Carter John: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14752] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I listened closely to what the Minister in charge of the Building Amendment Bill Shane Jones had to say. If people listened to his speech on the surface they might have thought that some of those things he was talking about were probably reasonable. But the unfortunate thing is that this is the fourth building bill in 4 years that this Government has brought in. Every time the Government brings in a building bill it tells us that the bill will fix the issue. The first bill in 2004 was going to be the remedy; it was going to solve people’s problems. Unfortunately it did not. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Minor tinkering. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The Minister might say it is minor tinkering but it is not minor tinkering when someone has a bucket under a leak in the middle of the lounge or someone has to put a cloth around a window because the wind is likely to be blowing it in as a result of the stupid regulations and rules that were brought in under the Building Act 2004. 
The Government brought in another amendment bill and said that it had not got the legislation quite right but would fix it up with that bill. The Minister knows although he was not in Parliament at the time that unfortunately that did not happen. So the Government brought in another amendment bill to fix up the mistake it had made in the second bill which was brought in to correct the first bill. Unfortunately that did not work either and here we are today with the fourth bill to fix up the stuff-up in the third bill that was to fix up the stuff-up in the second bill that was to fix up the stuff-up in the first bill. 
The Minister referred to the fact that there are leaky homes in New Zealand. He knows there are we know there are and local government knows there are. There are estimated at the moment to be 3200 leaky homes but actually there may well possibly be somewhere between 15000 and 30000 more out there that have yet to be discovered. The problem we have is that we are addressing just those leaky homes that we have been notified about and that we know of. I have to say we are addressing them in a very convoluted way which is costing a whole lot more in legal fees than it does to fix the leaky homes but they are being addressed. 
The problem is—and the Minister knows this because he has been told not just by me by my colleague Nick Smith or by my colleagues from this side of the Committee but by the building industry itself—that leaky homes are being built right now. Leaky homes are being built right now across this country. They are not included in that number of 30000 which is anticipated as being the maximum between 15000 and 30000 of leaky homes yet to be discovered. More are being built. 
The Minister is in charge of a Department of Building and Housing that is meant to have set out quality control for the materials that are put into houses. I ask the Minister where the quality control is. The Minister knows it is not there and this Committee knows it is not there. We know that of the 600-plus materials that can be put into a house fewer than four have been certified to date. I have stated that figure in the Chamber many times and it has never been challenged. Therefore unless the Minister has some other facts and figures he accepts that it is so. 
The tragedy is that a whole lot of materials that have been imported from overseas particularly from Asia are being put into our houses today and they are faulty. The unsuspecting person who goes along and buys a spec home—a beautiful well-finished spec home—will find that in 10 years’ time or less the husband will go into the toilet and flush it and the mother will end up getting a shower in the kitchen because the copper pipe has burst. It is a real tragedy waiting to happen. 
This Minister says that it is OK; we will pass another law and more rules and regulations which will make it all better. I say to the Minister that that will not fix it. I want this Minister to explain to me how writing more rules and regulations makes the builder put the nail in straighter. How does it make the guy who puts the glass in the window put in the putty better? It does not improve the skills of the tradesmen at all; indeed it inhibits them. That is part of the problem. 
We have now got to the stage where so many of our good quality tradesmen are so frustrated by the rules and regulations they have to comply with that they are exiting the industry. We are losing good competent people. The Minister is having a meeting I think in Northland this Friday week and he will be told by the people he associates with up there that good competent tradesmen who have been in the field for 30 years or longer will not remain in the industry because of this Minister’s rules and regulations. 
The real tragedy is that this Minister in his heart of hearts knows that this bill we are debating today will not fix the problem. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He knows it won’t. 
JOHN CARTER 
: He knows in his heart of hearts that this bill will not actually fix it. But the problem is of course that he is a Minister in the Labour Government. The Labour Cabinet has passed this bill the caucus has passed it and he has been told by his officials that it needs to be done so here he is standing up there making speeches about how grandiose it is and how it is all going to work. But he knows in his heart of hearts—and this is the tragedy and I am glad it will be recorded in  
Hansard 
 because one day in 5 or 10 years’ time I will bring it out and show him—that this legislation will not work. We will end up with more problems in this country because of this sort of legislation. 
There is an answer. The real problem and the tragedy is that local government has become responsible for faulty building. I have to ask why one would make local government responsible for mistakes made by builders. Why does local government have to assume the total responsibility? Why does local government—and finally the ratepayers—have to pick up the tab? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What is an alternative solution? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well there is an alternative solution and the Minister if he bides his time will find it out soon enough when National is ready to announce that is has a very good alternative. The Minister knows it but again he cannot put it through in his policy because of his socialist Government which he is right out of step with but unfortunately joined because he could not get on the National Party list but now just has to bide with. Let us use the analogy— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Come back to the bill. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I say to the Prime Minister in waiting that I am just about to. The point is that if I go to buy a new car and it breaks down I do not rush up to the Mayor of Far North District Council and say: “Brownie my car’s broken down. Can you get the ratepayers to fix it for me?”. So why in the world should I be allowed to do that if the builder does not do my house properly because he or she could not understand the rules and regulations and did not have the skills? 
This Minister knows in his heart of hearts that this legislation will not be the remedy that is required to fix the building problem. The Minister knows that it is in fact doing the reverse. The Minister and his Labour Government—led by Helen Clark—know that this legislation is putting in more rules regulations and costs. The Minister knows that it is driving good competent tradesmen out of the industry. The Minister knows that we will end up with members of local authorities around the country holding their heads in their hands in horror and saying: “More rules and regulations.” As my colleague Nick Smith has said they will have to write out more pages of building applications and there will be more forms to fill out. There are 110 pages in Rodney. 
The Minister asked for proof of the cost increases. I have mentioned before that I recently got a deck extended and a retaining wall done; that cost $16000. The fee costs on that were $3600. The Minister asked where the proof of the cost increases was; I have to say that that is a fairly good bit of proof there right there. Then the work I had had done could not pass its compliance not because it was not constructed properly and not because it was not in place but because I did not have a smoke alarm. Well I have to say that I have not found the answer as to why one would have to have a smoke alarm on an outside deck and a retaining wall. If there is a fire surely it will not hit the smoke alarm outside. One assumes that the wind will blow the smoke away. But I do not know; this is the sort of stupidity we are now getting in the rules and regulations being passed by this Government. 
I say to the Minister that this bill will not work. It will be as good as the previous bill which did not work. It will be as good as the bill before that which did not work. It will be as good as the parent Act which did not work. I say to the Minister that sadly New Zealanders ratepayers homeowners the building industry and the country will be paying the cost of this bill. The Minister has been told that the cost of compliance in regard to just a section is spiralling up to something like $50000. That is not the cost of buying a section or putting in the infrastructure; it is the cost of just the rules and regulations.