Seeing as the race to become the next Speaker of the House is heating up, I thought I would put in a plea for Prime Minister John Key to choose the Hon Maurice Williamson to take over from the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith.
I believe Maurice would make a good Speaker for a number of reasons. He has the skills, experience and speaks good English. These are all good attributes for the Speaker to have.
But the main reason Maurice should be selected as the next Speaker is to give the building sector a fresh start.
Ever since he passed the third reading of the Building Act 1991 he has been (on observation of many others) in the defensive position.
Stakeholders in the building sector have also said that he has run out of ideas as the Building and Construction Minister.
When looking at his Building Act Review it is sad to note that New Zealand has encountered many issues, and the National-ACT Government has not offered answers to any of them:
1: Consumer protection: In the absence of a more genuine reallocation of accountability, as argued by submitters, through mandatory insurance-backed warranties and the introduction of proportionate liability, the consumers are exposed to greater risk. The consumers are suffering and waiting!
2: Product Warranties: Legislation brought in by National has never directly addressed the accountability of manufacturers and suppliers of building materials although they had played a vital role in the leaky building saga.
3: Earthquake-prone buildings: Earthquake-prone buildings need to be strengthened to 33% under the current law. It has been encouraged to get this lifted to 67% after the Christchurch earthquakes but many building-owners cannot afford to bear the cost of strengthening works. Nor would insurers be prepared to offer cover.
It may also be worth considering setting a different strengthening level for different parts of NZ according to the earthquake-risk level that exists in individual regions.
4: Insurance Premiums: This is especially the case in Wellington where insurance premiums have risen to unsustainable levels.
It has been reported in the Listener that building replacement insurance on some heritage buildings has gone from $14,000 a year in 2009 to $52,000 in 2011. And it’s predicted to hit $132,000 this year.
The Dominion-Post also reported this week that some businesses have faced insurance premium increases of up to 200%. Department store Kircaldie and Stains premiums had risen from 78c for every $1000 worth of insurance in 2010 to $8.11 this year, even though the main 1908 building had been strengthened to 100% of the building code.
The list can go on and on.
We need a Building and Construction Minister who is going to show leadership and find solutions to the above issues.
What we got from him for so long was nothing but a tweak to the status-quo.
Worse still, if you ask questions to the Minister about these issues, the competent Minister will have a dozen sound bites ready to reel off without even thinking about the question.
So now the greatest hope for the building sector is to have a new Minister for Building and Construction.
I’m not saying that Williamson doesn’t have the required capability for the role. His hands maybe tied. He may just have had that portfolio for too long. He is probably tired, bored and reluctant to entertain new ideas or simply to challenge the status-quo or himself.
Maurice would make a fine speaker..he can “bring good news” to the house as he fights tooth and NAIL to HAMMER home his authority over that LOAD BEARING Tau, as well as use the Building and Housing’s toilet calculator to tell us whether Winnie needs to go Pooh!
Hi Raymond,
It is “speaks English well”
Not
“speaks good English”
@Ehoa comment of the day! I love it!
In what way is Williamson responsible for market rates for insurance in Wellington? Is Labour saying he should control prices? Or perhaps he possesses the power to calm the seas and settle the land, so meaning insurance claims are unlikely…
This is a churlish piece of nonsense. Surely the Opposition wants the best person possible to fulfil the role of Speaker. Instead, you’re advocating Williamson simply because it conveniently pulls him off his warranted duties. I’d like to think you’re joking – but, if you were, the joke is thin and poorly delivered. What a load of nonsense. I can think of a dozen MPs who would make an admirable Speaker – including some of your front bench. Now, that’s unlikely to happen. Politics dictates that it’s likely the Speaker will be chosen from the government benches. But that’s about as much politics as I would like to see played on this critical role. Lockwood Smith has established a very high benchmark for Speaker behaviour. It would be a shame for democracy and the Opposition if the job was allocated to some chump simply because it solved an unrelated problem. I would like – no, expect – MPs to behave like parliamentarians when it comes to the administration of the House and less like craven politicians.
Raymond, since you are an expert on building issues, perhaps you can explain why building replacement insurance has skyrocketed in Wellington. That might help you come up with a solution.
Here’s a clue. There was a little thing called an “earthquake” in a place called “Christchurch”. This sent building replacement insurance through the roof everywhere in earthquake-prone areas of New Zealand.
