Williamson Maurice: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:821] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Given this is a new Parliament and the first reading and subsequent select committee hearings were held under another Parliament there are a couple of points that I really think are worth making to members so they understand a little bit of the history. First of all it was a Labour Government in the late 1980s late 1989-90 that introduced the Building Act. It introduced it under Margaret Austin. She brought the bill into the Parliament. It went off to the select committee— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The Building Bill. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The Building Bill. Well the Building Bill became a Building Act. It was only short of its third reading by the time the 1990 election occurred. So straight after the 1990 election the National Government which had supported Labour’s bill put it through its third reading. So we need to be a little bit careful about blaming the National Government for that deregulation and the passing of that Act. It was a Labour bill introduced by a Labour Minister taken through a select committee while Labour was in Government brought back to the House and put through the Committee of the whole House under a Labour Government and only given its third reading by a National Government. 
So let us get that clear; and in fact I have got a number of great quotes from  
Hansard 
 where George Hawkins gets stuck into National MPs: “Don’t you try claiming credit for the Building Act—it was ours.” “It was ours” says George Hawkins; I have got the quotes if you want to see them. So George was on the rantan in the early 2000s claiming that that dreadful National Government had been trying to claim that the legislation had been its own. So I give acknowledgment to the Hon Margaret Austin and the Labour Government for bringing that bill in. 
The next one I have heard a number of members quite often refer to is the National Government’s decision to allow in untreated timber. So let us get that clear: the decision to allow kiln-dried timber and not make treated timber mandatory came nowhere near this building. It did not come to a Minister it did not come to a select committee it did not come to a member of Parliament. The decision was taken by an independent body called Standards New Zealand which a Minister has no direction over; and the two big timber companies Fletchers and Carters both lobbied Standards New Zealand for it to say that it would say that kiln-dried timber was an acceptable solution under the code that stood at the time. That is what it said— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Not for external walls. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes they did. That is what they asked for. If you read the report in 1995 the report is actually quite clear. It actually is all about borer and I find it amazing. If you want to have a read of it it is a really good read I say to Ms Dalziel; it will really inform your knowledge. It actually says: “Borer is no longer an issue and therefore we no longer need to treat this timber; kiln-dried timber will be an acceptable solution for all framing including exterior walls.” 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No not for external walls. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes it does. So in 1995—I am happy to bet the member the best bottle of sauvignon blanc going on this one—kiln-dried timber became an acceptable solution under the building code for building buildings. It turned out that that was a disaster but I want members of this House to be very very careful of blaming any politician because I have heard it was Ministers that decided it I have heard it was the select committee that agreed to it and I have heard it was various MPs. I have even heard certain MPs who were not even related to the portfolio blamed for it me included who were not anything to do with the portfolio back then. But if you research history you will see Standards New Zealand had a subcommittee set up. That subcommittee in 1995 recommended that kiln-dried timber now be an acceptable solution under the building code and local authorities accepted that and from that point on we built buildings with kiln-dried timber—not always; some builders were a little bit more sort of— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Good builders didn’t do it. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes good builders I think made a decision they would not do that but others said they thought that because it was now acceptable under the building code as an acceptable solution they did it. We paid the price for a long time and there is going to be a huge bill for it but I just wanted to get members very clear on that. National did not pass the Building Bill it was a Labour bill and actually it was not any member of Parliament—anybody me included—who actually allowed kiln-dried timber as an acceptable solution.