the time—I think it was 19—Kris Faafoi: Right honourable.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Right honourable. I was going to say Sir but I presume that is yet to come.Hon Maurice Williamson: No no no—it is Sir Lockwood.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh he is Sir. That is right—of course. I apologise. The Rt Hon Sir Dr Lockwood Smith—I hope I have got it and honourable somewhere in there—Hon Maurice Williamson: School C.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yeah—bistro and bar. But he—I think it was in 1995—as tertiary education Minister abolished a thing called the Apprenticeship Act in the vain hope that the market would sort it out and people would go and get the skills and those sorts of things. I recall when I originally and Shane Jones took and launched the licensed building practitioners regime. The hope I think we had once we transitioned those builders who had appropriate skill levels who may not have had the trade certificate or an apprenticeship but did have a very good track record of building—once they were sort of through it—was that we could almost turn the clock back and say to the 15-year-old at high school: “Son if you want to be a builder you have to get a thing called an apprenticeship.”. That is why we introduced the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. The Minister is right in that you could strap on a tool belt callyourself a builder and do anything. But I think that was a contributing factor. In the old days people were trained through a 3 to 4-year apprenticeship and they knew what they were doing.Though we support the review process in respect of the Building Act we find ourselves on this side of the House unable to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). I say to the Minister—he made a couple of comments to Andrew Williams I think it was and said: “Well we had 18 inspections. We had council inspectors running around the place. Take weathertight building homes—they did not get it right and we still have the problem.” I have got to say that I agree with the Minister to a certain extent because I remember going to a number of local authorities as Minister for Building and Construction and actually talking to some of the building inspectors and on one occasion they said: “Oh we stopped the ‘drive-by inspections’ only a couple of years ago.” I said: “What do you mean ‘drive-by’?”. They said: “Well to be honest the pressure was on us so much that we just sort of drove by waved at the building and then signed it off.”To be fair though the answer in my view—contrary to the Minister’s—is that less scrutiny does not reduce the risk. What I think should have happened and what we did do was that we started to accredit councils to make sure that building inspectors actually had the knowledge. There is the old joke that you know the building inspector is the failed builder—not always. But to ensure that building inspectors and local authorities had the skills to actually inspect and check and if it was not up to scratch to then require change—and not drive by the house and go “Yep. It is all done.” and never even look because it might have been their mates or they were under pressure or they did not have the resources—we started the accreditation of councils.I do not agree with the Minister that less inspection less scrutiny means less risk. Appropriate scrutiny by trained people who actually do the damn job can actually mean less risk. It used to be—again going back many years—that the last line of defence for the homeowner was the building inspector from the council who would come in and make sure the bits joined together and tick off those items.I suppose the thing that concerns us is that this bill seems to be a sort of piecemeal approach. I agree with the sentiment of the Minister which says that in theory low risk means we should be able to get on with it without a lot of bureaucracy—if you want to build the outhouse outside well OK maybe. But I still do not really get from the Minister—and I still think the definition of what is low risk is too loose and has not been adequately defined. You could make an argument that fitting your hot-water cylinder is pretty standard pretty low risk. Well if she blows it causes a heck of a lot of damage. So it is very easy and I think very politically popular to say: “Look low risk we’re just going to flick it through with minimal scrutiny. It’s not going to affect the envelope of the house; it doesn’t matter. Just away you go and do it.”I think there needs to be a more holistic approach to this—a far more holistic approach—where all these facets are looked at. I say again that I do not understand the logic that less inspection means less risk. Appropriate levels of inspection by skilled and appropriate inspectors or professionals who can call to account the person who has constructed or done the work—and make them fix it or do it appropriately—generally means a higher degree of confidence for the homeowner.So I say in concluding that although I accept that every Minister for Building and Construction has from time to time—often under duress from the odd chief executive officer or senior official I might add; some no longer with us—had the best intentions to try to get this right I do not think that this bill is the way to go. There should be more scrutiny and there should be an overarching regime not a piecemeal sort of uncoordinated approach.We will not support this bill. We support the sentiment and we look forward to the day when the Government will take this issue a tad more seriously. The truth is that as we all know—and as has certainly been brought home to us by Christchurch and Canterbury but for a natural reason if you will called an earthquake—the biggest asset people have generally or the biggest transaction people will have in their lives is the purchase of a home. If there is anything good to come out of the leaky homes fiasco and even sadly the earthquake in terms of home scrutiny I think it is this. Those of us who purchase property or who look to purchase property understand that we are just like most people when they buy a second-hand car take it to the Automobile Association and say: “Is it a dunger or is it not? Is it OK? Is it worth the money?”