Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : We have in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction, Shane Jones, who says that things in the building regulation area are going swimmingly well. With this bill he will further drive up the costs for councils, for ratepayers, and for building consents.

In debating these three clauses, I remind the Committee of the absolute mess this Government has made of building regulation. This bill makes a complete mockery of the Government’s commitments to improve home affordability, because its provisions will make it even more difficult for New Zealanders to afford homes. Let me just run through what is going on out there for ordinary New Zealanders who are trying to get their building consents.

Last week I tabled documents from the Rodney District Council that show that, under the Building Act, it now takes 110 pages of bureaucracy to have even the most minor of building consents go through. The Wellington City Council said that before this Government’s stupid Act, it used to take three A4 plans and 20 pages of documentation to get a building consent for a standard house. Under the new Act, it takes 12 A3 plans and 200 pages of documentation. This Minister has increased the bureaucracy tenfold as a consequence of the Act, and the costs are going through the roof. A fortnight ago my own Nelson City Council announced a 50 percent increase in building consent costs. The Minister of Housing across the road there, Maryan Street, said that it will cost only $100. What planet is the Minister of Housing on? Under this Government the cost of a building consent is thousands of dollars, and the Government is driving it up by thousands of dollars more.

Hon Shane Jones: Where’s the proof?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me take the Minister through the proof.

Hon Maryan Street: It’s $100.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask Maryan Street to tell me more.

Hon Maryan Street: $100

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will bet that Minister the best bottle of Nelson wine that the 50 percent increase in the Nelson City Council fees is a heck of a lot more than $100. But it is not just the Nelson City Council, I say to Maryan Street; the Dunedin City Council has announced increased costs of $1 million a year because of her and this Minister’s Act. I ask Maryan Street who in Dunedin City will pay the extra $1 million a year. Why does the member not take a call? The member is running for cover, she is running scared, because she knows in her heart of hearts that the Government has made a complete botch of this area of law.

What we see in this bill is the Government creating a huge Government bureaucracy, the Department of Building and Housing.

Hon Judith Tizard: You can’t have it both ways.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Judith Tizard would know all about building, would she not? Judith Tizard is part of the problem, because she and her stupid ministerial colleagues have hugely increased the cost of regulation in the building sector, and that increase is now being passed on to ratepayers. She and the Minister on their $240,000 a year salaries may not understand that those thousands of dollars of increased costs are hurting people who are desperate to get their own home, and are hurting ratepayers. What this bill does is dump on to the councils the costs of accreditation for the building consent process. What that means is that $4 million of Department of Building and Housing costs is being dumped on to the councils at the same time that this Government says it will make homeownership more affordable. Hang on a moment: the Government increases its charges by 50 percent, then says: “Oh, we care about housing affordability.”! In the last census we saw the biggest ever drop in homeownership since the census included the homeownership question.

Hon Shane Jones: It’s the market.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, Mr Shane Jones says it is just the market. Let me explain why it is not. When the Government puts up, as it does in this bill, the building consent fee by 50 percent, who pays that?

Hon Shane Jones: 101economics.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister says “101 economics” pays it. Actually, the building consent applicant pays it. I have another question for the Minister: in 2002 this Labour Government changed the provision for development levies and said that it would put the cost on to the developer; what does the Minister think the developer did with the cost? We have seen development levy costs increase from $8,000 a section to the latest figure of $26,000 a section.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Oh no!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Parekura Horomia says “Oh no!”; those figures are from Local Government New Zealand. This Government’s legislation resulted in the development levies going up from $8,000 a section to $26,000 a section. Who does the Minister think paid that increase? This Government changed the legislation, with the result that those fees increased; who do those members think paid that increase?

Hon Shane Jones: Infrastructure levy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Shane Jones says “Infrastructure levy.” Yes, and it has gone up from $8,000 a section to $26,000 a section. Could it possibly be that it has actually put up the price of sections? Could it possibly be that the developer passed that cost on? Or does the Minister think the developer community decided to absorb that extra cost of $16,000? Let me tell Mr Jones the figures. When Labour came to Government, the average cost of a section in New Zealand was $76,000. The cost of a section today is $186,000.

Hon Shane Jones: Supply and demand.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Who is cutting the supply? Whose Resource Management Act is making it slow and expensive to bring new sections on to the market? This Government’s Act. Who has amended the Resource Management Act to make it more difficult than ever to get sections through? Who has passed Building Act amendment after Building Act amendment that has driven up the cost? This Government has. I say to the Minister in the chair that the next time he wants to give a speech about housing affordability, he should have a damn good look in the mirror, because this Government’s resource management policies and building policies have made homes for average New Zealanders more unaffordable than ever in our history.

