Williams Andrew: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Andrew: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9424. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We have grave concerns about aspects of it in keeping with the long-held history of the National Government—not only in this term of Government but back in the 1990s—of creating the leaky building syndrome. We are as a nation still suffering from the change in legislation that the National Government brought about in the 1990s which now sees this country in for $20 billion - plus of leaky building repairs because of changes to the building code back then. Here we are now seeing the 2013 version of the same which could well result in the same.When you look at the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) and you see what is exempted in terms of building work and what will not require any consent in the future it is a little bit daunting in terms of what could be the situation if you jump ahead another 10 15 20 years and imagine the next group of MPs sitting in this House when we are all well gone—well maybe not all of us but most of us will be well gone—looking back and saying: “How did they in 2013 allow that to happen? Why did they not learn from the mid-1990s when they created the leaky building syndrome situation?”.When you look at the exempted work it includes as exempted “Single-storey detached buildings not exceeding 10 square metres in floor area”. They do not need a consent. Well in many parts of Auckland at the present time where there is great pressure on housing and people are living in garages caravans and all sorts of things a 10-square-metre building can actually be an outhouse and can actually be dwelt in. It can be used as something that can be attached to a home out on the back lawn but in this legislation it can actually be put up with no consent whatsoever. So any sort ofjerry-builder could actually put up any sort of dwelling on the back of any property in the Auckland area under this legislation and there would be no control on it. That is what will happen. Under the current district plans that are in existence under the legacy councils this sort of thing was not permitted to occur. I certainly know from the North Shore perspective that we did not want people putting up rabbit hutches on the backs of their properties and people living in all sorts of dwellings on the backs of properties in order to get around the building code. That is one of the things that will happen with this. Certainly in a place like Auckland that is what will happen.Also exempted are things like pergolas. A pergola is a structure and if it is not built correctly it can be very dangerous. They can fall down. Under this bill building work in connection with a pergola is exempt. So basically again any jerry-builder could put up a pergola. With a group underneath that pergola or with things hanging from it or with things on top of it if it were to collapse people could be injured. But under this legislation it is exempt.Repairs or replacement of outbuildings is exempt. Again basically a lot of people will be able to get around the law because they will be able to say that it was just an outbuilding and that they were just repairing or replacing it so they did not get a consent and they will effectively rebuild the jolly thing without any consent. In places like Birkenhead Devonport or many heritage areas in the Auckland area this is the sort of thing that goes on in terms of getting rid of heritage buildings. They basically leave one old window frame there and then rebuild the whole rest of it into some other sort of structure and get around the heritage issues in respect of that. Basically old parts of the city get slowly destroyed because people who are not sympathetic to heritage use loopholes in the law such as this saying that they are just repairing or replacing an outbuilding can actually get rid of an outbuilding that could well have heritage value.Also exempt are interior alterations to existing non-residential buildings. Alterations within a commercial building or non-residential building can be done and again that can have extensive implications in terms of safety and in terms of the integrity of the building if it is being done as just repairs and changes with internal walls. In that respect it also says here that internal walls and doorways in an existing building are exempt. If you do start playing around too much with internal walls and doorways in an existing building it can have a big impact on that building. Again less reputable builders perhaps less reputable developers or people doing modifications to existing homes or renovations of existing dwellings could easily say: “Well sorry. We didn’t need it because we were just doing internal walls internal doorways internal renovations—all those sorts of things.” They could in fact be putting the building structure at risk.It also says here that closing in of an existing veranda or patio will be exempt. Well again under the current situation and in terms of the coverage of a home on a property and the footprint that that home takes up often patios and verandas can be quite sizable. Again under this legislation people will be able to start filling in existing verandas and patios. That starts to become a thing where a house can incrementally change—you know there is a patio there there is a bit of a veranda there or whatever. Just start easing out the houses. In a place like Auckland suddenly more and more bedrooms are being conveniently tagged on to properties without a lot of legislative oversight.We are seeing some real loopholes being put into the law here—for instance carports. Carports will be exempt. Again a carport usually has a decent-sized roof and it is usually of reasonable substance. Are we going to have another situation like with Cave Creek where we have to have a carport falling down on somebody because it has been improperly constructed for somebody to ask: “How did they ever exempt carportsfrom being in the legislation? Why did they not require that these be checked by the appropriate authority to make sure that they were built right?”Many other structures are also the same through here. We really do feel that the National Government should have learnt from its mistakes with the leaky homes. If you start deregulating and taking all the controls off and if you start watering it down to such an extent and if you combine that with tradesmen of questionable ability and where they may have learnt their building trade is questionable you could end up in a situation where Auckland—and I particularly apply this to the likes of Auckland—in 10 15 or 20 years could have some very very shoddy building works going on under this legislation and we could all say: “How on earth did that legislation go through under the National Government of 2013?”. New Zealand First will not support that.