Smith Murray: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Murray: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14858] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 Mr Ardern has shocked me. I am absolutely shocked. Mr Ardern sat on the Government Administration Committee which dealt with this bill. [ 
Interruption 
]. He was not there? He must have slept through it. I just do not understand. The other thing I do not understand is that National with all its resources and Mr Ardern somehow could not get the answers to very simple questions about what this bill says and what it actually means. Mr Ardern has come to the Chamber during the Committee stage asked questions of other people and pointed at me to ask me to explain to him how this bill works because he does not understand it. For some reason the National Party with all its resources has not been able to explain to him how it works. 
Mr Ardern has raised two issues. Regarding the first one he asked us in his previous speech to show him where this bill applies to people who design houses. Mr Ardern has consented to me— 
Shane Ardern 
: Architects. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: Mr Ardern wants clarification and the clarification is that the definition of “building work” includes building design. Building work that has to be signed off by a licensed building practitioner will include the design of the building. Licensed building practitioners of the design class will have to sign it off and architects will be licensed building practitioners of the design class. That answers that. Mr Ardern seems to be satisfied with that explanation. 
Now he has said that clause 317 means that people will not be able to move into their houses until they have a code compliance certificate and that people will be locked out. He has been asking for someone to show him how people will get on because he cannot see how they will. He should read subclause (1) which is a very brief subclause that states: “This section applies to a building that is intended for public use.” “Public use” does not relate to a residence. “Public use” relates to a public building. The provision applies only to a situation involving public buildings. The public will not be able to use public buildings until such time as the buildings get code compliance certificates. This provision does not apply to residences. Residences are not intended for public use. That answers Mr Ardern’s question. Mr Ardern just wasted his last speaking opportunity by coming up with a red herring that can easily be answered. 
This part raises some fairly key issues one being the transitional provisions. I alluded in my last speech to the 5-year provision for licensed building practitioners. There is also a modification in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper in terms of the way that private building certifiers will be treated that will tighten up the process by which private building certifiers will be able to operate. Now unless those builders have applied for registration within 18 months of the bill coming into force—18 months after 30 November—they will not be able to carry out any more building work but they will be able to finish off what they had been doing. So there is some transition which will last for a period of 3 years. 
There are some positive things in this bill that I think will add a lot to consumer protection. Clause 349 in particular gives for the first time some implied warranties as far as building work is concerned. Consumers will have the protection of implied warranties that are found in legislation like the Consumer Guarantees Act and that is important. They are the sorts of protections whereby materials to be supplied will be suitable for the purpose for which they will be used; building work will be carried out in accordance with and will comply with all laws and legal requirements including the Act and regulations; and building work will be carried out with reasonable care and skill and will be completed by the date or within the period specified in the contract or if no date or period is specified within a reasonable time. That is a provision I was particularly keen to push for. 
As a lawyer I dealt with a lot of contracts whereby some people would sign up for a house to be built and would get an indication from the builder that it might take 3 or 4 months then 6 or 8 months later the house would still not be finished. Twelve months later the house would still not be finished and the people would not know when they could move in. They would have rental commitments and the whole thing would be up in the air. Some classic cases have happened in the Wellington region whereby buildings have not been completed and people have been hamstrung because they signed a contract that they cannot terminate and have been caught. This bill will give considerable protection in this area.