I challenge the Minister to say whether anything in this Building Amendment Bill will make homes more affordable for struggling Kiwi families. The answer is there is nothing. The answer is that it will make it worse. This bill is just another exercise in red tape, and is putting more costs on the building sector. My contacts within the building sector say that the industry is in crisis. The industry is so buried in red tape that more tradesmen are leaving New Zealand to go to Australia than at any time in recent history, and that is because of this sort of impractical, bureaucratic, red-tape legislation, which is doing so much harm to our building industry.

The National Party is saying that help is on the way. There is a mood out there in New Zealand for change, a mood against the bureaucratic, red tape, unaffordable sorts of policies that we see in this bill. The best hope for those young families who are striving to own a home is a tax cut, fair interest rates, and sensible reform of the Resource Management Act and the Building Act to make homes genuinely more affordable.

The last point I want to make is this. We know, and the record shows, that homes have become more unaffordable during the 8 and a bit years of this Government than they have been under any other Government on record. If members ask the Parliamentary Library for the statistics, they will find that this Government has the worst record on home affordability of any Government in New Zealand history. Why would we trust this Government to try to address that situation? This bill should be rejected. A very different bill is needed.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) : This bill will pass. Soon this bill will become a permanent feature of our legislative landscape. I must say that the last speaker is promoting a reduction in standards, a departure from accountability, and a rejection of any liability, so that those who are most vulnerable will not be able to rely upon the quality of the builder, the integrity of the council inspections, and the professionalism of the designers. That member is encouraging the Committee to open up this area of governmental activity holus-bolus to the surge of the market, with no regulatory oversight at all. That is actually the conclusion of his very loud but largely incomprehensible, unhelpful—

Hon Member: Irrelevant.

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, it is irrelevant, because the man will not be on the front bench for much longer. There is a far more talented group of people. They are slightly younger and more energetic, and they have a better appreciation of where the spirit of the New Zealand family is.

Of course the average New Zealand family, when they are approaching house purchase, are concerned about the cost of money and concerned about delay, but deep down they do not want to see a perpetuation of the misery, the agony, and the dread associated with the collapse of the building industry, which led to the leaky houses.

Let us go back to the pith of what lies underneath these reforms. Admittedly, the member is able to dredge up information from Nelson, although he has been challenged by my colleague Maryan Street as to the accuracy and the veracity of what he says. I do not actually get quite as worked up as Minister Street does. We generally dismiss what Dr Smith says because it lacks accuracy and it is used and distorted for a purpose for which it was not designed. But one cannot escape the underlying story that the amendments associated with this bill are designed to ensure that we close the gaps that led to the development of the leaky homes hangover.

There are people who are still associated with these problems. They are looking for councils to remain thorough, and they are looking for building practitioners to improve their level of professionalism and skill. Dr Nick Smith does not want that to happen. He wants to dress up that kind of activity as unnecessary bureaucracy and overshooting regulation etc., whereas, in actual fact, underlying the problem is the fact that people want to be in secure homes. People want to be confident that where there is a problem they can rely on the process to find those who have put them wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: 110 pages?

Hon SHANE JONES: Would the member say that homeowners should rely on something as skimpy as a small scrap of paper, the size, probably, of his intellectual pedigree, when they discover a problem and try to find someone to help them solve it?

One cannot walk away from that problem. I say to Dr Smith that one cannot walk away from the underlying challenge here, which is to ensure that the legislation improves the prospects of all Kiwis, whether they are buying an exceedingly expensive property or what we might regard as an affordable property, and to ensure that they can rely on the quality of the monitoring and the skill associated with the construction of the dwelling. Now, that is what this bill seeks to do.

This bill will pass. No doubt this is not the final iteration of the code and the associated regulatory framework for New Zealand housing. Far be it from me to say that this is the final word. But I must say, after going around and talking to people, that the insurance industry is waiting to see these reforms fully implemented, because councils cannot actually get any further insurance. They are not able to insure against the problem of leaky homes, which is what we have sought to remedy with the passage of this legislation.

