Massey University Research assignment 2012 “Stakeholder perceptions on the effectiveness and...

“Stakeholder perceptions on the effectiveness and

improvement measures for the Licensed Building Practitioner

(LBP) scheme”.

By Thomas Clarke.

2012

“Stakeholder perceptions on the effectiveness and improvement measures for

the Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) scheme”

By Thomas Clarke.

08533466

A Research Report

Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the requirements

for the paper:

218.422 Construction Research Method and

Report.

For the degree of

Bachelor of Construction [Quantity Surveyor]

School of Engineering & Advanced Technology

College of Sciences

Massey University

Albany, November 2012

Research Report


Statement of Originality



I declare that the above research report is my own original work. It has not been submitted elsewhere

for assessment.

The guidance received from supervisor is hereby acknowledged. Human Ethics requirements have

been compiled with in accordance with Massey University research requirements.

STUDENTS NAME: Thomas Clarke

STUDENTS SIGNATURE:

SUPERVISORS NAME: Dr Jasper Mbachu.

SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE:

Date: 12/11/2012

Research Report


Statement of Authorship



Except where specific reference is made in the main text, this research report contains no material

extracted in whole or part from a thesis, dissertation, or research paper presented by me for another

paper, degree, or diploma.

No other persons work (published or unpublished) has been used without acknowledgment in the main

text of the report.

This research report has not been submitted fo assessment or the award of any other degree or diploma

in any other tertiary institution.

STUDENTS NAME:

STUDENTS SIGNATURE:

DATE:

AVAILABILITY OF THE REPORT

AUTHORS NAME: Thomas clarke

TITLE OF THE REPORT: “Stakeholder perceptions on the effectiveness and improvement measures for


DEGREE: Bachelor of Construction [Quantity Surveyor]

YEAR: 2012

I hear by consent to the above research report being consulted, borrowed, copied or reproduced from

time to time in accordance with the provisions of the library Regulations made by the Academic Board.

Permission must be obtained from the author when complete copies or large portions are required.

STUDENTS NAME:

STUDENTS SIGNATURE:

DATE:

Abstract. The 1991 Building Act was revised by New Zealand Government in 2004 due to the criticism regarding the weather tightness issues within the construction industry. In conjunction with the legislative changes the Government further introduced Licensing as a means to promote competency amongst practitioners by setting minimum standards, and ensure practitioners are held accountable by regulating performance works1. Presently, in 2012, the Licensing scheme has officially become mandatory continually accepting both qualified and non-qualified practitioners until 2015 when the Licensed Builder Practitioner (LBP) scheme becomes mandatory. Furthermore, it is an argued that the associated costs of the scheme may have negative implications toward the construction industry amongst its stakeholders. Also concerns of the effectiveness of the scheme as a quality assurance system. This research was carried out to determine the perspective opinions of LBP`s (such as the NZIOB, RGMBF and the NZIQS) to gather data using multiple instruments of emailing online questionnaire survey, direct contact, and phone interviews in an attempt discover the effectiveness of the scheme, identify the schemes disadvantages, systems to address the schemes faults, and plans that improve the schemes effectiveness. Descriptive statistics – involving computation of mean ratings and frequencies of mentions – will be used in the data analysis of the Quantitative data. Initially from this study it was anticipated that associated costs, competency, and entry to the scheme may features of concern. The implications of the findings to the target audience. (target audience being the key stakeholders: Policy makers such as the DBH, LBP practitioners, clients and practitioners in the construction industry of NZ).

Keywords: License, construction, practitioner, quality, defects.

1 Dbh, (nd), BCA, Making a complaint about a licensed building practitioner A guide to the complaint process, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Licensing/pdf/bpb-making-a-complaint-booklet.pdf, retrieved 19/10/12

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Licensing/pdf/bpb-making-a-complaint-booklet.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr Jasper Mbachu (Supervisor and Mentor), for encouraging assistance and unwavering

support in delivering this Undergraduate research.

Issac Driver (Dir) Spectrum Construction

Boyd Senior (Dir) Senior Construction.

Members of the LBP.

Table of Contents

Abstract. .................................................................................................................................................. 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 7

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 10

1.1Background .................................................................................................................................. 11

1.2 Statement of the research problem ............................................................................................ 13

1.3 Research questions/objectives .................................................................................................... 14

1.4 Research propositions/hypotheses ............................................................................................. 14

1.5 Scope limitations ......................................................................................................................... 14

1.6 Contribution to knowledge/practical implications of the findings .............................................. 15

1.7 Structure of the report ................................................................................................................ 15

2.0 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Literacy - Introduction. ................................................................................................................ 15

2.1.1 Research cases ..................................................................................................................... 16

2.1.2 History & the “Hunn Report” ................................................................................................ 16

2.1.2.2 Management ..................................................................................................................... 17

2.1.2. 3 Licensing limits entry ........................................................................................................ 18

2.1.2.4 Difficulty determining the effectiveness of licensing. ........................................................ 18

2.2 Quality assurance mechanisms in the New Zealand building industry ........................................ 18

2.2.1 Regulations. .......................................................................................................................... 18

2.3. Quality assurance documents. ................................................................................................... 20

2.3.1. Quality assurance documents- Manufacturers producer statements ................................. 20

2.3.2. Quality assurance documents- Manufacturers Warrantees ................................................ 21

2.3.3. Quality assurance documents- Standards, Contractual, compliance documents. ............... 21

2.3.4 Quality assurance documents. Quality assurance plan (QAP)/Quality management System

(QMS). ........................................................................................................................................... 22

2.4 Literature Summary ..................................................................................................................... 22

3.0 Research Method ...................................................................................................................... 23

3.1 Research Design. ......................................................................................................................... 23

4.0 Data Presentation ............................................................................................................................ 26

4.1 Demographic analysis of respondents ......................................................................................... 26

4.1.2 What is the length of your experience of the New Zealand construction Industry? ............ 26

4.1.2 General Location?................................................................................................................. 27

4.1.3 License Class (Respondents choose more than one if you possess more than one license

class) .............................................................................................................................................. 27

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 54

1.0 Introduction.

This subject of this study came about following the release of a new Occupational Licensing Scheme, passed by law, for the New Zealand construction industry on 1 March 2012. The objective of the new Scheme was to raise the quality of performance standards in the industry and lead to a reduction in workmanship defects and disputes. It aimed to achieve this by making practitioners accountable for their services rendered. The impact of the 2012 Scheme was wide – requiring management, design, engineering professionals and trade bodies associated to structural works, foundations works, and exterior sheathing (cladding) of residential structures to possess a Building Practitioners Licence (LBP). The Scheme attracted a significant level of attention, commentary and robust debate from both industry, media and public. This attention was mostly due to the defective issues the New Zealand, most notably the ‘Leaky Building Syndrome’ which had proven to be extremely costly to the country – with home owners, local and domestic Government all sharing the pain of the expensive failing. Following the announcement of the Scheme and the extensive public commentary, anecdotal themes quickly emerged around various issues, for example the cost of the new scheme on taxpayers and businesses (both expenses and compliance costs). It seemed evident that an early appraisal of the LBP scheme could be beneficial from both an academic perspective and for the industry as a whole to have the opportunity to express perceptions and views on the effectiveness of the new scheme. This six-month research programme aimed to capture a measurement of industry sentiment on how the Scheme was tracking toward achieving its objectives and primary intents, targeting a primary respondent group of Licenced Building Practitioners (LPBs). It also sought to ascertain areas for improvement and identify solutions that could potentially address any shortcomings to improve the overall effectiveness of the scheme. Further, the study attempted to draw out perceived views from practitioners on whether the new Scheme is necessary, given that many support systems exist in the current environment, providing certification and quality assurance. For example, producer statements, manufacturers' warranties, building inspections and trade/professional associations that monitor quality and provide membership support. In addition, this research investigated the secondary effects of the Scheme, such as the costs borne by practitioners. The study’s methodology included a mix of both qualitative and quantitative data from LPBs nationwide, including some from trade organisations such as NZIOB, RGMBF and NZIQS. Over 300 LPBs completed a comprehensive online survey and 10 LPBs participated in an in-depth interview, exploring key issues. Data was sourced from the New Zealand Public Register of LPBs, with permission gained from respondents who participated. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics, for example mean ratings and frequencies of mentions. The key findings show that practitioners are open-minded and welcoming towards regulatory change in the industry, if it leads toward an improvement the quality of work practiced. A strong sentiment was evident from respondents wanting to improve and build on the reputation of the industry, specifically a desire for the industry to be found to be producing work that was of high quality, benefited clients, managed costs and enhanced the reputation of the industry. A greater need was expressed for governance that achieved an improvement in the quality of work overall, through means such as training programmes, on site checking and enhanced verification of the skills and experience of those entering the New Zealand industry. In terms of the March 2012 licensing scheme achieving its objectives, respondents were less certain of its success. Common threads in the feedback included an acknowledgement that the scheme achieves

greater accountability for LPBs, but that this didn’t necessarily translate to raised quality in performance standards. Some of the key reasons cited for the missing link to influence the quality of work included:

lack of requirement for practitioners to have a relevant qualification, requirements to gain a licence were too easy, were subject to manipulation and missed key

verification checks such as quality of experience and demonstration of skill lack of consistency in the quality, skill and experience of inspectors (including how the Code

was interpreted) licence classes were too restrictive and not practical to implement on site the up skilling and continuing education programme was of low quality and value, as well

as missed an opportunity to integrate practical training and communication on changes to the Code.

This study acknowledges that the Licensing scheme implemented for the construction industry has taken an important and valid initial step toward its objective of raising the quality of performance standards. However, the following action plan itemises key recommendations from the findings of this study:

1. key stakeholders such as policy makers and governing industry bodies, look to the voice of those practicing in the industry to establish the necessary next steps to make further progress towards this objective.

2. The next phase of this work by key stakeholders should focus on :

improvements to the education and practical on site training of those entering the industry (including both next generation New Zealanders and migrants), as well as the continuing up skilling of those currently practicing.

development of mechanisms to improve monitoring the performance of inspectors, practitioners and trade workers under their supervision.

This action plan addresses the ‘burning platform’ issues raised by respondents of this study and based on the feedback received, it is expected that the items put forward in this action plan will delivered the greatest benefits toward improvement in raised the quality of performance standards in the New Zealand construction industry today.

1.1Background

Historically from the 1980`s until to the late 1990`s New Zealand experienced radical changes away

from traditional cladding systems such as weatherboards, to a more contemporary monolithic2 cladding

design (Murphy,2010). The use of new materials coupled with irregular designs and lack of experienced

practitioners resulted in systemic building failures within the NZ building industry, including serious

weather tightness issues. The failure to appropriately advise, monitor, and perform the required

2 Murphy, C, (2010), Cost effective quality: next generation building controls?, http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1582 retrieved 27/03/12 page 2

http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1582

standard of these new conventional systems saw a surge in weather tightness issues, and disputes

throughout the construction sector. An investigative report published in 2002, also known as ‘the Hunn

Report”3 concluded that one of the major contributing factors to such building failures were the result

of incompetent and inappropriate workmanship (Dbh,nd).

In response to the criticism of the report, the Government introduced various changes to policies

procedures, and statutory sections of the Building Act (1991) in an attempt to streamline accountability,

and settle disputes. The influential changes of the building Act can be summarised as follows4;

The building code. The specific changes within the building code enhanced methods/ standards

called “acceptable solutions” such as the E2 External moisture which sets out the prescriptive

solution illustrating sequenced instructions of how to comply with the standards of the building

code if followed5.

Building consent Authority (BCA) accreditation. Is a prerequisite registration that was

Introduced as part of the 2004 building act, as an attempt to improve the BCA`s ability to induce

better quality inspections and building control services6 in a timely effort to approve

certification of applications.

Certification of building products. Specifically, the Building Industry Authority (BIA now

dissolved and incorporated as DBH responsible then for NZ building legislation) conducted

studies that concluded as part of the performance improvement, increased changes to timber

treatments for exterior walls only needed to be executed (B2/AS1)7. March 2011, it was

recommended that H1.2 be used extensively to nearly all “enclosed timber”.

Transition of Building Act 1991- 2004. The performance based Building act of 2004 was the

outcome of the 1991 act review to address the issues of the building consent inspection,

compliance to the building code while attempting address disputes/complaints.

Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) scheme. Occupational Licensing is perceived to raise quality

performance standards in the construction industry, which may translate to reduced

workmanship defects and disputes. Occupational licensing achieves this by making

practitioners accountable for services rendered. Due to the defective issues that New Zealand

has experienced in the past, all management, design, engineering professionals, and trade

bodies associated to structural works, foundations works, and exterior sheathing (cladding), to

any residential structures 10 storeys or less, must possess a Building practitioners license (LBP)

by law (as of 1st March 2012). The legislative changes which included, the Weather tight Homes

Resolution Service Act 2002 (now WHRS 2006) and the revised 2004 building Act attempted to

monitor building control staff, on-site workers, and Designers through the LBP scheme that was

introduced in November 2007. However, the Scheme permits unqualified practitioners

entering the scheme based on a series character references to guarantee competency of the

3 Dbh, (nd), About weather tightness, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/about-weathertightness-background retrieved 27/03/12 4 Dbh, (nd), BCA, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/BCA/PWC-BCA-accreditation-scheme-report.pdf retrieved 06/11/12 page 2 5 Dbh, (nd), Building A-Z, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/building-az-a retrieved 06/11/12 6 Dbh, (nd), What is building consent authority accreditation?, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/codewords-42-4 7 Dbh, (nd),The Ministry's Position, http://www.nzwood.co.nz/images/uploads/douglas-fir_alternative_solutions.pdf , retrieved 06/11/12 page 14

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/about-weathertightness-background

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/BCA/PWC-BCA-accreditation-scheme-report.pdf


http://www.dbh.govt.nz/building-az-a

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/codewords-42-4

http://www.nzwood.co.nz/images/uploads/douglas-fir_alternative_solutions.pdf


prospective LBP. Also, further consultation investigating the schemes site licensing class cited

as introducing a more competency-based LBP classes to either supervise at either a technical

or management level for RBW8. The proposed changes mentioned can be interpreted as a

second line of defence to the quality assurance mechanisms by focusing less on the consenting,

inspection and certification and more on the competencies of the practitioners and their

quality assurance guarantees/warranties. Such changes will produce qualification based LBP

which will involve focusing less on the competencies of the practitioners, the consenting,

inspections and certification processes.

1.2 Statement of the research problem

Consumers that employ LBP in the construction industry to perform restricted services will have

renewed confidence in the knowledge that any defective work not remediated can be addressed by a

formal complaints process (Building Practitioners Board)9 designed to make practitioners accountable

for any defective works rendered (Dbh, nd) . Since the 1st of March 2012 only LBP may perform

restricted works throughout New Zealand. However, because the scheme has just as of recently

become mandatory there is some uncertainty as to whether the scheme will deliver as a quality

assurance mechanism, also identifying if there are any underlying issues to the scheme as perceived by

practitioners and consumers.

Prior to the introduction of the LBPS in 2002, there were a number of quality assurance mechanisms in

place in the New Zealand building industry such as the trade and professional service providers’

certification, quality assurance such as producer statements, manufacturers' warranties, building

inspections and trade professional associations that monitor quality and provide membership support.

The question is, have the existing quality assurance mechanisms failed as a justification for the

introduction of the LBPS? Also some criteria underpin the effectiveness of the LBP scheme which was

advanced as its primary intents in the bill submitted to the Parliament in 2002 (ref?). These included its

ability to contribute to:

lifting practitioner capability, productivity and performance in the NZ building industry

Making practitioners more accountable for their work.

Providing consumers with access to information to make informed decisions about the

competency of the practitioners they engage.

How do stakeholders in the industry perceive the effectiveness of the scheme in terms of meeting the

above underpinning intents and as a reliable quality assurance mechanism? These questions need to

be answered to ensure that any shortcomings in the scheme are addressed as early as possible to avoid

huge wastage of resources, considering the high cost of its implementation which is borne by taxpayers

and the huge compliance costs on businesses within the NZ construction industry. This is more so that

the scheme is perceived as adding to the overregulated environment for business and construction in

New Zealand. Anecdotal evidence exists to suggest that the existing quality assurance systems have

failed given the myriads of problems plaguing the industry such as the leaky building, high rates of

8 Dbh, (nd), Consulting on: LBP policy issues, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/consultingon-lbp-policy-issues retrieved 06/11/12 9 Dbh, (nd),The LBP complaints process , http://www.dbh.govt.nz/lbp-complaints#aid11 retrieved 24/04/2012

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/consultingon-lbp-policy-issues

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/lbp-complaints#aid11

defective work, litigations for poor quality, etc. However, these could only be assumptions and hearsay

without empirical findings to back them up.

The study will also look at the key stakeholder perceptions of the issues around the LBPS such as areas

for improvement.

1.3 Research questions/objectives

• How effective is the LBP scheme so far in terms of achieving its primary intents?

• What are the shortcomings of the LBP scheme in its current form?

• How could the shortcomings be addressed?

• What action plan can be put in place for improving the effectiveness of the scheme

1.4 Research propositions/hypotheses

Based on the intuition developed from the Literature review of this study, it was anticipated that some

expected outcomes from the proposed questions. The hypotheses to be:

Assumptions perceive the Practitioners scheme is providing a quality assurance and there may

be a genuine is raising efficiency.

Practitioners are more accountable as a direct result of the scheme, which influence positive

changes to efficiency.

Cost, may be viewed as a negative.

Qualitative responses, comparative differences of the scheme and membership associations, I

assume some Stakeholders may be uncertainty as to the differences in quality support

mechanisms from traditional entity bodies (Master builders association, New Zealand Institute

of Architects) and association to the LBPS.

1.5 Scope limitations

The range of Scope of this research is limited to the relevant research documents and applications that

outline, past research experiences of licensing, the entry requirements to licensing, licensing

contribution to quality, as well as the stakeholders that participate as a LBP, or employing a LBP. Factors

that must be considered while administering this research can be mentioned as follows:

The range of Scope of this research is limited to the relevant research documents and applications that

outline, past research experiences of licensing, the entry requirements to licensing, licensing

contribution to quality, as well as the stakeholders that participate as a LBP, or employing a LBP. Factors

that must be considered while administering this research can be mentioned as follows:

Time (Deliverables, retrieving, generating data, and being flexible to Stakeholder participants)

Budget (Travel expenses, resources, supplies)

Involving WILLING participants into the study, where those participants are indirectly

associated or participants to the scheme. Because the study involves various levels of

stakeholder, maintaining a balance of equal participants from each level keep the analysis

unbiased.

1.6 Contribution to knowledge/practical implications of the findings

Contribution of this study?

Firstly, to my knowledge this research will be the first of its kind in investigating the scheme since its

inception (1st march of this year (2012). Second, all the information generated from participants will

reflect the present situation of the License scheme in action, and will respond to the research findings

of other studies and drawing out similarities to those studies. This Research will also contribute to the

general body of knowledge the current thinking of the issues and merits with the scheme, and what

recommendations may be implemented to enhance a scheme of quality assurance. A point worth

mentioning is the need to test participants perceived theory of whether or not a licensed practitioner

is considered “Professional” status (irrespective of license class).

The benefits of this study?

The research fulfilling the objective of industry perception will contribute valuable findings to the body

of knowledge, by contributing first hand reoccurring descriptions and opinions, that stakeholder of

priority. Scope of the research is not limited to just License practitioners, but also perspective

practitioners (apprentices), Regulating bodies (Dbh associates), Suppliers, and Clients. The true benefit

of this study is the possibility that the findings may promote Licensing as an attractive career alternative,

and stimulate growth in the sector.

Stakeholder perceptions of whether the scheme perceived to reduce the defects, and what

features of the scheme enhances quality?

Determine what are the merits and demerits of the scheme to be from key stakeholders.

Stakeholder perceptions (assumptions of cost, liabilities, defects, performance, guarantees)

Determine reforms, changes that may need to enhance the effectiveness of the scheme.

Assumptions of cost of entry to the scheme and the on-going charges to remain active

participant).

Determine if there is a perception that acquiring a “License” portrays the title “Professional” in

the industry.

1.7 Structure of the report

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Literacy - Introduction.

This section of the study reviews the literature that was used to magnify the contextual issues of

licensing, the systems that existed prior to its inception and points that enhance the schemes

efficiency. The structure of this section initially examines those passed studies that identify the

complications (LBPS limiting entry), and some of the rewards (guaranteeing quality assurance),

connected to licensing. Further, a deeper review of efficiency mechanisms that continually

support the scheme, such as the legislative acts (its purpose, history), the regulating support

features of associated bodies, and the impact functions of local body’s. Then, the literature

enumerates detailed specifics the quality assurance documents of producer statements at the

manufacturing level, Warrantees for the products on installation, the standardised or New

Zealand Standards contract forms with respects to the quality clauses, and role of compliancy

documents. The concluding point examines those claims made in the research case studies of

Quality management systems or plans, both internally and externally before summarising any

objective findings.

