Opening address to the fire protection industry’s annual conference

Acknowledgements:

• Bob Taylor, Executive Director, Fire Protection Association of New Zealand
• Ross Aitken, Vice President, Fire Protection Association of New Zealand
• Mike Hall, National Commander, New Zealand Fire Service
• Mitchell Brown, Master of Ceremonies

Introduction:

Thank you for inviting me to open your annual conference.

The fact you are holding this event in Christchurch is a reminder of the importance of planning for significant events, and of designing buildings to withstand those events, along with the valuable role that all emergency services play in crisis situations.

It’s also a reminder of New Zealand’s vulnerability to earthquakes and the vital importance of good design, quality construction, and a building controls system that focuses on safeguarding human life and minimising damage to buildings and property when a severe earthquake occurs.

Despite the damage to buildings and the impact of the Canterbury earthquake on home owners and businesses in the region, the situation could have been much worse without the earthquake- and fire-design principles in the Building Code.

Importance of complying with the Building Code

During its term in office to date, this Government has placed strong emphasis on the importance of building quality, and the role of the Building Code in achieving this.  Last year I initiated a review of the Building Act, with the intention of reducing red-tape and improving efficiencies in the sector.

Our aim is to encourage a more efficient and productive building and construction sector that stands behind the quality of its work.

We said builders and designers are responsible for ensuring their work meets Building Code requirements and we would amend the Act to make that clear.

We said another fundamental part of the package was improving the competence of building practitioners.  Consumers should be able to have confidence that they are dealing with competent practitioners, who will stand behind the quality of their work.

We said we would clarify the Building Code so it can be easily accessed and understood.

All of this will ensure the building sector has the skills and knowledge to build right first time.

Now, in the context of the Canterbury earthquake, these goals have assumed even greater importance.

Government agencies and the local Councils together need to support home and business owners to achieve efficient building repair and recovery.  This work needs to get done quickly, but without compromising the quality of the Canterbury building stock.

Achieving this requires a capable sector, where appropriately skilled and qualified practitioners undertake the construction and repair work.  Ensuring the availability of these skills is particularly important where such building work is exempt from building consents. 

This Government has been able to fast-track decisions on how best to address these needs in Canterbury, drawing on work done for the Building Act review.  This includes increasing exemptions for building consents in certain low-risk circumstances.

Likewise, emphasis was already being placed on improving the skills and accountabilities of building practitioners, through actively promoting the Licensed Building Practitioners’ scheme.

These initiatives have enabled a rapid response to the Canterbury situation, where local and central Government are working closely together to deliver practical solutions to building repair and construction work.

Clarifying the Building Code

If we expect designers and builders to be responsible for meeting Building Code requirements, we need to make sure they can easily access the requirements relevant to their work, understand them, and get good information about how best to comply with them.

Simplifying and streamlining the Building Code means that designers, engineers and Building Consent Authorities need to be provided with:

• practical and easy-to-access ‘acceptable solutions’ – as a straight-forward means of complying with the Code; as well as
• information and training on how to develop and consent effective ‘alternative solutions’, for more complex designs.

This information needs to be made available across all of the Building Code clauses, so practical guidance on Code compliance is readily to hand. 

Currently, the Department of Building and Housing is publicly consulting on proposals to simplify and clarify requirements for several aspects of the Building Code.  These include protection from fire, as well as signage and warning systems, noise protection, and medium-density housing. 

This package of proposals also included consultation on simplifying timber treatment, for which submissions closed last month.

Protection from Fire

Obviously the current proposals dealing with ‘protection from fire’ are of great interest to you.  The Department has worked to provide a wider range of applicable solutions to the industry, and to improve fire engineers’ and designers’ access to these by presenting the solutions by building type.

The proposed changes to the fire-related clause of the Building Code have been developed to address a set of problems.  The Department advises me that the current Code clauses and documents dealing with fire protection are not always specific and can be difficult to interpret.

