Barry Maggie: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1833. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I spoke to the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) which was passed in March 2012. This Building Amendment Bill (No 4) of course is the companion bill. It is the second of two bills to implement the review of the Building Act 2004. This is all part of the wider picture with National’s Better Building Blueprint for better building which is designed to make it easier and cheaper for New Zealanders to build good quality homes and buildings.  
 The cowboys prevailed for too long. Others have documented the human misery and anguish that have resulted from people inadvertently buying homes that were completely unsuitable. This bill in particular addresses some of the issues around consumer protection and I think it also makes the builders who are the people who should be accountable more accountable and that is partly why I support it. The punishments are more severe and I think that when you increase penalties for failing to comply with building consents from $100000 to $200000 you are going to get people paying attention to that.  
The overall situation is that if you are a consumer and you are wanting to buy a property or to buy land either to amend a property or to build one from scratch how do you tell who the cowboys are? How do you know who is the right builder to go to? From now on we are going to be actually getting proper disclosure of information if this bill goes through. It will include information about the company about the people who will carry out the work about the skills they bring to the job and also about their track record. So it will be a lot harder for the individuals who have been involved with shonky practice or who are not properly set up and it will be easier for the consumer to not accept them and not have them build their house.  
This was difficult in the past because the cowboys were pretty well hidden. For a very long time we were held in their thrall and I think this bill goes a long way to help consumers understand how to spot the cowboys and make the sort of informed decisions that we need. After all the rebuild in Canterbury is about to start—$20 billion to $30 billion worth of building—and we have to be extremely careful that we do not get into the situation that has arisen in the past.  
I think that on both sides of the House we have all admitted that there have been problems and as Alan Martin used to say in the old TV ad: “It’s the putting right that counts.” Maurice Williamson is to be commended as the Minister for Building and Construction for working across parties and trying to come up with a piece of legislation that is going to be able to be passed and the bill’s referral to the select committee of course is a very important part of that process.  
But this began back in 2009 when we undertook the Building Act review. It was considered at that time that there was too heavy a reliance on building consent authorities for building quality so that responsibility had been taken away from the builders and the professionals and given to another entity which often ducked for cover. Change was needed. A culture change and an attitude change were needed of the builders and I think that the incentives for building professionals and tradespeople to step up to the mark are there. They need to take responsibility for the quality of their work and stand behind it.  
So consumers will have the knowledge that they will have mandatory written contracts for work that is valued over a prescribed amount. You will also have mandatory disclosure of this information by building contractors as I outlined and there will be these new offences for breaching those requirements. I think that the new provisions that are involved and inherent in this No. 4 bill are going to give more protection for consumers and I think that is a commendable thing.  
I think it is also important that you have the remedy of the defect and you need to have a time frame and I do agree that 1 year is a good period of time for all parties concerned. So if for example there is a problem with a building and you notify under the residential building contract within a year of completion there is an onus of responsibility on that builder to put it right. Those are the sorts of provisions in the bill that make it an important part of the overall package that National is bringing through so I am happy to stand and speak in support of this bill.