It may be said that some councils are being over-zealous in the amount of paper they require. But we have a system of central government and sub-national levels of government. Those local government bodies, I say to Dr Smith, have at their disposal the ability to regulate the amount of paperwork they require, but they need a handsome, strong framework, which is what this bill produces.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : In the Minister’s contribution he questioned the figures I had used in my speech, and he used quite derogatory language to describe them. I seek leave to table the statement by the Nelson City Council, dated 28 February, which states that building consent fees in Nelson City would need to increase by 50 percent.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I seek leave to table the statement from the Tasman District Council about increasing its building consent fees by 36 percent in response to the Government’s building legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I seek leave to table the document from the Dunedin City Council announcing a 67 percent increase in the building consent fees in Dunedin City in response to the Government’s Building Act.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I seek leave to table the statement from the Wellington City Council that the forms required for a standard home under this Building Act have increased from three A3 plans to 12, and from 20 pages of documentation to 200 pages of documentation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

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 3,200 leaky homes, but actually there may well possibly be somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 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 30,000, which is anticipated as being the maximum between 15,000 and 30,000 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 $16,000. The fee costs on that were $3,600. 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 $50,000. That is not the cost of buying a section or putting in the infrastructure; it is the cost of just the rules and regulations.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : It is a pleasure to take a call and speak on the Building Amendment Bill, and to take up some of the points that members on this side of the Committee have well and truly canvassed. I start by saying that there is a degree of sympathy from this side of the Committee towards the Minister in the Chair, Shane Jones, who makes utterances and pontificates that this bill will become law. That may be the case, but at the end of the day the Minister should always remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There is another saying that is worth quoting at the moment. We have a situation that has become like an albatross around the neck of the Labour Party, and the accountability issue is that two wrongs do not make a right. In fact, we have had four wrongs here. We have tried to solve a problem, and in our effort to do so we have made the matter worse. I tell the Minister that the saying effectively means that once something has been made crooked it cannot be made straight. Sure, the bill might be passed into law, but it has been a huge disappointment.

Although the Labour Government started out by trying to solve the problem, the Government itself has become the problem at this stage of the legislation. It has lifted things to a level of unaffordability. It has lifted the level of bureaucracy and the size of the Department of Building and Housing to a level that has meant that the interface with local government has had to match that. When I went back to the Marlborough District Council, which is a unitary authority, council members said to me: “Colin, I bet you’re pleased that you’re not a Labour MP.” I asked why. They said: “If you were a Labour MP we would just about throw you out of here because of the amount of work that has been created for us around building consents, construction, and suchlike.”

Really, where we are today is that the Labour Government is in its final stages. It will be remembered for one major thing when it comes to what is traditionally known as being something that average New Zealanders aspire to, which is to own their own family home. I tell members on the other side of the Committee that they will be remembered for creating unaffordability. It is very, very sad, because the Government is not fully aware of that. There seems to be a conversation way up in the stratosphere and it is not connecting with the realities on the ground.

There are solutions, and I am certainly looking forward to the time when the National Party releases its policies, at a stage when we are confident they will not be stolen by the Labour Party, as have the other 14 policies already taken by the Labour Party.

It is quite interesting to see where we are at the moment with regard to the Building Amendment Bill after all the work, talking, and time. The Chair pointed out to us last time we addressed this bill that it has now been more than 4 months since we began the final stages of the bill. All we have been building under this Government has been growing bureaucracies. We have fewer houses being built, we have more costs being added, and we have fewer builders. Builders are leaving the country in disgust, and people are seeking other careers. There has been a reversal in affordability. The only dramatic growth we have seen is in the Department of Building and Housing, where we have seen a growth in bureaucracy.

It is hugely disappointing that we are confronted with the extra layer upon layer of bureaucracy, which is squeezing the very inspiration and aspiration out of young New Zealand families to afford their own homes. When we look at the whole range of policies that impact on the communities in our regions and throughout New Zealand we see that we are now confronted with some of the highest interest rates in the OECD. Not only do we have the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act impacting upon people’s housing costs but also the Labour Government putting on another layer of costs. The cost of $50,000 for a section is absolutely appalling.

When one stops and thinks about the young people coming out of universities and colleges, going into the workforce, and looking at the challenges and hurdles they have to get over one realises that it is a shocking situation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : What Government members do not understand is that New Zealanders have had a gutsful of a busybody Government that wants to interfere in everybody’s lives, as we are seeing more of in this Building Amendment Bill

Let me put some basic, common-sense questions to the Minister in the chair, Shane Jones. Does he think it is reasonable that the standard building consent form from the Rodney District Council for a person who wants to put in a drain is 110 pages long? The silence is deafening. Why can the Minister in the chair not come to the common-sense conclusion that every National member can come to, which is that it is unreasonable and it is bureaucracy gone mad? I put the question to the Minister again. Does he think it is reasonable that the building application standard pack for anybody in the Rodney District Council area wanting to get a consent for anything from a home to a drain to putting in a kitchen unit is 110 pages long?