. We had this mind block that we would not do that with a house but most people now—and it is germane to today’s ChristchurchPress actually—will have a professional look at the home very closely. They will check the work to ensure that the asset they buy with the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they outlay of their own money is well worth it and that they are not buying a dunger—not buying a dunger.I finish on this. If you look at construction—I just digress for a short point and that is that if we look at the Fletcher Construction project management in Christchurch the legalised monopoly it is astounding that with the accreditation system and other things in place we find that one in three house repairs executed by Fletcher EQR is a dunger—is a dunger. I think that even with all that and even with the monopoly and the regime that the Government set up to have those figures—one in three a dunger—is not acceptable especially to those who have had their lives torn apart by an earthquake.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) which has gone through a tremendous amount of scrutiny since the review of the Building Act carried out in roughly 2009 flowing on to 2010. It is worth noting that the construction sector is a critical player in the New Zealand economy. It is the fifth-largest sector in New Zealand. It employs 174000 people which equates to somewhere roughly between 7 and 9 percent of the workforce overall. It contributes to about 4 percent of the GDP. It employs large numbers of Māori and lots of those of course leaving school and looking to upgrade their skills in that very sector.It is not surprising that in a sector employing so many working so hard in this country and contributing so much to our GDP there would be a few if you like cowboys out there. The idea of this legislation is to reform the building rules such that they “build it right first time”. New Zealand in some senses in some parts of the country and with some building companies has been seen as something of a wild west historically and of course that must stop because although we talk about the very high-level figures for New Zealand the reality is that if it was just one home that was built in New Zealand by one builder contributing very little to the GDP to that particular family it is a complete tragedy if their largest and most valuable asset actually crumbles underneath them and they are left essentially with big bills to pay on top of a mortgage.This legislation will ensure that homeowners can make informed decisions about their homes and who builds their homes. Improvements to productivity efficiency and accountability can be achieved only if building work is designed and constructed right the first time and meets the requirements of the building code. The review did find an over-reliance on building consent authorities. It is important that we do have the monitoring the policing and of course the accountability that comes from that. The reality is that we want to trust the builder in the first place to give good advice and do an excellent job on site.The changes will enforce in law what is already best practice in the industry. The majority of builders who have already behaved professionally have nothing to fearwhatsoever but the cowboys do and that is a good thing. I am sure that this House agrees. The major change is that homeowners will be better able to identify between a professional and those who are lax in their work. And of course the drawing up of contracts and the obligations on builders to provide some sort of transparency about their business and what they are going to give I guess to their clients have been fully opened up. I commend this bill to the House. It has taken a long period of work by this Parliament and the Minister to pay attention to detail. I congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee on its work and I commend the bill to Parliament.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Labour supports the Building Act review and our focus is on the protection of consumers building practitioners and building consenting authorities—namely ratepayers. For that reason we cannot at least at this stage support the passage of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). We look forward to supporting any new bills that provide such protection.Two events as explained in my earlier contributions would have played a certain role in affecting our position. It would make more sense to focus specifically on issues in relation to dams and hold back the provisions that deal with the consumer issues in relation to residential properties. The second one is concerning the review of the non-ductile column buildings built between 1982 and 1995 with three storeys or more. The purpose was to establish whether there were any buildings with design flaws similar to those of the CTV Building which collapsed in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake killing 115 people.The current legal regime does not give authorities the power to compel owners of at-risk buildings to have their at-risk buildings assessed in the interests of public safety. The Minister for Building and Construction had earlier indicated that he would explore options to address the issue by introducing for instance a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill but neither of the two events occurred in terms of the progress of this bill and therefore our opposition as outlined in our minority report has remained the same. It is more in sorrow than in anger that we have no other choice but to vote against this bill.There are a number of issues I wish to bring to the attention of this House—firstly the definition of buildings. The Building Act as its title suggests is meant to cover all the infrastructure commercial and industrial buildings and structures. However one major problem with the drafting of both the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) and indeed the entire Building Act review is their obsession with homes dwelling units. It appears that they have confined the definition of buildings to that of homes dwelling units or residential buildings.Given the very serious problems that have come to light with large structures especially stadiums the Building Act review and the two bills introduced to implement its policy decisions should have covered more than dams and dwelling units. The Supreme Court’s decision on the Spencer on Byron Hotel case has reinforced the view that the Building Act review and the bills introduced should be taking a wider look at those issues. It is therefore important to note that we are dealing with only part of what the Building Act is meant to cover and further that the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) addresses only residential buildings and oddly dams.Secondly we find the rationale to replace code compliance certificates with consent completion certificates less convincing. We agree with the submissions and the views that until such time as the licensed building practitioner regime matures this is a step too far. According to them at this stage the regime is more a system of ticking boxes than a means to upskill the industry. The new consent completion certificate is significantly different from the old code compliance certificate and this change willalmost certainly have a detrimental effect on consumers seeking redress for severe loss. I note the Minister has not triggered the new consent completion certificate regime for good reasons and that has reinforced my view.Thirdly contrary to the purpose of this bill the measures introduced would reduce the means by which an aggrieved owner can seek redress for significant financial loss and hardship. One overarching concern from the submitters is that this bill sought to redistribute the responsibility and liability of the building consent authorities and therefore intended to ring-fence them in the event of building failures. We agree that the liability that has until now rested with the consenting authorities as the last man standing is unacceptable. This is because ratepayers have had to eventually bear the cost of negligence claims brought against the consenting authorities. It is equally unacceptable that it is now the consumers who will be left to pick up most of the bill for any claims resulting from substandard building work. Further no measures have been taken to ensure that builders and other parties who may be responsible for serious defects have sufficient assets and insurance to cover their liabilities. That is the reason why this afternoon I released the Labour media statement urging the Government to include the home warranty insurance scheme in the Building Act review.I support two of our largest city councils—the Wellington City Council and the Christchurch City Council—and a number of other submitters who have called upon the Government to introduce a home warranty insurance scheme. As pointed out by the Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand if responsible parties for defective building work have gone out of business died or left the country the consumer is left exposed and faces having to cover the costs. The building law should be amended to offer greater protections not reduce them.I turn to the fourth point with regard to company failures. Concerns were expressed about companies that are formed for the sole purpose of a single building project and are then liquidated as soon as the work is completed leaving no legal entity that can be directly held to account for defective work that is later discovered. As it stands the bill fails to offer consumers any effective remedies when left in the lurch by a $1 shell company despite the fact that the building sector’s failure rate is higher than the rate of all businesses before 2003 and after 2008. Even legitimate contracting and subcontracting firms have often ceased to exist by the time defects have come to light.Fifthly—a product’s warranty—we welcome the introduction of a responsibility provision for product manufacturers or suppliers. It is widely accepted that the leaky buildings saga was primarily caused by the use of inappropriate building products or systems or incompetence in or lack of adequate oversight of their application. The Minister pointed his finger at Standards New Zealand and he must be correct given he is so experienced. However given the complexity of the issue particularly where the prescribed compliance with the building code is often difficult to establish the provision in its current form fails to