2.1.1 Research cases

The introduction of a new licensing scheme is deemed the solution to the delinquent events such

as the defective and quality issues experienced during the years prior to the LBPS coming into

effect in 2002. The following studies give a historical account of the schemes existence, followed

by problematic and solutions to licensing.

2.1.2 History & the “Hunn Report”

By 2001 the Building Industry Authority (BIA, now reformed Department of building and

housing, DBH), conducted a survey that indicated some 60% of pre-purchase inspections

leaked10. In light of these findings an investigative body was commissioned to performed

further studies to determine the main contributing factors of the “Leaky homes Crisis”. The

report was published in 2002 and in short was titled ‘the Hunn Report”11. The report

concluded that building failures were the result of incompetent documentation, irregular

insufficient standardised checks, inappropriate use of inadequate materials and workmanship.

From the points highlighted in the report the Government responded by introducing various

statutes which included the Weather tight Homes Resolution Service Act 2002 (now WHRS

2006) in an attempt to resolve parties disputes before litigation, and the NZ Building Act 2004

(replacing the Building act 1991). The NZ building act 2004 provided initiatives to address the

mentioned findings of the “Hunn report” by administering powers to the DBH to amend, and

revise compliant alternative performance solutions to the building code as a benchmark

requirement12. Finally the Act also included provisions to regulate parties such as building

control staff, on-site workers, and Designers through a system of Occupational licensing

where parties must demonstrate a level of competency as a License Building Practitioner (LBP).

2.1.2.1.1 Definition of LBPS?

The LBP scheme aims to control construction works, structural, or the external weather proof

envelope of residential homes of small to medium apartment buildings and promote

accountability. The LBP scheme applies to those parties that fall into the category of performing

Restricted Building Work13s as deemed by the NZB Act14 (however the govt is accepting

10 http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1582 retrieved 27/03/12 11 http://www.dbh.govt.nz/about-weathertightness-background retrieved 27/03/12 12 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/096be8ed80827318.pdf Part 1 s 12,2 f, retrieved 27/03/12 page 47 13 http://www.nzcic.co.nz/Documents/LBP_Summary_of_changes.pdf 14 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/096be8ed80827318.pdf Part 1, s 7, retrieved

27/03/12 page 38



http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/096be8ed80827318.pdf

http://www.nzcic.co.nz/Documents/LBP_Summary_of_changes.pdf










































submissions for Developer activities15 ) which are administered by 13 various licensing classes

covering the different disciplines16. Since 2007 - 2008, 7 of the 13 classes (mainly building,

management, and design) had been phased into activity with the remaining classes coming into

effect from 2008 onwards. By 2010 most design and site management activities had become

mandatory, with all compulsory association to the scheme by 1st march 2012. Long-term, the

scheme will become qualification based by 2015 where members must be certified as well as

licensed. Each License class attained permits the license holder to operate within certain working

groups of site management, Design, or restricted trades. The site 1-3 classes range from managing

single storey dwellings and alterations (site 1), through to more complex multi storey

developments of 10m in height (site3). Similar criteria level exists for the design classes in

conjunction with the site classes, where design1 license functions to the same skill requirements

of as site1 and respectively throughout. Recently in anticipation of these changes, some industry

stakeholders17 have expressed a need to take on liability insurance18, others have submitted

cautions to the DBH that streamlining theory only qualified parties (graduates) to become LBP,

falls well short of the competency standard required.19

2.1.2.2 Management

The argument that works performed by a licensed practitioner is does not guarantee that a quality

product will be produced. Georgiou, Love, and Smith back this claim that implementing stringent

regulations such as licensing may not reduce the number of defects, and does not guarantee a

quality product due to subcontractor’s freedom to self-manage. (Georgiou, Love, Smith, 1999)20.

On the point of management, Mills, Love, and Williams recommend that the solution to addressing

defects is not by compounding further regulations, but only by managing projects effectively.

Their study examined restricted works performed by different licensed builders who were limited

to the number of homes they were permitted to build based on the license issued. Conclusively,

the best performing licensed group were those parties that constructed the largest volume of

buildings to the market. This was only achieved due to their organisation, and management

abilities (Mills, Love, Williams, 2009)21.

15 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=3526741 , retrieved 7/04/12 16

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dbh.govt.nz%2FUserFiles%2FFile%2FPublications%2FLicensing%2Fpdf%2Fis-licensing-for-me.pdf&ei=2Xt-T--2O9HJrAfM0PHwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEI0nJlnMAmC71dmbA6V-EntA0XRA retrieved 27/03/12 page 5 17 http://www.nzcic.co.nz/Documents/March_19_Industry_Issues_Forum_Minutes.pdf retrieved 27/03/12,

page 4 18

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=licensed%20building%20practitioner%20issues&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CF4QFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jlt.co.nz%2Fdocuments%2FMasterbuilders%2520Press%2520Release%2520March%25202012.pdf&ei=PHx6T_qQO--fiAfrld3NAg&usg=AFQjC retrieved 27/03/12 19http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/media_comm/documents/StreamliningtheLicensedBuildingPractitionerSchem

e.pdf 20 J. Georgiou, P.E.D. Love, J. Smith, (1999),"A comparison of defects in houses constructed by owners and registered builders in the Australian State of Victoria", Structural Survey, Vol. 17 Iss: 3 pp. 160 – 169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630809910291343 retrieved 29/03/12, 21 Mills A, Love P, Williams P (2009). Defect Costs in Residential Construction. Journal Of Construction Engineering & Management

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=3526741
























http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dbh.govt.nz%2FUserFiles%2FFile%2FPublications%2FLicensing%2Fpdf%2Fis-licensing-for-me.pdf&ei=2Xt-T--2O9HJrAfM0PHwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEI0nJlnMAmC71dmbA6V-EntA0XRA

































































































http://www.nzcic.co.nz/Documents/March_19_Industry_Issues_Forum_Minutes.pdf























http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=licensed%20building%20practitioner%20issues&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CF4QFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jlt.co.nz%2Fdocuments%2FMasterbuilders%2520Press%2520Release%2520March%25202012.pdf&ei=PHx6T_qQO--fiAfrld3NAg&usg=AFQjC























































































http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/media_comm/documents/StreamliningtheLicensedBuildingPractitionerScheme.pdf






















http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630809910291343

2.1.2. 3 Licensing limits entry

New licensing also brings with it entry costs; and those costs have the potential to limit entry into

the scheme. Krueger uses the analogy that gaining entry is a gateway controlled monopoly with

the intension to create rents and limit disputes (M, Krueger,2010)22. Love, Davis and Worrall, also

claim that the inflated costs of membership association will be passed on and borne by the

consumer (Love, Davis, Worrall, 2010)23. Licensing restricts entry into the working market by costs

and regulation and quality of services rendered (Humphris, Morris, Koumenta, 2010), and due to

the barriers of entry placed on practitioners to become licensed, may create a shortage in the

supply of labour. A fundamental issue with rising demand and weak supply of practitioners may

result in consumers compromising quality and consent where necessary, by employing unlicensed

practitioners for a discounted price (Humphris, et al, 2010).

2.1.2.4 Difficulty determining the effectiveness of licensing.

The difficulty that often comes from licensing, is determining whether or not licensing is achieving

its objectives at being efficiently effective. James, Mark, and Kevin24 argue that the most

appropriate means of measuring the effectiveness of licensing is by thoroughly regulating all

points of compliance. Burby, May & Patersoney25 cite that difficulties determining license

effectiveness occurs where there are failures to regulate and that by so doing can be disastrous.

2.2 Quality assurance mechanisms in the New Zealand building industry

The many quality assurance mechanisms that exist in the New Zealand building industry vary

considerably as this section identifies and investigates those traditional systems that exist while

continuing to support practitioners prior to the licencing scheme and also those mechanisms that

have been introduced as a result of the scheme.

2.2.1 Regulations.

The limits and scope from which practitioners perform their works are legislative (Statute Acts,

Building code compliance, standards), Document statements (producer statements, warranties)

self-regulative associations, and Governing regulative bodies.

http://ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=iih&AN=35745813&site=ehost-live retrieved 29/03/12 22 M, M, &. Krueger, A, B (2010), The Prevalence and Effects of Occupational Licensing, page2, http://webs.wofford.edu/pechwj/The%20Prevalence%20and%20Effects%20of%20Occupational%20Licensing.pdf retrieved 29/03/12 23 Love, P,E,D, Davis, P, E & Worrall, (2010), DJ. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 136, 215 (2010); Occupational Licensing of Building Trades: Case of Western Australia, http://ascelibrary.org/epo/resource/1/jpepe3/v136/i4/p215_s1?isAuthorized=no retrieved 29/03/12 24 James E. Fenn MS, D. Mark Hutchings PHD & Kevin L. Burr EDD (2008): The Purposes for State Residential General Contractor Licensing in the United States, International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 4:2, 67-81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15578770802229391 retrieved 24/10/12 25 Burby, R. J., May, P. J., & Paterson, R. C. (1998), Improving Compliance with Regulations: Choices and Outcomes for Local Government. Journal- American Planning Association, 64(3), 324-334, http://ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN046337190&site=eds-live retrieved 24/10/12

http://ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=iih&AN=35745813&site=ehost-live


http://webs.wofford.edu/pechwj/The%20Prevalence%20and%20Effects%20of%20Occupational%20Licensing.pdf


http://ascelibrary.org/epo/resource/1/jpepe3/v136/i4/p215_s1?isAuthorized=no

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15578770802229391

http://ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN046337190&site=eds-live


2.2.1.1 Regulation -Statute Acts.

Surprisingly some key trades that are required to be licensed are also governed by legislative acts.

The following acts are evaluated on the assumption that any of the latest changes or amendments

we`re treated as if solely influenced by the weather tightness issues and not the LBPS. Each Act

that is related to Licensing explicitly defines the purpose at law what it sets out to achieve.

Designers, such architects and engineers are respectively governed by the Registered Architects

Act 2005 26 and the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act 200227. Both mention to

the fact their purposes is to “establish a system of registration or governing body , setting in place

a code of ethics, with disciplinary processes. The Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006

(also subject to the LBPS) promote its purpose to “regulate persons who carry out works.

The Original 2004 building Act (before amendments accommodating changes for the LBPS) made

provisions for an electronic registrar screening candidates to be licensed. It is inconceivable why

such provisions in the Act could not be left to the governing trade associations with exclusive

powers to govern and administer rather than being subject to a new universal scheme (LBPS).

Further, the building act does justice in its objective to protect clients with the use of implied

warranties for works carried being fit for purpose (s397) and of a nature to achieve the required

Quality (s397)(f)(2), identifying the standards that contribute to the regulations, compliance, and

council orders (s405), the format for which inspections are carried out (s409(2)(a)), and the clarity

of the roles and responsibilities for regional, and consent authorities (s12-s14), owners/clients

(s14b), owner builders(14c), designers(s14d), builders(s14e).

Beyond the trades specific Acts mentioned, consumers continue to remain protected by The

Consumers Guarantee Act 1993(CGA)28, and The Fair Traders Act 1986(FTA)29. The CGA safe

guards consumers whether a guarantee exists or not by guaranteeing that the services, and the

materials incorporated in to the works will be of a standard and quality free of defects. The FTA

also safe guards’ consumers from being falsely misled, and deceived of unfair trade practices

which has the potential to cause significant loss. Collectively all the acts mention accountability

and the disciplining of practitioners (or suppliers to practitioners) that fail in any part or duty of

the act..

2.2.1.2 Regulation – Associated bodies.

The trades and professional bodies that are subjected to the LPBS, have historically always had a

system of registration that not only networks locally but internationally30. Professional bodies such

as the IPENZ (engineers), and NZIA (Architects), began influencing registration as far back as 1912

and 1905 respectively. Trade bodies such as builders, plumbers, and roofers also have their place

in history which for the master builders association predates the century, plumbers since 1894,

26Registered Architects Act 2005, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0038/latest/096be8ed8037ae26.pdf retrieved 20/05/12 27 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0017/latest/096be8ed8046b339.pdf retrieved 20/05/12 28 http://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/legal/legal-other-pimsconsumer.php retrieved 20/05/12 29 Consumer, (01 Oct 2011) , Fair Trading Act, http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/fair-trading-act retrieved 20/05/12 30The NZ professional bodies of Engineers and architects network internationally and where Engineers are listed the Washington Accord for engineers, and The union of international Architects (UIA) promote and recognise the qualifications of NZ.

http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/who_we_are/

http://www.nzia.co.nz/the-nzia/about-the-nzia.aspx

http://www.aucklandmasterplumbers.co.nz/

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0038/latest/096be8ed8037ae26.pdf

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0017/latest/096be8ed8046b339.pdf

http://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/legal/legal-other-pimsconsumer.php

http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/fair-trading-act

http://www.washingtonaccord.org/Washington-Accord/signatories.cfm

http://www.uia-architectes.org/texte/england/Menu-1/2-5-sections.html

and the roofing association 1994. (Surely a wealth of history in experience could foster some

confidence). Entry to each associated body requires cost, a test of competency evaluation from

governing associated bodies, and the appropriate qualification. At the point of applying for entry

practitioners are also made aware of the penalties and consequences in failing to perform under

the terms of their membership. For many of the associations also protect consumers from defects

in guarantee statements31

2.2.1.3 Regulation – Local government bodies.

Interesting fact, The Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 makes reference to the effect that its

purpose32 is to promote accountability to its respective communities by providing decisions on

certain activities and the manner in which they (they- practitioners) perform those activities.

Clearly, the duty of local bodies is to monitor and regulate events, and those events include

construction (or building) works. The LGA mentions construction 18 times in 9 sections explicitly

the duties expected of local bodies (council administrators) to perform in relation to

construction33. In relation to restricted works from council administrators the duties range from

(as minimums and not limited to), the rights to access private land (clients) to inspect, alter, renew,

repair, or clean any work constructed (Section 181(4)) or issue a notice to remove any works even

if the works comply to the building act (Section 216(b)). Implying that any decision made by

Council regulators by the LGA, requires that administrators be qualified to make any decisions will

not only reflect the fitness for purpose rule but a governing assurance for quality from the

compliance documents.

2.3. Quality assurance documents.

2.3.1. Quality assurance documents- Manufacturers producer statements

Suppliers of materials and components for building in New Zealand are required to provide a

Producer Statement (PS) assuring that the materials and components will meet the requirements

of the Building Code related to the quality expectations implicit in the design or construction.

Producer statements are normally categorised as design or construction specific and may be used

for gaining building consent, or a compliance schedule which is achieved by clearly describing the

work to be covered, referencing explicitly the plans, specifications, performance appraisal, and

methods and processes that will be used to monitor the actions of the work. In the matter of

granting building consent with the use of producer statements, authorities cannot grant consent

solely on the basis of a reputable Professional membership (LBPS), only the added value of

additional documentation will ensure quality alliance.

31 Guarantee statements MBA, Master plumbers guarantee, generally consumers are protected under the consumers guarantee act for products or materials that fail when guarantees as a fitness for purpose is used. 32 Local government act 2002 - Part 1 Preliminary provisions, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM170879.html?search=sw_096be8ed80824d5a_construction_25&p=1 retrieved 20/05/12 33 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/resultsin.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed80824d5a_construction_25&p=1 retrieved 20/05/12

http://www.roofingassn.org.nz/

http://www.masterbuilder.org.nz/PDFs/GTE%20Defect%20Tolerance%20Schedule.pdf

http://www.masterplumbers.org.nz/master-guarantee/

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Sector/regulatory-impact-statements/bar-guarantee-products-paper-ris.pdf

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM170879.html?search=sw_096be8ed80824d5a_construction_25&p=1


http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/resultsin.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed80824d5a_construction_25&p=1


2.3.2. Quality assurance documents- Manufacturers Warrantees

As mentioned earlier with regard to the Building Act, consumer’s rights are protected when

professionals, trades people, otherwise are engaged to perform building works. The warrantees

are effective in the agreement and coerce that the works must be performed as outlined in the

building act, the building code, to a quality manner in accordance with the plans and

specifications. The effect of warrantees also insists that the work is carried out in reasonable skill

and care and time.34

2.3.3. Quality assurance documents- Standards, Contractual, compliance documents.

The New Zealand standards (NZS) promote quality assurance within its documents such as

NZS3910. Specifically, NZS3910 is a contract document that is administered by the engineer for

routine project quality control as part of the contractual clauses in NZS 3910 whereby the

engineers checks the quality of the works of the contractor each claim period and pays for only

duly completed works and points out defective work to be remedied. Further, NZS3915 is another

contract document administered by the Contractor35 with a supporting approval of the Principal

to an agreed quality management system (cl 5.17) as part of the contract documents, including

any variations affecting quality. For situations referring to alterations NZS3902 is explicit in

mentioning the duties of the builder concerning performance and quality (Cl 4.0), builder’s

warranties to meet all plans and specifications, warrantor’s obligations to remediate defects, as

well as a 5yr guarantee to workmanship and materials.

Quality assurance clauses in contracts broadly speaking is not just limited to NZS. Trade and

professional associations in most cases promote and administer their own standard contracts36.

Contractors registered to associated bodies such as master builders37, or NZIA38 are also most

likely to be accompanied with their own guarantees39 for services provided.

The consumer can also rely on quality assurance systems for building products such as a testing

system to appraise the building materials and determine if the products presently meet the

certification of the building code. Branz performs the numerous tests on materials to determine

its suitability for purpose, and ensure that the products are acceptable with the building code. All

in all the building code consists of 35 Compliance documents that support the building consent

process and collectively form the Building code, either by illustrating step by step methods

(acceptable solutions) on how to best perform a task, and/or providing proof that a design feature

is suitable based on clinical tests (verification methods) performed from an accredited

organisation40. The second quality assurance system is Certification of the building products by an

accredited body, guaranteeing that the product satisfies the building code standard and is

branded with the reputable CODEMARK® logo.

34DBH, (nd), What about consumer protection?, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/handc-consumer-protection , retrieved 27/03/12, 35 Contract Administered by the contractor in the absence of an engineer. 36 Construction contracts http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_display.php?st=1&sn=67&pg=6677&cat_name=&cat_id=&rp=1 37 http://www.alexanderconstruction.co.nz/images/SA2009-Form%20-%20Subcontract%20Agreement.pdf 38 www.lunds.co.nz/Uploads/1723/Specification.pdf 39 Guarantees Masterbuilders, Master plumbers, 40 NZ most common accredited bodies approving compliancy are Branz, and Beal.

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/handc-consumer-protection

http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_display.php?st=1&sn=67&pg=6677&cat_name=&cat_id=&rp=1

http://www.alexanderconstruction.co.nz/images/SA2009-Form%20-%20Subcontract%20Agreement.pdf

http://www.lunds.co.nz/Uploads/1723/Specification.pdf

http://www.masterbuilder.org.nz/index.asp?id=112


http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_display.php

http://www.beal.co.nz/

Figure 1 The Building code review report, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/userfiles/file/building/building-code-review/pdf/building-code-review-report.pdf.

2.3.4 Quality assurance documents. Quality assurance plan (QAP)/Quality

management System (QMS).

Internalising a QAP or QMS as part the contractual clauses establishes transparency, and

clarification of the duty and extent of the quality of the works to be performed by the contractor.

Communicating the Quality assurance programme to the Contract Administrator forms not only

an agreement but gives the Administrator an opportunity to accept or reject the programme and

request changes (NZS3915 & NZ3910) cl 5.17.d.). Externally, Building consent authorities (BCA)

are required by regulation 17 (of the Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities Regulations

2006)41 to demonstrate an ability to foster a culture of quality assurance and on-going

development as part of their accreditation process. The purpose of which is to audit BCA`s and

ensure that regulators are competent, and continue to demonstrate continual improvement with

documenting and implementing quality assurance systems.

2.4 Literature Summary

Krueger’s argument that Licensing limits entry and is intended to create rents while endeavouring

to limit disputes (M, Krueger,2010) identifies an important aspect of this study, that if licensing is

necessary then why should rents be the barrier to a scheme that may deliver quality. Perhaps

spreading the schemes objectives into the numerous mechanisms that are presently available

would seem more feasible at eliminating cost but improving quality assurance. Historically, there

appears to have been no shortage of systems that externally support practitioners, a point that

Mills, Love, and Williams have been very critical of recommending that the solution to addressing

defects is not by compounding further regulations (external), but by managing projects effective.

