Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14847] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the clauses in Part 4—this bill does not contain a Part 3 as the Labour member said. 
Brian Connell 
: Which Labour member was it? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The one who spoke earlier and who had to have a break over dinner to remember what he was actually saying. 
Clause 259 is the clause in relation to the register of licensed building practitioners. One has to go through an interesting process actually to get on this register. The whole process here which the Government would argue is that if consumer confidence is wanted then consumers need to know who is actually licensed. They forget about the principle of caveat emptor—buyer beware—and if buildings are being built they go down the road to see who has done the best job so they actually have first-hand knowledge. That is the best advertising there is—word of mouth. But no—this bill is becoming so restrictive that there is going to be a register of who is capable of doing the work. 
If members look at clause 262(1) they will see what information is to be on the register. I draw the attention of members to that clause: “The register must contain all of the following information to the extent that the information is relevant for each licensed building practitioner whose name is entered in the register: (a) full name: (b) any aliases:”—I like that one because I am sure that Labour members will be looking for aliases to be registered on the register and—“(c) date of birth:”. That is really significant. People have to enter their date of birth to become registered. What an absolute nonsense that is! 
If people want a building practitioner they will go to somebody who has experience in the field. They can look through the Yellow Pages and find master builders or certified builders or talk to people who have had their houses built. They can do that; they do not have to go to a register to get the information. 
Clause 262 lists half a page of things that have to be contained in the register. Paragraphs (d) to (h) state that people have to include their addresses phone numbers and email addresses. Everything has to be identified. 
Brian Connell 
: What is the point of those questions? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is a good question. I will tell the Committee what will happen. Builders who are out there will not go through this nonsense; they will bypass it. 
What a great article I have here from the  
National Business Review 
: “Government puts another nail into home improvements.” Members should look at the photo there. The article appeared in the  
National Business Review 
 on 16 July and what a great article it was about how stupid this legislation is. The points I made in the article are exactly what will happen because builders will bypass these stupid provisions. 
Builders will go out and do the building work. They will not be shackled by this sort of nonsense and the old way will go on. We will have those do-it-yourself people—Bob the Builders—who will do their own building. They will not even go for consents. That is what will happen because this legislation has become so prescriptive in having to register and in having all of those details that people will say: “To hell with this. We know what we’re doing.” or “I have been in the building industry for the last 20 years. I know how to build a building.” People will ask: “Why should I have to go through this rigmarole if I want to build my own extensions or additions to my own dwelling farm building or whatever it is going to be.” 
We identified a real issue in earlier parts—that is the compliance costs that will be associated with this legislation. The increased compliance costs that will be associated with the sort of nonsense we see in this part have been mentioned plenty of times. 
I also want to draw the Committee’s attention to another important area where this Government has talked about how it wants to have consumer protection. In that respect Part 4 ties back to clause 175.