address the problem adequately. In addition it is essential that building product manufacturers do not escape liability because the specified installation requirements are impractical. All materials must be able to be installed on site using good carpentry joinery plastering or similar trade skills to reasonable tolerances and without the demand for laboratory-type conditions.Lastly there are also drafting issues in terms of how the provisions in this bill will be implemented. Many provisions in this bill are yet to be prescribed or determined by regulation and without proper definition it is difficult to put the clauses into context which hinders the interpretation and implementation of the Act. There are other deficiencies in this bill—for example the practicality of prescribing—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired.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.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) has a number of important provisions in it that will be beneficial to the building industry and most important to those New Zealanders who are contemplating building or building their home.Raymond Huo: Be a bit more passionate!JACQUI DEAN: The member opposite says “Be more passionate about it.” Well actually we are and that is why Maurice Williamson has brought this bill to the House and why the Local Government and Environment Committee has worked—Hon Maurice Williamson: There is no more passionate member than Maurice Williamson.JACQUI DEAN: There is clearly no more passionate Minister than Maurice but this is a good bill because it makes some pretty sensible changes to the Building Act. It reduces compliance costs. Who has not heard of a call to reduce compliance costs? Compliance costs for the sake of compliance costs—they are going. It reduces complexity and reduces delays by reducing reliance on building consent authorities. That is good news whatever way you look at it. It will make building contractors more accountable by requiring that they disclose information and that disclosure will contain information about the legal status of the contractor—whether they are operating under a limited liability company or not. They will have to disclose the people who will carry out the work and their track record—their work history dispute history skills and qualifications—and what if any financial back-up or insurance they have to cover the cost of fixing any faults should they be found.Other provisions in this excellent bill protect consumers by requiring written contracts for most residential building work and information in a contract could include the parties to the contract and the dispute resolution—how they are going to get around anything if there is a dispute. There are a number of aspects to this bill that do nothing but improve the safety of building work for New Zealanders and I commend the bill to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). Was it not interesting listening to the speech of the Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson defending the indefensible of the 1990s and the leaky building situation that we now have in this country? The Minister said: “Oh nothing to do with us nothing to do with the Government nothing to do with the Minister—that was Standards New Zealand’s problem not ours.” He omitted to mention that Standards New Zealand is a Crown entity—it is a Crown entity.Hon Maurice Williamson: Independent.ANDREW WILLIAMS: It is autonomous but it is still a Crown entity. It has three out of its seven board members appointed by the Minister of Commerce Minister. Three of the seven board members are ministerial appointments. It does have accountability. The current chair was announced by Minister of Commerce Simon Power when he was a Minister. The Crown does have oversight of that entity in terms of what it sets.Certainly Minister back in the 1990s under the National watch—and sure it may have inherited the building legislation review in 1991 from the former Labour Government but your Government in the 1990s allowed it to continue to pass into law. That saw as a result reduced standards in the 1990s which then saw Standards New Zealand allowing reduced standards in the building code which then saw materials such as kiln-dried timber and monolithic cladding being used which then saw $30 billion and rising of New Zealand property ending up in leaky building situations. The Minister has said: “Well we should also just blame that on Carters and Fletcher’s which convinced Standards New Zealand to allow the kiln-dried timber.” Well that is all very well Minister but what are you now doing about that situation?The Ministry of Education this year announced it has $1.5 billion worth of leaky schools throughout New Zealand—many hundreds of leaky schools throughout New Zealand. It has entered into a court case against James Hardie Industries aboutmonolithic cladding throughout New Zealand schools. But the Minister mentioned tonight that Carters and Fletcher’s provided the kiln-dried timber. Well Minister what are you doing about chasing Carters and Fletcher’s to get some payback on all that kiln-dried timber that is now rotting in the schools of New Zealand rotting in the hospitals of New Zealand rotting in the public buildings of New Zealand rotting in the defence and other ministry buildings of New Zealand and rotting in the homes of good average New Zealand Kiwis whose houses are rotting around them? What are you doing Minister about chasing the likes of Carters and Fletcher’s which you stated tonight were responsible for it? You are doing nothing.