It was also discovered that the point of Quality management systems/plans was explicitly covered

in many of the standardised contracts, as well Building Consent authorities are required to

demonstrate an ability to foster a culture of quality assurance and on-going development as part

of their accreditation process.

41Dbh (02/07), Building Consent Authority Accreditation Preparation and Self-assessment Guide February 2007, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Guidance-information/pdf/reg17-guide.pdf retrieved 20/05/12

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/userfiles/file/building/building-code-review/pdf/building-code-review-report.pdf

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/userfiles/file/building/building-code-review/pdf/building-code-review-report.pdf

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Guidance-information/pdf/reg17-guide.pdf


Granted, that these systems have only recently occurred in the last 10years ranging from legislative

acts, compliance policy’s to National Standards (contributes to the Building code), producer statements

at the manufacturing level, Warrantees for the products on installation, and the supporting features of

the associated bodies functions of local body’s, is an impress layer of quality assurance. The startling

feature of the mentioned mechanisms thus far is how they permit trade professionals to self-manage

effectively which according to, Mills, Love, and Williams, is the best solution to maintaining quality.

3.0 Research Method

3.1 Research Design.

Only one cover letter, form requesting the summary of the results, and a questionnaire were provided

for respondents in this research. The covering letter immediately introduced the respondents to the

title of the scheme before encouraging respondents to participate with the objectives of the research

as its underpinning. The cover letter further mentioned that participation was voluntary and that there

was no obligation to complete the questionnaire with an accompanying envelope . (refer to appendix).

The 2 page questionnaire “Stakeholder perceptions on the effectiveness and improvement measures

for the Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) scheme” consisted of a Massey letterhead and a

questionnaire sections which were detailed as follows:

SECTION I : STAKEHOLDERS' OPINIONS ON THE LBP'S EFFECTIVENESS, SHORTCOMINGS AND

IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

The purpose of this section was to generally identify the respondent’s perception and understanding

of the schemes effectiveness. Section 1 was formulated into sub-sections to enable respondent’s to

respond to the scheme generally (General), the advantages (Advantages and benefits of the scheme),

and critically (Disadvantages). The respondents applied the Likert 5-point scale rating system by rating

each question in accordance with their level of agreement or disagreement. Respondents were also

provided exit from the question by responding with No Idea if they had no relative experience relating

to any of the questions mentioned.

Question 1 “The scheme is lifting practitioner capability, productivity and performance in the NZ building

industry” was introduced to the respondents gauge if the scheme was functioning effectively within the

industry.

Question 2 “The scheme is making practitioners more accountable for their work” was introduced to

gauge whether the respondents acknowledge that accountability existed.

Question3 “The scheme is providing consumers with access to information to make informed decisions

about the competency of the practitioners they engage”. This question was implemented to determine

whether the respondent’s experience with clients was built on confidence with the scheme.

Question4.”The scheme has an effective disciplinary and appeals process”. This question to was to

determine if the respondents were aware of their rights during a dispute, and if the process fair.

Question5. “As a result of the scheme, consumers now have greater confidence in the quality of the

building work and the people accountable for the work”. The focus of this question was to not only

reiterate the point of accountability but determine if the respondents experience with clients was of

the basis that clients were confident of the scheme making practitioners accountable.

Question6. “Overall, the scheme is an important quality assurance regulation and an effective solution

to the systemic failure and weathertightness problems experienced by the building industry up until

2004”. Respondents answering this question are in essence responding to the objective of the scheme

as of addressing the weahertightness issues. This question answers the general industries theory of the

scheme as perceived by the respondent.

Advantages of the LBP scheme (subheading).

Question7. “It effectively complements and reinforces the regulatory role of the professional and trade

organisations in New Zealand”. This question further builds on the idea that the scheme supports

industry associations and promotes professionalism.

Question8. “It effectively improves on the existing quality assurance systems such as the producer

statements, manufacturers' warranties and compliance with the building code”. The motive to this

question was to determine not only the knowledge of the respondents to systems of quality assurance

but ascertain if respondents felt there was a relationship.

Question9. “It raises the quality standard for building works by ensuring that the practitioners "get it

right the first time". This question aims to understand if the respondent believes that a benefit of

association to the scheme and what it promotes is quality assurance.

Question10.”It ensures that practitioner’s up skill continuously through the compulsory cpd required for

maintaining licence”. This question aims to determine if the respondent’s feel the scheme supports a

need for continual personal development for innovation and evolution to new practices while

mandating positive changes.

Question11.“It mitigates poor quality of work and enhances safety and the image of the industry by

discouraging quacks and inexperienced people from undertaking crucial building work”. The aim of this

question was to determine the respondent’s opinion of the scheme functioning as a quality assurance,

entry to the joining the scheme, and competency.

Disadvantages of the LBP scheme (subheading).

Question12. ”The scheme is complex and costly; it adds to the over-regulated environment and the cost

of doing business in building and construction sector”. The aim of the question was to introduce those

theories mentioned in the literature receive citing that the associated cost to licensing is a

disadvantage.

Question13. “Restricting building work to the few LBPs could exercabate the current skill shortage and

rising building costs; consumers may be tempted to engage unlicensed practitioners for a discount,

thereby defeating the purpose of the scheme”. This question focused on the theory mentioned in the

literature review the existence exclusivity by licensing resulting in a shortage of practitioners. The

theory further builds on the assumption that the due shortage may influence clients to seek alternative

substitutes.

Question14. “Amidst the rampant cases of negligence against BCAs and the poor performing inspectors,

licensing is a government ploy to pass on the risk of poor inspections and litigations to the industry”.

This question is designed to determine respondent’s opinions of liability, and whether the scheme has

made practitioners more liable, but also determine the industry spread of liability.

Question15. “Reassessment every year is quite demanding on practitioners”. The aim of this question

stems from Question10`s motive to encourage personal development from LBP seminars and that the

schemes evaluation of practitioners fairly merits assesses the capacity of the LBP`s.

Question16. “The need for the scheme is obviated by the existing quality assurance mechanisms such

as the producer statement, warranties, guarantees, and the quality oversight and disciplinary sanctions

provided by the trade and professional organisations”. Relative to Question10, this question seeks to

understand if the respondents are of the opinion that the scheme overrides or devalues those industry

quality assurance mechanisms by prioritising the scheme as a mandate.

Question17. “Publically displaying practitioners' personal details and past disciplinary actions is

intrusive”. The final question seeks to gauge the respondents comfort level with regard to practitioner’s

details of qualification, license status, and contact details publically available.

Qualitative Responses.

The questionnaire provided an opportunity at the end of the Advantages and Disadvantages sub-

section to comment further relative to each sub-section as well as suggests any future changes to the

scheme. The Qualitative aspects of the research will only make up a small part of the survey as an

opportunity for the candidates to rely open ended of the subject matter to the questions while noting

any common themes that emerge. Grounded theory analyses where reoccurring/common terms are

continually added from observations made, and are scrutinized and redefined (Wiki, 2009)42 to

formulate a hypothesis. Utilising such a format permits discussion and flexibility in guiding the processes

to an informed and impartial result. The main focus of participants will be stakeholders that are

Licensed Practitioners, perspective unlicensed practitioners (apprentices/students), regulating bodies,

Clients, and suppliers. Where it is obvious that a venue for the research cannot be determined, it will

be anticipated that all research activities will be conducted at the participant’s place of employment or

institute.

SECTION II: DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND.

The purpose of this section was to determine the demographic profiling (such as years of experience in

the New Zealand construction industry, location of residence, and Licenses possessed) of each

respondent and also reinforce the criteria for participation in the study. The conclusion of this section

42 wikipedia.org, (WIKI) (March 2009), Grounded Theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory#Four_stages_of_analysis retrieved 12/04/12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory#Four_stages_of_analysis

comprised of a statement of appreciation with contact details and Disclaimer revising the Ethical

statement by Massey universities Human ethics committee.

The primary approach for this research required direct interaction with the respondents (stakeholders)

to examine their perspective views, judgements, and observations as the preferred method of

collecting data for both a Quantitative and Qualitative approach. The Main portion of the questionnaire

instrument will be Quantitative instrument with a survey styled approach. The survey questions will be

unbiased close end questions that will obviously target a sample population (INFERENTIAL STATISTICS )

of the greater majority.

Multiple instruments such as a Interviews, questionnaire (Survey style), observational meetings, and

audio recording device (Hoepfl, 1997) were used to administer during the person one on one

interviews. Where the opportunity for direct communication does not present itself then conference

calling*, Skype* (conference calling option only after receipt of consent), by email to willing

participant(s) that may prefer to respond in private.

Further conditions to the questionnaire survey are:

• The Majority of the questions will be close ended where candidates respond to a rating system

of the issue statements. Further, the questionnaire provided an opportunity for open ended themes.

• Audio devices were only be used at the consent of the participant or group.

• Participants were advised of their rights to refuse to continue at any part/time during the

interview/ questionnaire.

4.0 Data Presentation

4.1 Demographic analysis of respondents

Since the 24th September 2012, a total of 3135 participants were invited to participate in the survey

questionnaire, and by the closure date of 4th of November a total of exactly 300 respondents

contributed. 3089 participants were randomly selected by email to participate in an E-Survey, which

resulted in 289 responses. Direct contacting efforts of approaching LBP`s within the workplace

translated to 46 questionnaires were left with participants resulting in 3 successful return responses, 2

interviews and 6 immediate responses not requiring follow up retrieval of questionnaire. The total

valid percentage rate of responses from sample selected was 9.6%.

4.1.2 What is the length of your experience of the New Zealand construction Industry?

Overwhelmingly, 79.7% (239) cited as having 15 or greater years of experience with 9.0% (27)

respectively identifying themselves of the range for both 11-15 (27) and 9.3% respectively identifying

themselves of the range 6-10 (28) years’ experience. While jointly 1% (3) identified themselves as either

having less than 5 years or choosing not to respond.

4.1.2 General Location?

The respondents identified themselves from 17 location categories, 16 of which are local regions, while

1 category accommodated respondents that were residing abroad. A third of the majority of 29% of

overall participants identified Auckland as their location of residence. With the greater populated

regions of Northland 15 %, Otago, and Canterbury equally sharing 9%, and Southland 7%. The remaining

regions representing third respondents Hawks Bay 6%, and Manawatu 5%, Wellington and Taranaki

equally 4%, Marlborough 3%, Gisbourne, Nelson, West Coast, Waikato 2%, while only 1 respondent

cited as being from Tasman region and 1 respondent cited residing abroad.

4.1.3 License Class (Respondents choose more than one if you possess more than one license

class)

What is the length of your experience of the New Zealand construction

industry?# %

0-5 years (3 participants) 3 1.0%



15+ years (239 participants) 239 79.7%Respondant Total 297 99.0%

Missing 3 1.0%

Total 300 100.0%

The sole majority 39% or 175 Respondents cited as possessing a carpentry license. Sites class licenses

represented a combined 45%, while Combined Design class licenses represented 14% of the licensing.

The remaining trade licenses shared the least respondents citing Roofing 5%, Foundations, Bricklaying

and Block laying equally citing 3%, External plastering 2%, and 1% missing.

QUANITITATIVE RESULTS GENERAL

Q.1 With regards to the question “The scheme is lifting practitioner capability, productivity and

performance in the NZ building industry” 51 participants strongly disagreed, 50 respondents margined

between strongly disagree and neutral, 94 respondents representing the clear majority of respondents

expressed a Neutral position, 77 respondents favoured position between Neutral and Strongly agree.

Only 22 of respondents strongly agreed, while remaining 6 respondents answered no idea.

When measuring the results proportionately by percentages 17.0% of participants strongly disagreed,

16.7% margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 31.3% representing the clear majority of

respondents expressed a Neutral position, 25.7% of the respondent’s favoured position between

License Class (please choose more than one if you possess more than one

license class)# %

Site 1 68 15%

Site 2 70 15%

Site 3 21 5%

Design 1 17 4%

Design 2 30 7%

Design 3 12 3%

Carpentry 175 39%

Roofing 22 5%

External plastering 10 2%

Bricklaying and Block laying 12 3%

Foundations 12 3%

Other 4 1%

Total 453 100%

The scheme is lifting practitioner capability, productivity and performance in

the NZ building industry.# %

1. STRONGLY DISAGREE 51 17.0%

2 50 16.7%

3. NEITHER AGREE / NEUTRAL 94 31.3%

4 77 25.7%

5. STRONGLY AGREE 22 7.3%

0. NO IDEA 6 2.0%

Respondant Total 300 100.0%

Missing 0 0.0%

Total 300 100.0%

Neutral and strongly agree. Only 7.3% of respondents strongly agreed, while 2.0% of respondents

answered no idea. The participation to this question was 100%, with 0 participants missing.

Q2. With regards to the question “The scheme is making practitioners more accountable for their work.”

11 participants strongly disagreed, 24 respondents margined between strongly disagree and neutral,

51 respondents of respondents expressed a Neutral position, 98 respondents favoured position

between Neutral and Strongly agree, 22 of respondents representing the clear majority strongly agreed,

while remaining 1 respondent answered no idea.


8.0% margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 17.0% of respondents expressed a Neutral

position, 32.7 % of the respondent’s favoured position between Neutral and strongly agree. 38.3%

representing the clear majority of respondents Strongly agreed, while 0.3% of respondents answered

No idea. The percentage participation to this question was 100%, with no participants missing.

Q3. With regards to the question “The scheme is providing consumers with access to information to

make informed decisions about the competency of the practitioners they engage.” 23 participants

strongly disagreed, 52 respondents margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 70 respondents

expressed a Neutral position, 107 respondents representing the clear majority favoured position

between Neutral and Strongly agree, 44 of respondents strongly agreed, while remaining 3 respondents

answered No idea.

The scheme is making practitioners more accountable for their work. # %


2 24 8.0%


4 98 32.7%


0. NO IDEA 1 0.3%


Missing 0 0.0%

Total 300 100.0%



position, 35.7% of the respondent’s representing the clear majority favoured position between Neutral

and strongly agree. 14.7% of respondents Strongly agreed, while 1.0% of respondents answered No

idea. The total percentage participation to this question was 100%, with 0.3% participant missing.

Q4. With regards to the question “The schemes has an effective disciplinary and appeals process.” 14

participants strongly disagreed, 20 respondents margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 123

respondent’s representing the clear majority expressed a Neutral position, 50 respondents favoured

position between Neutral and Strongly agree, 32 of respondents strongly agreed, while remaining 58

respondent answered no idea. 3 participants missing.


6.7% margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 41.0% of respondents representing the clear

majority of expressed a Neutral position, 16.7% of the respondent’s favoured position between Neutral

and strongly agree. 10.7% respondents Strongly agreed, while 19.3% of respondents answered No idea.

The percentage of total participation to this question was 99%. with 1.0% participants missing.

Q5. With regards to the question “As a result of the scheme, consumers now have greater confidence

in the quality of the building work and the people accountable for the work.” 30 participants strongly

The scheme is providing consumers with access to information to make

informed decisions about the competency of the practitioners they engage.# %


2 52 17.3%


4 107 35.7%


0. NO IDEA 3 1.0%


Missing 1 0.3%

Total 300 100.0%

The schemes has an effective disciplinary and appeals process. # %


2 20 6.7%


4 50 16.7%


0. NO IDEA 58 19.3%


Missing 3 1.0%

Total 300 100.0%

disagreed, 39 respondents margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 83 respondents of

respondents expressed a Neutral position, 86 respondents representing the majority favoured position

between Neutral and Strongly agree, 51 of respondents strongly agreed, while remaining respondent

answered no idea, with 2 respondents missing.





No idea. The participation to this question was 99%.

Q6. With regards to the question “Overall, the scheme is an important quality assurance regulation and

an effective solution to the systemic failure and weather tightness problems experienced by the building

industry up until 2004.” 69 participants strongly disagreed, 66 respondents margined between strongly

disagree and neutral, 67 respondents expressed a Neutral position, 66 respondents favoured position

between Neutral and Strongly agree, 29 of respondents cited as strongly agreed, while no respondents

answered no idea.



position, 22.0% of the respondent’s favoured position between Neutral and strongly agree. 9.7% of

respondents Strongly agreed, while no respondents answered No idea. The participation to this

question was 99%, with 1.0% participants missing.

As a result of the scheme, consumers now have greater confidence in the

quality of the building work and the people accountable for the work.# %


2 39 13.1%


4 86 28.9%


0. NO IDEA 9 3.0%


Missing 2 0.7%

Total 300 100.0%

Overall, the scheme is an important quality assurance regulation and an

effective solution to the systemic failure and weathertightness problems

experienced by the building industry up until 2004. # %


2 66 22.0%


4 66 22.0%


0. NO IDEA 0 0.0%


Missing 3 1.0%

Total 300 100.0%

Q7. With regards to the question “It effectively complements and reinforces the regulatory role of the

professional and trade organisations in New Zealand.” 22 participants strongly disagreed, 44

respondents margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 75 respondents expressed a Neutral

position, 102 respondents representing the clear majority favoured position between Neutral and

Strongly agree, 46 of respondents strongly agreed, while remaining 7 respondent answered no idea.



position, 34.0% representing the clear majority of the respondent’s favoured position between Neutral

and strongly agree. 15.3% of respondents Strongly agreed, while 2.3% of respondents answered No

idea. The total percentage of participation to this question was 98.7%, with 1.3% participants missing.

Q8. With regards to the question “It effectively improves on the existing quality assurance system such

as the producer statements, manufactures' warranties and compliance with the building code.” 32


respondents of respondents expressed a Neutral position, 109 respondents representing the majority

favoured position between Neutral and Strongly agree, 41 of respondents strongly agreed, while

remaining 2 respondent answered no idea.




It effectively complements and reinforces the regulatory role of the

professional and trade organisations in New Zealand. # %


2 44 14.7%


4 102 34.0%


0. NO IDEA 7 2.3%


Missing 4 1.3%

Total 300 100.0%

It effectively improves on the existing quality assurance system such as the

producer statements, manufactuers' warranties and compliance with the

building code.

# %


2 38 12.7%


4 109 36.3%


0. NO IDEA 2 0.7%


Missing 1 0.3%

Total 300 100.0%


No idea. The participation to this question was 99.7%, with 0.3 participants missing.

Q9. With regards to the question “It raises the quality standard for building works by ensuring that the

practitioners "get it right the first time". 41 participants strongly disagreed, 62 respondents margined

between strongly disagree and neutral, 71 respondents of respondents expressed a Neutral position,

78 respondents representing the majority favoured position between Neutral and Strongly agree, 42 of

respondents strongly agreed, while remaining 2 respondent answered no idea.




respondents Strongly agreed, while 0% of respondents answered No idea. The percentage participation

to this question was 98.7%, with 1.3% participants missing.

Q10. With regards to the question “It ensures that practitioner’s upskill continuously through the

compulsory CPD required for maintaining licence.” 27 participants strongly disagreed, 33 respondents

margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 50 respondents expressed a Neutral position, 117

respondents representing the clear majority favoured position between Neutral and Strongly agree, 22

of respondents strongly agreed, while remaining 1 respondent answered no idea.



position, 39.0% of the respondent’s favoured position between Neutral and strongly agree. 23.0%

It raises the quality standard for building works by ensuring that the

practitioners "get it right the first time".# %


2 62 20.7%


4 78 26.0%


0. NO IDEA 2 0.7%


Missing 4 1.3%

Total 300 100.0%

It ensures that practitioners upskill continuously through the compulsory cpd

required for maintaining licence.# %


2 33 11.0%


4 117 39.0%


0. NO IDEA 1 0.3%


Missing 3 1.0%

Total 300 100.0%


No idea. The participation to this question was 99.0%, with 3 participants missing.

Q11. With regards to the question “It mitigates poor quality of work and enhances safety and the image

of the industry by discouraging quacks and inexperienced people from undertaking crucial building

work.” 48 participants strongly disagreed, 40 respondents margined between strongly disagree and

neutral, 71 respondents expressed a Neutral position, 78 respondents representing the majority

favoured position between Neutral and Strongly agree, 60 of respondents strongly agreed, while




position, 26.0% of the respondent’s representing the majority favoured position between Neutral and

strongly agree. 20.0% respondents cited Strongly agreed, while 0.3% of respondents answered No idea.

The participation to this question was 99.3%, with 2 participants missing.

Q12. With regards to the question “The scheme is complex and costly; it adds to the over-regulated

environment and the cost of doing business in building and construction sector.” 23 participants strongly

disagreed, 46 respondents margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 39 respondents expressed

a Neutral position, 66 respondents favoured position between Neutral and Strongly agree, 126 of

respondents representing the clear majority strongly agreed, while no respondents answered no idea.

