Catchpole Brent: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Catchpole Brent: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14832] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear other members on this side—the doomsayers—say that the measures in this part will not assist anyone. This part covers the functions powers and duties of the chief executive. One of the chief executive’s key powers is the power to act proactively. He or she will have the power to monitor the emerging trends in building materials design and construction and to act immediately to ban any practices or materials until such time as they are proven to be acceptable. The chief executive will also have the power to prevent builders from practising if they prove themselves to be unworthy. 
Everybody is saying that this will stop the DIY’er. It will not. The DIY’er—the good old Kiwi do-it-yourself bloke—who is handy has the skills and has the drive to do the job will still be able to do it. 
Judith Collins 
: The red-blooded male. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: If he has the ability to do the job he will still be able to do it. The only part of the building process for which he will require the input of a licensed building practitioner is that regarding the outer envelope and any structural walls of the building. In everything else he will have all the abilities and freedoms to carry on. I can see that a process will develop under this bill whereby small businesses will put themselves out there to provide that service as a licensed building practitioner for those particular cases. Yes there will be a slight increase in cost but hang on— 
Brian Connell 
: Slight? Quantify it. Is $6300 slight? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I ask the member how much it would cost him to insure a house that is likely to end up as a leaky home. I can tell him that no insurance company would touch that house. 
Brian Connell 
: Yes—nil. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The member says nil—therefore that house would be worthless. The owner of that house would lose considerable value in that house and a considerable amount of money. If the cost imposed by this bill comes to $6000—some say it might even be $7000—that is a small insurance policy for a guarantee that a house will be to a standard whereby it will not lose its value and will not end up worthless. I note that in many cases leaky homes have had to be demolished and the owners have got absolutely nothing for it. Those people have had to start from scratch. 
I would like to take up a point that Lindsay Tisch mentioned about private building consent certifiers. They are the experts. They have basically come out of territorial authorities and they have the expertise. To shut them down now would be basically to tell them to go overseas and find ready work in Australia—because that is where they would go. They would not stay here and place themselves back with territorial authorities; they would move out of the whole industry and disappear across the Tasman. We can guarantee that. Many of them have spoken to me and raised that issue. They will not go back into the situation they were in prior to being able to become private building consent certifiers. So that is an issue the Government needs to sort out.