Williams Andrew: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Andrew: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14982. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.