Dalziel Lianne: Building Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14790] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 As someone who had a particular interest in this legislation I am very pleased to be able to speak to it in the Committee stage. I have listened to Opposition members with an increasing sense of incredulity. Who was in Government when the Building Act was passed in 1991? I wonder who that was! It is amazing hearing all these speeches coming across the Chamber laying blame at the feet of the Government. But it is this Government that has had to pick up the pieces. Who ignored the warnings of many of the old hands in the industry who said the laissez-faire approach was going to be a disaster especially when one coupled it with the demise of the apprenticeship system in this country? I wonder who presided over that legislation? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Bill Birch. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was Bill Birch. The repeal of the Apprenticeship Act was done by Mr Bill Birch— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: And Lockwood Smith. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —and Lockwood Smith managed to deal to the industry training sector at the same time. 
I have heard both the ACT party and the National Party say: “Let the market decide. Let the market determine all these matters.” Will we expect to see the market protecting homes from leaking? I wonder whether the market is capable of actually doing that. Is the market now some form of umbrella that is going to sit over and above shoddy workmanship that has not been properly undertaken and has not been properly inspected under the laissez-faire attitude that the previous Government introduced? 
I am not prepared to trust the market in this case because there is not an equivalent in the relationship between the consumer and the professional involved. The professional involved knows about building knows about the quality of the product knows about the processes that have to be put in place. As consumers how on earth are ordinary New Zealanders—the Kiwi battlers whom my colleague spoke about—supposed to be able to protect themselves when they do not know whether the particular product they are buying will stand up for the purpose? I prefer skilled tradespeople doing the job they are supposed to do and inspection processes in place to protect as well. 
My colleague Clayton Cosgrove I thought made one of the most telling points in this debate thus far. He talked about the level of investment that ordinary Kiwis make in their home. He is absolutely right. It is the largest single investment that most people will make. The second-largest is usually the car as my colleague pointed out. But with a car one has to have a warrant of fitness look after the car get the warrant of fitness renewed on a regular basis. But with a house what does one get from the real estate agent from the builder? 
 What do people get in order to ensure that they keep their houses up to standard? Actually there is a partnership that occurs post the purchase of a building and it is important that consumers know what they have to do to maintain their properties both inside and outside to ensure that those properties are able to retain their fitness for purpose. I think it is amazing that there are still many people—and I am guilty of this myself—who have invested thousands of dollars into a property and did not have it inspected by a builder. But I would not buy a car without having it inspected by the Automobile Association. I think that is a culture change an attitude change that we need to see in this country so that people get properties checked out for fitness for purpose before they actually invest that degree of money. 
One of the things I am very concerned about—and I think one of things that this bill is trying to do—is to provide protection for consumers the ordinary Kiwis. I have heard nothing from the Opposition that expresses any concern for ordinary New Zealanders who have been caught out in a situation where the legislation has not provided sufficient protection. 
As for those who are volunteers or do-it-yourselfers it is important to know that the house they build for themselves may be the home of someone else one day and that person is entitled to have a protection and what the legislation says is that if it is being built by a do-it-yourselfer and it does meet the criteria that my colleague quite rightly read out to the Committee then it is important that a registered building practitioner oversees the process.