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am not doing nothing.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Oh no no sorry. The Minister is doing nothing. The Minister is doing nothing. It is all very well to point the finger at Carters and Fletcher’s. Minister please go and chase those people and hold them to account for the $30 billion or $40 billion or $50 billion perhaps that it is going to end up costing for leaky buildings right across New Zealand’s commercial public and private sectors.I will carry on with this particular bill and why New Zealand First is not supporting it. You can drive a bus through half of this. For instance under the exemptions it says that demolition of a detached building is maybe permitted. The complete demolition of a building that is detached and is not more than three storeys does not require a consent; you can just knock it down. The member for North Shore sitting over there might be asked this question in her electorate of the North Shore—I wonder what the people in Devonport who have a particular affinity to heritage might be thinking when—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: She’s a fossil!ANDREW WILLIAMS: Well no not that heritage; I am thinking of younger heritage than that member. What will the people of Devonport be thinking when for instance under this bill demolition of a building under three storeys is permitted with no problems at all? So basically in Devonport a heritage building—it could be an outhouse or something or an old stable; it could be a lovely historic building that currently must have a consent from the local authority to be demolished—could be pulled down. Imagine the impact on heritage buildings throughout New Zealand as a result of that when people can basically just say: “Oh we don’t need that particular building out there any more. Let’s just pull it down.” Under the current situation if it has heritage value it will be covered.When you look at all the other exemptions which include porches and verandas carports retaining walls fences and hoardings decks platforms bridges and boardwalks not exceeding 1.5 metres—all sorts of things where there are structures. Again you get back to situations where—we all remember what happened at Cave Creek with the collapse of that particular deck. It was shown in that very sad situation that inadequate skills and materials had been used in terms of that particular deck construction. But in this situation where basically so many of these things—and this is including exemptions for alterations to non-residential buildings such as shops offices libraries factories warehouses churches or schools. So schools are also now exempt from such building work because they are categorised alongside offices libraries and other things.Again do we have a situation where some alterations are done in a school and they say: “Well this was a school that didn’t need a consent. We didn’t have to go to the local authority to check whether it was permitted.”? It is done and then something happens in that school and they say: “Gosh how on earth did the legislation go through that exempted schools from requiring consents of this order?”.Marquees and tents of 100 square metres will not require anything from any authority. They can be put up—100-square-metre marquees or tents. Those are majorstructures and I know from having been involved in many community events that some of those marquees are very very significant. When they are put up—and they are often put up in perilous situations on sloping areas for public events and all that sort of thing—they certainly do need and require the scrutiny of an independent authority at times to check that they have been constructed in the right manner. Are we going to have a situation again where a large marquee—a 100-square-metre marquee—is put up by just any old Joe Bloggs without any independent authority checking that it has been put up adequately? And then we find a large number of people gathered at an event whether it is a wedding function or some other public gathering and then we find that the structure fails.This bill is all about providing loopholes and exemptions and lowering the standards in New Zealand. We do want to reduce costs to consumers in New Zealand of course. We do want to reduce expense to consumers and the public of New Zealand but not at the expense of the safety of those structures. It is very regrettable that really if this bill was properly and independently analysed—it is opening up a huge can of worms for future potential risk to New Zealanders. It is opening up a situation where shonky jerry-builders can for instance be fined $2000 if they commit an offence in terms of the prescribed disclosure information and checklist—a $2000 fine. Or if they commit an offence under subsection (3) it is up to a $20000 fine. Well is that not ridiculous? Those could be large large constructions. The builders do not do it. They provide some sort of shonky-looking certificate that makes out that they are legitimate. They are self-regulating. They are not controlled by any authority in terms of what they are doing and then they are subject to only a $20000 fine if they are caught out. Again this is opening up a situation of cowboy building in New Zealand cowboy controls in New Zealand and self-regulation where it will basically be a free-for-all.The National Government will rue the day that in 2013 it brought in this bill—as it did the leaky homes in the 1990s. It will be leaky homes and leaky buildings revisited.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes53New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.