Thank you for that introduction, and congratulations Ash on your life membership – I agree with your colleagues that it is very well deserved.

Firstly, I’d just like to acknowledge some of our esteemed members –

• Ash, of course, current President of Registered Master Builders,

• Michael Fox, Chairman, RMBF

• Brent Mettrick, incoming President

• Kevin Stanley, Chairman of Master Build services

And lastly, Pieter Burghout, your Chief Executive.

It is a great pleasure to be with you here today, as Minister for Building and Construction.

As we know, this industry makes a huge contribution to the economy, with a throughput of $6.2 billion in the 2007 calendar year, and this equates to about 4.5% of GDP.  About 63% of the value of building work is done in the residential buildings area – and I see that proportion reflected by the people attending today.

To the year 30 June 2007 there were a total of 113,248 building consents issued by Councils, with 72,766 of those issued for work over $5000.

It is great to see so many of you here at the conference – about 400 I am told – and that means there are only another 181,300 people that I need to talk with before November, if I want to hear everyone give their feedback on what is happening in the sector. (Give or take the few thousand that I have already met).

As you may have read in today’s Dominion Post – I am here today to make some important announcements about restricted work for specified building elements, and DIY builders.  And I will do exactly that shortly.

On the 12^th of February this year, the Prime Minister stated in her opening address to Parliament that the Government is committed to tackling issues in the building consent process which are adding unreasonably to the costs of building a house.

I have listened to feedback from a good number of building and construction professionals, and council officials, since becoming Minister for Building and Construction late last year.  At Easter I announced a set of changes and proposals that have been positively welcomed by industry.

These are:

Starter Homes - Developing a building code compliance document to simplify the design and approval of simple starter homes.

This will provide for building consents to be issued quickly for homes built to specific design and specifications.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of your past president Michael Fox in assisting the department in developing this work.

Multi-use consents - Providing for multiple-use consents so those building a number of houses using the same or similar design will be able to get a single approval for the design and be able to reuse the approval again and again.

Of course, local consent from a building consent authority will still be needed for any site-specific work (i.e. drainage and foundations). Consent will be given for each replication once the original design is approved.

Voluntary PIMS - Reducing the number of building projects that need a mandatory Project Information Memoranda (PIM) by making these optional for some work - for example, shop fit-outs or removing internal walls to create an open-plan home. 

This will save hundreds of dollars on some consent applications.

Schedule 1 changes - Reducing the number of building activities that require a building consent.  I don’t see why we need to have building consents where the work is minor and the risk is low – such as moving a toilet to a new place in the same bathroom or a window from one wall to another.

I would like to explain a bit more about each of these proposals – and put your mind at ease at how they might affect you.

Starter Homes – this is an idea that really interests me – a chance to make it easy for builders & home owners to get consents quickly on simple – straight forward houses.  Starter Homes will have the advantage of as little paperwork as possible, as the design and specifications will already be listed in the compliance document.

We are currently having a couple of designs drawn up to give people a look at what these homes might look like.  It doesn’t mean of course, that this limits the creativity of builder and designers to starter homes.  But it is important for people wanting a simple-straight forward design - as the hard work has been done for them.

Multi-use-consents – This initiative is intended to save time and costs for developers and group builders – like Keith Hay, Jennian Homes, and GJ Gardner -- who arebuilding the same or very similar houses on a regular basis.  While I have heard feedback from some group builders that every house is not the same – even their so-called standard designs, I am confident that the mega-consent will work for them.

Voluntary PIMS – This is one proposal that both Councils and Builders seem to be keen on – unusual I know!  Councils see that it will save them unnecessary paperwork, and builders will save in terms of time and fees.  When there is this amount of industry agreement, it makes it easy to support these proposals winding their way through the Government process.

Schedule 1 changes – I know that a number of you have felt tangled up in “red tape” from councils, and from the Department and that this has been really frustrating.  I am keen to see that the threshold is lifted so that more building work can be done without needing a consent. While we have to be careful that we don’t make it too loose – I am also mindful that there are some people out there (hopefully not you guys!) who already say – well bugger the red tape, I am doing it anyway!  If we get the balance right between risk and safety, then I think it will encourage everyone to follow the rules.

Then there are a couple of other bits and pieces that I have asked the Department to look at and these are:

1. Investigate the feasibility of a national on-line consenting facility.

This is so people can apply for a consent and pay online, and be able to submit all their supporting documentation online and track where their consent and decision-making process is at.

2. Explore setting up regional consent processing units to pool expertise and process complex building consents.  Some councils are already working towards this.

3. Look at ways to improve collection and sharing of information on building products and product performance. 

Now I want to talk about builders licensing…

As you probably all know, the Licensed Building Practitioners or LBP Scheme was launched on 1 November last year.

I would like to acknowledge right up front the contribution made by the RMBF towards the development of the licensing scheme, particularly Ash Hartley, Jamie O’Leary and Mike Fox.