Hon Shane Jones: Address the Rodney District Council yourself!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister in the chair, Shane Jones, says “Blame the Rodney District Council.” I have spoken to the Rodney District Council, and it says that this building legislation that has passed creates exactly that scenario. I have spoken to my own—

Hon Shane Jones: How?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me tell the Minister how. This bill sets up the charging process around the accreditation of building consent authorities. His department is going to talk to building consent authorities in every corner of New Zealand, and members of that department, as busybodies, will tell them what they have to put on their building consent application forms in order to be accredited. And that is how many pages it takes to meet that requirement.

Does the Minister know how many of those 110 pages have the Department of Building and Housing’s logo on them? Sixty-two! The Minister in the chair says we should blame the Rodney District Council, but 62 of the pages come from his Department of Building and Housing.

Hon Shane Jones: No.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I tabled them in the House last week. What is even better is that on those pages are the words: “New Zealand Government—the key to sustainability.” Can the Minister explain to me how every one of our 70,000 building consents each year that are covered under this Act—

Hon Shane Jones: How many?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have 70,000 building consents each year.

Hon Shane Jones: Sorry!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I say to the Minister that those are the numbers provided by Statistics New Zealand. I do not know which planet the Minister is on, but 70,000 building consents, at 100 pages each, means a pile of paper that is just over a kilometre high. Does he think that that is a reasonable set of building regulations for New Zealand?

I come to another question. This Parliament has set up the Commerce Committee inquiry into housing affordability. The Registered Master Builders Federation, which builds 65 percent of New Zealand’s houses, has told the housing affordability study that there is an extra $30,000 of unnecessary bureaucracy coming from this Government’s building regulations. That is not me saying it; that comes from a very detailed submission, in which the Registered Master Builders Federation sets out what that $30,000 is made up of. I ask the Minister in the chair whether he believes it is reasonable to have $30,000 of unnecessary building regulation costs being put on to the price of a new home. Again, the Minister is silent. I say to the Minister that for him to justify his $240,000 salary, his ministerial car, and his ministerial house he actually needs to be able to answer those questions, because his Prime Minister cannot shed crocodile tears about housing affordability when her own Minister is imposing those sorts of extra costs.

Let me tell members about my own experience. I applied in January for a building consent to put a solar water system on my house. I thought that it was a good thing to do; it reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Hon Shane Jones: A what?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A solar water heating system on my house. Do members know what I got back from the council? I received a note that asked whether I could please submit a plan telling the council where my fire alarms were. I asked the council why it had done that. I thought that putting some water on my roof was unlikely to increase the fire risk for my house. But the council said that the Department of Building and Housing requires anybody who lodges a building consent to automatically provide a plan of where his or her fire alarms are. I say to the Minister that that is the sort of mad bureaucracy that he is imposing on New Zealanders, and that is one of the reasons that he and his lot will get the arse later this year.

SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) : What a mess the Building Amendment Bill is. The bill states that licensed building practitioners must carry out, or supervise, restricted building work. What a neat way to put up housing costs! Tradesmen and carpenters will now have to pay $2,000 to become a licensed practitioner—not the $300 quoted by various bureaucrats. Where does the Minister think this $2,000 will go? It will be added to the price of a house. Two thousand dollars might not be much, but when one adds on hold-ups, the costs of getting permits, which are going up, and much other bureaucratic rubbish one sees that the price of a house is getting out of the reach of the middle to low income New Zealander.

We have seen some major problems in many areas in building. Councils are getting loaded up with bureaucratic demands from Wellington. We have to take the pressure off councils, otherwise permit charges will keep rising.

The Minister talked about leaky homes and what caused them. He has it all wrong. Tradesmen and carpenters did not cause leaky homes; the Building Industry Authority was the main party at fault. It is as simple as that.

Tradesmen and carpenters do not need to be licensed; we need better inspectors and better approval for materials. I believe that at the moment there are only three approved materials used in the building of houses. I say to the Minister that he should wake up and work out what the problem is first, and then he will be able to fix the problem.

DIY builders have not been clearly dealt with in these amendments or in building legislation. What can they do? The Minister should not tell me that they cannot build a house. Norm Kirk—Labour’s friend—would turn in his grave. He built his own house, of course. New Zealanders should be able to dream and achieve. They should be able to build their own house. If they build their own house, then any inspections by good inspectors should pick up whether they are doing anything wrong. Some of the best houses I have seen were built by DIY people—and they did a damn good job.

Again, I say to the Government that it should wake up, find the problem, and bring out a policy that fixes the problem. The Government has now had four goes at changing this bill, and it is still not fixed. I do not hold much hope of the Minister getting it right in the future. I say to Shane Jones that I would like to help him but he is in the wrong party. The Government should steer people and councils in New Zealand; they should not control people and councils. I say to New Zealanders that they should be patient; the National Party is coming. Subject closed.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.