It mitigates poor quality of work and enhances safety and the image of the

industry by discouraging quacks and inexperienced people from undertaking

crucial building work. # %


2 40 13.3%


4 78 26.0%


0. NO IDEA 1 0.3%


Missing 2 0.7%

Total 300 100.0%




representing the clear majority of respondents Strongly agreed, while no respondents answered No

idea. The participation to this question was 100%, with 0 participants missing.

Q13. With regards to the question “Restricting building work to the few LBPs could exercabate the

current skill shortage and rising building costs; consumers may be tempted to engage unlicensed

practitioners for a discount, thereby defeating the purpose of the scheme.” 35 participants strongly

disagreed, 61 respondents margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 58 respondents of

respondents expressed a Neutral position, 58 respondents favoured position between Neutral and

Strongly agree, 85 representing the clear majority strongly agreed, while remaining 3 respondent

answered no idea.




representing the clear majority of respondents Strongly agreed, while 1% of respondents answered No

idea. The total percentage participation to this question was 100%, with no participants missing.

Q14. With regards to the question “Amidst the rampant changes of BCA, and the poor performing

inspectors, licensing is a Government ploy to pass on the risk of poor inspections and litigations to the

The scheme is complex and costly; it adds to the over-regulated environment

and the cost of doing business in building and construction sector. # %


2 46 15.3%


4 66 22.0%


0. NO IDEA 0 0.0%


Missing 0 0.0%

Total 300 100.0%

Restricting building work to the few LBPs could exercabate the current skill

shortage and rising building costs; consumers may be tempted to engage

unlicensed practitioners for a discount, thereby defeating the purpose of the

scheme.

# %


2 61 20.3%


4 58 19.3%


0. NO IDEA 3 1.0%


Missing 0 0.0%

Total 300 100.0%

industry.” 21 participants strongly disagreed, 21 respondents margined between strongly disagree and

neutral, 59 respondents of respondents expressed a Neutral position, 53 respondents favoured position

between Neutral and Strongly agree, 143 representing the clear majority strongly agreed, while







Q15. With regards to the question “Relicensing every year is quite demanding on practitioners.” 26


respondents expressed a Neutral position, 53 respondents favoured position between Neutral and

Strongly agree, 142 of respondents representing the clear majority strongly agreed, while remaining 1

respondent answered no idea.

Measuring the results proportionately by percentages 8.7% of participants strongly disagreed, 8%

margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 17% of respondents expressed a Neutral position, 33

% of the respondent’s favoured position between Neutral and strongly agree. 38% representing the

clear majority of respondents Strongly agreed, while 0% of respondents answered No idea. The

participation to this question was 100%, with 0 participants missing.

Amidst the rampant changes of BCA, and the poor performing inspectors,

licensing is a Government ploy to pass on the risk of poor inspections and

litigations to the industry.# %


2 21 7.0%


4 53 17.7%


0. NO IDEA 1 0.3%


Missing 2 0.7%

Total 300 100.0%

Relicensing every year is quite demanding on practitioners. # %


2 36 12.0%


4 53 17.7%


0. NO IDEA 1 0.3%


Missing 3 1.0%

Total 300 100.0%

Q16. With regards to the question “The need for the scheme is obviated by the existing quality assurance

mechanisms such as the producer statement, warranties, guarantees, and the quality oversight and

disciplinary sanctions provided by the trade and professional organisations.” 30 participants strongly

disagreed, 47 respondents margined between strongly disagree and neutral, 99 respondents

representing the clear majority expressed a Neutral position, 67 respondents favoured position

between Neutral and Strongly agree, 40 of respondents strongly agreed, while remaining 13

respondent answered no idea.






Q17. With regards to the question “Publically displaying practitioners' personal details and past

disciplinary actions is intrusive.” 54 participants strongly disagreed, 69 respondents margined between

strongly disagree and neutral, 90 respondents representing the clear majority expressed a Neutral

position, 33 respondents favoured position between Neutral and Strongly agree, 50 of respondents

strongly agreed, while remaining 1 respondent answered no idea.

The need for the scheme is obviated by the existing quality assurance

mechanisms such as the producer statement, warranties, guarantees, and

the quality oversight and disciplinary sanctions provided by the trade and

professional organisations.

# %


2 47 15.7%


4 67 22.3%


0. NO IDEA 13 4.3%


Missing 4 1.3%

Total 300 100.0%

Publically displaying practitioners' personal details and past disciplinary

actions is intrusive. # %


2 69 23.0%


4 33 11.0%


0. NO IDEA 1 0.3%


Missing 3 1.0%

Total 300 100.0%



position, 11.0% of the respondent’s favoured position between Neutral and strongly agree.

SCHEME ADVANTAGES: 63 Verbatim Responses

Accountability: 16 Verbatim Responses

The primary advantage of the Scheme was the notion that the Scheme promoted accountability, not

just with licensed practitioners on the work they complete, but with stakeholders. It was expected that

this would be achieved by the Scheme being an encouragement for clients to work with Licenced

Building Practitioners (LBPs), as well as the categorisation of licences advocating those in the industry

to align with their areas of competency. It was perceived that LPBs are now more motivated to enhance

their involvement with the consent process by signing off Restricted Building Works (RBW), engaging

Councils throughout the RBW processes and belonging to a public register. For example, respondent

55 said

“It sharpens up the consent process, with an LBP builder having to give his number before

getting consent.”

Strong support was expressed on assessors having accountability to ‘gate keep’ and apply scrutiny to

applicant’s skills and previous experience – by only accepting applicants who could prove satisfactory

capability. Respondent 160 described this greater accountability as meaning

“Authorities now had a tool to prosecute and suspend licenses if they can prove a link between the

building problem and the tradesman”.

It was also thought that the disciplinary process would become a catalyst for quality performance,

incentivising LBPs to get it ‘right first time’. Another advantage noted on the accountability created by

the Scheme, was that it championed the ongoing education of practitioners through its up skilling

programme, requiring LBPs to annually acquire Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points to

maintain a licence. Respondents commented that if you did not maintain a licence it would affect

employability; Respondent 149 quotes

“If you [do] not keep up with current ideas and practice (CPD points) you would not be employed by

anybody in the industry”.

In addition, the up skilling programme created a greater awareness among practitioners of the value

of keeping up with new products, methods and technology.

Client protection was also seen as an advantage of the Scheme’s accountability focus, with less

likelihood of consumers having work completed by poor performers because Restricted Building Works

are now limited to LBPs. Respondent 48 refers this sentiment stating that;

“[The Scheme] limits the ability for home owners to have work undertaken by people who are generally

incompetent”.

Respondents saw a positive side effect initiated by the roll out of the new Scheme in that it gave

practitioners who were applying for a licence, an opportunity and a reason to focus on their professional

development; “…the application process made all builders take time to… brush up a bit.”

Lastly, one respondent who worked in the roofing trade, saw greater accountability as an advantage of

the Scheme because “Metal Roofing Fixers now have a status which allows them to sign-off work”.

Potential for improvement: 14 Verbatim Responses

Some participants mentioned that it was too early or difficult to measure and identify any benefits to the

Scheme, citing that the Scheme is presently at a base level that requires some duration before it will

deliver quality to the industry. However, many comments encompassed positive affirmations that

respondents believed the benefits of the Scheme will be realised in time, Respondent 241 cites

“I believe at this time it is a base mark for working towards a system that will create an

understanding by clients that experience and knowledge will produce quality projects in the

construction industry.”

Others expressed that while the Scheme is beneficial; more initiatives are needed to solve some of the

issues that exist in the industry, as respondent 113 quoted;

“I believe licensing is a good thing as it will keep some cowboys out, but I don’t believe it’s the

total answer to the problems we’re now having.”

Examples of some of the other issues that won’t be addressed by the Scheme included product failure

and the embedding of new methodologies. A theme emerged from participants on interdependency

between the success of the Scheme and the quality of those working in the industry – both practitioners

and those employed by Government and industry associations. Respondent 16 included sentiments

such as;

“The system is only as good as the quality of the people that are licensed.”

Another prevalent theme on ensuring achievement of a favourable outcome was that if the industry

enforced the qualifications and experience requirements to hold a Licence, this had the potential to

positively influence the quality of work performed.

Promotes trust, confidence, and competency in the industry: 7 Verbatim Responses

Respondents provided positive comments on how they saw the Scheme promoting trust, confidence

and competency for the industry as a whole. This was seen to offer benefits to multiple parties, such

as:

• Provides “a professional and trustworthy organisation for [LPBs] to be associated with”

• Adds further credibility to LBPs by way of association and recognises the qualifications and

experience LBPs hold. “It gives recognition to those builders who have… got the relevant qualifications.”

• Over time, as it is further promoted and the benefits continue to be realised, it will give

consumers, and the wider public, greater confidence in the performance and accountability of the

industry.

A further advantage noted by respondents was that trust and confidence in the industry is advocated

by the Scheme in the way it manages the quality of LBPs through restricting entry requirements. It does

this by ensuring that those who are granted a licence have a proven record of their skills, qualifications

and experience. “It ensures only qualified practitioners with a record of successful building can become

[a] LPB.”

Transparency: 4 Verbatim Responses

Transparency was a key benefit of the Scheme, which respondents alluded to as future-proofing the

industry through better record keeping. Specific points raised were that:

The files now being kept on practitioners will help lead to greater accountability and identification of

practitioners in the future. For example, poor performance is able to be better managed. Participant 168

clarifies “It provides a means to ensure persons who carry out ‘restricted work’ are formally identified

and recorded, and so can be identified at some later date.”

Compared to the past records being kept, accessibility to more thorough details regarding LBP

operations (continually being gathered) will better enable interpretation of how to go about alterations,

when they are being developed for structures in the future. Participant 58 states “When you do

alterations to existing structures… you know that there will be lots of detail about the structure”.

An improvement in the quality of the consent process was identified by respondents as another

advantage of the Scheme. Specifically mentioned was the requirement for LBPs to provide their licence

number to Councils as part of the consent process. Participant 55 states “[It] sharpens up the consent

process with an LBP builder having to give his number before getting consent.” It was believed that this

would help to deter some of the lower-quality practitioners from operating in the industry.

Another positive consequence commented on was that it has helped standardise practitioner’s

approach to the consent process including achieving better quality submissions. An example from one

respondent was Participant 141 states “It has weeded out the odd person who did their own line

drawings for council… which years later I am trying to decipher when I look at the Council's property

files.”

Provides equality and competition with other LBP: 3 Verbatim Responses

The Scheme was seen by respondents to have helped to manage the competitive environment for

builders, removing some of the players who were perceived to produce low-quality, low-cost work. It

also was thought to be having an influence on bringing building charge-out rates in line with other

regulated trades. Participant 51 responds “It provides a more even playing field where you are not

competing with someone doing the job for a greatly reduced fee and the quality of work is way short of

what is expected.”

Assessor evaluations: 3 Verbatim Responses

Confidence in the fairness of the assessment process was expressed as an advantage by respondents,

with acknowledgement that the Scheme was reliant on the quality of evaluations performed by those in

assessor roles, and that it was critical that they have adequate knowledge and experience to be able

to perform their roles successfully. As Participant 57 put it, “the system is only as good as the quality of

the people that you license”.

Promotes Career: 3 Verbatim Responses

An advantage of the Scheme, seen as a flow on effect, was that it enhances the reputation of the

industry and generally promotes the industry as a respectable career.

Disadvantages (107 Participant 156 Entries).

Liability,(Design, Council, Liability, Products): 45 Verbatim Responses

Liability was the issue that gained the most comments from respondents around disadvantages. Some general responses asserted were that having the liability fall on only one LPB for all aspects of a housing project was unbalanced, and that responsibility should be shared wider with more stakeholders connected and each being liable for their own work. Not only should liability be shared wider on site, but also product manufacturers and suppliers, Government (local and domestic) and Designers should share the burden of liability, related to the role each plays in the work. This liability model also raised questions around the need for the current inspection system, if LPBs were the only ones being held accountable for the work. It was also felt that having all liability placed on an LPB would not lead to better work practices overall. Related to the issue of balance of liability it was perceived that larger companies held an advantage over the self-employed and that not enough liability was placed on product suppliers and manufacturers. Other remarks were that the issue of liability was leading to unnecessary costs on consumers and builders, as it led to over cautious and unnecessary practices enforced by Territorial Authorities that didn’t add value. Also, a question was raised on the length of the liability period, around who would bear the front of costs when failings came to fruition over the longer term, past the liability period.

Product Liability: 13 Verbatim Responses

The most commented on disadvantage related to product liability was that not enough liability was placed on product suppliers and manufacturers for products that fail. Also on failed products, it was felt that as Government was responsible for approving and certifying products for use, that they should share some of the liability for products that fail.

Other responses referred to the following perceived disadvantages:

LBPs were disadvantaged compared to product manufacturers, as their liability period was much longer – 15 years for LBPs and only 5 years for products.

Architects and designers falling outside the scope of the Scheme was seen as a disadvantage, as it was believed they also should share in some of the liability for failings linked to design.

While some respondents felt that products were often introduced to market without enough detailing and training for practitioners, other respondents felt the opposite – that too much emphasis was placed on checking practitioner’s knowledge of products and materials.

It was perceived by one respondent that BRANZ had a conflict of interest, as it was funded by product suppliers/manufacturers.

Design Liability: 8 Verbatim Responses

The key perceived disadvantage mentioned by respondents linked to design liability was that Designers and Architects fall outside the Scheme and do not share in liability related to their work, placing a burden of unbalanced liability on LPBs. Neither was there adequate competency assessment of Designers and Architects, compared to LPBs. Respondent 48 ”The fact that Architects lie outside the scheme is an indictment to the stupidity of those who believe that workmanship failures and material performance issues rather than Design errors are the cause of the current crisis in the building industry”. Further observations were that clients were incurring extra costs for complicated design and that duplication of effort exists with both BCA and engineers inspecting work which has led to an unnecessary amount of paperwork.

Council Inspectors Liability: 12 Verbatim Responses On the subject of Council Inspector Liability, duplication of effort leading to unnecessary cost and paperwork was mentioned as one of the main disadvantages. Respondents saw an overlap between the role of the Scheme, Council inspectors and engineer inspections of building work, resulting in more inspections being conducted than previously. It was felt that there was misalignment with inspections and accountability, with no accountability falling on inspectors. This made the inspection role irrelevant and didn’t incentivise inspectors to perform quality work or demonstrate care and diligence in their role. Respondent 283 quotes: “The approving authority should be held accountable for approving consents and inspections (their part of the work because the charge big money) at the moment it seems they want other people in the industry to be accountable -they should be equally accountable” It was believed this is combined with sub-standard inspectors, who lack the necessary knowledge and experience to perform their role. Partially related, was the view that due to the accountability of LBPs, by default they have to take on other roles such as the inspector role. A perceived conflict was mentioned between Council and industry body BRANZ, whereby a Council must approve work that complies with the Code, even if it is using faulty product, if that product has been approved by BRANZ.

Costs, 24 Verbatim Responses

The second biggest qualitative disadvantages of the scheme as noted by respondents are the

associated costs that must be considered during LBP operations. Many of the respondents attributed

costs that can be categorised as:

LBP associated costs. Respondents cited that the annual charges were too expensive to

reapply every year (average $200), as well as the financial commitment to attend Up skill

training (refer Up skill) seminars to accumulate points, with possible considerations for

insurance premiums.

BCA costs borne by the clients that are continually inflating. Respondents expressed

concern that the continual inflation43 of BCA contributions diminishes the LBP`s ability to fairly

compete in a competitive market environment during the tendering process (especially against

43 http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/BCA/BCApproval-Costs.pdf

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/BCA/BCApproval-Costs.pdf

unqualified and unlicensed practitioners) Respondent`s 160 and 192 best illustrate this point

quoting

“This is a very costly scheme for small scale operators. Because there is a very

competitive market, practitioners cannot pass this cost onto clients”

“It is another form of Government interference, pushing the cost of compliance up and

it is a cost that can't be passed on to the customer, Because the work is scarce and

lots of competition and undercutting of prices, undercutting of prices”

The amount of paperwork and cost of compliance is often found to be disproptionate to the

value of the work, particularly in the case of extensions to existing dwellings. One example was

cited in which compliance costs for an extension were $5,500 compared to the overall value of

the work being $30,000 – almost 20%. Participant 160 states.

“Our practice has recently completed a farm entry extension similar to that described

above, The documents required to demonstrate compliance for consent were

equivalent to what is necessary for a whole new dwelling and tenfold what most of the

historical housing stock, that never experienced leaky building syndrome or systemic

failure, ever required for a satisfactory result - These then are submitted to council for

checking and consent and inspection. Documentation cost $4,000.00 - Consent fees

and inspections a further $1,500 - approximate value of work $30,000”

Easy entry, 21 Verbatim Responses

21 respondents cited critically that entry into the LBP scheme to obtain a license was considered too

easy. Primarily, regular comments such as "everyone, cowboys, overseas (immigrants)”, used in

connection with “easy and unqualified illustrated the respondents disapproval for inclusivity to the

scheme. Participant 121 quotes

“Biggest problem that is always overlooked is to be a LBP, one does not have to be trade

qualified, I personally know of three Unqualified (Cowboys) who helped each other become

LBP, And they only know enough to make a right mess. Its a Slap in the face to those men &

woman who completed their apprenticeship, & a pat on the back to those that cheated the

system 10, 20 even 30 years ago. At very least a unqualified LBP's details on the DBH website

should state in bold writing UNQUALIFIED”

Respondents expressed further aversion that the current streamlining process (Dbh policy of character

references) promoted acceptance and prioritising non-qualified practitioners equally with qualified

practitioners. Also concerns expressed towards how genuine were the character references, as well as

the competency level of the referees. Participant 183 quotes

“The LBP labels looks good, unfortunately any unqualified hammer hand can get it that can

have their mates back them up!”

The process of conducting phone interviews with practitioners diminishes the assessor’s ability to

effectively ascertain the suitability of a practitioner as Participant 8 mentions,

“Assessments are being carried out over the phone and completed in less than two hours. The

references are only as good as the integrity of the person giving them there is no guarantee

that these referees are of any value or are competent in the field they are judging”

Unqualified participation, 16 Verbatim Responses

With regards to unqualified participation, 16 Participants cited that allowing unqualified practitioners to

possess a license potentially encourages

Any person to acquire a license and practice without proper NZ experience. Respondents

described this group as being possibly, Immigrants, Hammer hands, and Apprentices

Industry growth of unqualified practitioners while diminishing and devaluing the need to become

certified. Concerns with the influx of unqualified participants will absolve liability to the

Government.

Participant 26 summarises

“Govt is allowing overseas cheap labour to flood the market. (The)Scheme is designed to absolve

councils of any responsibility so they will have no fear of later litigation “

Upskill points, (need for education and training, points system undermining training) 16

Verbatim Responses.

It was implied specifically by 16 participants that the recommended training and up skilling programs

rarely provided any educational or productive material that addressed relevant issues experienced in

the industry. Instead LBP`s felt that these training events were more social focused, and market driven

to selling products. Overwhelmingly, those Practitioners that referenced training programs mentioned

their dissatisfaction of being obligated to attend classes that merited no value other than an attempt to

acquire the recommended points for maintaining a license. Respondents 279 and 87 best captured

this matter quoting:

“To collect points you have to go to this silly supplier run meeting and …..sales man has to say

about the a particular product that they are supplying and making money from. They will talk

silly builders talk to make a sale and offer drinks and rub the backs of their customers”

“Evenings promoted to practitioners for "scoring points" to maintain their certification are often

just used to promote products, sometimes products that aren't directly related to the industry (

eg Noel Leeming)”

Many of the respondents regarded the accruing of points by reading subscribed texts as unnecessary,

and devalued the points system as there was no guarantee that practitioners would actively read any

of the material. Logistically many the respondents reported that to attend many of the seminars are

costly and expensive as some LBP`s must travel to distant venues. Respondent 167 quotes

“As i was a registered builder for 30 years and a LBP for 2 years I find the scheme to hard to stay

in because to gain 3 up skilling points it cost me $85.00 to attend and learn about things i have

already read about in the building mag. So to gain the 200 points for me as a small builder it would

have cost me more than being a RMB (reg master builder).”

Lbp incompetence, 8 Verbatim Responses

Some 8 Participants were of the opinion that the scheme consisted of practitioners who were

incompetent with performing simple tasks and were inadequate to work within their licensing class

category. Participants further expressed that easy access at acquiring a license, lack of trade

experience, general lack of trade knowledge and certification while licensed were factors contributing

to incompetence. Respondent`s 95 and 114 stated

“I know people who are not builders who have applied for a license and got it. I know for a fact

there are many licensed "builders" who do not fit the requirements and are still doing shoddy”

“I am aware of many people in the building trade that are licenced but not even close to know what

they are doing. I have employed people that are licenced but can’t hit a nail in straight! I have done

work for a client who is an LBP but was relying on me for all the answers. Her (she) has never used

a skill saw.”

