Smith Murray: Building Bill — In Committee 
Smith Murray: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14774] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 When I was speaking before I talked about some of the principles in the bill that United Future was particularly glad to see. I referred to heritage and to the importance of the chief executive and local authorities when looking at building regulations and the building code taking note of the important role that heritage plays in our society. 
Other issues are energy efficiency and energy conservation which are mentioned in subclause (2)(m) of clause 3A. That is also an area where we as a nation have to address some key problems. We all know about the problems we are having in terms of the generation of energy supply in New Zealand and also its transportation around the country. Those problems as the select committee found when we went to Australia are things that the Australians are very closely aware of as well. They have actually made further strides in energy efficiency than we have particularly in New South Wales where houses have to comply with a certain level of energy efficiency. Whether we want to go to that level of prescription I have real questions about. I am always one for not being too prescriptive unless there is an important need to do so. But certainly we cannot ignore that issue and this bill does provide a first step in terms of the chief executive’s principle that requires that this whole area of energy efficiency and energy conservation be taken into account in the way we design our houses. It will become a more and more important area. 
Water efficiency and water conservation are also areas that United Future is pleased to see in the bill. We do need to be very conscious of the environmental impacts of our living. We cannot just take things for granted. In New Zealand we have been privileged to have unlimited supplies of water and I think it is important that we do not just take that for granted. We need to realise that as with any resource water does have some limitations. 
One of the very very key issues one of the hinge provisions in this bill—and it has been referred to by other people already—is the definition of “restricted building work” in clause 6. If there is one area that exercised the select committee perhaps more than almost any other it is this whole idea that we do not want to create something that is too restrictive of New Zealanders. We recognise that New Zealand does indeed as some have said have a culture of owner-builders. How can we provide enough flexibility to enable people to construct their own homes to work on their designs and to have that degree of freedom and innovation but at the same time protect future generations and our housing stock generally? This bill is not about just the immediate owner of a house; this bill is about the housing stock of New Zealand and ensuring that our housing generally maintains standards for the benefit of future purchasers of homes and for the benefit of our society in general. It is not good for our society to have leaky homes and therefore extensive damage to buildings. It is disruptive to our society. It is important we have a regime that provides ongoing protection for our society. 
What the select committee has come up with in terms of restricted building work is to confine the building work that has to be signed off to building work that “relates to an element of a building that is critical to the integrity of the building and the health and safety of its occupants;”. That is the test. Areas that are critical to the building and critical to health and safety are the areas that have to be signed off. It is not the case that everything—as some who are misinformed about this bill have said—has to be signed off by a licensed building practitioner. There are substantial areas in terms of construction that do not meet that criteria and that people will be free to deal with. But I think that in terms of confining this issue what we need to do is make sure that the structures of houses and the building envelope are sound and that means that although we want flexibility for people to build their own places it is important that we build houses that professionals licensed building practitioners can look at and say that yes at least the envelope and the integrity of the building on the outside are up to a certain standard. Then we let people do work beyond that. I think that is a good balance. Obviously some people will not be happy with it. There are very competent home builders who are not licensed building practitioners who will be affected by it. But there are also home builders who are not competent to do that work.