Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill

Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill Committee of the whole House Part 1 Amendments to Building Act 2004, and Schedule 1 CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill. We begin debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 13—“Amendments to Building Act 2004”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, members of the committee of the whole House. I will just acknowledge that previous discussion and debate at earlier stages have been very useful to my understanding, along with the discussion and debate at the select committee, whose changes we have the benefit of. I look forward to proceedings this evening. Arena Williams: Madam Chair! CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Um— Arena Williams: Arena Williams. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams—I’m so sorry. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. My first question to the Minister for Building and Construction is around his two Amendment Papers (APs): are Amendment Papers 632 and 578 the only amendments that we can expect from him in this committee stage? The reason I ask is because the committee considered a couple of issues extensively and delved into things that were missing from the proposed definition of self-certifiable work. The committee received correspondence from the Minister that he intended to seek Cabinet approval to expand the scope of the scheme, and committee members around the Chamber will be expecting, or at least hoping for, some explanation of how regulations might be amended to define self-certified work more in line with the committee’s view that some particular things should be included in it. Because this was a hard-working committee that hoped for a permissive approach to self-certifying work, buying into the Government’s agenda to improve the way their plumbing is delivered in a cost-efficient way, the question then became for the committee: what are those things that should be included in the definition? We heard from the Minister that there were three things that were his considerations. The first was whether the work was within, or related to, a building of no more than three storeys and didn’t contain apartments. The second was that it was designed to an acceptable solution or verification method. The third was that it was not within a shared tenancy wall or didn’t penetrate a firewall. The second of those is the important one when we are looking at his amendments and there is no indication that he has brought what is needed to be tabled as an amendment which would allow for things like on-site systems. I have some more questions for him relating to on-site systems, but before we get started, that is my question. Are these two APs all that we will see tonight? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:07): Yes, I don’t intend to table any more Amendment Papers in my name on behalf of the Government. The member makes a good point about the discussion that took place at select committee among its members, but, of course, also reflecting some interest and indeed concern from the sector that the scope of the scheme might be too narrow. Of course, we want a broad scheme to enable it to be worth the while of plumbers to register for it and to pay levies into the self-funding of the system. The reason that we don’t have all the detail in front of us in this primary legislation—which is, of course, amending the Building Act but also the bespoke Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act—is because a lot of that detail will be reflected in regulation. In the spirit of helpfulness, I will provide for the member that it’s my intention to have Cabinet-approved regulations that would have an expanded scope relative to the scheme that was brought forward first at first reading and up to and including the present time, whether through on-site systems that are enabled or acceptable solution or verification method, and the first named of those would include pumped water systems, irrigation systems, grey water reuse systems, solar water heaters, and retention and detention tanks, which is a pretty broad swath of different types of plumbing that one might do and be able to self-certify. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:09): That’s great. I’m very happy to hear that. The question then to the Minister for Building and Construction is: does that not need a change in the primary legislation, given that on-site systems haven’t been included in the initial scope of work because they’re not designed to an acceptable solution (AS) or verification method (VM) standard, where an AS or VM is currently available, so that designation would be a new designation? The way that I understand it is that it’s not available to him to simply make regulations under the empowering provision. I think that—for the benefit of the committee, section 172 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006—to be able to enable pump systems like he is describing and exactly the ones that we should be considering, it was the understanding of the committee that a legislative change would need to be made and that it couldn’t be made at the regulatory level. