Cosgrove Clayton: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5078] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I endorse the comments that the Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson has just made and thank him for his generosity in respect of the previous Minister Shane Jones. As a former Minister for Building and Construction myself— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Just about everybody is. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is true; there is a large alumni. We will need to form our own club or friendly society. There has been a wide-ranging level of experience on all sides of the Chamber in respect of the building and construction portfolio. In fairness the portfolio has been a bit of a rat’s nest in terms of trying to unwind reform or make more efficient the processes around building. 
Without labouring the point and without being political I think the tragedy around leaky buildings led the previous Government to a call to arms to try to assist people. We came from a regime whereby there was less than adequate training. In the old days people could shake the hand of a builder and know they would get an A1 job because the builder was trained—had gone through a thing called an apprenticeship or through trade training—or was professional and stood by any mistakes made. Those days sadly have gone for many in the sector. But I will say that the vast majority in the sector are still I believe good professional world-class builders and construction experts. 
It is also worth mentioning that part of the delay related to growth in respect of local authorities. Many local authorities took on the Building Act as it was redrawn at the time. I remember one or two members citing a reference to kitchen benches in the Building Act. The Act did not prescribe whether one was required to have a marble or a Gib board bench—which one would not have. It basically said that one had to have—and I paraphrase—a kitchen bench that was healthy. It could not be made out of a substance that would allow botulism or hepatitis to flourish or something like that. 
The interesting thing about the Building Act I am sure the Minister would concede is that it allowed local authorities to be flexible and to adapt their requirements to local circumstances. The problem was that post the leaky building situation—although we are still in it—a number of local authorities went right over the top. There was a little bit of paranoia—and that then created delay—based on the fact in fairness that many local authorities were engaged in drive-by inspections. I can see the Minister nodding. The local authorities are the last line of defence against signing off a home that is not A1 and many would concede that through their inspectorate and the infrastructure around it they did not execute that duty very well. Then they were hit with liability and the reaction was to overreact. 
I recall one developer saying when I was the Minister that he now required nail patterns. I asked him what a nail pattern was and he said he had to show the pattern in which he would nail in the beams. It was ridiculous. The old Kiwi thing used to be that when people could not afford to build their whole house they would build the frame and maybe line it and put in the ablutions and drains. But they would leave the lounge and dining room unfinished and would live in a bedroom and maybe an ancillary room. Then they would get the builder in each week to do a bit more work before getting full code compliance. One local authority whose name I will not mention was telling people they could not move into their homes until they had full code compliance and people just believed it. I was quite rightly lambasted by a developer so I investigated. The developer thought that the rule was in the Building Act but the Act did not say that at all. The local authority was lying and was found out and had to change its practice. So a whole series of things created delays. 
Equally some local authorities had an explosion in requests for consents. If I owned a supermarket and the number of my customers doubled and I did not put on one extra checkout person I suspect there would be delays at the checkout. Some local authorities had a 100 percent increase in the number of requests for consents and would not put on one extra typist to type up the paperwork while the building inspector went out and did the business of inspecting. They would not do any of that. We introduced an accrediting process. I recall that the Palmerston North local authority was the first to get accredited. The next-door Manawatu local authority said that it was too small to do that but that it would contract and cluster with the Palmerston North local authority so that it could build up capacity and move the consents through. There were a number of contributing factors. 
I commend the Minister for this bill. I think the Minister and his predecessor Minister Jones have the twin objectives as we do. They are to try to cut the costs and speed up requirements and at the same time balance that against the syndrome where if someone gets a cowboy builder in and he makes a mess of it people’s rights are protected. I commend this bill we support it and I think it will go a long way to making a contribution to the homeowner.