Homes need a WoF say builders

By KEVIN TAYLOR political reporter

The building industry says homes should have warrants of fitness just as motor vehicles do.

The Building Industry Federation proposal is a response to the leaky buildings crisis and the fact that the Government's Building Bill arises from concern about construction, chief executive John Pfahlert said yesterday.

Mr Pfahlert was presenting submissions to Parliament's Government administration committee about the bill, which replaces the Building Act 1991 and strengthens industry regulation including licensing of building practitioners.

The Government estimates the legislation will increase the cost of construction by about 2.9 per cent.

But the bill does not provide warrants of fitness for homes, although it carries over a Building Act requirement for warrants of fitness for commercial buildings.

Mr Pfahlert said such a system for homes would offer social and economic benefits including better health outcomes.

He suggested that the system should require owners to get an independent certificate showing their home has been adequately maintained before it can be sold.

"It seems to me that we put a huge amount of effort into the construction of houses, making sure that the regulatory system is up to scratch ... and then the regulatory system completely loses interest in what all subsequent owners do with it.

"Given that this is one of the most significant investments that most people make in their lives, we're suggesting that the time has come where people should actually be required to maintain houses to a certain standard," he said.

Consumers Institute chief executive David Russell, who also presented submissions to the committee yesterday, said the idea had merit but its cost needed careful assessment.

"It's worth exploring but ... there's got to be a cost-benefit in it."

Mr Russell told the committee the institute supported the legislation, but licensing of building practitioners should not be so onerous that costs to consumers rose.

Details of the licensing regime were yet to be determined, but it must maintain a balance between consumer protection and trade competency, he said.

"A licensing regime that is too restrictive has the potential to create severe problems for both the industry and consumers in that a shortage of licensed practitioners will lead to increases in prices for consumers."

Federated Farmers president Tom Lambie told the committee that the bill extended "way beyond" its goal of stopping leaky buildings.

He said it had serious flaws which would add to construction costs and promote inflation.

"This bill is about shoddy housing not being fit for living. It should not extend to all structures built for specific purposes such as storing hay or farm bikes."

He said the bill should be dumped, but if not, should exclude hay and implement sheds from the requirement that buildings over a certain value be built or supervised by a licensed building practitioner.

The expected $10,000 value should go up to a "much more realistic" sum.

The Building Bill

* Replaces the Building Act 1991.

* Dissolves the Building Industry Authority and creates a new, more powerful, regulator.

* Establishes a board to license and discipline "building practitioners".

* Provides for building inspector accreditation and product certification bodies.

* Requires all design and building work over a certain value (yet to be set but possibly $10,000) to be done or supervised by a licensed practitioner.