House Debates Bill To Protect Home Buyers

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31087, 16 June 1966, Page 16

House Debates Bill To Protect Home Buyers

• (New Zealand Preet Association) WELLINGTON, June 15. Many people who mortgaged their futures by putting their savings into homes had no spare cash available for court actions when builders did not do their jobs properly, Mr C. J. Moyle (Opp., Manukau), told Parliament tonight. (

Speaking during the second reading debate on the House Buyers’ Protection Bill, Mr Moyle said the Government was finding it difficult to appreciate how ordinary wage and salary-earners were concerned about “this one vital investment of their lives.”

The bill is a private members’ measure introduced by the Opposition member for Mirimar, Mr W. A. Fox. Two pieces of borer-riddled wood were exhibited by Mr Fox to illustrate the need for protecting house purchasers. Mr Fox said the wood had come from a new hruse In his electorate. Mr Fox said he visited the house, which cost f 4 a square foot to build. Water poured in a week after the owners moved in, and other major defects were found. Confronted with the borerinfested wood the builder at first said it could not have borer because it was new timber, then conceded that the borer had died anyway, Mr Fox said. Mr Fox said his bill was designed to protect house purchasers from defective workmanship and materials. He urged Parliament to allow the bill to go through the committee stages, and said he would gladly accept any suggestions or amendments.

The Minister of Housing (Mr Rae) said he agreed with

the object of the bill—to protect further the house buyer but he doubted whether that object would be achieved by the bill in its present form. “The present law is adequate. House owners would still have to take legal proceedings under this new law,” he said.

Mr Rae said that in his capacity as Minister in Charge of State Advances he had called for a report from all branches of the State Advances Corporation and he could say that there were fewer complaints about builders' workmanship today than 10 years ago. “It is doubtful whether this bill will really improve the owners’ rights of redress,” he said. He did not decry the bill as it was an opportunity to discuss the house buyers’ protection laws in general. Mr D. J. Riddiford (Govt., Wellington Central) said it was always possible to find isolated cases of professional men falling short of the highest standards. Architects provided, however, a very useful check on shoddy or unworkmanlike building.

The clause on requirements regarding land, was far too vague and in practice would prove defective, Mr Riddiford said.

The clause spelling out liabilities regarding materials, works and land was a “bold attempt” to change the law, he said. Under the bill both builder and vendor would be liable for two years for any breach of materials, works and land requirements specified in the measure.

The whole question was being investigated by the Institute of Civil Engineers and the Law Revision Commission. The latter was investigating misrepresentation, and Mr Riddiford conceded that the law dealing with misrepresentation needed reform.

Until the commission reported, it would be premature to attempt such a revolutionary change in the law as

contemplated by the bill, he said.

Mr W. A. Fraser (Opp, St. Kilda) said he believed the standard of building inspectors “left something to be desired.”

The responsibility of the State Advances Corporation should be extended. Money should be added to the loan tc pay for the proper inspection of houses and so protect the home buyer. Mr Fraser said the retired architect in chief of the State Advances Corporation had said recently: “Unfortunately building standards in New Zealand have deteriorated.”

The group building scheme had had several bad side effects and particularly it had reduced the sizes of homes. A three-bedroomed house used to be 1200 square feet but was now 1000 square feet, he said.