Carter David: Building Bill — Third Reading 
Carter David: Building Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14924] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 We know that a Government is in trouble when it refuses to take calls. I recently had the opportunity to reread the debate around the passage of the Resource Management Act and I was particularly taken with the contribution made by a former colleague of yours Mr Speaker—namely Margaret Moir who represented the West Coast. That was the last time the West Coast had reasonable representation. She predicted in her speeches on that legislation that it would cause huge hassles and huge compliance costs for New Zealand. Nothing could be truer than that. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: She voted for the bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Certainly. Margaret Moir was a National member. She recognised that the Resource Management Bill as advanced by Sir Geoffrey Palmer—and as a Labour member he should have been more wide awake—would impose huge costs. Now we have the Building Bill— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: She voted for that bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: If Harry Duynhoven wants to take a call he is welcome to do so. If not he should shut up and listen. I say to him that in a few years’ time we will find that this legislation is held in as much disrespect as many people hold the Resource Management Act. This bill will impose huge costs and huge complexity on the construction industry. 
At a time when home affordability is at an all-time high one would have thought the Labour Government would show some concern for the desperate prospective new homeowners in this country. At a time when interest rates construction rates and real estate prices are all rising what is the Government’s response to that in terms of helping people to buy their own home? It comes to this House and with the support of New Zealand First the Greens and United Future will pass this legislation which will move home affordability away from those very people. This is happening at a time when 12500 New Zealanders are waiting desperately for a State house. That number will further increase because of this legislation. 
I have listened to a large number of the speeches on this bill but I have to say that the speech made by Sue Kedgely from the Greens was one of the more intriguing and interesting contributions that I have ever heard in a discussion in this Parliament. She stood to say she was going to support the legislation and then spent a full 10 minutes on decrying it and correctly pointing out the many many inadequacies in it. Then she concluded by saying that as she had been told to do she would vote for it. I do not often agree with the Greens but one of the comments that Sue Kedgley made was about the value of double glazing. I think she is absolutely right. Double glazing is of huge importance to this country; we are desperate for energy conservation. She spoke very well about the need for double glazing as a standard in the industry. At a time when this country is desperately short of energy does this Building Bill deliver double glazing? It absolutely does not I say to Sue Kedgely. It does nothing at all to deliver double glazing as a standard in New Zealand houses. 
The other amazing contribution that we had came from the United Future member Murray Smith. During the Committee stage on Tuesday night when I was here in the Chamber I asked the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere whether he would help me by explaining what was meant by the term “restricted building work”. That definition is at the very crux of this bill because if something is a restricted building work it then requires one of the newfangled licensed building practitioners to be involved in its construction. I put a simple question to the Minister and asked him to help us with the definition of a restricted building work. At the end of my 5-minute questioning of Mr Tamihere he obviously did not have Helen Clark’s permission to speak so he sat silently in the chair. But up jumped Mr Murray Smith. Now for the benefit of the people listening to this debate I will explain that Mr Murray Smith is a member of Parliament. He is here with the United Future party so we have not heard much from him and we will not in the future hear much from that man again. But he stood and said I should read the bill. He told me that the definition of “restricted building work” was in the bill. 
So I went back up to my office and went through the papers that had arrived on my desk that day and found that on Tuesday the Hon John Tamihere had released a discussion document  
Licensing of Building Practitioners: Discussing the Options 
. I looked at it and saw that on page 2 it states: “Purpose of this paper” and amongst other matters raised it also states: “In particular it wants your views on what work should be restricted to licensed practitioners and who or what sorts of trades should be licensed.” Although Mr Murray Smith has not been in Parliament for long and will not be here for much longer I ask him what right he has to say that the definition is included in the legislation when we then have the Minister in charge of the legislation putting out a discussion document that asks the industry to help the Government with the definition. That is what is happening I tell that member. My question as to what a restricted building work is was a legitimate question that Mr Murray Smith and Mr Harry Duynhoven cannot answer. No member of the Labour Party can answer that question. Now the Government has put out a discussion document asking the industry to help it to define that term. 
Steve Chadwick 
: The sector asked for a discussion document. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is the very point I am making. I am pleased that member has finally woken up. It is a quarter to 6 and close to her bedtime. Now she is acknowledging that the legislation is so imperfect that it does not define that issue and that Labour went back out to the industry and asked it for help. What a disastrous piece of legislation it is that we are to pass today. 
The other point that became quite clear—and I thank Mr Ken Shirley for his contribution—is that some people in the construction industry support this legislation. If one talks to them one learns they all have one thing in common: they are pretty large operators. The construction industry is very similar to the tourism industry in that there are a few large operators and lots and lots of small operators. The large operators build perhaps more than 100 houses in a year and they will find that they can comply with this legislation. But typically the construction sector of New Zealand has a huge number of small operators such as builders who work on their own or with one or two mates. They are the ones that will struggle with this legislation. What will happen then? The big operators will be advantaged and they will squeeze out the small operators. It is no wonder some of the big operators support this legislation because it will give them a huge competitive advantage. 
I tell the Government that shortly after the next election this legislation will be one of the first pieces of legislation that is back before a National Government—because it will be a National Government that will tidy up this mess. It is all right for Murray Smith to scoff and laugh because he will not be here in Parliament then to fix it. He can give his valedictory speech today; that is what we have just heard. He will not be back to fix the mess. This legislation will be one of the first pieces of legislation that a National Government—the next Government—will tidy up. All that has been done here is to impose 370 pages of legislation that will add approximately $6000 to $10000 of additional cost to the building of a house but it has done what the Prime Minister wanted this legislation to do. Cynically all that she wanted to do was to take the leaky home syndrome which occurred in 2000 and was particularly embarrassing to the Government off the headlines. She has succeeded in doing that but no owner of a leaky home will get any satisfaction at all out of the bureaucratic nightmare of this legislation.