Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14855] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The next piece that I will dwell on regarding the licensed building practitioners is the process of what a licensed building practitioner has to do. The example I will give relates to a builder but as we know from the bill any professional in the industry can become a licensed building practitioner. In fact when we move to debate the Architects Bill sometime in the future we will see it states that people involved in building who are registered licensed or otherwise recognised under other legislation will be treated as licensed building practitioners. So the licensing will cover a range of other occupations apart from builders. In order to show how stupid the process is I will give the following example. 
This is the process: I get a builder to build a house for me. The builder after getting consent from a territorial local authority builds the house. When it is finished the licensed building practitioner certifies it is built in line with the building code and the local authority issues a code of compliance. But let us suppose that in the first winter after it has been built the house leaks. I call up the local authority and say that I have a problem as my house is leaking. But the council says that it will defend itself and that the issue lies with the builder. It is the builder who built the house but it is the council that issued the code of compliance. If the builder in this example does not have insurance who carries the can? It is the local authority that carries the can. That comes back to the point that I made earlier on: the onus is on the ratepayers because it is the local authority that will carry the liability. 
So how does the process of registration that a licensed building practitioner must go through—providing a name an alias and a date of birth—actually help the building industry? It does not. There is no consumer protection whatsoever with regard to these licensed building practitioners. The best means of getting a competent tradesperson is through word of mouth. It is still best to go and look at a building and ask the owner who built it what it is like and whether it has stood the test of time. I mentioned before the principle of caveat emptor—buyer beware. That is the sort of approach that we should be adopting instead of what is involved here—very prescriptive legislation that is an overkill and at the end of the day does not give the consumer the protection that the Government expects it will give. 
I will draw that point back to Part 1A. Under that part licensed building practitioners have to certify some restricted building work but there is a very important out clause where they can skip any liability at all. Clause 175(4) states that when a licensed building practitioner gives a certificate under subsection (1)—and the bill identifies what subsection (1) states—that does not in itself “create any liability in relation to any matter to which the certificate relates”. That is absolute nonsense. The owner of a building is lulled into a false sense of security and the certificate creates absolutely no obligation in relation to the value of the building. Licensed building practitioners will be able to opt out and that will be a major concern. It will not help the industry one little bit and it does not meet the requirements that the Government has been pushing about consumer protection. 
If we look at the home builder—and these are points that have come up earlier—we see the home builder has to have someone to supervise his or her work. That is a new requirement. They do not have to be inspected; they have to be supervised. What does the word “supervision” mean? There have been plenty of examples given. In my second reading speech I spoke about the process one has to go through to supervise work. The extra hours associated with supervising the construction of a small dwelling of 120 square metres—a very small home—on a flat section will cost about $6500—$10000 in compliance costs.