Smith Murray: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Murray: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14824] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I must say that National’s contribution to this debate has been somewhat confusing. We were promised by Wayne Mapp that we would hear National’s alternative to this bill. He promised us that yet what have we heard? We have heard National members say that they think there should be more training. They say that there should be apprenticeship training and more training of people involved as building practitioners. They want building quality improved. They want the Building Industry Authority— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but if he would like to yield his call I am quite happy to put National’s alternative view. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member that that is not a point of order. The member should not interrupt the member’s speech. He knows that it is not a point of order. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: National members want the Building Industry Authority improved presumably with more powers and a clarity of its functions because that was clearly missing as we found with the weathertightness homes. They want territorial authorities to perform better. Presumably they also want the code compliance scheme to be improved. We heard that tens of thousands of homes had never received a code compliance certificate so something needs to be done. 
National members say that they would somehow make all these magical things happen and bring in all these improvements without legislation. I find that an amazing claim. How are they going to bring about a new regime that provides and delivers on the things we are looking for in terms of our building stock in New Zealand without making some legislative change? How will they give the Building Industry Authority more powers and more clarity in terms of its functions without changing the Act? How would they make territorial authorities perform better and give code compliance schemes the strength and the enforcement powers they need in order to ensure compliance without those changes? 
 How will we stop shoddy builders although National says that it will not stop shoddy builders. It says that the person with the ute the dog and the radio should be allowed to build his or her own house. It says that owner-builders should be able to operate without any fetters. I know that there are some very good owner-builders. There are some very competent people doing their jobs. I have also talked to owner-builders who have admitted that there were things beyond their knowledge and that they had to get in a professional to do the things they were incapable of doing. Some people recognise when they need expert help and others do not. The difficulty is that with owner-builders who think they know more than they actually do it is a case of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” and houses are being built that are not up to scratch and not effective. 
If we look at Part 1A further we will find some of the good things that it will produce. Clause 174 requires owners to notify licensed building practitioners who have worked on their homes. That is an important asset to any future purchaser of a home. Those practitioners will be able to go to the local territorial authority to get a list of all the tradesmen who worked on a house. If there is a problem they will know how to track them down. At the moment they have no idea. 
A person may have bought a house from somebody else who had it built by somebody else who bought it from a developer. An owner may not have any idea of the history of a place who had done the work or who to go to to blame for the faulty work. Now they will know because it is mandatory that that information be provided by the previous owner so that there is a clear record. 
The idea of clause 177 “Notices to fix” is also very important. I alluded before to the fact that tens of thousands of code compliance certificates were outstanding and there had been limited remedies in order to be able to enforce them. Now a code compliance certificate will need to be assessed 2 years after the building consent has been provided. Either a house is finished and will receive one or it is not finished and will receive a notice to fix. Once a house has a notice to fix the whole enforcement regime can start. That will stop the bizarre situation where houses have had building consents and they have never ever been signed off with code compliance certificates. It is a ridiculous situation and shows a lack of control by local authorities and this legislation will remedy that. 
The enforcement options are also included. The chief executive has far more enforcement powers to step in where shoddy work is discovered. One problem we found in the leaky home crisis was that the Building Industry Authority had difficulty moving with any pace because it did not have the power to do so. It had to consult in order to have the rules changed. Now there will be the ability to ban things at short notice and where urgency is required there will be the ability to put stops on products and systems very quickly. The legislation provides for warnings and time limits are built in in order to protect and ensure that things happen quickly. The legislation has a lot of things that improve the situation. I also refer to the Greens proposed amendment. The Greens were looking for two things in its Supplementary Order Paper and I think they have merit but United Future will not support them.