Connell Brian: Building Bill — First Reading 
Connell Brian: Building Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8435] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I believe the Building Bill has good intentions. The National Party supports its going to a select committee but with some reservations about the Government’s ability to get this issue right. The key reservation that I hold as the member for Rakaia is that although the bill thus far displays some common sense I question whether the Government can assure us that it will continue with its common-sense approach when it comes to the enforcement regime. I have reservations that that is possible with this Minister. 
The bill swings far too far. It adds too much regulation and I am putting the Government on notice now that I will be watching carefully to see that it does not set up a bureaucratic nightmare. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Swain is calling out. He does not care about the average Kiwi in this country but we do. I am not quite as pessimistic about it as my colleague from the ACT party but I share on balance some of her concerns and I am not alone. 
I noticed even before the bill was introduced that the Mayor of Timaru and meeting chairperson Wynne Raymond said that the wholesale rewrite of the legislation had gone further than many had imagined. When one picks up a bill that has 386 clauses one knows that people have reason to be concerned. Excess regulation leads to greater costs for home-owners and I fear that that will lead to some people not being able to buy their own homes. That is a travesty and a cruel blow to those people who have worked hard to get a deposit together only to find that because of the impost of these costs they keep falling below lending thresholds. 
Dr Mapp has already brought up a figure for increased costs on the average building of about $3000 or $4000. My figure on a $200000 home is about $7200 and that is just the threshold that will see those people without a home for ever and a day. If we talk about percentages 2.9 percent does not seem much but it is a lot when one adds it up in dollar terms. 
The other concern I have is that the threshold of $10000 when one needs to have a registered or a certified builder in place is too low. I fear that that will be the end of do-it-yourself builders. 
The other thing which I will be brief about is that this bill has been brought to the House in this form only because of the work the National Party did around the leaky homes campaign. I want to recognise the sterling work that Dr Mapp did in that regard. Is he receiving any credit for that? The answer is “No”. Why not? Is it just possible that he is a victim of his own success? He is a very competent and popular MP unlike some members of the party opposite. They may be household names in their own caucus but it is not the same as being a household name across the country like my esteemed colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. If it were not for the work that Dr Mapp did I put it to members that the Government would not have dealt with the issue. Some of them will remember Helen Clark banging on in the  
New Zealand Herald  
when she raised the issue in a very coherent way that this was just a beat-up. Then suddenly she realised that she was facing—and this country was facing—the biggest building crisis that New Zealand had faced in decades. To her horror she discovered that the Minister in charge was George Hawkins—hapless George Hawkins. That put a chill wind through most of us. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Three hundred and eighty-six clauses—it’s his tombstone. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes as someone has pointed out to me all 386 clauses are his tombstone. Leaky homes are just a precursor to some of the litany of deception from this Government that has gone on. I do not want to go into it in any great detail as the time does not— 
Simon Power 
: Oh go on go on go on. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: All right then the member has talked me into it. I ask members to listen to some of the minutes of the Building Industry Authority meeting that was held in June 2002. David Peach told the meeting this: “Create no expectations of solving this crisis.”—and that was easy for George Hawkins—“Don’t acknowledge or even suggest a history of inaction”—that was more difficult for George Hawkins—“and don’t dob people in.” Helen Clark had a real problem with that one. 
I just want to direct some guidance and advice to the select committee. I ask it to look at the compliance and bureaucracy implications of this legislation because this has the potential to become a bureaucratic nightmare.