This leads to:

• delays with consents
• delays in construction
• increased construction and capital costs
• and stifles innovative design.

The thrust of the ’Protection from Fire’ proposals is therefore to:

• Maintain the current level of fire safety in New Zealand
• Make the Code requirements much clearer and simpler to apply
• Improve access to these requirements, and their ease of use
• Give designers a more flexible set of options that will allow safe and high-quality buildings to be constructed affordably and efficiently.

Previously, designers had to trawl back and forth across several documents to find all the information they needed for one design solution.  They were at risk of overlooking important information as a result.  Now the Department aims to provide a streamlined and simplified approach.

The proposed changes to the Code clause for ‘Protection from Fire’ provide a litmus test for whether simplification and streamlining have been achieved.  Both the Department and I want to hear from you about whether this approach has been successful.

If you’ve not yet made a submission on the proposed changes, I urge you to have your say at www.dbh.govt.nz.

As I’ve outlined, the proposals include an acceptable solution with specific fire-design information for common types of buildings, which will help the owners and industry build right first time.

Robust design processes are also proposed, for appropriately qualified designers to use on complex buildings.  These solutions will help to ensure that more complex buildings have the appropriate level of fire protection, and that this is efficiently designed by a qualified practitioner.

Package of changes resulting from the Building Act review

Earlier I referred to the package of changes approved by Government in the wake of the Building Act review.  These were determined from the analysis of the 381 submissions received.

The package of changes covers four broad areas:

• Improving building practitioners’ skills and access to knowledge
• Ensuring clearer accountability
• Achieving more efficient regulation
• Improving consumers’ knowledge on rights and responsibilities.

These areas are all inter-related. We can’t make regulation more efficient without first getting accountability clear, and both depend on people having the necessary skills and knowledge to do their job well.  This includes the home owner or consumer, who needs to know that

• they are dealing with competent building contractors
• the contracts they are entering into give them the right protection
• their building practitioners will stand behind the quality of their work.

Clearer accountability

During the Building Act review some submitters told us that some builders and designers don’t think they need to know how to comply with the Building Code; and that they leave it up to the Building Consent Authorities to sort it out.

That has to change.

The Building Act will be amended to make it clear that:

• Builders and designers must make sure their work will meet Building Code requirements – and take accountability for this’
• Building owners must make sure they get the necessary approvals and are accountable for any decisions they make – such as substituting products during construction
• Building Consent Authorities are accountable for checking plans and inspecting to make sure plans are followed.

Accountability in practice

The amended Building Act will require mandatory written contracts for all residential building work above $20,000.  This will be supported by information disclosure, clearer obligations, and new legal remedies. 

The building contractor will also have to give the home owners some specified information before any contract is signed, including what, if any, surety or financial backing is available to cover the costs of fixing any faults. 

At the same time, home owners will get more information about what maintenance they need to carry out over time, and the importance of reporting any defects as quickly as possible.

We’re also looking at more options for fast and effective building dispute resolution, including reviewing the Construction Contracts Act as it applies to home owners.

Liability

Inevitably there will be problems with some building contracts, and when things go wrong the question of liability arises.

The Government is going to consider whether it should change the ‘joint and several’ legal liability framework as it applies in the building and construction sector.

This is not a simple issue, and it is closely linked to the availability of building warranties.  I am expecting a report from officials next year, to assist the decision-making process.

More efficient regulation

During the Building Act review we consulted on the idea of risk-based building consenting – where the amount of checking and inspection is directly aligned to the risk and complexity of the project, and to the skills and capability of the people doing the work.

Certain building work can already be done in New Zealand without a building consent.  This includes re-building porches and verandas, repairing heat pumps, and moving non-load bearing walls.  Much of the repair work needed in Canterbury will fall into this category.  The Government has also expanded the scope of building work that can be done without a consent in Christchurch, Waimakariri and Selwyn, for a period of 18 months. 