I think it is fair to say that your organisation has mainly sat on the fence on the issue of getting licensed, but I am pleased that some members of Registered Master Builders have seen the value in getting licensed, including past-president Jamie O’Leary, to whom I had the pleasure of presenting his license personally. I understand Ash Hartley has also secured his licence and he is to be congratulated for doing so.

The truth of the matter is that licensing is good because it sets a clear standard in terms of competence for builders and designers.

The fact is that licensing provides a future platform for competent builders to certify their work. This will provide them the same status currently enjoyed by electricians and plumbers.

Licensing provides a point of difference over non-licensed people – exactly as you, as Registered Master Builders members try to do. The LBP Scheme though is a Government, statutory backed programme with wide coverage. 

I am also confident that your customers will also get wise in asking for and, employing a licensed Practioner because, to quote the Consumer magazine:

“Consumers deserve better protection for one of the most costly purchases they’re ever likely to make”

I note that in the Dominion Post today that there was also an article relating to the experience a couple had with the Master Build Guarantee.  I am pleased to say that your organisation promotes a high standard of workmanship, and that these kind of situations number very few.  It is for this reason that the Government is confident that there is added consumer protection with using a licensed building practitioner.

For the building sector licensing means increased accountability because the Licensing Practioners Board will have the power to investigate complaints, take action against an LBP, including making the Practioner undertake further training, imposing a fine or even cancelling their licence. The online register will also include details of any disciplinary action against an LBP.

While this by itself may not be enough to make you rush to fill out the application forms, there will also be requirements in place that from November 2010 you will need a license to do certain specified or restricted building work. 

For that reason alone I think it is important that we get this right the first time around.  We have to make sure that all builders are all put on an equal footing. Builders need to feel comfortable that if they spend the time and the money to go and get licensed that they are not going to be undercut by cowboys who can’t be bothered.

This is why I now want to outline the Government’s position regarding licensing and DIY.

This Government is committed to maintaining the New Zealand DIY tradition.  It would be a heck of a lot easier for me as a Minister to say – ban the whole lot! And let us make sure that the only building work that gets done is by someone who has years of experience swinging a hammer, and probably a trade qualification tucked away somewhere.  But this would cause a whole lot of problems – certainly for me explaining it to Dr Cullen at least!

As you know, most DIYers do not build their own home from scratch. A lot of DIY work people do does not even need a building consent.  When building work does get complicated, most intelligent kiwis pick up the phone and call their local builder, electrician or plumber to do the job.

This is where I’m faced with a dilemma, if we aren’t going to put a blanket ban on DIYers, then how do we close that potential loophole between builders and DIYers? that, as someone has imaginatively said “you could drive a truck through”.

We have come up with a solution and that is for DIYers to face exactly the same liability for their work as licensed builders if they decide not to use a Licensed Building Practitioner to complete certain specified work.

If a DIYer wants to build his or her own home, in the future:-

• They must be an individual and the owner of the land on which the building work is to be carried out. 

• They will have to sign a statutory declaration saying that it is their home.

• The implied warranties in the Act which apply to builders will be extended to apply to DIYers.

• Council records will show that work was done by a DIYer, and this will be shown on the LIM report.  Future owners will know that a house has been built by a DIYer, and not professionals like you.

So we have agreed to a DIY exemption to the requirement for specified or restricted work to be done by a licensed building practitioner.

Detailed information about these decisions and the programme of work is available from the Department.

The Government has also made some in-principle decisions about restricted building work which:

• sets the parameters for restricted building work

• sets a tight timetable for consulting with you folk and others in the industry to develop the detail

• I have asked for the regulations to be ready later this year

Let me make this clear that NOT all building work will be restricted.  The broad parameters for restricted or specific building work are that it will address critical areas of safety and health and these are:

• Managing moisture – we must make sure that systems that are designed to keep rain or ground water from getting into a building, and systems like a waterproof barriers in a shower which contains moisture in wet areas are reliable and trustworthy.

• Building structure – we must ensure that the structural framework and bracing of a house is safe and robust and lasts for long time.

• Fire-rating – There must be an assurance that we have in place materials that will stop a fire spreading and at the same time maintain the structural framework even in a fire.

These changes will require wide public consultation and the priority for us now is to work with the sector to flesh out the important details. 

The Government cannot develop this work in isolation – it is the sector and people like you who have the expertise to get this right before it comes into effect in November 2010.

I know that Master Builders and your chief executive Pieter Burghout have worked closely with the Department on policy development in the past, and I look forward to this continuing.

I have asked the Department to work with the sector to develop a paper for consultation in September and as I have said earlier, I’ve asked for regulations to be ready later this year.

Restricted building work will not apply to every type of building.  In 2006 at your conference in Queenstown the Government announced that restricted building work would not apply to low-risk buildings such as free standing decks or garages. 

I am pleased to say that on Monday the Government confirmed those decisions which confirm that collectively we are making strong progress with securing a bright and innovative future for our Building industry.