Jones Shane: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:823] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 It is with some disappointment that we are not able to fully support this Building Amendment Bill (No 3) but I want to give some credit to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction. No. 1 he had both the vision and fortitude to carry on the work of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and myself. But jokes aside this Minister did grasp the nettle of how we were going to meet the liabilities from the problem that lies beneath the text of this bill i.e. the problem in New Zealand of the production and completion of buildings largely for residential purposes that turned into aquariums. I would like to do something uncharacteristic and acknowledge that that Minister did some good work in that regard. 
 We have large issues confronting us in relation to Christchurch and the rebuilding of that area. So we are actually looking forward to learning what the additional regulations are that the construction sector is going to face in that particular rebuild quite apart from the necessity of it taking on board what is in this bill. What guided us was getting the balance between a suitable level of red tape and some liberty which is why my colleague Mr Cosgrove was adamant that we should not outlaw do-it-yourself building. He struck some difficulties in the minds of the officials at that time—but that is for another day and that is his story. 
One particular provision that is going to bedevil this House is what level of responsibility ought properly to lie with the consent authority given that the consent authorities have their own insurance woes? They have an insurance company known as Civic Assurance or words to that effect. They then are dealing with the fact that as I recall it when I was a Minister the global reinsurers of the world were unwilling to provide much more protection to the New Zealand building consent authorities and give them any more cover to deal with leaky building problems. So it is a balancing act. How much obligation should we leave with the consent authority; how much with me the owner; and how much with the builder the actual designer and the architect? I think as our minority report states we do not feel that the balance—and I must say I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee at that stage—is appropriate. But there are other aspects simplifying the consent process. No. 2—ensuring that where a council dedicates a fair chunk of resource it is proportionate to the risk associated with the building that is being created. 
I would also say that a great deal of care and attention is going to be required in the development of the regulations because this piece of legislation actually sets up a new flow of obligations at a subsidiary level. I look forward to seeing those regulations which no doubt will come to the appropriate select committee because there is the ability in clause 42(1) for a building consent not to be required. 
I actually envisaged at some point in time as the licensed building practitioner cadre grew and their skills could be relied upon that for a growing amount of very simple work they could be treated like electricians—let us use electricians as an example—where you do not need to go to the super-city to get a permit to have an electrician come and fix your house. We have got to get somehow to a situation where we can treat a building practitioner or a carpenter in the same fashion. But the fears remain that such people could take us into a new phase of problems either in the rebuilding of Christchurch or a new phase of leaky homes etc. But I think that was the philosophy underlying what we thought we were doing in response to what was a significant problem although I would say we had a large number of building Ministers on this side of the House during the 9-year reign of our peerless leader Helen Clark. We look forward to such times returning at some point in the future—hopefully not too far away. 
The other thing I would point out is that there is an obligation on me the property owner. We have to get it right in so much of our economy: how do you set the obligation that rests with the State rests with the insurance industry and rests with the individual?