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (20:10): I thank the Minister for Building and Construction for being engaged. I understand that other members may have questions on other aspects of clauses 3, 4, and 5. I did have a question on clause 6, if I may. In fact, I have a couple of questions here. When you’re referring in clause 6, new subsection (1A), to the building consent authority granting a building consent, I just was interested in the sort of consents they give for self-certification endorsed plumbers or drainlayers and whether they will be able to, actually, make charges that will cover the correct recording of these matters against the building in the information management systems that they may hold. I also have a question—I’m not sure that the charges are covered specifically in this or whether you have any expectations on how building consent authorities might make those charges different. In some ways, it should be simpler if it’s self-certification, but, on the other hand, the risks—which is why we’re not wholeheartedly supporting this—are also bigger, so I just want to know a little bit about the charging. I also want to know about the building consent authority, which is usually but not always a council, in new subsection (1A)(b). It says, “the building consent authority is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the work is self-certifiable plumbing or self-certifiable drainlaying”. Now, would those reasonable grounds include an inspection? Would they include checking that the plumber that said they were self-certified is self-certified? Do those building consent authorities have access to the register that would be held by the board, or do they have to make an application to the board to find out whether the plumber or drainlayer is actually self-certified? It’s all one to say that you are, but are they really? I have a few more questions later on. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to clause 4—I’m at the top of page 5—the definition of “self-certifiable plumbing” is one that the committee spent an extraordinary amount of time on. We heard many, many submissions on this, and so Labour is supporting the initial definition—and this is a bill that Labour supports—but it is important that we get this right and that we understand from the Minister what is included in the self-certification. It’s great to hear that on-site systems, grey water, and solar hot water are included. The next, probably, biggest ticket item that submitters wanted to make sure was included in the definition was light commercial. The example came to us from a business owner who owned a bakery. That person had a very small kitchen, which was very similar to a household kitchen. It had a sink, and it had a dishwasher that you would find in an ordinary residential home. It did not have any special drainage, and it was a small area. This submitter impressed upon the committee that this would be simple plumbing work, and, in many cases, this person would be able to conduct some of the plumbing work themselves, but because of the way that this legislation seems to apply, they would not be able to have self-certified plumbing of a qualified plumber in that same situation. We’ve heard from the Minister that the draft regulations will look to expand the scope of the bill, but the issue of no commercial-residential distinction being provided in the bill makes this quite unclear. If it is entirely left to regulation, then it’s quite hard to know, from the public’s perspective, what is in and what is out, especially when you have these light commercial kitchens, which look and feel very similar to residential kitchens. We have significant change in regulation, from the Minister for Regulation at the moment, which is enabling these household kitchens to operate much the same way as a small baker on the side of the street. The definition that the committee kicked around—kicked the tyres on—within the low-risk commercial space was also buildings that were under three storeys; where plumbing and drainage systems didn’t serve multiple buildings, which would be important in a commercial context; where facilities didn’t include high-use commercial kitchens, industrial laundries, or medical facilities; and the plumbing drainage systems did not involve design-specific backflow prevention, grey water reuse, or rainwater harvesting. Has the Minister considered in his definition of self-certifiable plumbing, firstly a distinction between self-certifiable plumbing in a residential context and self-certifiable plumbing in a light commercial context, and then whether he is empowered, through his regulation-making power—which is new and the select committee has not been able to consider—whether scope will include some of this light commercial use? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:15): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank both members for their recent questions. The points made by Arena Williams reflect, obviously, her clear understanding of important discussions at the select committee level, and I suspect that we were approached by some of the same key stakeholders with some of the same points. In terms of work that might be described as simple—or perhaps “routine” would be a more respectful term; I’m sure that I would be able to make an apparently simple plumbing task complex were I to attempt it. We’re into self-certification, but let’s not get carried away. I think for what you might call “light commercial work” or “commercial work of a low-risk nature”, there’s nothing in the primary legislation that would preclude it. In the spirit of helpfulness, I can offer to the member that it’s my intention that we be as enabling as possible, including in the commercial realm, and up to three storeys—agnostic as to being commercial or residential in nature, given that, according to my understanding at least, the plumbing work itself isn’t necessarily different. That would seem to be a distinction that I’ve originally proposed: that that wasn’t particularly meaningful or necessary. In terms of the questions posed