Have you worked out a way to stop earthquakes from happening?
@Blarney Stone: Agreed, Parliament cannot legislate weather, or, as you said, earthquakes. But legislation has a purpose and in my view we should have risk-based legislation (although this is outside the scope of this post). Are you suggesting that as long as there is a natural disaster (such as CHCH quakes) a Ministers’ role is to condemn victims’ ‘carping and moaning’ [Brownlee's line as reported in the NZH yesterday] rather than finding a solution? This is the second term of the National-Act Government. It is not good enough for a government to excuse themselves by blaming natural disasters and victims.
Raymond, you probably don’t remember when Helen said that leaky homes was just a beat-up by the Herald, and complained that the Herald was banging on about it, because you weren’t a Labour Party member then.
But since you raised the issue of “risk-based legislation”, please tell me if it is now Labour Party policy to regulate insurance premiums.
@Blarney Stone: With due respect you misunderstood ‘risk-based legislation’. I suggest you read my opinion piece in Progressive Construction magazine from February 2012 for clarification.
Cannot believe that there is a free lunch after an Insurance Claim of $17 billion of which $14 billion comes from overseas reinsurers, through our balance of payments.
Am told that the expensive car sales in the Christchurch area are doing very well (like the rest of the country – see the July new car sales).
I’m sorry Raymond I am not a subscriber to Progressive Construction magazine. Please tell me what your solution is to rising insurance premiums for earthquake-prone buildings in Wellington. Are you planning on regulating insurance premiums? If not, then what is your solution?
Thanks Blarney Stone for your confidence in us. Just finished Question time and listened attentively to Mr Steven Joyce’s answers. Here is my reflection and may indirectly answer your question:
Mr Joyce may be the “campaign manager of the century” that, among other things, he has guided his National supporters to repeat certain narratives and actually won two elections. But at the end of the day, Blarney, who is in government is not important but what is in the best interest of NZ and its people is. The issues I listed in this blog are important ones that need attention and solution.
“Are you planning on regulating insurance premiums?” – I know “regulation” is a magic word to National. And narrative like this is designed to detract – in this case detract the attention from what the Government can or should do to what the Opposition should not. I have met some of the victims in the situations I listed in this blog. If we put ourselves in their shoes, I am sure you will agree with me that those issues are important and to defend the undefensible is not worth it.
Don’t know much about Williamson appears to me to be another professional bludger who talks as if he has a mouth full of marbles.
He does not appear to understand the building sector very well and the disasterous decisions made by his cronies and building experts in NZ over the past 20-30 years. Doubt whether he has ever used a hammer or a nail in his life.
I’m sorry Raymond but I read your response very carefully. After several attempts I still didn’t understand it. I asked you whether you intend to regulate insurance premiums. You responded by saying that you know people with high premiums and you care about them. You didn’t answer my question.
Again, will you regulate insurance premiums for earthquake-prone buildings? If not, will you subsidise the insurance premiums of earthquake-prone buildings? If not, will you set up a government insurance scheme to provide lower insurance premiums to earthquake-prone buildings? If the last option, will you reinsure the government-backed insurance? If you do that, how will you provide cheaper insurance than the market?
There really are only three options, as I see it, and I’m not even an expert on either insurance or building issues. If you can possibly think up another solution, then please share it with us. But in the meantime, please tell me which is your preferred solution.
Raymond, based on what you have written above, Williamson is an I-beam compared to your trellis Timber
Hopefully Williamson is going to sort out some of the nonsense that has been going on in the Building Industry.
We used to have very good tradesmen and Building Standards, isn’t it amazing how we changed the Building Codes to suit the major building supply companies requirements, and then we as the taxpayers and the ratepayers have to come back in, to reimburse homeowners affected by the decisions made by Government & Council Officials.
These Government & Council Officials changed the Building Codes at the request of the major building supply companies who influence these people.
This is just another example of Privatising Profits and Socialising Debts.
The problem in NZ the Government and it’s officials are getting their noses in Business Affairs where they have no expertise or competence and in the end cost the taxpayers and ratepayer vast sums of money through their incompetence.
Examples
BNZ Collapse
NZ Rail
Air NZ
Leaky Building Crisis
South Canterbury Finance Collapse
The List Goes On.