Unlicensed, (non license, involvement), 8 Verbatim Responses

Unlicensed workers are still actively involved in participating in restricted works. 8 participants referred

to experiences where unlicensed workers were having LBP sign off on works performed and that the

scheme was not detracting clients from engaging unlicensed practitioners. Participant 54 best

summarised points quoting

“We have come across clients that start(ed) work with a non lbp then expect an lbp to finish off

the work. When we explain that we would have to start from scratch as we have no knowledge

of the workmanship or products used, clients become angry. However we stand by the lbp

scheme and will never do work that is not consented etc..We have also heard of non lbp builders

paying for lbps to use their license”.

Parallel to those references participants expressed that these activities not only undermined the future

of licensing, but devalued the scheme.

No change. 7 Verbatim Responses

7 Participants have expressed that the scheme has not influenced positive changes to the industry

being more liable, expensive, foregoes quality and primarily citing that the number of inspections a

major feature of the scheme. Participants 115 and 114 responded

“The industry was told by Mr Hyde that the scheme would reduce the number of inspections

required per project and thus speed up production - this has not happened in the slightest”

“Since the introduction of the LBP scheme there is still the same amount of inspections

from the TA”.

Review Licensing, 7 Verbatim Responses

Specifically, 7 participants cited that site license classes are neither needful, expensive, and lacks focus

towards quality assurance. Site class 3 is regarded as being superfluous and an excessive to the

requirements for a residential construction (buildings 10m greater in height). Professional engineers

fulfil this role by issuing a PS4 (Producer statement 4) confirming that the works meet the performance

requirements of the Building Code and building consent. Participant 64 quotes

“Site 3 licence is a waste of time and money, i have had a site 3 licence from the beginning of

the scheme in 2007, as i am in commercial, we do not need to provide a licence as commercial

is covered under consultants and Engineers PS4's44 etc... so we are just paying for a licence

every year”.

44 http://www.dbh.govt.nz/bc-guide/Documents/T-07-1.doc

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/bc-guide/Documents/T-07-1.doc

Further concern was expressed that site licensed holders may oversee the RBW but are limited in

participating if they do not possess the appropriate trade license contributing to a lack of focus of Quality

assurance.

Scheme changes, 4 Verbatim Responses

Participants expressed that the LBP scheme evolves too quickly which frustrates LBP abilities to accept

and comprehend the new changes which are often done without or very little consultation. Respondents

also felt that any attempt with Consultation, regarding potential changes is construed as biased towards

the changes, and prevents LBP from responding constructively. Participant 27 stated

“A recent questionnaire purporting to be consulting for views was full of loaded questions, which

appeared to be designed to illicit just one answer”

Changes.

Trade Qualified (become qualified - priority): 33 Verbatim Responses The highest number of comments with regards to reformation of the LBP scheme, was from 30 participants who cited prioritising and limiting RBW to members that were both trade qualified and registered members of a respective association to improve the quality of work. Some suggestions included having a minimum registration period, for example three years. Participants reasoned it is critical that certified, registered members have the necessary skills and experience to perform quality work, and that this can be achieved by having ‘trade certification’ as mandatory to becoming Licenced. Many suggested this could be achieved through a combination of attaining formal education (qualification) and on-the-job learning (experience). A common theme relating to on-the-job learning was a strong preference to re-instate an apprenticeship scheme to improve skill level in the industry.

Further, many preferred setting an industry standard for practical experience as a pre-requisite for attaining a LPB. It was also suggested that having pre-requsistes for New Zealand qualifications and experience would help a cited issue around migrants working as both builders and as inspectors, displaying varied levels of skill and impacting on the ability to achieve a consistent standard of work. Some respondents referenced past industry models that they believe were more effective, such as when unions and other associations played a significant role in the trade industry, as a result of mandatory enrolment in a scheme, enforced by Government. The strong opinion was that those models encouraged self-regulation led by the associations i.e. each association managed the performance of its members, it also encouraged initiatives to train those entering the industry, such as through apprenticeship programmes. This led to higher quality work and better attitude to work from members. It was suggested by respondents that strong leadership from associations would provide further rigour and support to the LPB scheme. A further suggestion for improving the current scheme was that LBPs must provide evidence of financial liquidity, as a condition of receiving a lisence, providing for any future liabilities relating to standard of work. Other comments related to the need for more scrutiny of councils and inspectors work, specifically related to achieving more consistency in how the Building Code is interpreted. Also, that those who work in industry organisations such as NZIA, ADNZ or DANZ etc should be precluded from having to obtain a licence.

Easy Entry Costs: 29 Verbatim Responses Overwhelmingly respondents said that the entry threshold to obtain a licence is currently set too low and that licences are too easy to obtain. Comments such as “currently virtually anyone can get a licence” were common. To avoid poor quality, or sub-standard, practitioners from receiving a licence, the solutions suggested were centred on the following themes:

having more stringent vetting of applicants relating to experience and skill applying more scrutiny to reference checking, that the current process was open to

manipulation including a credit check as part of the criteria having spot checks on skills and workmanship conducted on site, rather than over the phone implementing a thorough exam regime, rather than the current 10 minute phone interview developing a training system with academies for various trades (funded by industry

associations and government) including an assessment of attitude towards workmanship.

It was felt that by applying some of the additional rigour mentioned above, it would improve the quality of building in New Zealand and help reduce the amount of complaint related issues. There was particular concern expressed on a lack of checks on migrant skill level. It was perceived that a lot of unskilled migrant labour exists in the industry, which is affecting the quality of work. A range of opinions were expressed on who should need to hold a licence. At one end of the spectrum some respondents said everyone working on site should be licensed (even casual staff), right through to other respondents recommending that holding a relevant qualification or belonging to an industry association (i.e. Certified Builders, Master Builders, NZIA, ADNZ, DANZ etc) should preclude a person from needing to hold a licence. Alternatively, these groups could automatically receive a licence without having to go through the current process to become licensed. There was an aversion from multiple respondents on the current telephone interview validation process. It was felt that relying largely on telephone interviews as a way of determining expertise and experience does not adequately assess the competence of applicants. One comment summarised this issue in saying “The criteria to be a LBP… is too easy. One phone call and you are in”. Other comments included:

calls to reduce annual levies and fees

LBPs experiencing inconsistency in the way they were being assessed large companies having a lower standard to meet because of the company’s brand

reputation (combined with employing migrants with inferior skills). The overall sentiment regarding entry to becoming an LBP was that the industry needed to take more care in assessing competence prior to issuing licenses, and that priorities should be making building affordable for practitioners and consumers and better managing the quality of work produced in the industry.

Inspections, Inspectors: 23 Verbatim Responses Some support for the current inspection processes was expressed by respondents, along with the following ideas, aimed at improved consistency in the approach to inspections:

better monitoring of inspectors work by councils to achieve a more consistent approach and improved standards overall

Assessors should be trade-certified/qualitfied and LBP’s themselves to achieve consistency and better interpretation of code.

Council inspectors could conduct ‘surprise checks’ of licences on site. Councils could measure standard of work against an industry-standard rating system. Less liberal interpretation of the code overall, need the code to be applied more literally,

creating better rigour and more consistency.

Overall, by achieving a more consistent approach to inspections, it was felt a natural outcome would be that greater efficiency would be achieved in the industry, as over time LPBs would become clearer on what was expected by inspectors and be able to achieve more ‘right first time’ inspections. Other opinions expressed a need to achieve greater effiencies in Council processing of consents by putting scrutiny around the level of detail that is absolutely necessary for LPBs to provide to Councils to achieve quality decision making in approval processes. Another way to achieve efficiency that was put forward was to reduce the number of inspections that place on a project. Alternatives to the current Council inspection regime were put forward, as some felt that Councils were not held accountable for their inspections, so therefore the process did not add value to the industry. Some alternatives suggested included; greater use of trade certified/qualitified third-party assessors, peer reviewing or self-certification – all aimed at saving time and cost to practictioners and ultimately consumers. Finally, one respondent pitched that it should be illegal for LPBs to sign-off work that had been completed ‘off the books’. Review Licence Class: 22 Verbatim Responses Many of the 16 respondents who commented on reviewing the licence classes recommended that the current number of licence types should not be increased, but that the scope of the current licence types be extended, particularly in carpentry categories. Some specific propositions were:

extend or expand the carpentry categories, subject to verification of skill levels and experience, otherwise the complexity of the current categorisation could lead to legal, insurance and public relations issues

design licences to include site work, to enable efficiency in supervision Categories be changed back to the previous configuration (prior to 2012), which was based

on complexity and not building type and size classes should be simpler, but have more of them for all trades Site 3 supervision of trade and site 1 and 2 licences. Section 2 should be expanded in terms

of locations, as those who have worked in the industry longer have experience in multiple locations, which is not catered for.

move legal responsibility and decision making to LBP Site 2 and 3 site licence holders to support Quality Assurance throughout the build and after each critical stage of construction is completed.

Further, many respondents were seeking greater clarity on the trades covered by each class of licence.

Questions were raised on the value of residential Site Licences. It was felt that those who held Site Licences should have a wider mandate and be able to sign-off for most trades, and supervise all LPBs, including Restricted Building Works (RBW). As one respondent proposed “one person should be able to be in control of the site." Some strongly held views explained that significant inconsistency exists between the residential sector and the commercial sector in terms of licence class and the scope of roles i.e, the role of a residential Site Licence holder compared to the scope of similar roles of in the commercial section (e.g. Site Manager/Foreman/Project Manager). Specifically, that the duties of a residential Site Licence holder were severely restricted when compared to similar roles in the Commercial sector. In comparing the two role types, an example given explained that residential roles hold the responsibility for the overall quality assurance (QA) of the work being conducted - to meet code practices and standards, obtain Council approved consent documentation and work with design consultants on required revisions to detail design variations. Views were held on the need to streamline the lower end of the market where compliance costs stated as being unreasonably high. One suggestion was made (assuming that LBPs carried out all high value work from consent to completion) to implement value thresholds relating to the need for consent. Specifically that, documentation and formal building consent be waived for projects less that 40m2, with a risk matrix below 6 and a value of less than $50,000. Participant 17, designer noted that;

“the 12 risk matrix is not an effective measure of the competency of an individual. A job can have less than a 12 Risk Matrix but still require a skilled LBP”.

They further provided this comment on design licences

“I know of a interior decorator with a Design 2 License who has no structural knowledge, yet when I was assessed, and the assessor recommended that I obtain a Design 2 License due to the complexities of the projects I provided, the DBH refused as the building was under the 12 risk matrix”.

A more general comments relating to reviewing the aspects of the scheme were as follows:

more time was needed to embed the current scheme, and that the continuing announcements of further changes to the scheme was causing confusion and making it difficult for the scheme to be running effectively.

ambiguity exists on how current licence holders go about upgrading their licence. a change to the Code was put forward to make the criteria for changes to existing building

work the same as the criteria for new building work.

Up skilling (Points): 19 Verbatim Responses The majority of the 19 respondents were supportive of having an up skilling programme in place for LBPs, they saw the objective of an up skilling programme being to improve the quality of work and achieve a consistent standard of work across the industry, and to especially empower workers at the ‘coal face’ with knowledge of what was expected, rather than this knowledge sitting predominately with supervisors. One respondent who worked in a supervisor role commented that in that capacity up skilling was relatively straightforward as many of the criteria related closely to their everyday work. A strong theme emerged from respondents on the quality of the annual accreditation scheme, or ‘points’ system for upskilling. Many saw the opportunity to fill a critical need that exists to improve the quality of workmanship across the industry, by centring the requirements for upskilling on this issue. Some respondents cited examples of attending seminars to acquire ‘points’ and being disappointed at the poor quality of events which have focused on ‘product pushing’, rather than value-add topics such as changes to the Building Code, which would help practicioners achieve ‘right first time’ inspection results. One respondent explained “I have been to numerous point gathering seminars only to find Beam vacuum systems pushing their products, or Solartube, or Hardies talking about their new weatherboard system - only how good it is, not the technical information required”. The overall view was to refine the criteria for events, topics and reading material that qualifies as ‘up skilling’. For example, ‘on the job’ training from building suppliers was seen as more relevant and helpful

than information about new products. In fact, better quality training was seen as having more of an impact on improving quality of work in the industry, than the Licensing scheme altogether, which it is believed on its own won’t improve poor practices. Other ideas to improve the up skilling programme included:

Use more experienced LBPs to mentor those new to the industry to improve their confidence, skill level and ability to work effectively with suppliers and other industry partners.

Make it easier and less costly for LBPS to up skill, the current programme is seen as difficult and expensive. Suggestions were made to include more Government sponsored initiatives to remove cost burden from LBPs, reduce the number of maintenance hours required, have presenters visit more regions rather than LBPs incurring travel costs.

Use programme as an opportunity to improve communication both ways from Government and industry associations with LBPs and ‘front line’ workers. For example, training sessions on industry changes to Code (before LBPs are ‘surprised’ on site hearing about changes from inspectors) and feedback forums to get a view from the field on changes being considered.

Use of formal assessment methods to avoid abuse of the ‘point system’. For example, falsely claiming points for reading a publication.

Give LBPs access to their reports to use as a tool to gain further competency.

Consent, Paperwork (INSPECTORS): 15 Verbatim Responses Relating to the issue of inspectors, but specifcally consent and paperwork, responses were as follows:

Current inspection scheme is inefficient, slows progress on site and can contradict the BA approved plan.

More standardisation needed for BCAs to achieve greater consistency in interpretation (both Consent and LBP related issues). An example provided was that the definition and rules set out by The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment around Resticted Building Works are not consistent with the Building Consent requirements and conditions.

A cross-over in roles exists with BCA inspections and LBP responsibilities.

More communication is needed between Councils and trades on problem issues.

Improved communication is needed from the industry with LPBs on changes.

The responsibility of Councils should be focused on planning controls, not on site inspections, as the latter diffuses responsibility on both sides.

Compliance costs are too high.

Remove the Consent process altogether to save cost and achieve efficiency. Consents should not be needed if a building is designed within parameters of the Code.

A loophole exists whereby LPBs can be taken advantage of by clients who engage with an LBP to submit a Consent to the Council, and then remove the LBPs name from the Consent without the Council first verifying this with the LBP.

A perception from respondents that some staff employed by DBAs are not suitably qualified, despite the Building Act stating this is a requirement.

One of the key issues that respondents called for change on was too much paperwork now involved in the process. An example provided by multiple respondents was memorandum, as per this quote “At the moment if I have 5 licensed carpenters (staff) on site I am required to get each of them to complete a memorandum even thou they are under my direction and I am willing to take responsibility for their work under my license. This is unnecessary paper work.”

Accountability to LBP sign-off: 11 Verbatim Responses

Overwhelmingly, the most popular comment from respondents relating to accountability of the LBP to sign-off, was for responsibility of workmanship to be held by respective parties (i.e builder, designer, supplier, project manager or contractor). Sub-contractors would fall under the responsibility of the main contractor. From there, opinions differed. The remaining comments from respondents can be organised into the following ideas:

1. Implement a independent ‘third party’ approach to QA sign-off that occurs throughout the process and encompasses the work of all key industry players including architects, engineers, surveyors and project managers. All parties being held fully accountable for their respective roles.

2. All tradespeople in the building industry should be licenced to avoid non-licenced practioners abdicating accountability by engaging an LBP to sign-off their work, for example waterproofing and tiling. Related to this was the suggestion that it should be illegal for LBPs to sign-off non-related work (i.e. work they have not fully participated in).

3. Put the consumer in the decision-making seat by providing them with two options for sign-off; either a contract an LBP who is fully responsible for all work, or employ a non-licensed contractor and have BCA's monitor and assess the work.

4. Remove Consents and Code Compliance Certificate for private buildings, to achieve 100% responsibility being placed on the person or organisation making the decisions about design, materials, labour etc.

5. To make practitioners more accountable for their work, and to improve the quality of work, have carpenters sign off their own work (at least passing minor inspections and issuing P3s), with penalties for sub-standard work. This would also achieve effiencies by removing the need for the inspection process, which can slow progress of a job.

Other related comments were to enforce a more balanced ratio of LBPs to labour staff on site and to ensure that those QA checking LBP jobs are fully qualified.

Product Accountability: 14 Verbatim Responses A key theme emerged from respondents around products, specifically that greater accountability should be placed on manufacturers to ‘honor the promise’ of their products and ensure that the root causes of issues are addressed. Respondents explained that this would mean that product providers have accountability for bringing products to the New Zealand market that are suitable for the country’s environmental conditions. It was suggested this should extend to greater liability when products fail, by way of compensation to both practicioners and end customers. To quote one respondent “…too much has been made of builder skills lacking when the real cause of the ‘leaky house syndrome”’ was predominantly the failure of one product, Harditex’. Also relating to product, was the view that new products should undergo more rigourous research and development, as well as endure a more comprehensive testing period in the field before being rolled out to market. As one respondent summarised “…stop accepting new products that haven’t (stood) the test of time”. Another respondent suggested that New Zealand should look to products which have been researched and had success internationally to avoid the costly mistake of implementing products that have been rushed to market. A suggestion was made that to improve product reliability, the testing conducted by product providers should have a heavier focus on feedback from the field i.e. builders opinion. It was felt that the balance of testing was too reliant on lab testing. Lastly, reference was made to the need for further separation between product suppliers and industry certifiers that approve products, to avoid conflicts of interest.

Relicensing: 10 Verbatim Responses A strong opinion on the need for an extended licence period was expressed by many respondents. Suggestions on the length of the extended period ranged from two to five years and also included a proposal to introduce a tiered strucutre to the relicensing period, correlating the time a person has operated in the industry with the frequency required for relicensing. For example, a person who has been working in the industry for 30 years may only need to relicence every five years, compared to a person who has been working in the industry for less than five years may need to relicence every year. An opportunity was raised to improve the requirements for annual professional development to become more related to on-the-job competence, rather than attendance at industry events. As one respondent put it “The requirements for relicensing need to be a bit harder than just reading a few trade mags and going to a trade brekkie”.

Insurance: 7 Verbatim Responses Changes respondents put forward relating to insurance encompassed:

A mandatory requirement for all building work to be secured against either personal equity or professional insurance to protect the consumer against substandard or incomplete work. A flow on effect was seen to be that insurers would likely influence performance of practicioners, as only those with proven capabilities would likely be able to obtain insurance.

The industry adopting an insurance based scheme, removing the need for Government enforced licencing, whereby insurers enforce the Code during the building process. Successful examples of this cited were the NHBC and Zurich House Insurance UK based schemes. Outcomes of this noted were home owners covering the cost of this insurance.

Requirement for product manufacturers to have insurance covers for high risk products, such as cladding systems.

Design Accountability: 7 Verbatim Responses Ideas from respondents relating to Design Accountability varied, from keeping design liability of building work to a 10 year maximum, to a strong theme around greater accountability needed from designers and architects on how their designs perform when applied practically. For example, multiple respondents cited that some of the ‘leaky building’ issues were related to design. One suggestion was to enforce a weather tightness code for designers and architects. Another respondent proposed that a wider breadth of design areas should be covered by a design licence, and that the current definition of restricted work in design was confusing and contradictory. Further, concern was raised around many designers lacking the knowledge and experience needed to work effectively in the industry, particularly relating to Councils and what is required by them. Assessors: 7 Verbatim Responses Concern was raised by respondents on a lack of testing conducted on those being assessed to become an LBP, including comments regarding the on-site performance of migrant LPBs. A suggestion was put forward to perform more thorough assessments prior to becoming an LPB, as well as regular on site checks following the licence being issued. Responses relating to assessors extended to assessor training and experience, with observations that some assessors could benefit from an improved understanding of trades and/or should demonstrate greater care and diligence with regard to seeking best performance from those being assessed.

Public promotion: 6 Verbatim Responses On the subject of public promotion, respondents generally mentioned they didn’t feel there had been an adequate amount of public promotion, to both the industry and consumers, about the Scheme. Suggestions on key messages that should be promoted included:

demonstration on the value the Scheme is delivering to consumers and the industry

information about processes, as relevant to each target audience

explaination on the different types of licences and who holds them e.g large companies versus self-employed individuals

specific promotion to consumers about the Scheme in general and what it means to them

education to consumers on the value of choosing a reputable, licenced builder i.e. price isn’t the only factor to consider when choosing a builder

build awareness with consumers on their duties and obligations during the process

more promotion needed to suppliers and other supporting industry players about the Scheme generally, specifically how it is relevant to them and what to expect from LBPs.