by Celia Wade-Brown—and again, I’ll acknowledge in this context, as I have in previous Building Act matters, that as someone who was responsible for a territorial authority and within that or alongside it, a building consent authority (BCA), she rightly asks important questions about lines of risk and responsibility. I will say, actually, that, if anything, we’re expecting the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board to do the heavy lifting. The nature of the checking, to the extent that it’s not entirely a trust model—it’s a high-trust model—is that we’re relying on the verification that that board is able to undertake to determine a person who is signing off their work as self-certifiable in the first instance and then, second, that it’s been correctly conducted in accordance with the building code; as opposed to having the work itself inspected from start to finish by the building consent authority. That’s really the thrust of the changes, and so from that flows the answer that inspections will not be required—or indeed allowed—on the part of the building consent authority. If you think not only is that an exercise in saving time and energy and therefore cost and thereby enhancing productivity for a famously unproductive sector—taking the building sector as a whole—I also think from a BCA’s point of view, it’s important that they don’t attract liability for being involved in a process only as a half measure, as you might say, not having had the opportunity to reject an application or a set of plans, but on the other hand, being required to inspect the work as it was taking place. We’ve put a pretty clear line there, I think, in terms of self-certification being exactly that. Finally, the point that Celia Wade-Brown makes regarding charges or levies that will be paid into the scheme, effectively it should wash its own face, so to speak, over time, but we will make provision for funds that are currently available to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board—hereafter “the board”—to be available to be applied for the purpose of maintaining and operating the scheme, including setting up IT systems in order for the work and the workers to be verified. We think it’s important they’re well-resourced to do that work, given how much weight we’re placing upon them to conduct audits and other ways of quality assurance. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to acknowledge that the Minister for Building and Construction is a very engaging Minister and certainly, with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, did respond to some of the issues— Arena Williams: Hard-working committee! TANGI UTIKERE: —that helped that hard-working committee get to the point where it was. Grant McCallum: You’re on that committee, are you? TANGI UTIKERE: I am on that committee—and I’m hard-working. I just want to pick up on one aspect in the select committee’s report—and the Minister has touched on this. I am somewhat surprised, a little bit, because a big chunk of the committee’s report was talking about the fact that the committee thought about the possibility of scope widening; that the Minister himself had acknowledged that this was something he was looking into. The way the committee has structured its report back is on, I think, an assumption that, through the committee of the whole House stage, there might be some movement in this space. I acknowledge in the committee’s report that it does say “may”, so that’s not a given, but I’m just wondering whether the Minister can provide a little bit more certainty to address the issues that have been raised by the select committee. It’s a little bit unique in the sense that the committee has made some commentary on this—on the assumption that some of the issues might be mitigated by a particular course of action that we’re in right now. We haven’t seen that course of action come to fruition, but does the Minister have any indication around the timeliness of this in terms of—he talks about taking matters to Cabinet. Sure, that may or may not be a particular outcome, but I think it would help the committee just to understand—the Minister obviously accepts that it’s an issue. I take the point that there are sector-wide considerations at play here, but does he have any sort of indication as to timeliness to address some of the issues that have been raised in this report by the committee, particularly related to the commentary on page 4 of the report? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the member is a hard-working member of a hard-working committee—self-described but nevertheless, I’m sure exactly that. Arena Williams: Correctly described! Correctly described! Hon CHRIS PENK: Correctly described too, I’m assured by one of the relevant members. In terms of timing, I think it’s a fair ask given the circumstances of the high-trust model, I suppose, that operated between the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the Minister for Building and Construction, who has undertaken—I have undertaken—to continue to work alongside or parallel with the primary legislation. I do want to take this chance to say that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has done an excellent job on this aspect, as with all aspects of the bill. In fact, that team has done great work, I believe, across a whole heap of regulatory reform in the building sector. More particularly, having been doing that work to understand and bring forward detail in this space that is more enabling, if we were to describe it in general terms, the long and short of it is that the bill, we expect and hope, will come into force on 30 June of this year, with the powers to make secondary legislation as part of that and with the systems in place for the scheme to go live in August or September of this year. If you were to work backwards from that, in terms of Cabinet decision-making around the regulations—and, ultimately, of course, the Governor-General to sign those off—that would suggest to me that within sort of the next two or three months at the latest, we would need to have progressed those and brought them forward. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (20:22): I move, That debate on this question now close. Hon Matt Doocey: That’s right! CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thanks for the advice, Mr Doocey. Arena Williams. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:23): Madam Chair, thank you. I’m at the top of page 5, in the last section, in that grey box at the top—“self-certification endorsed plumber or drainlayer” definition. I want to ask the Minister for Building and Construction whether his definition here should and can include requirements for mandatory insurance. He will not be surprised that I am interested in this, and I was not able to convince the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that this belongs here, but because we are supporting the Minister on this bill, he will indulge me for trying to convince him that it does belong here. This is something that has come up time and time again with submitters. The industry also points to this as something which is incredibly important, and one of the places you could include it is in the definition of who can be considered to be a self-certifying plumber—would be, essentially, a plumber who held not only the compulsory sign-off from the board but also held a minimum of $5 million in public liability insurance and compulsory professional indemnity insurance. The reason it is so important is that this bill should be seen as one of several measures that the Government is taking to speed up not only the occupational licensing side but the permissiveness of our building systems. It is important that we make these measures on the supply side, but this is one area—insurance and who carries the can when things go wrong—where we must do those things at the same time or else we will have a regime which, on 30 June, will kick in and where mums and dads who own homes are required to present a lot of information which does not give rise to liability in other parts. I will have other questions for the Minister on where those parts give liability for the mums and dads, but this is the definition of who can operate within this permissive regime. They are not required to hold insurance at the moment, and they should. The reason why we should require that holding of insurance—whether it is a special kind of insurance, which the Government has drawn a regulatory box around and required insurers to get in, or whether it is a product which we give a long run-in for the industry to be able to source from overseas, whatever that is, there is a really important step here which is missing, where we need plumbers to be able to have confidence that the result of the industry are going to be held to this. This is something which is supported by two of the professional associations within the plumbing industry. It is also supported by those industries that represent architects and engineers within the system who will have a role in signing off, because a requirement for mandatory insurance that goes within a self-certification framework makes that self-certification framework more robust and it is an ordinary part of that kind of occupational licensing regime. As the consenting system moves towards proportionate liability, this will also become more important. That is an aspiration for the Minister. It is one I share too. I encourage him to consider how we can bake that into the system now. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the member Arena Williams and I are on the same page when it comes to wanting a more enabling system but have consumer protections that back that up, such that a vulnerable consumer—that is to say a homeowner, in most cases—would not be left bereft if a professional were not to complete his or her duties in a way that they should. I’m pleased to advise the member that part of the way that we will ensure that is not only that, as she correctly describes, the boards will have the ability to determine who is able to do work as a plumber or drainlayer, in the first case, as they already can, but also to enable them to be endorsed for self-certification, but, further, that that endorsement might rely on having a specific set of insurances or equivalent guarantee-type mechanisms. It seems, to me—and I’m trying to find the section number within the bill, but it might be new section 51B inserted by clause 17, in which case, it’s Part 2, but, with the Chair’s indulgence, I’m happy to respond now and save us time later that the bill will require self-certifiers to meet their potential civil liability. Now, there’s a number of different ways that could be expressed or enabled, and that seems, to me, a level of detail that’s more appropriate within regulation, partly because it is quite detailed, by its nature but also it might change over time. It might be that insurance schemes become available or unavailable over the passage of time, and heaven forbid that we should come back to the House and repeat this exercise every time that takes place. The final point I would make is that there’s a bit of mitigation in the system whereby this is an opt-in scheme. I did hear feedback from some sectors within the plumbing and related sectors that they should be a compulsory scheme—that is to say, not a matter of opt out or, even, opt in—but it seems, to me, if we have a scheme, whether it’s a degree of choice, then it might be that a plumber who is unable to obtain insurances to satisfy the requirements of the legislation, the regulations, and the board would nevertheless be able to do the work, but they would need to have that work checked by the council. In that sense, there would be, as I say, an optionality around whether it was self-certifying or just still to be consented in the usual way. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (20:28): Thank you. If I could just go back to clarify something in clause 6. I understand what the Minister for Building and Construction is saying about the scheme washing its face between the board and the inspections, and so forth, and how that might work, but what I didn’t hear him say, so I didn’t quite understand, was that there is a cost to managing the information side on the building consentauthority. I wasn’t really clear whether that fee would be paid by the plumber or by the homeowner or by the overall architect, or what, and whether that would be just the same as if they had applied for an ordinary building consent, whether council does do the inspection. Has that been thought through? Thank you. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:29): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member Celia Wade-Brown for seeking the clarification. The building levy, as already exists as a mechanism within the Building Act, is available for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment to help fund the operation of the Building Act so that purposes of the Building Act can be met. It seems to me that the workings of the board would fit within that pretty clearly and that indeed is the basis of some of the one-off, upfront initial costs that would be required to establish such a system. The main element of self-funding thereafter, though, would be the payment of fees—I suspect they’re probably called, rather than “levies”, but in any case, the payment made by eligible plumbers and drainlayers and gasfitters to the board for the work to do its work, that regulates that profession, would be the basis of that ongoing funding. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (20:30): I’m sorry— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a supplementary? CELIA WADE-BROWN: It is, Madam Chair. I’m sorry, I absolutely understand how the board is funded; what I’m not hearing is how is the council funded, if the council’s a building consent authority, for their administrative side of things. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:31): Just in the usual way that it is currently, would be my understanding. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:31): A brief question to close out questions on clause 4: is the definition of “self-certifiable plumbing” going to exclude the granny flats regime, or do those schemes work alongside each other? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:31): Thank you. The member Arena Williams makes a good point in raising that there is an already an aspect of self-certification in this brave new world of trying to be more enabling but also, you know, with a responsible attitude. Arena Williams: This abundant world! Hon CHRIS PENK: A world of abundance, indeed. In the so-called granny flats regime, it is the case that the work can be signed off, carried out by a responsible, professional, duly registered and so on, and so that will very much operate alongside this scheme which is broader—it’s broader in the sense of the type of work that will be covered, but deeper or more narrow in the sense that it relates, of course, just to plumbers and drainlayers, as opposed to electricians and gasfitters, who can already self-certify—and licensed building practitioners who will be able to do granny flats. But, at the moment, not much else other than in the usual consenting pathway. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have a question on clause 4, this is the definitions part, and it’s the last one, which is “self-certification endorsed plumber or drainlayer has the meaning given in section 4 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006”. This is something that has been inserted post – select committee. The question for the Minister for Building and Construction is: when one looks at section 4 of the Act, the definition as outlined there is not easily contained there. So just some advice, and it doesn’t have to be right now, but it would be helpful to understand where within that 2006 Act that the “self-certification endorsed plumber or drainlayer” definition actually exists. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:33): While the Minister of Building and Construction considers that, let me move on to clause 5. This is quite a gutsy change from the select committee. Clause (5)(1), section 45 amended, new paragraph (bd)(ii), as it relates to changes that are intended to speed up the process from when a plumber is giving the certification, in reality that is likely to be an engineer, a builder, or an architect, and that was something that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee heard quite a lot of commentary on from submitters. My question is at new subparagraph (ii)(B)—so now that the definition is inclusive of the architect, the chartered professional engineer, or the licensed building practitioner, and clause 5(2) applies—so I just want to understand the professional indemnity of those people now giving the certification. This regime is designed so that a plumber could give a certificate and that they would not be able to be held to an unreasonable standard of proof and in a way which would slow down their ability to be able to give that certificate to a building consent authority. But engineers, architects are a bit different from plumbers; they have different sorts of professional liabilities and different sorts of professional insurances. Can the Minister just clarify for us—we didn’t have the benefit of a device on this at the select committee—how he intends for that kind of wider group of people giving this sort of notification to a building consent authority. Does the normal level of professional liability apply to the architect, given that this was not intended to excuse an architect from the normal professional standards that applied to them? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:35): I move—no! Tempting! I’m just creating a rod for my own back and answering questions at the same time. Arena Williams asked a very reasonable question about what I would call proportionate liability. We’ve indicated outside this particular scheme and outside this particular primary legislation that we intend—as a Government, and with the support of anyone who’s minded to come along the journey—that responsible building professionals as well as building consent authorities will be responsible for their own work. As part of that, again, under the heading of consumer protections, we would have design professionals—being architects and licensed building practitioner designers and also engineers—holding professional indemnity insurance. So I hope that helps the member to understand the kind of requirement that we’d have in that space. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:36): Sort of, but the question applies even without any move to proportional liability and, as the current situation stands, with joint and several liability. Perhaps I can ask a slightly different question about clause 5(2). The phrase that the declaration provided doesn’t create any liability in relation to any matter to which the declaration relates. Obviously that doesn’t include fraud—quite obviously—but then there is a question about, well, if professional recklessness is meant to be excluded by those words, that makes sense in the plumbers context, but it doesn’t make sense in the engineers context. So my question is about elsewhere in the Minister’s own amendments, he has used the words “on reasonable grounds”. Are you meant to read in reasonableness to new section 45(1A)(b), inserted by clause 5(2), especially where it applies now to registered architects, chartered professional engineers, and licensed building practitioners? All three of those professions have a level of professional conduct liability and expectation from the public that recklessness won’t be something which would be acceptable in their professional conduct. Because we’re on board the happy journey, the happy vision that the Minister has for a more permissive regime for plumbers when that plumbing work risk is low, but where you have, say, a professional architect signing off on more bespoke designs, you immediately get into the situation where you’re a bit broader than that. It would be useful just to sort of understand what the situation is under the current regime of joint and several liability if you have an architect who’s submitted a form that says it’s all good. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d still be keen to understand from the Minister if there’s any guidance on clause 4. OK, great, thank you. I want to just ask the Minister about the threshold for the declaration, because this is a change that has also emerged. It was a statutory declaration and now it’s a declaration that can be captured in terms of the question as to whether liability exists or not. When we talk about a statutory declaration, that in itself is of a particular nature and has a particular threshold, as opposed to a declaration that might perhaps lend itself into future audits that we’ll come to in the not too distant future around what that might look like. So just wanting to understand the change away from a statutory declaration to a standard declaration and whether he’s satisfied that that would still serve as a deterrent, or is it actually seeking to maybe expedite—which is an intent behind this bill, of course—things and therefore not having to try and find a lawyer or a justice of the peace or someone like that. But the consequences for doing things wrong still sits there and exists. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:39): Thank you. To respond to the latter question asked by Mr Tangi Utikere, he’s right, of course. Notwithstanding that the statute might refer to a declaration different from a statutory declaration. He’d know that in his capacity as a justice of the peace, I think, as well as a member of Parliament. But, yeah, the general flavour of what we’re trying to do here and the intent, as he’s quite rightly noted, is, of course, to be as expeditious as possible. We don’t want to simply substitute one category of paperwork with the council with having to see a lawyer. Not that there’s anything wrong with having to see a lawyer, of course, apart from the obvious. But the first question that he asked I have now found the answer—in fact, it can be found in Part 2. So I regard these as runs on the board for later. Whereby, at section 15 of the Act, also there we see section 4 amended—that’s the interpretation section of the Act as it now stands—so that self-certification endorsed plumber or drainlayer means a person endorsed as a self-certification endorsed plumber of drainlayer. I know that sounds quite self-referential—wait for it—under section 51D, which in turn one can find elsewhere in Part 2. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:40): OK. Madam Chair, thank you, and I thank the Minister for his answers on this. Introducing the committee to the concept of signature sales, which is something that the select committee delved into not only with the industry but also with affected homeowners who had been through this experience. This relates to my questions for clause 7, new section 89A, and clause 9(2), amended section 94(3A). Signature sales, a brief run-through, is when plumbers or drainlayers might sign off on a series of work with never having the intention to complete that work, so the assessment is the thing that is the professional service rendered. It is an expensive way of, essentially, giving an opinion for the consumer because they have paid for it. But then they may or may not lodge the paperwork with the council, but they don’t intend to be able to complete that job. It was a growing problem when there was a huge demand for plumbers during the 2021 to 2022 period. It’s not something which is prevalent in the industry right at the moment, but we do know that coming for the plumbing industry is a period where they will not be able to renew their workforce, so there will be a huge demand for plumbers and this might re-emerge in the near future. So this is a real-world problem that the Minister’s new section 89A inserted by clause 7 seems to exacerbate, because this section puts a high onus on the homeowner to report to the building consenting authority any change of workmanship of work that has already begun to be undertaken. But members who are following closely, like Grant McCallum, will see that at clause 5 we have sort of enabled a system where, if anything is wrong on the document from the original plumber who has lodged that document that there is no punishment, because that is a go-fast scheme. So my first question really is: is it appropriate still that there is this high onus on homeowners when we know that we might be adding a little bit of fuel to this fire where these signature sales are a practice in the industry which we know professional bodies have been trying to stamp out? This was a feature of, say, the drainlaying industry for some years. Do we think that it’s still appropriate for this high onus on the homeowner when there is now not a sort of corresponding punishment or corresponding disincentive at the plumbers level to make sure that their notice to the homeowner and the information that they provide to the homeowner is correct? Because it would seem as well that putting somebody’s name and that was the wrong name on the original certificate, most ordinary people would think that that was the fault of the person who had prepared the document and not the person who was the homeowner who had received the document. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We are getting close. This is getting quite— ARENA WILLIAMS: Following on. I’ll just remind members—for those who are following closely, like Grant McCallum—we are up to clause 7. I’m moving on to clause 9, which is a good clip. We only have a few more clauses after that till the beginning of Part 2. So bear with us. It’s important that we get this right. The clause 9 question that I have is there’s now a corresponding punishment if the owner fails to provide the building consent authority with a certificate of compliance. The failure is sufficient reading for the building consenting authority to refuse to issue the code of compliance certificate. The problem there is that at the code of compliance stage the work has been done, the plumber has gone, we are entering the home hopefully in a couple of days, and then a homeowner is faced with this real problem where the code of compliance is not going to come through. I agree that we need, at some point in that system, a hard cut-off for when the papers need to be lodged, but at that point it is all the fault of the owner. In a situation where, say, you’ve got a new home buyer who’s built off the plans, that could have been six months prior and they’re now looking at a code of compliance which is going to be held up because of it. That is time, it is money, it is heartache for people who are trying to move into the home that they have long looked forward to. The question is really not about whether we should have a hard stop; it’s whether the hard stop is in the right place, given his changes at clause 5(1)(ii) and at (2), new section 45(1a). Taking away some of those requirements for plumbers to meet the bar will then mean that there is even more of an incentive for homeowners—well, even more high pressure, high stakes, for homeowners—to take on those responsibilities. It doesn’t seem like that is the appropriate place where most New Zealanders would think the responsibility lay. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:46): With apologies to my colleague, who I know is keen to speak on the bill, I think the member’s point, if I understand it correctly, is that a plumber might fail to complete his or her work and that would leave the homeowner in a difficult situation. Of course, she’s right that that is a situation that could arise already, but I think, in terms of clause 9(1) of this bill and the point that’s amending the existing legislation, it’s really the fact that a certificate of compliance must be accepted by the building consent authority (BCA) if issued by the plumber or drainlayer. I don’t see that there’s a connection there between the lack of work or, for that matter, the certification of that work that might be undertaken by the plumber as compared with the BCA’s obligation to accept it. Of course, that’s for the protection of the BCA, because they are not required—indeed, they’re not able—to look behind the work that’s done in the certification, and, therefore, they can’t be liable, and along with them, of course, all the ratepayers who would otherwise underwrite all the risk. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister questions about what is, effectively, struck-through clause 10. This wasn’t in the bill, and now it’s proposed that it is, basically, gone. This is really relating to the role that the chief executive might play, and it is around the monitoring of not just an application but how effective things are under Part 2AA. Now, it’s one thing to strike that through and perhaps replace it somewhere else—and we’ll get to this in Part 2, about the audit opportunities—but when we look, what’s being struck through here is actually not around the auditing; it’s actually around the monitoring of the impact on the performance across the building sector, in terms of the business that they do. That’s quite different from what might appear in Part 2. I don’t want to traverse this at the moment—we’ll get to that in time—but, Minister, are you comfortable that the strike-through in terms of the role that the chief executive was tagged to play, in terms of monitoring things, is not going to be lost in terms of in Part 1, with the proposal for it to be struck out? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:48): Thank you. In answer to the question, yes, I’m satisfied that the appropriate oversight will be able to be provided by the board as opposed to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just on the last part of Part 1, and forgive me if I’m on the wrong part, but I think this best relates to the definition of the self-certified plumbers. Look, I have a question on whether it should be in legislation or whether it should be in regulation for the implementation of a code of ethics for plumbers; that is something the committee spent some time on. It would just be good to close out the section with a comment from the Minister on whether it should be in the legislation, given that it faced some scrutiny from some quarters but, generally, was supported well by the industry. This is something that should be elevated to apply all the time. It should be a mandatory part of the practice of being a plumber or drainlayer in New Zealand—having a broad-based code of ethics that everyone can stick to, given this is a consumer-facing role with some degree of expertise and an imbalance of power. Like everything these days, it became a bit of a political football in the committee, and we’d just like the Minister’s comments about whether he supports the code of ethics, unlike some of his Cabinet colleagues. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (20:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the member for her questions. We’re agreed on the importance of codes of ethics. I think, if you contemplate the difficulties that might arise and plumbing work being completed—not necessarily just what you would traditionally think of as workmanship or quality of the work from a technical perspective, but also the business practices, including communication and otherwise interacting with the client or the customer—those codes will sit, and indeed do sit, where they exist in legislation currently within the Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill. It’s not this bit of legislation, notwithstanding that, of course, plumbers and drainlayers and so on might appropriately be caught under that regime. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (20:50): I move that the debate on this question now close. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll see when we get the right words. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:51): Kia orana. Meitaki maata, Mr Chair—happy to take that a call on this one. I was actually surprised because Mr Bidois is a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and former deputy chair, just overtaken by Dr Carlos Cheung, and we haven’t actually heard from them yet. Ryan Hamilton: Repetition. TANGI UTIKERE: Look, it’s not repetition, because we haven’t actually pointed out that the former members—well, they are members of the committee but haven’t taken a call. I’ve just got a question for the Minister. This is on clause 11, which is around what information a territorial authority must actually hold or keep, and, in particular, it’s just not any particular information but information about buildings. Now, this is a very straightforward clause. It seeks to insert a particular item or a document, and it’s really the certificates of compliance. Now, if we sort of stand back and have a look at that, we might think, “OK, look, certificates of compliance, that’s fine.”—plural, so one sort of infers from that that it’s talking about not individual ones but just a class of them. The Minister’s nodding his head, so I take it in the affirmative that that’s the case. Just identifying, and without having a look or cross-reference around what else is in section 216(2)(b)—oh, what’s that, (ivb); I don’t know what Roman numeral that is, but whatever it is—that, basically, that’s kind of, for context, going to capture everything that’s needed. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (20:52): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 578 and 632 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended agreed to. Ayes 101 New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 20 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Part 1 as amended agreed to.