Huo Raymond: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHuo Raymond: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14979. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Labour supports the Building Act review and our focus is on the protection of consumers building practitioners and building consenting authorities—namely ratepayers. For that reason we cannot at least at this stage support the passage of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). We look forward to supporting any new bills that provide such protection.Two events as explained in my earlier contributions would have played a certain role in affecting our position. It would make more sense to focus specifically on issues in relation to dams and hold back the provisions that deal with the consumer issues in relation to residential properties. The second one is concerning the review of the non-ductile column buildings built between 1982 and 1995 with three storeys or more. The purpose was to establish whether there were any buildings with design flaws similar to those of the CTV Building which collapsed in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake killing 115 people.The current legal regime does not give authorities the power to compel owners of at-risk buildings to have their at-risk buildings assessed in the interests of public safety. The Minister for Building and Construction had earlier indicated that he would explore options to address the issue by introducing for instance a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill but neither of the two events occurred in terms of the progress of this bill and therefore our opposition as outlined in our minority report has remained the same. It is more in sorrow than in anger that we have no other choice but to vote against this bill.There are a number of issues I wish to bring to the attention of this House—firstly the definition of buildings. The Building Act as its title suggests is meant to cover all the infrastructure commercial and industrial buildings and structures. However one major problem with the drafting of both the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) and indeed the entire Building Act review is their obsession with homes dwelling units. It appears that they have confined the definition of buildings to that of homes dwelling units or residential buildings.Given the very serious problems that have come to light with large structures especially stadiums the Building Act review and the two bills introduced to implement its policy decisions should have covered more than dams and dwelling units. The Supreme Court’s decision on the Spencer on Byron Hotel case has reinforced the view that the Building Act review and the bills introduced should be taking a wider look at those issues. It is therefore important to note that we are dealing with only part of what the Building Act is meant to cover and further that the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) addresses only residential buildings and oddly dams.Secondly we find the rationale to replace code compliance certificates with consent completion certificates less convincing. We agree with the submissions and the views that until such time as the licensed building practitioner regime matures this is a step too far. According to them at this stage the regime is more a system of ticking boxes than a means to upskill the industry. The new consent completion certificate is significantly different from the old code compliance certificate and this change willalmost certainly have a detrimental effect on consumers seeking redress for severe loss. I note the Minister has not triggered the new consent completion certificate regime for good reasons and that has reinforced my view.Thirdly contrary to the purpose of this bill the measures introduced would reduce the means by which an aggrieved owner can seek redress for significant financial loss and hardship. One overarching concern from the submitters is that this bill sought to redistribute the responsibility and liability of the building consent authorities and therefore intended to ring-fence them in the event of building failures. We agree that the liability that has until now rested with the consenting authorities as the last man standing is unacceptable. This is because ratepayers have had to eventually bear the cost of negligence claims brought against the consenting authorities. It is equally unacceptable that it is now the consumers who will be left to pick up most of the bill for any claims resulting from substandard building work. Further no measures have been taken to ensure that builders and other parties who may be responsible for serious defects have sufficient assets and insurance to cover their liabilities. That is the reason why this afternoon I released the Labour media statement urging the Government to include the home warranty insurance scheme in the Building Act review.I support two of our largest city councils—the Wellington City Council and the Christchurch City Council—and a number of other submitters who have called upon the Government to introduce a home warranty insurance scheme. As pointed out by the Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand if responsible parties for defective building work have gone out of business died or left the country the consumer is left exposed and faces having to cover the costs. The building law should be amended to offer greater protections not reduce them.I turn to the fourth point with regard to company failures. Concerns were expressed about companies that are formed for the sole purpose of a single building project and are then liquidated as soon as the work is completed leaving no legal entity that can be directly held to account for defective work that is later discovered. As it stands the bill fails to offer consumers any effective remedies when left in the lurch by a $1 shell company despite the fact that the building sector’s failure rate is higher than the rate of all businesses before 2003 and after 2008. Even legitimate contracting and subcontracting firms have often ceased to exist by the time defects have come to light.Fifthly—a product’s warranty—we welcome the introduction of a responsibility provision for product manufacturers or suppliers. It is widely accepted that the leaky buildings saga was primarily caused by the use of inappropriate building products or systems or incompetence in or lack of adequate oversight of their application. The Minister pointed his finger at Standards New Zealand and he must be correct given he is so experienced. However given the complexity of the issue particularly where the prescribed compliance with the building code is often difficult to establish the provision in its current form fails to address the problem adequately. In addition it is essential that building product manufacturers do not escape liability because the specified installation requirements are impractical. All materials must be able to be installed on site using good carpentry joinery plastering or similar trade skills to reasonable tolerances and without the demand for laboratory-type conditions.Lastly there are also drafting issues in terms of how the provisions in this bill will be implemented. Many provisions in this bill are yet to be prescribed or determined by regulation and without proper definition it is difficult to put the clauses into context which hinders the interpretation and implementation of the Act. There are other deficiencies in this bill—for example the practicality of prescribing—