Points: 4 Verbatim Responses Comments on the Points system ranged from suggestions to discontinue the system, to positive feedback which included an acknowledgement that any system introduced to improve the industry is likely to have a cost attached, with the following quote “I believe this is a necessary system and the benefit to the consumer and the country will out weigh the cost.” Another respondent put forward a request for more detailed and easily accessible information be made available online on the points system. Lastly, a suggestion was made that LBPs be able to gain points for jobs that have passed inspection, rather than gaining points for reading magazines. License all Practicioners: 2 Verbatim Responses Two respondents suggested that a positive key change to the Scheme would be that all construction workers should be required to hold a licence, not just those signing-off work.

Penalties: 2 Verbatim Reponses A need for greater follow through with penalties for LPBs not meeting performance was the main theme cited by respondents relating to the subject of penalties.

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The primary intent of the Licensed Building Practicioner (LPB) Scheme, as promoted by the governing bodies, was to improve sector capability by creating conditions that would enable the development of a more capable, responsible and productive core set of practitioners in the construction industry. The Scheme implemented the following tactical initaitves to contribute towards the achievement of this objective by:

Setting minimum standards of competence for LBPs

Making sure LPBs were accountable for the work they do (including repairs, renovations and new building work).

This research study has played a key role in assessing the response from LBPs currently working in the industry, on how effective the Scheme has been to date in achieving its objective, since it launched in March 2012. Based on the data collected in this study, it is the opinion of that author that this Scheme alone will not be able to realise the objective it has set out to accomplish. The Scheme provides the industry with a good foundation to build on, however further work and supporting initiatives are required in order for the sector to realise its aim. Measurement of achievement towards objectives The key performance indicators (KPIs) identified in the Scheme’s objective were improved ‘capability’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘productivity’ of practitioners. Quantitative measures of success, which correlate which each of these KPIs, have been identified from respondents. The biggest area of improvement the Scheme delivered was encouraging practitioners to be more ‘responsible’. For example, over one-third of respondents (38%) Strongly Agreed that the Scheme is making practitioners accountable for their work. However, the Scheme was generally not seen to be delivering improvements in practitioners being more ‘capable’ and ‘productive’. For example, only 7% of respondents Strongly Agreed that the Scheme is lifting practitioner capability and performance in the industry. Although, the Scheme was seen to promote (but not neccesarily deliver) competency in the industry, with respondents rating the third most significant advantage of the Scheme being that it promoted trust, confidence and competency in the industry.

Overall, the most affirming theme that came through overwhelmingly clearly in the qualitative responses from participants, was that practitioners in the industry are calling for the same outcome as the governing bodies. That being, practitioners want to improve the capability and reputation of the sector. They want an improvement in the quality of workmanship and a positive change in the duty of care demonstrated by practitioners. This is a positive place to start from - having both practictioners and governing bodies in the industry agreeing on a common goal. A supporting piece of evidence of this from the study was that the second strongest advantage of the Scheme as rated by participants was its potential for improvement. Shortcomings of the LBP Scheme in its current form

Not surpringly, one of the strongest sentiments expressed on the shortcomings of the Scheme related to the impact it was having on LPBs – specifically related to cost – including LPBs bearing the associated cash costs involved in obtaining a licence and the cost of practitioner’s time spent on activities such as up skilling and relicensing. 48% of respondents strongly agreed that the Scheme inflated the cost of doing business. The other key disadvantage considered was centered on various aspects of liability. Most notably, that the Scheme placed a disproportionate balance of liabliity on LPBs. The research found that a strong desire exists for liability to be proportionally shared across all related parties as relevant to their role in the work, such as; governing bodies, designers, product suppliers/manufacturers and LPBs. The issues around liability received more qualitative responses than any other aspect of the Scheme. The last substaintial shortcoming observed was that some aspects of the Scheme worked in opposition to the objective of trying to improve the quality of work performed in the industry, such as:

that it was too easy to obtain a licence, combined with criteria around qualifications not being regulated

restricting building work to a few LPBs could exercabate the current skill shortage, rising building costs and tempt consumers to engage with unlicenced practicioners for cost savings.

How could the shortcomings be addressed The most favoured suggestions put forward in the study to address the shortcomings of the Scheme, related to the objective of improving the quality of performance in the industry. The majority of changes proposed, focused on the Scheme being more selective on who was able to obtain a licence, with a related theme around LBPs proving their competency. This idea was expressed in a number of ways, with the most popular being to make a having a trade qualification a mandatory criteria for obtaining a licence, with strong regulation enforcing this. Other ideas were to implement more rigour around the application process, with respondents wanting prospective LBPs to prove their experience and competency through validation on site (sight-checking of building practices), rather than the current practice of telephone interviews and paper-based processes. Also, a test of financial liquidity (e.g. via insurance or self-funding) was promoted as a potential pre-requisite. As well as a call to reduce Scheme-related costs for LPBs, other common threads cited in the research as ways to address the shortcomings of the Scheme included:

Achieve better consistency in Council inspections, so that LPBs know what to expect and can get their work ‘right first time’, which would achieve greater efficiency in the industry. Key ideas proposed to accomplish this, ranged from - implementing a more rigourous industry standard for inspection processes, to increased monitoring of inspectors work.

Conduct a thorough review of the licence classes, with the aim of providing the industry with greater clarity on the definitions and framework of the classes. Opinions varied on whether to expand or contract the criteria of the licence classes.

Improve the quality and efficiency of the up skilling (points) programme. The majority of qualitative responses on up skilling related to the current programme being costly and of little value. Poor examples included, the content of seminars being ‘product pushing’ and being able to acquire points for subscribing to magazines. Ideas for improvement were to focus

content more towards training on Code changes, on site training from suppliers, participation in mentoring programmes, a reduction in cost for LPBs to up skill.

Overall, participants felt it is critical that licenced members demonstrate the necessary skills and experience to perform quality work, they have the opportunity to work in an industry environment that supports efficiency and that improvements to the Scheme can play a significant role in achieving this. A proposed action plan improving the effectiveness of the scheme This study acknowledges that the Licensing scheme implemented for the construction industry has taken an important and valid initial step toward its objective of raising the quality of performance standards. However, this action plan takes further steps towards maximizing effectiveness of the Scheme, and itemises key recommendations from the findings of this study. The proposed action plan encompasses the most resounding issues raised by respondents and is made up of five short-tem and long-term actions. The action plan for the next phase of this work by key stakeholders should focus on the following:

Short-term ‘quick wins’

1. For governing bodies to conduct a review of the ‘points’ up skilling programme, with rationalisation (elimination) of ‘low value’ content and enhanced focus on high quality content that is strongly aligned with improving the competency of practitioners. Although, this could impact on the cash cost of the programme, IF it is seen to be delivering value to LBPs and leads to an improvement in competency, the overall cost could ‘break even’ through fewer issues as a result of poor quality work.

2. For the DBH (as licensed administrators) to complete a profitability analysis on the administration of the Scheme, to assess whether the costs of running the Scheme are greater, or less than, the financial obligations on LPBs. The objective of the exercise would be to determine if there is an opportunity to minimise costs for LBPs through greater efficiencies in Scheme management.

3. For governing bodies to design and implement a more comprehensive education and training framework. It is critical that it be a combination formal education and practical on site training, that is more qualification based and a requirement of becoming LBP. The framework would be tailored for those entering the industry (including both next generation New Zealanders and migrants), as well as the continuing up skilling of those currently practicing. It should consider a mix of models, such as apprenticeship programmes, which respondents cited as working well in the past. This is a fundamental issue that is strongly correlated with the quality of performance from those practicing, and one which should be addressed with urgency.

Longer-term actions, requiring further consultation

4. For Councils, in conjunction with governing bodies, to under-take the development of

mechanisms that will improve monitoring the performance of inspectors, with an aim towards improving consistency across inspectors and to raise the quality of work performed by inspectors.

5. For a committee to be formed (with representatives from all stakeholder groups), which is tasked with reforming the liability model for the industry, with the objective of sharing liability across all stakeholder groups, relative to the part they play in the work. The new liability model should include all groups who form part of the work-flow e.g. product manufacturers, architects/designers, Councils and Government, LBPs etc.

This action plan is dependant on key stakeholders, particularly policy makers and governing industry bodies, facilitating two-way channels of communication with ‘the voice of the industry’, using those practicing in the industry as a key source of insight in determining necessary steps towards making further progress towards the collective objective of improving sector capability through practitioners.

The plan addresses the ‘burning platform’ (biggest) issues raised by respondents of this study and based on the feedback received, it is expected that the items put forward in this action plan will deliverd the greatest benefits toward improvement in raised the quality of performance standards in the New Zealand construction industry today. How the findings could benefit stakeholders The key stakeholders of this study are LPBs themselves, industry groups/associations, governing bodies, academics and consumers. Each group can gain potential benefits from the conclusions drawn from the research:

LPBs – the key benefit of certainty resulting from this research for LPBs will be the opportunity for those who participated to compare and validate their responses and views with the popular responses. This could result in an affirmation of their views, or potentially a re-adjustment of views in alignment with others. A potential, and more important, benefit to LPBs would be for this group to see their feedback heard by the industry, and key changes implemented for the betterment of all stakeholders – including LPBs.

Industry groups and associations – if leveraged, this study has the potential to raise awareness with key industry groups, particularly local Councils, of the need for greater consistency in applying the Code and more monitoring of inspectors work (as perceived by LPBs). This would provide Councils with the opportunity to drive positive change that could lead to improvement in efficiency and quality of work in the industry.

Governing bodies – the greatest advantages of this research can be ultised by those who manage and carry out the Scheme, as valuable consideration to help realise its ultimate objective – to improve sector capability. Governing bodies have the opportunity to respond to the ‘voice of the LPB’. The rich data and deep insights - ranging from the wide impacts to LBPs, to the connection between how the Scheme is adminstered and the quality of workmanship - provide valuable consideration for longer-term improvements to the Scheme. Also, some relatively ‘quick wins’ are evident that could reasonably be achieved in the short-term.

Consumers – this study highlights a genuine response from participants around their desire and intent for the industry to produce quality work, which is a message from those producing the work that if promoted to consumers, should promote confidence and trust in practicioners.

Potential areas for further investigation One of the limitations of this study is the length of time that the Scheme has been in operation - around six months at the time this study was conducted. There is further scope to track changes in the attitude of LPBs on the effectiveness of the Scheme, to analyse trends and draw more conclusive results. For example, a similar study could be conducted in 12 months time to assess whether overall sentiment changes. Further opportunity exists to explore a broader view of the Scheme from stakeholders who regularly interact with it. One of the limitations of this study is that it focused on soliticiting a response exclusively from practitioners. To gain a more hosiltic perspective on the performance of the Scheme, there is potential to engage with other groups such as consumers or the governing bodies who regulate or implement aspects of the Scheme.

References 1 Dbh, (nd), BCA, Making a complaint about a licensed building practitioner A guide to the complaint process, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Licensing/pdf/bpb-making-a-complaint-booklet.pdf, retrieved 19/10/12 2Murphy, C, (2010), Cost effective quality: next generation building controls?, http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1582 retrieved 27/03/12 page 2

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Licensing/pdf/bpb-making-a-complaint-booklet.pdf


3 Dbh, (nd), About weather tightness, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/about-weathertightness-background retrieved 27/03/12 4 Dbh, (nd), BCA, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/BCA/PWC-BCA-accreditation-scheme-report.pdf retrieved 06/11/12 page 2 5 Dbh, (nd), Building A-Z, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/building-az-a retrieved 06/11/12 6 Dbh, (nd), What is building consent authority accreditation?, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/codewords-42-4 7 Dbh, (nd),The Ministry's Position, http://www.nzwood.co.nz/images/uploads/douglas-fir_alternative_solutions.pdf , retrieved 06/11/12 page 14 8 Dbh, (nd), Consulting on: LBP policy issues, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/consultingon-lbp-policy-issues retrieved 06/11/12 9 Dbh, (nd),The LBP complaints process , http://www.dbh.govt.nz/lbp-complaints#aid11 retrieved 24/04/2012 10 http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1582 retrieved 27/03/12 11http://www.dbh.govt.nz/about-weathertightness-background retrieved 27/03/12 12http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/096be8ed80827318.pdf Part 1 s 12,2 f, retrieved 27/03/12 page 47 13http://www.nzcic.co.nz/Documents/LBP_Summary_of_changes.pdf 14http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/096be8ed80827318.pdf Part 1, s 7, retrieved

27/03/12 page 38 15 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=3526741 , retrieved 7/04/12 16http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F

%2Fwww.dbh.govt.nz%2FUserFiles%2FFile%2FPublications%2FLicensing%2Fpdf%2Fis-licensing-for-me.pdf&ei=2Xt-T--2O9HJrAfM0PHwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEI0nJlnMAmC71dmbA6V-EntA0XRA retrieved 27/03/12 page 5 17 http://www.nzcic.co.nz/Documents/March_19_Industry_Issues_Forum_Minutes.pdf retrieved 27/03/12,

page 4 18

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=licensed%20building%20practitioner%20issues&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CF4QFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jlt.co.nz%2Fdocuments%2FMasterbuilders%2520Press%2520Release%2520March%25202012.pdf&ei=PHx6T_qQO--fiAfrld3NAg&usg=AFQjC retrieved 27/03/12 1http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/media_comm/documents/StreamliningtheLicensedBuildingPractitionerScheme

.pdf 19J. Georgiou, P.E.D. Love, J. Smith, (1999),"A comparison of defects in houses constructed by owners and registered builders in the Australian State of Victoria", Structural Survey, Vol. 17 Iss: 3 pp. 160 – 169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630809910291343 retrieved 29/03/12, 20 Mills A, Love P, Williams P (2009). Defect Costs in Residential Construction. Journal Of Construction Engineering & Management http://ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=iih&AN=35745813&site=ehost-live retrieved 29/03/12 21 M, M, &. Krueger, A, B (2010), The Prevalence and Effects of Occupational Licensing, page2, http://webs.wofford.edu/pechwj/The%20Prevalence%20and%20Effects%20of%20Occupational%20Licensing.pdf retrieved 29/03/12 22 Love, P,E,D, Davis, P, E & Worrall, (2010), DJ. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 136, 215 (2010); Occupational Licensing of Building Trades: Case of Western Australia, http://ascelibrary.org/epo/resource/1/jpepe3/v136/i4/p215_s1?isAuthorized=no retrieved 29/03/12 23 James E. Fenn MS, D. Mark Hutchings PHD & Kevin L. Burr EDD (2008): The Purposes for State Residential General Contractor Licensing in the United States, International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 4:2, 67-81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15578770802229391 retrieved 24/10/12 24 Burby, R. J., May, P. J., & Paterson, R. C. (1998), Improving Compliance with Regulations: Choices and Outcomes for Local Government. Journal- American Planning Association, 64(3), 324-334, http://ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN046337190&site=eds-live retrieved 24/10/12 25Registered Architects Act 2005, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0038/latest/096be8ed8037ae26.pdf retrieved 20/05/12 26 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0017/latest/096be8ed8046b339.pdf retrieved 20/05/12 27 http://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/legal/legal-other-pimsconsumer.php retrieved 20/05/12 28 Consumer, (01 Oct 2011) ,




http://www.dbh.govt.nz/building-az-a

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/codewords-42-4



http://www.dbh.govt.nz/consultingon-lbp-policy-issues

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/lbp-complaints#aid11













































































































































































































































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630809910291343





http://ascelibrary.org/epo/resource/1/jpepe3/v136/i4/p215_s1?isAuthorized=no

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15578770802229391



http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0038/latest/096be8ed8037ae26.pdf

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0017/latest/096be8ed8046b339.pdf

http://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/legal/legal-other-pimsconsumer.php

Fair Trading Act, http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/fair-trading-act retrieved 20/05/12 29The NZ professional bodies of Engineers and architects network internationally and where Engineers are listed the Washington Accord for engineers, and The union of international Architects (UIA) promote and recognise the qualifications of NZ. 30 Guarantee statements MBA, Master plumbers guarantee, generally consumers are protected under the consumers guarantee act for products or materials that fail when guarantees as a fitness for purpose is used. 31 Local government act 2002 - Part 1 Preliminary provisions, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM170879.html?search=sw_096be8ed80824d5a_construction_25&p=1 retrieved 20/05/12 32 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/resultsin.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed80824d5a_construction_25&p=1 retrieved 20/05/12 33DBH, (nd), What about consumer protection?, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/handc-consumer-protection , retrieved 27/03/12, 34 Contract Administered by the contractor in the absence of an engineer. 35 Construction contracts http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_display.php?st=1&sn=67&pg=6677&cat_name=&cat_id=&rp=1 36 http://www.alexanderconstruction.co.nz/images/SA2009-Form%20-%20Subcontract%20Agreement.pdf 37 www.lunds.co.nz/Uploads/1723/Specification.pdf 38 Guarantees Masterbuilders, Master plumbers, 39 NZ most common accredited bodies approving compliancy are Branz, and Beal. 40Dbh (02/07), Building Consent Authority Accreditation Preparation and Self-assessment Guide February 2007, http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Guidance-information/pdf/reg17-guide.pdf retrieved 20/05/12 41 wikipedia.org, (WIKI) (March 2009), Grounded Theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory#Four_stages_of_analysis retrieved 12/04/12 42 http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/BCA/BCApproval-Costs.pdf

Appendices

Appendix A. Original Data. (Qualitative)

Note: Numbers proceeding the text identify the participants, eg 3.(respondent 3) “If the scheme

actually had some clout, it could clean up the building games' act”.(qualitative response)

Advantages.

3. If the scheme actually had some clout, it could clean up the building games' act.

"5. It ensures that all LBP's are accountable for the building work they personally complete. It also

ensures that a record of the practitioners working on the project, is kept on file with the TA, this ensures

that any bad workman/woman ship is recorded, the buck cannot be passed. Like myself it provides a

path for builders to achieve a type of recognition, who for many reasons, have not studied for a

qualification, but have many years of practical experience in the construction industry.

I know that the staff assessing the potential LBP's are their peers and have confidence that the

assessment process is fair."

6. It is not proven yet

http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/fair-trading-act

http://www.washingtonaccord.org/Washington-Accord/signatories.cfm

http://www.uia-architectes.org/texte/england/Menu-1/2-5-sections.html

http://www.masterbuilder.org.nz/PDFs/GTE%20Defect%20Tolerance%20Schedule.pdf


http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Sector/regulatory-impact-statements/bar-guarantee-products-paper-ris.pdf





http://www.dbh.govt.nz/handc-consumer-protection

http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_display.php?st=1&sn=67&pg=6677&cat_name=&cat_id=&rp=1

http://www.alexanderconstruction.co.nz/images/SA2009-Form%20-%20Subcontract%20Agreement.pdf

http://www.lunds.co.nz/Uploads/1723/Specification.pdf

http://www.masterbuilder.org.nz/index.asp?id=112


http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_display.php

http://www.beal.co.nz/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory#Four_stages_of_analysis

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/BCA/BCApproval-Costs.pdf

8. The general concept was great but unfortunately the method in which the scheme has been carried

out has very serious floors. Assessments are being carried out over the phone and completed in less

than two hours. The references are only as good as the integrity of the person giving them there is no

guarantee that these referees are of any value or are competent in the field they are judging. There is

no safe guard for the home owner there are people getting licences out there who have very little

experience and have no assets or money should some thing go wrong where does that leave the home

owner? In fact I know of several people who have been accessed passed and have a licence who need

to be black listed even if they are exposed where does that leave the home owner the whole system is

a sham to protect the local government councils and the DBH Manufactures are telling absolute bull to

enable every one and any one to install their products the who system stinks of poor management and

buck passing of the highest degree.

10. There are no advatages.

"12. Assume you are refering only to RBW? If not then your questions are miss directed. The whole

point of the LBP was for ALL Works, not just RBW and to that end the current arrangements are

hopeless............."

"16. To get your license every year and to apply is a big hassle. Work on the point system is useless."

"19. A registration system for builders ws long overdue. Leaky buildings are due to [1]poor product,

harditex with insufficient /too low concentration of cement. [2] Poor design [3] poor inspection work

by councils [4] poor workmanship Before harditex came into use, we used the standard 7.5 mm

hardisheets, which were less porous.Due to cheaper Belgium imports [eterpan] James Hardie had to be

more compatative. The Belgium sheets were made with the same pulp from Tasman Pulp and Paper,

they used belgium cement and belgium labour at twice the NZ rate. These sheets were available for $

4.25 less per sqm then the NZ harditex. The poor design: lack of detailing for waterproofing. Builders

had to find their own solutions. By not providing details the designers couldn't be blamed for mistakes.

