Hughes Gareth: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1835. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). We have heard countless times in this debating chamber the problems we have seen with deregulation in the sector and the leaky homes crisis. I would just like to kick off by acknowledging the comments by the member Lianne Dalziel. Countless times I have heard in this Chamber this side blaming that side and that side blaming that side. It was good to have some responsibility because actually it has been a cultural problem that we have had in our country. I would like to acknowledge that honesty that frankness. This is what we need to have going forward: a realistic appraisal of the issues facing us.  
As many members know the Green Party opposed the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) because it was piecemeal because it did not contain consumer protections. That is why we will be voting for this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) its companion which came out of the building review of 2009. We have got those new sections 362A and 362S which relate to consumer protections.  
The bill does a number of small things. I think Phil Twyford was bang on the money when he said that it was a masterpiece of incrementalism. It does a few things such as the enhanced more comprehensive consumer protection measures. It clarifies exemptions from the building consents makes some amendments to the dam safety scheme and increases the maximum penalty. Our problem with the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) was the lack of the consolidated big picture with which we could have gone to the public of New Zealand and said that the Government had looked at the recommendations that came out of the 2009 report and was giving them a consolidated legislative solution. But instead we went down this piecemeal approach which saw the Labour Party and the Green Party vote against it.  
I will take only a short call but there are a few risks inherent in this approach. It is a deregulation. We are seeing less local body oversight. I could speak about the whole broader context that is the attack on local government which we heard about from Andrew Williams. This Government is reducing the role of local government. We have heard former Minister Smith trying to limit the functions of local government blaming its debt problem. The real debt problem facing this country is at Government level; it is not local government which is borrowing not half as much as central government.  
We have some concerns on warranties like what will happen if you have a fly-by-night company that does go bankrupt leaving the unfortunate homeowner or business owner in the lurch. One area picked up in the Kensington Swan analysis of the bill which I would like to see looked at at the select committee is around the continued responsibility by the original major renovator or builder of a residential property not by a professional builder when it is subsequently being sold down the line. Kensington Swan had the scenario where you could see a house having changed hands six times from the time the original homeowner made the major renovation or built the house. They are still responsible. I think the outcome of this is actually that we will see fewer Kiwis doing it themselves and building their own homes. I do not think that is the message this Parliament wants to send those Kiwis. The bill is a masterpiece of incrementalism. It is a bit of tinkering but we welcome it. We urge the public to make a submission.  
The National Party was elected to Government on the pledge of building a brighter future; I guess it is building a future of some measure for Skycity for Warner Bros for the frackers for the drillers. When we are talking about building we actually need a bigger approach to these issues. Now is not the time for incrementalism. Now is not the time for tinkering. There are huge issues facing us from the homelessness crisis the housing affordability crisis in our big cities the thousands of cold damp rentals making our kids sick the lack of State houses and the myopic solutions which from the Government’s perspective are simply to wipe people off the massive waiting list—at one point it was nearly 10000 people—for State housing. Coping with the leaky home fallout the earthquake retrofitting across the country the lack of apprenticeships—these are huge issues that need serious thought by the Government and by this Parliament but all we are getting is this bill. Still we will be voting for it to go to the select committee. We urge the public and the sector to have their say and we will be going into further votes with an open mind. Kia ora.