Williamson Maurice: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliamson Maurice: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14974. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I moveThat the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. We have just been through the Committee of the whole House stage of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) and I was asked by one of the speakers to put a bit more time into what is in the bill. I do not intend to take a long time going through the bill but I do want to say that the most important ingredient in this bill makes it mandatory for a builder to provide a written contract for any work if it is over $20000. So it is not mandatory if you are getting your kitchen cupboards redone or you are getting a door to the laundry changed and so on but it is mandatory for any work that is more than slightly trivial.There are some really important ingredients. First of all the builder must provide to the consumer a checklist of what information is available to the client including their rights and their obligations under the building work process so that the consumer becomes well-informed. They need to disclose to the client information about their skills their work history and their business. They need to show to the consumer: “This is what I am in terms of a skilled qualified practitioner. This is the history of my work programme”—which the client can go and look at—“and this is what my business is structured like.” in terms of whether it might fold because it is so delicate. That is I think vitally important to the consumer. Finally the builder has to enter into an absolutely written contract so that it is actually watertight.I thank the House for processing this through but I think it is worthwhile covering just a couple of points especially the points raised by Metiria Turei from the Green Party about National’s deregulation of the building sector. These points that I want to make now are not to try to play silly games or anything; they are just straight factual. The Building Bill of 1991 was introduced into Parliament by Labour by the Hon Margaret Austin. She introduced it in 1990 because Labour thought that the whole building sector needed dramatic reform and to be absolutely honest National agreed with that. So when we became the Government in 1990 we finished off the bill by passing it through its third reading and making it become an Act. But it was not ours to start with.In fact I have got some wonderful quotes from George Hawkins when he became the Minister later on saying: “National don’t dare claim credit for that Act. That was ours. Yes it might have been passed when National was in Government but it was our bill which Margaret Austin introduced and Labour deserves the credit for it.” So be very careful about accusing National of being the deregulating Government that changed the legislation in 1991. We did not introduce that bill. We did not put it through its first few stages including through the select committee. We gave it its third reading only because we agreed with it. So it was a Labour Act.The second thing that I think is worthwhile covering is that the key cause for our leaky homes syndrome was not anything to do with this Parliament it was not anything to do with a Minister and it was not anything to do with a member of Parliament or anything else. There was an independent agency—completely independent of Ministers and this Parliament—called Standards New Zealand. It was Standards New Zealand after a lot of advocacy from the big timber companies Fletcher’s and Carters saying that treated timber had all sorts of arsenics carcinogens and all sorts of ghastly stuff that could leech into the builders’ skin and so on and that we did not need to use it any more. Interestingly if you read the report—because I have read it with great interest—it said that borer was no longer an issue. That is why we had mainly treated timber up until 1995 for borer. So Standards New Zealand—and not any Minister in any Government or any select committee or any member of Parliament was involved in it—decided to allow kiln-dried timber as an acceptable solution under the Building Act.In hindsight that proved to be a huge mistake and the country is paying billions.PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated it to be $11.2 billion already and it could be double that. So be very careful of laying the blame on any political party and be very careful of laying the blame on any Minister for the decision to go to untreated timber. It was no Minister even if at the time they had known it—I do not know who the Minister was in 1995 but I do not think they would have even known that it was an issue because Standards New Zealand just did it independently and announced that decision.Then finally Andrew Williams said that he does not like the idea of risk-based consenting—that is things that are at the very low end of the risk curve. These are things that are using stock standard products using stock standard design treated timber three-bedroom—he does not like the idea of that having a lot less scrutiny than something that is at the high end of the risk curve. Well I say to Mr Williams that we used to have the full scrutiny the 18 inspections the building consent process and the actual code of compliance on all those buildings.And did that give consumers protection? Did that save them from the disasters that they have had? So why he would be advocating that we need to stay with the full set of consents and inspections and the code of compliance when it did not give thousands of consumers the protection—why would you then say: “Well that’s what we should stay with.”?Andrew Williams: Of course it gave protection.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It did not give them protection and if he thinks it did there are tens of thousands of people out there now who are dramatically out of pocket and hurt by it.The whole purpose of it—and this was the whole direction of the review—was to say: “Why don’t we look at things that are at the low end of the risk curve? Why don’t we look at things that are almost a guarantee not to be an issue?”. And we have already done it with a thing called MultiProof where we have said to people: “Come and get your consent for the building once and only once and then when you go out and build multiple copies of it around the country you don’t need to keep going to the local authority for each individual version of that building.” which is a good move.But I also say to them that what we have got now—and it is another thing I do not think Andrew Williams is giving any credit for—as of March last year is the licensed building practitioners scheme. What that says now is that if you are going to build a house and be involved in either the structural integrity or the weathertight envelope of that building you actually have to be a qualified practitioner. You have to have been through a whole series of processes to evaluate your skills your talents and your qualifications and you then become a licensed practitioner. Up until March of last year all you needed to do to build a house was to have a cellphone a dog and a ute. Anyone—anyone—could have gone and built a house up until March of last year. Nolonger can you do that. You now have to be a qualified person or be supervised by a qualified person. So why would we then say to a qualified practitioner: “The regime is like it is. You’re qualified. We don’t need all the scrutiny but in fact we still think we should have bureaucrats pour over you for something quite so simple.”In the end I thank some of the Labour members for their words. I know they have not thought that the bill goes far enough and let me say that I think I agree with them. But it is better that we make some incremental improvements as time rolls by than try to find a way of solving all of the problems in one hit. I would really hope that we get the Law Commission to give a report about moving away from joint and several and moving to a proportionate level. So I am really happy to move that the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time.