Huo Raymond: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Huo Raymond: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1456] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will support the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We are in broad agreement with the direction of the Building Act review which was initiated under the last Labour Government. I acknowledge that there has been a high degree of cross-party commitment to the Building Act review. Much has been said about the Building Act 1991 and the Building Act 2004. The 2004 Act was introduced in response to widespread weathertightness failure in the residential housing sector which resulted from systemic problems which we need to look at closely during the review process. It is important for us to fully understand what went wrong in all instances not to apportion blame but to learn valuable lessons that will minimise the risk of a failure in the future. This means we will need to be ready to adjust our regulatory frameworks in light of what we have learnt and it is important for us to take a comprehensive approach. Let us say for example if I may use an analogy that it is like launching a satellite. We simply cannot say: “Hey let’s get the satellite launched first and then sort out the navigation system later.” We cannot do that. If we do we will have dire consequences. 
On reflection of the way in which the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) was progressed I think it is a fair for me to suggest that we should not give too much of a hard time to the Minister. The No. 3 bill was introduced in November 2010 received its first reading in December 2010 was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we received the select committee report 3 months later which was 28 June 2011. The bill did not however receive its second reading until 28 February 2012 and that was less than 2 days before the licensed building practitioner scheme kicked in. The reason that this bill was rushed through was probably that unless it was passed into law a number of good initiatives including New Zealand’s long DIY tradition would not be able to continue in its current form. Overall that bill was passed into law in a “wait wait” and “hurry hurry” fashion. That was not a good way to demonstrate competency of how the House should be run but that should be the responsibility of the Leader of the House not of the Minister for Building and Construction. 
The creation of a superministry looks interesting. From 1 July it will absorb the Ministry of Economic Development Department of Labour Ministry of Science and Innovation and the Department of Building and Housing. To make it sound more like a military operation shall I add that at 2400 hours on 1 July 2012 the superministry will absorb four ministries/agencies. 
It was only 2 years ago that the Ministry of Science and Innovation was even formed. Worse still it was only last year that the Department of Building and Housing took over social housing policy. Transferring social housing policy from the Housing New Zealand Corporation to the Department of Building and Housing and now removing it from the Department of Building and Housing to transfer it to somewhere else is just one example of National’s expensive shuffling. Although its impact has yet to be felt some say it is a good idea and that it may improve business efficacy; some say it is not a big deal and that it is just rearranging the deckchairs; some say it is a bad idea. 
I am sure the Minister will have received an email from one of the top structural engineers in this country Mr John Scarry and I quote: “This is far worse than rearranging the deckchairs. It is like burning what few lifeboats there were on the deck of the  
Titanic 
 after it hit the iceberg in order to keep the officers warm. Honestly this is a continuation of all of the disasters that have afflicted the construction industry and especially the structure profession for decades. Long periods of neglect then the worst of changes at the worst possible time. One also has to question how a Government can do this sort of thing with regard to the Department of Building and Housing when its own royal commission into the Canterbury earthquake will not report back fully until near the end of this year.”  
I will quote from the briefing for the Minister for Building and Construction released under the Official Information Act: “It is estimated that social housing accounts for around one in five dwellings in New Zealand … The current delivery model for social housing is failing to meet the needs of a growing number of households …”. In addition to that the Department of Building and Housing has taken on other work concerning the financial assistance package for owners of leaky homes and provided information advice and dispute resolution services for unit title holders. I quote: “With additional functions has come increased complexity in our work.” That was what the officials said. What future impact it will have on the Department of Building and Housing we do not know. What is certain is uncertainty.  
Let us have a look at the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). Firstly with regard to building consent authorities there is an unbalanced allocation of risk and responsibility in practice. The bill will introduce a stepped risk-based system that would see consenting and inspection effort by building consent authorities more tightly focused on that building work where the greatest risk exists. Secondly with regard to building practitioners under the Building Act 2004 the Department of Building and Housing established in November 2007 the licensed building practitioner scheme which became effective from 1 March this year. Qualification and competency in combination with other measures such as warranty and insurance will help protect the interests of consumers. Thirdly for better consumer protection there are some discussions about the joint and several liability model and the proportionate liability model. There are pros and cons as evidenced from the Australian experience. I will be interested in listening to our stakeholders in that regard. 
Also I am interested in the ideas of a surety. The 2010 data shows that approximately 50 percent of new buildings are covered by the surety products available in the market. That brings me to the fourth issue in respect of the New Zealand standards. From the briefing we note that an independent review found that the way standards are used in the system has not changed despite changes in legislation in 1991 and 2004. Of the over 650 building-related international and New Zealand standards— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. 
Debate interrupted.