[3] Councils were in and out in sometimes five minutes and were more concerned about bracing nails,

then with waterproofing details. [4] Due to labour shortage, every hammerhand called hiself a builder.

Branz wanted a cavity system from day one, but were overuled by the BIA. The present product, pushed

by James Hardy, the Linea weatherboard is the next problem area. I know of several cases of

delamination. In the end the untreated timber got the blame. You can use ground treated timber for

your construction, and it won't rot,even with a leaky cladding product. Your gibboard will fall of the

walls as the next weak link in the chain."

"36. Wow Gosh keep the wording a bit more simpilfied(So we can understand it)..We are are Builders

.Not university lecturers...ONE THING CONCERNING PEOPLE GREATLY IS THAT SOME OF THE ASIANS

AND CHINESE HAVE GOT THERE LISCENCES SOMEHOW>(VERY DANGEROUS)......

AND HEARD A RUMOUR THAT THE SOME ASIANS WHO HOLD A LISCENCE ARE CHARGING THERE OWN

TOTALLY UNSKILLED ILDERS BIG DOLLARS JUST TO UPLIFT PERMITS FOR THEM.(WITH NO

ACCOUNTABILIY WHATSOEVER AND OFFERING NO SUPERVISION )..BE REALY REALY CAREFULL AS THIS

PRACTISE WILL DEMISE THEWHOLE PURPOSE >>>OF LBP SCHEME.WITH THEM.OFFERING THEIR HONG

KONG GURANTEES ...JYEAH RIGHT>>>A DISARSTER IN THE MAKING.....THANKS"

43. In the industry we are hearing from building inspectors that gangs of chippies are working as normal

and someone with a licence is signing for the work, until liability and some examples are made of the

LBPs not taking the new regulations seriously the new system is not working as intended.

45. It ensures that practitioners upskill continuously through the compulsory cpd required for

maintaining licence. thought this has been cancelled ......?

"48. Limits the ability for home owners to have work undertaken by people who are generally

incompetent as restricted work is limited to those with LBP qualifications. Gives TA's the opportunity

to accept only people who have had some inquiry into their previous activities. Once a few cases of

public flogging have taken place for mistakes by people who are in the LBP scheme, there will be a bit

more attention paid to the entire scheme and it will begin to work as intended."

51. Provides a more even playing field where you are not competing with some one out there doing

the job for a greatly reduced fee and the quality of work is way short of what is expected

"55. Sharpens up the consent process with an LBP builder having to give his number before getting a

consent. This will eliminate ""others"" from doing building work. Through the application process it

made all builders take a time check on themselves, do a bit of study on the Regulatory Process and take

a look at how good they were. in other words brush up a bit"

"57. Since licenses are issued to people in the industry who have no qualification very few of the above

comments are necessarily true. The system is only as good as the quality of the people that you license."

59. When you do alterations to existing structures and they are recent you know that there will be lots

of detail about the structure

70. I think its too soon to tell most the above-mentioned questions. Everyone I know in the industry has

always tried to "get it right the first time", and some problems have arisen from product failure and

trial and error of methodolgies.

71. I am unsure of exactly what the disciplinary and appeals process consists of, hope I never need to

know. That of course is the whole point in my view. A competent LBP should do it the right way first

time.

72. Creates a trail of blame/accountability.

83. It encourages people to work within their competency levels and makes them sceptical of other

people they are involved with in the industry. This will force people to take ownership of areas that

were missed by the person who should have sorted it (often design details) and avoid having the gaps

in the process filled by people who just want to get on with the job without proper guidance or

competence.

88. it keeps down the competition for builders. Good for builders, bad for consumers.

"89. proof of experiance and know how. more upskilling should happen as basically no improvment in

skill leaval was done apart from experiance and too many new products are introduced without proper

detailing etc"

94. Provides a professional and trustworthy organization for each individual LBP to be associated with,

and a foundation for client confidence.

95. Sorry but all my responses are basically negative. I gained my license in 2008 and at that stage

thought it would be a great tool for good, quality builders to improve their position in the marketplace

as well as ensuring competent building practices in the future. I know for a fact there are many licensed

"builders" who do not fit the requirements and are still doing shoddy work....so to me the scheme has

failed and offers little in the way of confidence to the consumer. In my experience the consumer is still

taking the cheapest price regardless of a license or not and I have heard that LBP's are signing off non-

LBP work.....so we are back to square one unless the regulatory authorities enforce this to the extreme.

96. Until the licence classes are sorted to match industry roles and responsibilities, supervision and

management roles also have a binding responsibility and the complete system becomes qualification

based, which would then and only then remove the cowboys from the industry. It is not the licensed

practitioners that create problems to our industry, but all the non licensed and unqualified cowboys

who are still operating in our industry.

100. No a lot of builders that have not bother with LBP

107. It gives client confidence or will do when it is more widely known about.

"109. The scheme has very little guts to it in the policeing of it It runs on Complants to fix by then poor

workmanshipOne form at end of job is not enough to inprove the industry and only housing when it

should be ALL construction"

111. a good way for the government to get even more money out of hard working people and shake

off there own responsabilities

113. I believe licensing is a good thing as it will keep some cowboys out but i dont believe its the total

answer to the problems were now having. There is now no recognition of any proper trade

qualifications. Serving 9000 hours and then doing a trade cert and advanced trade cert means nothing.

It seems an apprentice can get through his time on maybe building kitset homes where they don't get

full training on all aspects of the trade and full understanding as to why they are doing a job. They can

then apply for a license and then take on restricted work. In my opinion, the answer is going back to

proper training (including polytech) and also monitoring the tutors. I have had to get rid of a guy who

had completed the pretrade course, spent 6 months with another builder and then started with me

and he didn't know con

127. In time I think that having LBPs will work out to be a good move.

138. more trades should be licsenced to be able to carry out any work on building sites,would give the

clients and public even more confident that all work is carryed out well.

141. It has weeded out the odd person who did their own line drawings for council, many of which

years later I am trying to decipher when I look at the council's property files.

144. It provides a means to ensure persons who carry out "restricted work" are formally identified and

recorded, and so can be identified at some later date

149. If you did not keep up with current ideas and practice (CPD points) you would not be employed by

anybody in the industry. In my case I have travellers, subbies, building inspectors etc keeping me up

with the play on a daily basis as does everybody else in the industry. The neccessary DBH points could

all be gained without any upskilling actually required for the job at all under the present bullshit system.

160.It gives authorities a tool to prosecute and suspend licenses if they can prove a link between the

building problem and the trademan.

163.There isn't any

168. Working in Christchurch thereis a ever gtowing in flux of overseas workers. Having work in

Australia for a couple of year you understand the difference from NZ building to Australian building ie

onerow of nogs, studs 450 centre and all built for cyclones. So the difference is great, here we are in

Christchurch with so called tradesmen from Ireland and England, Russian etc where there buildings

brick and blockwork withlittle timber framing.So where is the LBP QA in these cases? Big building

companys make a mokery of the LBP Scheme to the detrement of all other standards and quality driven

small company builders.

169. It is far too easy for unqualified builders and quacks to gain a licence and it is of great concern for

me and the industry. There are many so-called builders that have a building practitioners licence that I

will never recommend on what I have seen of their construction. All the new system has done is create

more paperwork and higher costs.

170.It is far too easy for unqualified builders and quacks to gain a licence and it is of great concern for

me and the industry. There are many so-called builders that have a building practitioners licence that I

will never recommend on what I have seen of their construction. All the new system has done is create

more paperwork and higher costs.

171.it would be good if the council inforces the plastering side of things instead of letting blocklayers

do plasterering

172.regulating the industrie will bring the rates competent builders can charge in line with other

regulated trades.

187.It makes us more valuable than a non qualified and licensed practitioner.

190.none

193.It gives the licence holder credibility.

195.We employ a shit-load more civil servants to look after us in a true NANNY-STATE. What happened

to the buyer taking resposibility for their actions / purchases? Why should we have to pay for someone

elses poor decision? Why should all of us who avoided building or buying the TRENDY, NEW (now the

LEAKY HOME) that was pushed by Architects, Designers & Building Product manufacturers (well the

ones trying to get away from using reliable tanilised, treated timber) have to pay the cost?

200. must work with council at all times

207.It is making builders more aware that they need to keep up with progress and be informed on

new products, methods and technology that is available, this can only be a good thing for the for the

industryas a whole.

209.Long term the LBP scheme will be good in ensuring the industry has only competent personal

213.the scheme has put alot of unlicence builders under cover. Home owners can carry out any work.

The examiner only ticks off want he thinks you should have, and leave you out on other work. Eg I build

houses from the foundations up to completion, yet my licence doesn't allow for foundations, or placing

roofs.

"214.Gives recognition to those builders who have down their trade and got the relevant qualifications.

Should of happen 30 years ago. Builders with a LBP qualification should be getting paid the same rate

electricians and plumbers. This is not happening so whats the advantage of being a LBP."

218.It ensures only qualfied practioners with a record of successful building can become LBP there are

none really,

229.From A roofing point of view -Metal Roofing Fixers now have a status which allows them to sign

work off.

231.The scheme is only 6 months old and any gains are not evident yet and will not be for some time .

The advantages will come in time , but lets get the scheme running first

239. I believe at this time it is a base mark for working towards a system that will create an

understanding by clients that experience and knowledge will produce quality to projects in the

construction industry.

241.I believe at this time it is a base mark for working towards a system that will create an

understanding by clients that experience and knowledge will produce quality to projects in the

construction industry.

255.other advantages would be creating confidence with the general public.

260.I have indicated I agree with most of the statements. I agree that these things SHOULD be the

outcome of the scheme, provided the rules are policed and enforced.

269. Having a Building Licence makes one far more confident in dealing with the local authorities

280.It may provide an oppertunity for skilled tradesman to increase pay rates

282.We have always prided ourselves on high quality of workmanship so many of the questions do not

apply.

Disadvantages.

3. It's still got no balls. Cowboys still get licensed. And other brickies are signing off the very few

cowboys who didn't get licensed without supervising any work, fact.

6. Giving everyone a carpentry license does not adequately qualify their experience or expertise and

this will become obvious over the next 10 years as the practitioner board finds themselves deluged with

complaints.

8. The who(le) system stinks being licensed will be some thing that no one wants a bar of wait and see

when all the dodgy practitioners that have been given one are exposed the DBH will stand there and

say look we are catching the dodgy builders but some one needs to ask how the hell they got there

licence in the first place. The whole system has been devalued by a bunch of incompetent bureaucratic

idiots who have their nose in the money trail like pigs at the trough

"9. To expensive to apply for a licence

To expensive to reaply every year $200

The up skilling seminares are a joke

It has not changed anything with regards to responsibilitys for your own work"

10. The scheme has just added costs to the perfomance of work that was largely being carried out

before it came into force.

"11. The DBH, through the LBP scheme is actively encouraging the proliferation of different kinds of

licenses with the effect of fragmenting the industry too much so that, in the end, because everyone is

""accountable"" in the end, no-one is accountable. The builder can get sloppy when nobody checks his

work when it is just done. Hide mistakes and move on.

11.The focus needs to move to supporting Quality Assurance in the industry. To do that is to make the

Site 2 license and 3, have more legal culpability and clout in terms of checking the tradesmen work. The

place of the site-foreman and supervisor is the pivotal position for Quality Assurance to work in the

industry and raise the quality of the finish. "

"12. the RBW can not be supervised by a LPB Site 1, 2 or 3. That means a LBP Site can not completed

RBW, and has to employ a LBP Carpenter, etc (Trades persons)when he/she may in many cases have

more experience than any one of the tradespersons?

"

14. D.B.H appear to be seeking comment from stakeholders in the industry,when they infact seem to

have already decided upon the course they will take,and just go through the motions of consulting so

they can say they did.The points system if you examine the questions for example in industry

magazines,are an insult to your inteligence,Good builders will still be good builders,shonkey builders

will still be shonky. If you look at leakey house ,builders when undertaking a build utilisg products

unknown to them seek manufactures recomended methods and prodecer statements,the

manufactures of the claddings used on leakey houses released their products in N.Z after they had

failed in Canada,and could no longer sell them there.B.R.A.N.Z. is funded in part by tiese companies.

17. I feel if an engineer is inspecting builders work to ascertain if their design has been followed there

is no need to have the BCA inpsectors also inspect the work, this has caused a sharp increase in costs

to consumers due to the increased paperwork, design memorandum, Producer Statements etc.

19. Councils are so scared for litigation, that they cover their bum left ,right and centre. Consent fees

have quadrupeled in the last twelve years for similar projects

23. Continued micro management from unqualified bureaucracy

24. Continued micro management from unqualified bureaucracy

"26. Big players in market offering new products seem untouchable and have no accountability if these

products prove unsatisfactory. Costs, accountability and theoretical upskilling of LBP should drastically

raise pay rates but this is not happening. Govt is allowing overseas cheap labour to flood the market.

Scheme is designed to absolve councils pf any responsibility so they will have no fear of later litigation.

All responbility shifting to LBP but for no financial gain. Govt ,regulating bodies and agencies like Branz

are always 3 steps behind and try to resolve problems after they have occured"

27. The changes to the scheme since i have been involved (4years) are unfair, with out consultation, &

appear to be manipulated, perhaps for political gain? A recent questionnaire purporting to be

consulting for views was full of loaded questions, which appeared to be designed to illicite just one

answer

"35. We are still as liable as before, it's just easier for them to find us. Leaky buildings where also caused

by crap products being used and certified by the Goverment of the time. Green party also pushed thru

the non treated wood policy. The building consent process has become even more lengthy and also

costly "

36. AS WRITTEN ABOVE >>>PLEASE TAKE HEED (refer advantages)

"37. It would appear that if 3 LBP qualified builders are working on one large wall then they all must fill

in a record of work. This seems an unnecessary waste of time. Onr person should have control of the

site to sign off the work. Site 3 has no rights to sign anything off - what is this class for?"

41. Let too many people who are not fully qualified into the scheme.

43. Only requiring one LBP on a housing project to sign off the work puts all the liability on one person

the industry needs to make all the workers licenced and liable for their standard of work. If chippies

dont won't to stand by what they have produced then dont be in the game.

47. The main disadvatage has come from the building Authorities who have taken the LPB scheme as

an opportunity to leverage responsibilty onto the builders but without the builders being able to have

the resonsibility and be entrusted to get the job right. There is now more inspections than ever.

"48. The scheme may fail and drive people to use only no licensed people if the people who are LBP try

to extort a premium

48. The fact that Architects lie out side the scheme is an indictment to the stupidity of those who believe

that workmanship failures and material performance issues rather than Design errors are the cause of

the current crisis in the building industry. "

50. Architects that have been getting it wrong for years are still operating, and are readily accepted as

competent.

51. Councils are really wanting to pass on liability to the practitioners

"53. The lbp system is not only driving experienced builders out of the industry earlier than they would

have planned but is causing younger qualified builders to reassess their future in NZ. I personally know

of many who have left NZ or changed roles and are no longer ""hands on "" builders."

"54. We have come across clients that start work with a non lbp then expect an lbp to finish off the

work. When we explain that we would have to start from scratch as we have no knowledge of the

workmanship or products used, clients become angry. However we stand by the lbp scheme and will

never do work that is not consented etc..We have also heard of non lbp builders paying for lbps to use

their license. Again this completely undermines the scheme. THE FUTURE OF THE INDUSTRY."

"55. All that has happened is we pay a fee each year to be an LBP, seems everyone has become an LBP,

so we are not ahead in terms of sorting the inferior builders out. The CPD system is onerous and not

effective. An LBP builder with 48 years experience is deemed to be the same as an LBP builder just out

of his time. (started in 1964) Being involved in helping builders with their application form, I was

appalled that quite a few could not fill out the forms Already the DBH are trying to change the scheme

which is ridiculous. Give it a bit of time. Before it started they had changed aspects of it, namely licence

classes. I applied early and my staff filled out entirely different forms. (1 year later) Thought the way

we were licenced was haphazard to say the least. By phone,The local council would know who is and

who isn't a good builder"

57. The scheme adds another much larger layer of costs on top of building inspection costs, why are

we paying both? Now councils have no responsibility we should not be paying for them to inspect.

"58. There can be no question that a greater awareness of building design and construction shortfalls,

has been brought to the attention of those in the industry through the leaky homes syndrome. I have

always maintained that the related problem is due to the lack of proper education and training, first

experienced with the dismantling of apprenticeships, and from there filtering throughout the whole

industry, to where we are today. The LBP scheme is time consuming, costly, invasive, is not the solution

to the problem, passes all responsibility from Council to specifier, supplier or builder, whilst Council to

increase their charges."

"58. The territorial authorities desire to evade any responsibility is causing the clients to pay for

unnecessary detail, To this end the TA's are over the top in pin pricking detail and minor pedantic

beauracay, The whole exercise is an over reaction to the weatertightness issue applying to all types of

buildings when in fact the marjority of buildings are not in this category eg alterations to ex state houses

require the same amount of detail as no overhang monolithic dwellings. There is a massive structure

continually updating codes and standards to even greater levels of safety, watertightness which is

difficult to keep up with. In my opinion some things are being overdesigned and incurring extra costs

to the client

"

64. Site 3 licence is a waste of time and money, i have had a site 3 licence from the beginning of the

scheme in 2007, as i am in commercial, we do not need to provide a licnece as commercial is covered

under consultants and Engineers PS4's etc... so we are just paying for a livence every year that is

effectivly not worth the paper its writen on, why have a Site 3 class when its only based on commercial,

when in commerical it isnt rquired? someone needs to sort this issue out....................seems to be a

revenue gatherer to me, cheers

66. Costly in both time and money for the builder and hard to recoop

69. Regulation and bureaucracy have killed innovation, imagination,creativity and artistry. The scheme

establishes a benchmark for many to aim for and the rest to fall back to.

70. A lot more paperwork and overheads for practitioners right throughout the build. Accrued increased

costs to the client are coming at a time of financial hardship for NZ on the heels of huge cost increases

in building due to compliance-related issues. Building has become a rich man's sport, and a black market

is already evident.

71. Lack of understanding by the average person out there that is not connected in any way to the

industry.

72. The inconsistancy of interpriation by local authorities is frustrating.

78. We the builders are in the firing line for any designed work that dosnt work

"82. its too easy to get. Poor quality builders are getting a license. I know people who are not builders

who have applied for a license and got it."

84. Even the smartest LBP can not keep up with the changing rules,It is more important that we have a

stable inviroment,with good info coming back to builders,I have advanced trade cert achieved 35 years

ago, and yet i still have the same rating as somebody thats done a few years building and 12 mths night

school, Because a lot of people have not registered we are going to be short of builders in the future,it

appears we will be inporting builders from overseas to fill the gaps in christchurch what level of

education will these guys prove, or will it end up like the imported doctors we have in this country.

85. cost to the builders means rates need to go up which means cost home owners more

"87. People can get licenced who aren't qualified enough. Evenings promoted to practioners for

""scoring points"" to maintain their certification are often just used to promote products, sometimes

products that aren't directly related to the industry ( eg Noel Leeming)"

88. This is another crutch in the whole "nanny state" mentality that is NZ.

"89. too easy to become licsenced. "

95. See previous comments

98. It has been made so easy to attain that the level of competence required to be licensed is far to

low. The skills maintenance program is totally flawed and unnecessary once a license has been attained.

Apart from possible marketing potential , being an LBP has zero positive spin offs but many negative

ones.

99. when manurfacturers are only gaurertening there products for 5years and LBP are being bonded to

there work for 15 years

100. Am out of the country at moment, cant renew LBP. So basicly means when i come back i have no

points so cant hold a LBP so my 30 years experance means nothing so in turn you are forcing me out of

the industry the hole thing sucks.

"112. Some excellent tradesmen do not have the computer skills or paperwork skills to keep up with

the sceam and some tradespeople have these skills but are shit at there trade

It seems to me to have become beaurocratical"

"114. I am aware of many people in the building trade that are licenced but not even close to know

what they are doing. I have employed people that are licenced but cant hit a nail in straight! I have done

work for a client who is an LBP but was relying on me for all the answers. Her has never used a skill saw.

Since the introduction of the LBP scheme there is still the same amount of inspections from the TA. The

builder should be accountable for 3-4 inspections thus reducing the cost and time in building a house.

