Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13006] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 One can see why that man was deputy leader of the National Party for 3 whole days! That is how reliable his colleagues believed him to be—3 whole days! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Weeks. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Oh the member says it was 3 weeks. Wow that is expansionary—3 whole weeks! That is why the engineers’ association gave him a certificate—it was fearful he would come back to practise as an engineer. The association wanted to give him encouragement to remain in the House so that the crowds would be safe. It thought he would be a safer man in the House where he can be minded by his own party rather than out at large in the community giving certificates to people who are undertaking building construction. The association does not want Nick Smith to go near a building site. It does not want Nick Smith to go near a bridge. It does not want Nick Smith to go near a dam. The association would sooner have him tucked up in the caucus of the National Party where he lasted all of 3 weeks he says—I thought it was 3 days—as deputy leader. 
And now Nick Smith bangs on about leaky homes. He forgets to tell the people who are listening to him that there will be no additional costs for this regime. The proposed amendments will result in no additional costs. Building consents are an existing process for the 85 territorial and regional authorities around New Zealand. The associated administrative costs will be passed on through building consent application fees. There will be no additional bureaucracy. 
Let us just talk about this bureaucracy. It was in 1991 that National at a time when I think Nick Smith was close to being Minister of Housing brought in the Building Act that gave us the provision in section 28. Section 28 imposed upon territorial local authorities a responsibility to ensure that homeowners got what they had bargained on receiving. When the rains came pouring down seeping through the walls and on to people’s carpets on to Gib board and on to people’s furniture when the mould developed and illnesses developed and when people had nervous breakdowns did the National members front up to say it was their badly designed regime that gave cheap builders the chance to make a profit? No. Where did the cheap builders go? They disappeared. Where did the politicians go? They disappeared. 
In 2002-03 this House held an inquiry into the failures of Nick Smith’s conception of what constituted sound building practices. The inquiry held that the leaky building syndrome which so many householders in New Zealand are suffering from to this day had been brought about by the politics of the former National Government which wanted to have a freeloading style for builders. In fact the only rules were that a builder had to have a ute a radio and a dog. He or she could be a builder—a dog of a builder like the dog of a politician that is the member across the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did Labour vote for it? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: People did not vote for renewal of that I tell the member. They put the National Party out of Government because of the leaky buildings. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the speech made by George Hawkins who said in 1991 when the Building Act was passed that National had no right to claim the credit for it; it was all Labour’s work. This is in contradiction to the statement made by the newer member of the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The correct point is that the Building Amendment Bill makes minor amendments to the Building Act 2004 to make it more efficient as was always intended to be the case. Building construction in New Zealand is a complex trade and giving effect to what people expect to buy when they contract to have a building built is not a matter for overnight legislation. When the 2004 Act became law it was always envisaged there would be refinements. This amendment bill is entirely about refinements. It does not build a whole new regime. 
In fact National Party members conceded their obdurate approach when in the Social Services Committee’s report they filed a minority report and refused to accept the advice they had received from the officials that putting putty in a window and doing other necessary repairs would not require the approval of the building inspector. They conceded that point but they were not going to back off from the people to whom they are answerable. In the minority report the National members added: “In our opinion the 2004 Act prohibited DIY work.” Of course they were then faced with officials who said that they were clearly wrong. But they wanted to have that statement in their minority report so that they could go out and mislead the public about this amendment bill by suggesting it is onerous complicated and expensive. 
This bill makes clear that which was not clear in the 2004 Act. The very diligent Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove worked upon the legislation and watched its progress over the passage of time and came up with the refining improvements that this simple bill reflects. It is not required that a building inspector look at home improvements. Do-it-yourself is not bad. We now have a sophisticated system of licensed building inspectors and a regulation regime that will exempt buildings below a certain size or design from the threshold at which a licensed building practitioner is required to oversee the work. That sensible and simple threshold will be controlled by regulation so that licensed building practitioners can concentrate on the complex work that modern buildings demand. 
Under the Act that was passed by National in 1991 we had a growth in style and a growth in building materials that had not previously been envisaged and that Act was woefully deficient in its ability to protect the ordinary people of New Zealand who in good faith recruited a builder to build often also in good faith a home that failed to live up to its promise. The fearmongering by the last speaker rings hollow with people in this city who to this day intelligent though they are are traumatised by the huge losses they have suffered from owning buildings that simply were not up to the purpose. Those people had buildings built in good faith only to find afterwards that they were totally unsuitable for living in and unsuitable for an investment. Those people to this day in trying to remedy losses of $100000 are being repaid at the rate of $10 a week by builders who are now out of existence. That is the enormity of the problem. 
When we look at this bill and the criticisms levelled by the last speaker we see we must weigh them against the remedy that we are attempting to offer. That remedy is a fine line between do-it-yourself work involving minimal repair costs and maintenance costs that do not require supervision and more complex work on building structures. This bill will identify those who do the do-it-yourself work that does not require supervision and it will also make clear the work that does need supervision. The whole building inspector regime is simplified. The associated costs will not be a cost to the bureaucracy but will be a cost to the applicant. But of course the ultimate saving to people who build houses is that they know they will have a house that will remain a sound investment. People who spend money whether it be $100000 or $1 million on their new home want it to last significantly into the future. They want to know that the money they put in will be there when they come to sell the home. That is what this bill develops—not a bureaucracy not a regime of expense but a simple improvement to the Act so that people who buy a house know that what they expect to get is what they do get. 
A lick of paint does not cover a whole raft of defects. A lick of paint is just a lick of paint and a building can be taken at face value. The only way to avoid defects is to have the amendments in this bill so that the licensed building practitioner regime becomes effective and the regulations can weed out those buildings that do not require the attention of a practitioner and those buildings that do. For example one of the simple changes here relates to towers which were a concern of some of the commercial submitters. If a tower is a stand-alone tower it does not come within this amendment. If the tower is part of a building it does. If we look at dams we see that some dams are called large dams and they will require a licensed building practitioner. Others are known as small dams and they will be the responsibility of the territorial local authority to administer. So this simple bill provides simple amendments like those whereby we are adjusting the process and fixing up the legislation. 
It is a tragedy and it is a hallmark of the fearmongering of National Party members to make a speech like the one the previous speaker made amping up people’s concerns and vulnerabilities on a bill that National had no real criticism of. If we read National’s minority report we see the National members could not get rid of the cant and could not impose any facts into it at all. In fact the select committee report extends to all of just 2 pages which demonstrates the simplicity of this bill. The fearmongering that we hear from members opposite should be left at home. It should not have any place in this debating chamber. 
This is a worthy amendment. It is a tribute to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. It is legislation that the new Minister Shane Jones will be able to administer with considerable ease and in a relaxed frame of mind.