van de Molen Tim; Williams PotoTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. I actually thought that was a reasonably fair question from Mr Seymour and had hoped for an answer on that. It actually comes back to the area I'd been seeking some clarity on earlier as well and I didn't have answers on that either—the two of those being in relation to new section 9A and around how someone can have certainty of their building product. Is there going to be a comprehensive or exhaustive list of all products? Because based on what has just been canvassed by Mr Smith and Mr Seymour if there is some uncertainty—and as it's written there is—around the confidence someone can have in whether or not a product or a method complies if there was an exhaustive or a comprehensive list of all products or all methods that they could use to then rely on instead then that would be one way to provide some clarity. Obviously part of the reason for having it written as it is is to allow for that flexibility for innovation as the Minister has touched on and that's great. Innovation in the industry is fantastic and I do want to ensure we support that. So then my other question which I didn't get an answer on was around what would be the likely time frame for actually having a building product or a building method determined as such. If a particular innovative product or method came up how long would it take to have that determined to be under this as either being or not being a product?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you for that question. I just perhaps want to clarify one thing and that is the extensive set of regulations that sit alongside this piece of work—130-something pages of regulations that will help the member in terms of determining some of the answers to those questions. In terms of how long it will take to determine products I cannot say that with any definition. My hope and my desire with this piece of legislation is that we make it easier and that we allow also for that innovation to come into the process as well.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Excellent thank you for that. Just a couple of other areas I just wanted to touch on briefly were in relation to the need for the modular component manufacturer certification body (MCMCB). This was one area that was touched on. I mean we have the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—MBIE". That then comes down to the MCMC—so the modular component manufacturer certification accrediting agency. Then we have the MCMCB which comes down from that and then we have the modular component manufacturer "MCM" below that.Stuart Smith: Wouldn't want to say that quickly.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: No. It is quite complex actually and that was one of the things that came up from submitters: the different levels the different acronyms whether that was all necessary. I think I've just got that right going through there but do we actually need to have that middle step of the MCMCB? There are a few submitters that said "Well what is the point of it?" I'd be really interested to get Minister Williams' insight into why that particular aspect of it is critical. But then I might also just delve into the next question. I feel there's some desire to move on from the Chair so while I'm on my feet in regards to the levy use—so a separate topic—there was broad support for altering the ability of MBIE or the chief executive to utilise the building levy for different purposes to allow wider scope. I'd be really interested if the Minister could give some insight into some of the things that she would expect would be priorities for utilising that under the broadened scope that this bill provides for. What are a couple of the things that the Minister would see at the top of her list for utilising some of that additional building levy on? Thank you. [Bell rung] Mr Chair whilst the Minister's having a quick rummage through there I'll just give her a moment if that's helpful perhaps?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Tim van de Molen.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Thank you Mr Chair—very good. So just in relation to the MCMCB aspect basically what I'm looking for there is to try to understand: are we actually complicating this a bit more? It comes back to those initial comments I made at the start that the support we have for this bill is on the premise that we're trying to streamline and improve the industry make things easier speed up the process so we can just get stuff done. And broadly that is fantastic. My concern is whether or not that is actually a part of that aligned with also those other questions I've asked. I think the Minister looks ready to leap to her feet with some enlightening answers so I shall allow for that. [Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you seeking a call?David Seymour: No I'm waiting for an answer to the last question.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No there's someone behind you."