Councils can also exempt any building work from needing a building consent if the council is satisfied that the work is likely to be done according to the Building Code.  This means that simple work that people do regularly and that poses little risk to the structural integrity of the building can be exempted, especially if it’s carried out by a recognised professional such as a Licensed Building Practitioner. 

The concept of risk-based consenting enabled us, in partnership with the Christchurch, Waimakariri and Selwyn Councils, to identify opportunities to speed up the Canterbury recovery following the earthquake on 4 September.  The Department is helping the Canterbury councils to establish a building consent system that distinguishes between levels of risk, in order to achieve cost-effective and quality repair as quickly as possible in readiness for the significantly increased workload of earthquake-related repairs and rebuilding.  This includes proposals to streamline commercial consents.

To help the Council increase the amount of work that can be exempted from the requirement for a building consent, the Department has been running a campaign to encourage building practitioners in Canterbury to become licensed.  The response has been impressive.  Around 1,000 building practitioners have been licensed, or applied for licensing in Canterbury.

Licensing gives assurance that building practitioners are competent and accountable.  It provides builders with independent verification of their skills, and consumers with proof of competence.

From March 2012 the Government intends that some critical building work will be restricted to licensed practitioners.

Stepped consenting

Having a sound base of licensed building practitioners is one of the keys to stepped consenting.

Nationwide, we’re proposing several ‘steps’ of consenting, rather than the current ‘one size fits all’.  For example:

• A stand-alone garage will still need a building consent, but it will be a basic check, to make sure the conditions are met. This would be quick, and cheap.
• The next ‘step’ would be a simplified consent process where you’re building a simple house, using proven methods and designs, and you’re using licensed building practitioners for the design and construction of that house.
• We will stick with the current process for more complex houses, where the risks are higher, for example where there’s a higher risk of leaking.
• For commercial buildings, we will take current best commercial construction practice and apply it across the sector.   This will allow third-party review and quality assurance processes as an alternative to the current system of review by Building Consent Authorities – provided certain conditions are met.

Consistent and efficient delivery

One of the issues considered in the Building Act review was whether there’s room for improvement in the administration of building regulation nationwide.

We concluded that there is scope for significant efficiency gains, so that the system provides:

• nationally consistent decision-making
• user-friendly, accessible and consistent requirements and processes
• timely and responsive service delivery
• a rapid response to new information, such as changes in the Building Code or information on building performance
• seamless integration with other activities, such as resource management and planning.

We now need to work out how best to develop and implement a system with these characteristics. I expect advice from officials on a detailed plan to achieve this in the first half of next year.

Building consent applications and the New Zealand Fire Commission

Before I close, I’m mindful that there is another outcome of the Building Act review that’s of interest to many of you, and that is: “What’s happening about the requirement to refer specific building consent applications to the New Zealand Fire Commission?”

A series of papers is due to be considered by Cabinet in 2011.  These will shape the detail of amendments to the Building Act.  In relation to ‘Protection from Fire’, Cabinet has agreed the following:

Firstly, final policy recommendations on proposed changes to Building Code requirements and associated documents on ‘Protection from Fire’ are to be reported back, based on the current consultation process.

Secondly, I will report back to the Cabinet committee once changes have been made to clarify the fire safety requirements of the Building Code. 

The report will contain advice on:

• whether the current mandatory requirements in the Building Act,  to refer specific building consent applications to the New Zealand Fire Commission, are still necessary, and
• how any changes would be aligned with the implementation of the new commercial building consenting process (which is planned for 2012).

In the meantime I encourage designers to work closely with the New Zealand Fire Service from the outset, when developing the fire engineering brief.

Conclusion

We are standing on the threshold of a new era in the building and construction sector, with a package of reforms that sets us on the right track to:

• ensure work is ‘built right first time’
• increase confidence and reduce disputes
• reinforce incentives for the sector to upskill
• reduce compliance costs by increasing efficiency.

The Building Code proved its worth in the recent earthquake. We must learn from that experience and improve our system still more.

We can only achieve this with your continued input and cooperation. I look forward to working with you as we move forward.