Labour picks holes in building bill

A bill revamping building laws does address who is accountable when things go wrong, Building Minister Maurice Williamson said today.

The Labour and Green Parties have said they will vote against the Building Amendment Bill (No 3), which has been reported back by Parliament's local government and environment committee.

In a joint minority report the parties agreed with concerns raised by submitters that the bill took a piecemeal approach and fuller reform was needed.

The parties said the bill shifted responsibility and accountability away from local councils and on to consumers and builders.

"The role of the building consent authorities is circumscribed and we believe this will inevitably diminish their liability," they said.

They accepted the full burden should not fall on councils but said consumers faced greater risk and few remedies if councils' responsibility was reduced.

"We think it is risky and unwise to legislate such a piecemeal set of measures at a time when the industry is facing a surge in demand from the rebuilding of Christchurch and the repair of leaky homes, a huge skills deficit, and uncertainty about whether there will be sufficient builders entering the new licensing scheme."

The parties said the bill should be withdrawn and more comprehensive reforms made.

Mr Williamson told NZPA he was surprised by the reaction and said the Government had incorporated feedback from major industry players into the bill.

He said the reform was too big for one law change and a subsequent bill would require mandatory written contracts for work over $20,000, and make companies outline what skills and financial banking they had and be open about prior disputes.

This bill better defined accountability, he said.

"It's just a bit rich after nine years (under Labour) of builders walking away from any of the responsibilities or accountabilities they had, this bill actually goes a long way to defining what those are."

He said under joint and several liability all parties could be held to account and so that meant councils were legally bound "no matter what".

"The No 3 bill I think is a very strong attempt to get a clear definition of those accountabilities and who is responsible for what and how they are going to be held accountable for their part of it."

During the select committee process both builders and designers had complained the bill shifted accountability too far in their direction.

"They've all got their own views about how to make sure their particular part of the sector is exempt from being held to account," Mr Williamson said.

The minister said he was sympathetic to the opposition parties' call for mandatory home warranties and the introduction of proportionate liability, but these were difficult to do. Warranties only worked if the company behind them did not fold and proportionality could see those at fault close up shop and leave the consumer with no avenue to follow.

"At least with local councils being involved with the process when you found a leaky home and all the developers and the builders and the designers are all gone you could at least still hold a last man standing to account through joint and several."

Mr Williamson said another change being implemented, requiring builders doing work involving load bearing walls, structural integrity and weather-tightness to be licenced, would provide "powerful accountability".