Kedgley Sue: Building Bill — Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Building Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14915] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is extremely pleased to be supporting this bill. We are particularly pleased that so many of our amendments have been incorporated into it such as adding sustainable development and health to the purpose clause and adding issues of heritage energy conservation and efficiency the use of renewable energy water conservation efficiency the efficient use of material waste reduction and of course health into the principles of this bill. 
I notice that the National Party representative has suggested that this bill is overkill but the truth is that it is responding to an extremely serious problem which was investigated in the leaky buildings inquiry into poor building practices in New Zealand. It is not a small problem but a huge one as can be seen by the fact that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service’s information line has received an extraordinary 7623 calls since it was launched in September last year and the service has received 2273 applications since December last year. All of those thousands of applications came from people whose lives have in many cases almost been destroyed by the fact that they have bought homes that in some cases are worth virtually nothing. We heard from submitters who had literally lost all their life-savings and others who were living in homes that are damp and wet and who have serious health concerns. 
 This is not overkill. It addresses a very serious problem in New Zealand and for the first time it offers real consumer protection. However the Green Party still has real concerns about the energy efficiency standards in the building code and we sincerely hope that the bill will result in higher better standards of insulation and energy efficiency. Current insulation requirements under the building code are frankly minimal. They are simply minimum standards that need to be met and hardly contribute to building warm dry healthier homes. In Europe double glazing is the norm in most new houses as is thick insulation. But double glazing is not even part of our code. Surely it is simple common sense that new houses with large amounts of glass particularly in the colder areas of New Zealand should be double-glazed. Surely it is just common sense that we would have higher standards of insulation in New Zealand particularly in the colder parts because properly insulated homes mean warmer houses lower heating bills and less sickness. They require much less heating and much less energy and produce great energy savings not just to the householder but also to the whole nation so that instead of having to build dams to solve our energy shortages all we need are simple things like properly insulated homes. We need incentives to encourage people to properly insulate their homes. 
Less heating would also mean less smoke from wood fires and consequently less pollution which would mean meeting our Kyoto obligations faster. At present we have smog reminiscent of Victorian London lying over some of our major cities on cold winter mornings—notably Christchurch. Various regulations are being talked about but there is no mention of proper strengthened insulation and double glazing to help solve the problem. Properly insulated energy-efficient homes mean savings in terms of costs to the health system and fewer employee sick-days for businesses. 
If it were all added up and a proper cost benefit done it is pure common sense to require new home owners to build warm energy-efficient and well-insulated homes especially when one realises that spending a little up front will result in huge savings every single year that a house exists. If a house lasts for 50 or 100 years as it is supposed to—if it is not one of those leaky homes that may last only a few years—there will be huge energy savings. And of course it is so much more expensive to try to add insulation to an already built home than it is to build it in the first place. 
It is quite astonishing that in New Zealand half our houses are not properly insulated. A quarter of our homes have full insulation and a further quarter are partly insulated. That is despite the fact that research shows that people who live in well-insulated homes have much better health and children who live in uninsulated homes are twice as likely to experience asthma and take days off school because of colds and the flu. That is why we are deeply disappointed that a simple common-sense amendment that we put forward was rejected by the Committee—a requirement that if an existing home is undergoing a significant renovation the energy efficiency standards of the building code should apply to the alterations of that house. When one reflects that half our homes are not properly insulated one can see what a waste of energy what poor health and what problems that is creating. Surely it would be simple common sense to require that the energy efficiency standards apply to alterations. But no the Committee rejected that amendment. What stupidity! That will come back to haunt us. We will continue to waste energy and then instead of considering simple things we will go around trying to destroy our environment by building dams. What idiocy! 
Another common-sense proposal we had was that territorial authorities should be given the power to be able to ensure purely for reasons of resource conservation that they could add requirements in their geographic areas for new homes having to meet certain additional standards. But the bill does not permit them to do that. It is simple common sense as I said. In Christchurch they might be looking at greater insulation or double glazing. In areas where there are water shortages they might want to introduce mandatory water tanks. It is just simple common sense to give the local authorities the ability to require that for resource conservation only. I am pleased to see the Labour member Steve Chadwick agreeing with me and I therefore wonder why her party rejected our amendment which would mean so much in terms of improving energy efficiency. 
Finally I want to say talking about health that we are absolutely delighted that there is finally a requirement that the new building department will have to assess the health effects of new building materials. It is not just astonishing but almost beyond comprehension that none of the thousands of building materials on the market in New Zealand—many of which are known to off-gas things such as formaldehyde a known carcinogen and which use known toxic substances—are assessed for their health effects even though we spend 80 percent of our time indoors. We have just come up with a whole new national environmental standard for air quality but we are completely silent on indoor air quality. We were warned by various submitters that indoor air quality will be a major health concern in New Zealand and we are grateful that we will require at least under that provision that the health effects of building materials will have to be considered even though it is arguably 100 years too late. But the problem is what will happen to all of those existing building materials that are already emitting toxic fumes and in some cases are creating poisonous environments in our homes and in our buildings—another big issue that the Green Party wants to see addressed. 
We strongly support the registration of builders and we believe it is essential that we have builders who are properly registered. It is just bizarre that we have people building our homes who do not need to have any qualifications. We do have some concerns about whether owner-builders are being penalised by the provisions of this bill. They are not the ones who created the leaky building crisis—it was the developers. We also have concerns about the continuance of private building inspectors but overall despite our reservations we think the bill offers much greater consumer protection and we are happy to support it.