Building Amendment Bill

I am pleased to be able to take a call on this Building Amendment Bill – and in doing so, I have been thinking about who will benefit from this legislation.

Although I know the House would be fascinated, I’m not going to spend any time today in discussing the 45 minor amendments and technical drafting corrections related to the future setting of accreditation fees.

The Bill makes minor changes to the Building Act 2004, changes which will improve the workability of the current regulatory framework.

Clause 10: Disability Provisions

But the particular focus that I want to spend some time on, is that related to Clause 10. This clause amends the content requirements for Project Information Memoranda to include the need to have a statement on how buildings are complying with the disability access provisions of the Building Code.

In essence, it reminds builders of the compliance requirements relating to access and facilities for people with disabilities.

It is more and more common that at any gathering of tangata whenua, there will be a group who are first off the starting blocks, the ‘walking frame club’.

I am talking of those of our people who are impaired or affected by conditions related to diabetes, gout, gangrene, hip fractures, hip and knee replacements, arthritis and other factors which could slow us down. Too much kina and paua I am told.

This Bill is a step in the right direction for the walking frame club.

For far too many tangata whenua with disabilities, the desire for independence is compromised by buildings and access points which are simply too difficult to negotiate.

The jutting out edges, the uneven surfaces, the obstacles that make access to a building difficult, so it is great that the bill requires project information memoranda to include a reminder about access provisions for disabled persons.

This is of particular interest to us in the Maori Party as we know that for tangata whenua adults, disability rates are higher than national rates.

One third of Maori aged between 45 years to 64 years reported a disability compared with one quarter of the total population.

The litmus test of any access provisions is if the target groups respond positively – and so it was pleasing to see that DPA New Zealand – the national assembly of people with disabilities, and CCS Disability Action, support the amendments to the Bill.

In summary, at this part at least Madam Speaker, Clause 10 demonstrates the need to show how buildings are complying with the disability access provisions of the Building Code. And that has to be good.

Amendment Process

The other key point I want to raise is that around the actual process that has been followed in this House, in supposedly improving the workability of the 2004 Building Act.

What we know is that on the basis of the thirty submissions received, generally there has been strong support across the relevant industry groups.

However, what we also know is that many of these thirty submitters raised concerns.

The problem is, that because there is basically no commentary in the select committee’s report to Parliament, it is very difficult to ascertain:

what issues have been addressed through recommended changes to the Bill,
what issues have been discussed but did not result in any recommended changes to the Bill, and
which issues haven’t been addressed at all.


Let me share an example.

Concerns were raised by Registered Master Builders Federation about the watering-down of the definition of restricted building work. Their view was that the weasel words made the building licensing scheme less practical and less certain.

An amendment was then recommended by the committee which would seem to address their concerns – but is difficult to actually ascertain its effect (or how it is qualitatively different from the current wording in the Act) given there is no commentary in the select committee report.

The amendment specifies that restricted building works is building work that is critical to the integrity of a building, for example its envelope and structure.

Madam Speaker, one would think the intention would be to make the definition more precise, yet the key words, critical and integrity, are not defined.

This is pretty ironic, given that the purpose of the Bill is to clarify the language and the rules relating to the licensing of building practitioners.

Madam Speaker, the people working in the building industry need straightforward information on what licensing is about and what it will mean for them – and it needs to be in terms that doesn’t leave any doubt.

In summary, Madam Speaker, let me build on the concepts I’ve raised.

Now as a non-builder, I’d be reliant on a licensed building practitioner to nail down a definition for me, which one could hammer home.

If the concepts of critical and integrity are part of the foundations of a building practice, concepts which have a clear trade meaning, one would have thought it useful to define them in the glossary to this Bill.

If the basic architecture of the Bill is floored and paints us into a corner because of the cracks in understanding, then no amount of putty applied during this late stage of the debate, will seal for it for us.

We in the House need to step up.

The concern for us, as a smaller party which doesn’t have membership on the Social Services Select Committee, is that we are not in a good position to evaluate whether or not the amendments suggested are in-keeping with the advice received.

Madam Speaker, we want a level playing field.

We would have thought the whole debate was a window of opportunity for framing some alterations to keep the builders building happily ever-rafter.

But it’s hard to see the wood for the trees in the final report of the select committee.

We have to, however, measure these issues up against the total design of the adjustments which will improve the safety of any future dam constructions, clarify the legal liability and accountability of licensed building practitioners and give more detail around building consent exemptions.

In drawing our comments to a close therefore, we in the Maori Party will support this Bill to ensure we have the appropriate diagrams and plans for success in the building and construction industry.