Focus turns to home approvals

By FRANCESCA MOLD political reporter

A parliamentary committee is urging the Government to decide whether to "dispense" with private building certifiers as part of its plan to clean up the industry and resolve the leaky homes crisis.

The Government Administration select committee yesterday made 63 recommendations in a new report on concerns about the weathertightness of homes.

The Government has 90 days to respond to the suggestions, which included the call for a review of private certifiers.

MPs on the committee said they were disturbed by allegations that "unscrupulous" developers and builders were exerting pressure on certifiers to pass substandard work.

There was also evidence that private certifiers were handing over "problem projects" to territorial authorities, which were compelled by legislation to pick them up.

While National MPs wanted to retain contestability in building certification, most committee members wanted the issue reviewed by the Government.

They said private certifiers would not be lost to the industry if they were dispensed with because they could find work with territorial authorities.

Inspections could also be contracted out to private certifiers by councils, as long as they retained sole responsibility for certification.

The committee said that if a decision were made to retain private certifiers, changes must be made to the Building Act to tighten inspection rules.

The parliamentary inquiry was held after a report commissioned by the Building Industry Authority suggested the leaky homes problem could cost up to $240 million in repairs.

The committee said yesterday that that report indicated the industry was in need of a "shake-up".

Its recommendations were aimed at making positive changes to the sector. While it recognised there had been systemic failures, the committee did not support a return to a prescriptive building regime.

In a minority view expressed in the report, National MPs said the committee had failed to deal with accountability issues at the heart of the leaking building fiasco.

There was evidence the BIA was advised of the problem as early as 1995, yet it and Internal Affairs Minister George Hawkins had failed to act. As a result, public confidence in the building industry had been seriously damaged.

The National MPs said the committee had focused on long-term solutions that would do nothing to stop leaky buildings being built now.

But Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel said the report was a solid body of work that was "broadly" a good fit with Government initiatives.

Many of the recommendations would be included in a report on the review of the Building Act, which she intended to take to Cabinet.

The report recommended the Government do research to determine the full extent of weathertightness problems.

It suggested research into the health effects of toxic mould and recommended the Government provide "assistance" to homeowners already affected.

The report proposed builders and developers be required to pay a bond so that consumers were protected if companies went into liquidation to avoid liability for shoddy work.

The committee said most of those who gave evidence during the inquiry regarded untreated timber, monolithic cladding and building design for NZ conditions as the key factors that had led to weathertightness concerns.

BIA chairman Barry Brown said the authority would release proposed changes to deal with new timber treatment levels and the use of cladding in the next few weeks.

The committee told the Government it was worth investigating whether all building elements, such as cladding and sealants, should have a lifespan of 50 years. At present cladding is required to last only 15 years and sealants and paints five years.

New Zealand Master Builders Federation chief executive Chris Preston said he was concerned that private building certifiers might be dispensed with.

Mr Preston did not see the benefit of getting rid of the certifiers, and said a return to the days when councils were in charge of certification would be a step backwards.

Recommendations

* Research needed into extent of leaky homes crisis.

* Consideration of a mandatory insurance scheme or builders and developers posting a bond to protect consumers from companies that liquidate to avoid liability.

* Developers may be required to give new-home owners a warranty guaranteeing compliance with Building Code.

* Examine whether all building elements should be required to have a lifespan of 50 years.

* Urgent investigation into external wall cladding systems, including an immediate appraisal of monolithic cladding.

* Decide on the use of treated timber and potential health effects.

* Decide whether to dispense with private building certifiers.

* Ensure all building inspectors are certified and develop code of practice for consents, including the requirement for a greater level of detail with applications

* Consider a fixed-fee regime for building consents

* Consider imposing penalties on builders for shoddy work

* Consider establishment of a consumer protection agency to vet complaints

* Building Industry Authority made responsible for the administration of the Building Act


* If you have information about leaking buildings,
email the Herald or fax (09) 373-6421.