Nothing has changed apart from the fact we have to upskill and earn point every 2 years. This is a good

thing. I now do not employ people on the pre-requisite that they are an LBP. Its really just another bill

I have to pay. "

"115. The whole system is a have. There was already a system in place called trade cert. I know LBP's

who would not have build my dog a kennel let alone a house, and I also know unqualified non LBP's

who I would happily have build my own home. It was a money grab by the government to generate

some cash from the industry to put towards addressing the leaky homes saga, and a way of deflecting

responsibility from the BCA as there are far too may sub standard inspectors who don't have a trade

background and don't really comprehend what they are inspecting. The industry was told by Mr Hyde

that the scheme would reduce the number of inspections required per project and thus speed up

production - this has not happened in the slightest.

There is a company called the building hub, who have marketed to me that for anotherr anual fee, they

will guarantee to send me all the relevant information that I need to acrue points so that I remain

licenced (as long as I keep paying the LBP fee). There is however, no obligation for me to read this

information. If I subscribe to Build Today magazine and never read it, I will acrue points. If I take a free

copy of Build Today magazine from the counter at Carters, read it cover to cover and absorb every bit

of information, I get no points because I didn't pay for the magazine???

The whole system is a knee jerk reaction to leaky homes. They stalled and delayed so many times

introducing this system. Is it just a coincidence that they finally introduced it at the same time as the

govenrment announced it's relief package for leaky homes?"

121. Biggest problem that is always overlooked is to be a LBP, one does not have to be trade qualified,

I personally know of three Unqualified ( Cowboys ) who helped each other become LBP, And they only

know enough to make a right mess. Its a Slap in the face to those men & woman who completed their

apprenticeship, & a pat on the back to those that cheated the system 10, 20 even 30 years ago. At very

least a unqualified LBP's details on the DBH website should state in bold writing UNQUALIFIED "I am

amazed at how some people get Licensed,knowing who they are and what they have done. It does not

sit well with me as I have gone through the whole process being Qualified and experienced."

"127. At the moment the site licence is a problem. No use? The licencing dose not cover comercial

work. To much paper work for the average chippy. Liability over a long period of time? (who is going to

pay?)"

132. Paperwork is more demanding and i spend less time building. Cutting coupons from building

magazines and attending all LPB metetings is not educational all it does is give businesses a chance to

sell their building products. An apprentice can be signed off as a builder if they have done the required

time our however some struggle to absorb the information and you can help them to you are blue in

the face and 10 years of hours would not make them a good builder but they get signed off

anyway.When i applied for my Licence i knew more than the person interviewing me yet they still made

it sound like i knew nothing and asked one of my referees to keep an eye on me if i was granted my

licence he and knows nothing about building!!

138. They should have had more building experienced people involved from the start in steering the

DBH in its class set up some big holes out their now not covering the right classes or trades.

141. I know of LBP who I would not want to design my dog kennel - very shoddy work but he managed

to get licensed

143. The Construction Industry is aware that the LBP is a weak attempt at raising the competence of

the industry. The Public perception might be that LBP's operate at a higher level of competence than a

non licensed builder.

"144. Government through the Ministry of internal affairs and BRANZ were deeply involved in

permitting the development of the building code and product approval systems that saw monolithic

cladding and untreated timber become an industry norm. While councils and practitioners need to

acknowledge a part of responsibility for failure, in the main part, large industry players like the timber

industry who marketed their product (subsequently shown to be inferior for the use it was intended)

to the public and industry have had no accountability. EG; The courts have said it is councils and

practitioners responsibility to ensure that the completed house complied with the building code, yet

these same councils could not declare a product unsuitable on the evidence available at the time as

these systems were shown to be approved for use by BRANZ and pushed by strong market forces

industry players. A further disadvantage is that Licensing is too watered down with the ""restricted

work"" descriptions to have real meaning. EG: a minor alteration to extend a dwelling to construct a

covered link between a garage and residence and include a wash-basin (Typical farm back entry)

requires to be carried out by LBP's. from design right through to the completion of restricted work

elements by trades persons.

By contrast, a project like a school or hospital any other building with public significance and risk

requires no LBP's in any part of the process. The result is that a Design AOP3 Licence is irrelevant as

AOP3 work is not restricted work and therefore this licence is unnecessary or superfluous - a Desing

Licence AOP1, or 2 practitioner can carry out AOP3 work either on the grounds he feels he is competent

to do so, or because he doesn't have to be licensed to do it anyway

The LBP Scheme is confusing and also unnecessarily costly, especially with minopr works where the

majority of our smaller firm ply their trade. Our practice has recently completed a farm entry extension

similar to that described above, The documents required to demonstrate compliance for consent were

equivalent to what is necessary for a whole new dwelling and tenfold what most of the historical

housing stock, that never experienced leaky building syndrome or systemic failure, ever required for a

satisfactory result - These then are submitted to council for checking and consent and inspection.

Documentation cost $4,000.00 - Consent fees and inspections a further $1,500 - approximate value of

work $30,000 "

"146. It appears as though trade qualifications are being ignored and the registarars are placing more

wieght on the opinions of referees . That process is allowng many very unqualified personel to become

redgistered. "

150. An owner may build his own home with no qualifications. Carpenters are getting licensed within

days of being qualified,

"160. This is a very costly scheme for small scale operators. Because there is a very competitive market,

practictioners can not pass this cost onto clients. Personal intrusiveness is only an issue if the authorities

get it wrong....which is possible. The semi- annual upskilling point requirement appears to be an

ineffective way of improving practictioners abilties and knowledge. Point # 1 above: the approach govt.

has pursued to minimise leaking buildings has been cumbersome and circumspect. They have

developed an extrodiarily complex and bureaucratic system, which has stifled creativity and choice of

design and materials, and takes us in the opposite direction of sustainable building and resource use.

They have created a monster, a nighmare, which frustrates and adds unnecsary costs to every aspect

of the building process. It is responsible for creating a climate of distrust, contempt and synicism for

both the practicioners and more importantly the clients. The ""leaky building syndrome"" came about

by a large assorment of failures on many levels. Some of the processes which have been implemented

to fix the problem will not bear positive results. This is true of the method which has been used to

implement the LBP system. There has been no ""up-skilling"" what so ever. Merely a weapon to nail

people proved to be at fault."

163. How easy it is for clients to go straight to their lawyers when the client is in the wrong and us in

the industry have to pay for that. Clients going straight to their lawyers. Being on probation for building

work for the rest of our lives and having to carry insurance for building work for the rest of our lives.

Cost's are going up we have to cut cost's or we miss out on work. Licensing has not reduced cost's if

anything they have risen. If building inspections are reduced then LBP'S will have to take on the roll of

the building inspector, another hat we have to wear.

167. As i was a registered builder for 30 years and a LBP for 2 years I find the scheme to hard to stay in

because to gain 3 up skilling points it cost me $85.00 to attend and learn about things i have already

read about in the building mag.So to gain the 200 points for me as a small builder it would have cost

me more than being a RMB (reg master builder). This scheme dose not stop big business from having

poor workers as the owners are the ones that have the license.

174. the points system is not up to standard .to easy to get by trade breakfasts and talks

175. There is still cow boys Getting linced

176. Just more red tape to add to the overbearing bureaucracy of NZ

"178. cost of licence every year, gaining licence points, The scheme together with the cost of

compliance and building materials has made n z the dearest place in the world to build."

183. The LBP labels looks good, unfortunaly any unqualified hammer hand can get it that can have there

mates back them up!

184. anyone who has done an apprenticeship can join, regardless of competence

190.JUST ANOTHER MONEY MAKING SCHEME, WHICH THE TRADESMAN CAN NOT AFFORD

191. Like for Like requirements in the Building Code whereby work does not need a consent and

therefore does not need to be carried out by an LBP makes a mockery of the LBP scheme.

"192.It is another form of Government interference, pushing the cost of compliance up and it is a cost

that can't be passed on to the customer, Because the work is scarce and lots of competition and

undercutting of prices, On that note i have been in business for the last twenty years and building for

35 years and i have given up and closed down my business. my 5 staff have moved to Aussie and one

to Timaru and he has no intention going to Ch Ch. The government is stuffing up the industry and

driving builders overseas."

193.Getting the time to go to the training for training points.

195. I am a builder of 35 years experience. The main thing I have learnt is that good building design &

good old fashioned techniques are all that is needed to ensure water-tight buildings. Do you know how

many times I've heard the phrase "GUARANTEED BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR 'X' YEARS" only to find

out a few more years down the track that the product fails miserably. Modern products do not mitigate

poor design & products pushed by greedy companies (like Hardies, etc). Many of the buildings I work

on are around 100 years old & need relatively little work to bring them back to great condition again.

Not only that, they haven't leaked for most of their lives. Upskilling with new products & how to use

them is BULLSHIT. Most don't work (especially when you follow the instructions) & the builder is

blamed. There are few advantages to this system. Architects & designers & new product manufacturers

should be grilled - not the builders. Hell, there was no licencing when these 100 year old buildings were

made!

"197. The LBP scheme should be mandatory for commercial work. There are still cowboys who have

managed to get licensed, but the biggest joke is the homeowner can still do work which is likely to cause

problems. They should have to be supervised because they are the untrained people who need

supervision.

There are still problems with BCA's and if you raise an issue with them where they have let something

below the code thru they tend to turn on you and go through your next projects with a fine tooth

comb."

203.Small builders have to wear a lot of hats with compliance costs, osh and a raft of new safety rules,

attending seminars,etc For many of the older builders this extra paperwork and compliance will be the

straw that breaks the camels back. The building industry needs these tradespeople more than ever

206.Too costly , the points scheme is a joke !

213.to check out each builder each year is a waste of time, when we deal with a new product we check

with the manufacturer for instalation details, we dont need our heads filled with useless requirements.

If they only require the payment of fees, then its money grabing.

217.The approving of non qualified people was not a good move, tradesmen only become qualified if

they are good enough. TAs need to back off the LBPs we know what we are doing.

222.LBP is a another fee and time waster for poorly paid trades people making other important trade

qualifications almost void. Having a LBP to blame when there is a problem is not the right way to

implement better work practices.

224.there are a large number of LBP's that only got on the scheme because they were lacking numbers.

it has not had any affect on site apart from increased anxiety amongst the astute builders

"229.AS above it adds csts to the building process. Passes the buck to industry and exposes the

contractor to further risk"

231.The scheme has areas of uncertainty that need to be addressed , which were not considered at its

introduction

"239.Being a site 3 there is no current direction for responsibilities. My view is that site 3 should be able

to supervise the trade and site 1 &2 licences. As a qualified carpenter/joiner, site 3 licence was acquired

through NZ trade qualifications and supervision skills, if I was to do a renovation, restricted works, at

my property I would have to have more than 1 licence or employ others who had these licences. "

"241. Being a site 3 there is no current direction for responsibilities. My view is that site 3 should be

able to supervise the trade and site 1 &2 licences. As a qualified carpenter/joiner, site 3 licence was

acquired through NZ trade qualifications and supervision skills, if I was to do a renovation, restricted

works, at my property I would have to have more than 1 licence or employ others who had these

licences. "

249.i already know of big building companies who have 20 low paid workers and one person signing off

every thing, wich makes it hard to compete if you have a company of fully qualified and licenced

workers, therfore the same problems will arise in the future.

"252. It pushes away the established designers and practitioner by belittle their experience and

academic qualification. The problems of leaky homes and other negativity in the industry is made up of

combinations of issue eg material and products used not suitable to NZ environment and Builders and

other trades lack of apprentice availability. Pressure of economy driven and developers greed pushes

the industry to take short cuts and Local Authority failure to police the situation at the beginning. The

LBP is seen as another money making scheme which produces a new trade but not really solving the

issue. Practitioners is required to take responsibility but in the end Council Local Authority gives the

COA. Government is passing the risk to the Practitioner but they hold the final say and the LBP can only

trust that the Local Authority will do their job properly."

"269. Lack of permittable work means ones Building licence could lapse thru no fault of ones own. I am

from Hawkes Bay and this is a depressed building area. I also (at age 59) am trying to ease back on my

work and am targeting smaller jobbing type work rather than extensions, but I undertook my LBP

certificate for the ""just incase"" senarios.In other words if that permittable job comes up that would

interest me then I am able to go for it."

"256.The system is rigged to the advantage of group housing franchises , whom are minpulating the

system to lower the hourly rate for builders. they are using licence holders whom most of the time are

not on site. The unskilled handyman type labor are undercutting the licence holders for all nonstructial

work , as they dont carry the costs we have. The system is eliminating the small business builders. "

"273.The scheme does not give any protection to the customer, any unscruplous contractor is given

complete control of the situation, people automatically feel they are getting a good job and dont feel

in a position to question the'experts'. This amounts to self regulation, and has been proven on many

occasion - government, Banking, Insurance etc it is a flawed system"

274. It really gives me the creeps to have issues with getting a license for commercial work when I may

not have been in that field of work for three years but have trained over 30 years to be competent in

all areas. 274. It has one failing. All responsibilty for success doesn't rest soley with building

practitioners. For example, duriing the life cycle of any building it will at some point allow the ingress

of water. An external tap penetration for example, a small internal gutter glogged with leaves as

another example. That BRANZ and the Government can approve the use of Chemical free timber,

engineer approved product that will rot 15 metres either side of the leaky tap seems to be the main

core of the problem. last man standing is the mode to recover cost, so builders are the dumbest and

most ill prepared for the legal challenge. untill BRANZ and the Government front up and take full

responsibility nothing will ever be right. I klnow there are still hundreds of houses that will have ongoing

problems. It was $800.00 cheaper to have a Chem Free framed house. It makes me sick to see leaders

hiding behind the size of large finacially powerful organisations. Pleased to say, I didn't use Chem free

on anything. Lests not just focus on builder competency as the main problem in New Zealand. Point

some of your report at the propeller heads, throw some egg, because its overdue that those at the top

need a license, not just the builders. Its put me offf wearing a tie.

277. It doesnt stop cowboys and unqualfied doing non permit work

"279. The current points scheme is rediculous. To collect points you have to go to these silly supplier

run meeting and list to all the bullshit the the sales man has to say about the a particular product that

the are supplying and making money from. They will talk silly builders talk to make a sale and offer

drinks and rub the backs of there customers. (you also get points for going the a bacon and egg

breakfast how rediculous. ) All a waste of any GOOD business/trade persons time. "

280.The system will increases costs to the public , The ablity of LBPs to sign off work can be abused .ie

resent tv artical on imported labour NO ONE was asked for a licence . There will always be cowboys

and shonky deals if someone thinks they can get it cheaper

281. it is expensive but it is needed

282.Too much time out of work time to attend seminars and extra paperwork etc. Who pays for this

time?

"283.The approving authority should be held accountable for approving consents and inspections (their

part of the work because the charge big money)at the moment it seems they want other people in the

industry to be accountable -they should be equally accountable"

Recommended Changes to the scheme.

"3.When the trades were regulated, like unions or strong associations, they kept their own in line. The

quality and attitude towards the work was a lot better.Gov't needs to make it mandatory that licensed

tradesmen join an association and let them run the apprenticeship schemes. All the while, keeping the

licensing program going. It's good if it actually has some backing to it."

"6.As and LBP, LBP assessor and consultant etc I find the scheme has been implemented in a very

haphazard way relying largely on telephone interviews as a way of determining the expertise and

experience of the builder. If the process used for design (face to face or site visits etc) was the same for

carpentry and site then I consider that the risk of of the present open door policy would improve the

quality of building in NZ and help reduce the amount of complaint related issues. A more appropriate

system would have been to extend or expand the carpentry categories to verify skill levels and

experience. There are very few commercial carpenters that could build a house and visa versa so it is

ok to say that one should work within competencies however this is not the way NZer's look at things.

We still work to the number 8 wire process. Give it a go and see what happens. The result will be

extensive legal, insurance and public perception issues. The qualification of a site license may help.

This could not only be used as a quality mark but could in theory be used as an extension of the

carpentry license requiring all restricted building work (RBW) to include supervision by a site licensed

trades person. If kept independent then a site license holder working on the owner's behalf as a

project/quality control manager could eliminate or considerably reduce the need for BCA involvement,

reduced costs/ increased productivity/less red tape (BCA could be delegated to peer review only based

on risk matrix and complexity) The whole licensing system could prove to be yet another stuff up unless

redefined and complaints need to be handled firmly and in my opinion professional indemnity

insurance (Underwritten by government) or a project bonding system (By building owner where project

value exceeds $100,000) need to be implemented to support the licensing scheme."

8.You must be a certified builder / roofer or what ever before you get a licence you must be able to

prove you are able to back your warranties financially. you should never be able to get certified over

the phone or licensed. Credit check are a good start and a training system which has an academy for

the respective trades needs to be developed the money the ITO and all the other pigs at the trough

receive would comfortably cover the exspence of such a scheme. The government has thrown money

at the wrong people the idea was great but unfortunately its been completely stuffed by people who

know nothing about the trades they are dealing with. You wait and see the leaky building era will have

nothing on whats we are going to see in the next ten years its a complete stuff up. This will cause a

huge stink and Id love to see you present this to the highest level I'm mor than happy to back my words

here

9.The process of obtaing a license is far to easy , In the case of blocklaying there was a very good Scheme

with the registered structual mason's , this was adopted by engineers and Archetects and was very

robust and well thought out but it was ignored by Government and replaced by this new scheme that

is expensive to administer and ineffective with results

"11.Do not increase the number of license types.Focus on moving the legal responsibility and decision

making clout to the LBP Site 2 and 3 Site licence holders. This would support Quality Assurance

throughout the build and after each critical stage of construction is completed.Make the licencing

process be confined to people that are already qualified tradesmen. No more unqualified people

getting a LBP Licence."

12.who is supervising the LPB tradespeople? Why has the role of the LPB Site people been overlooked?

The current scheme is 'crap' and no one is listening or making any changes. Why do the beauacrates

know best? LPB Site should be able to control/supervise RBW.

14.Hold the product suppliers to account for their products failure,and liable to compensate their

clients,Its dangerous to have the certifyer funded by the product suppliers,as branz is

currently.B.R.A.N.Z. has to be uncompromised , D.B.H is failing to do its job,concocting design changes

that are expensive and often dont wokk,then covering their mistake by buring it with another pile of

changes to nzs 3604.they take a heavy handed approach with L.B.P.s while failing to deliver .The lbp

scheme completley avoids addressing where the issues have come from in the first place.

15.the building inspection have stayed the same .making the point of LBP a wast of time. just putting a

name to the work instead of a building company.

16.License period for 5 years not every year. Have a look at how many years they have been in the trade

. For example a builder with 40 years of experiece dont have to do it every year ,but young people who

have just finished their apprentice they have to apply every year . And then after 5 years of experiece

they apply after 2 yers ,oan so on .

17.One Design license class, the 12 risk matrix is not an effective measure of the competency of an

individual. A job can have less than a 12 Risk Matrix but still require a skilled LBP. That LBP's have access

to their reports to use as a tool to gain further competency. I know of a interior decorator with a design

2 license who has no structural knowledge what so ever, yet when assessed the assessor recommended

that I obtain a design 2 license due to the complexities of the projects I provided, the DBH refused as

the building was under the 12 risk matrix, I deliberately design to be under a 12 risk matrix to reduce

the event of weathertightness issues, surely this is what we are trying to acheive. It is silly that I can

work within my competency which means I can do almost any type of design yet the general public

would see the Interior designer as being more competent as they hold a design 2 license. I'm sure there

a lot of similar stories out there as I have heard this case senario frequently, even the building

processing officers make comment on how often they turn consents away at the vetting stage due to

insufficient information. It is also of concern the amount of times the BC processing officers ask for

information that is unnecssary or based on incorrect interpretation of the BCNZ or NZS3604. I would

suggest that any Building Consent processor needs to be an LBP or at least have to go through a similar

process to ascertain if they are competent or not.

23.Ability to sign of work to decrease countless hours lost waiting for inspectors

24.Ability to sign of work to decrease countless hours lost waiting for inspectors

"26.Make major supploiers and manufacturers accountable. Stop the influx of cheap labour.All of a

sudden it is decided we have a shortage of skilled labuor .Abit late. Better reasearch and develpoment

of new products. Make our new responsibilities and skills be reflected in our rates of pay."

"27.If a builder is qualified he is ""qualified"" nothing else is required. I think effort should be focused

more on making councils & in particular inspectors respect the building code & not be allowed to

""interpret"" the code as they see it. I feel more problem exists because of a culture that exists within I

the councils. Too much has been made of builder skills lacking when the real cause of the ""leaky house

syndrome"" was predominantly the failure of one product, ""harditex"". "

29.REDUCE THE FEE!

"31.This scheme still does not remove the cowboys from the industry, therefore we will still have the

illegally constructed buildings and weathertightness issues surrounding this. It only makes an LBP more

accountable"

"35.The council should never have been held accountable for leaky buildings. Councils should have

nothing to do with the weather tight issues of a building, this is our roll. If the house leaks 1 of 3 things

is at fault; It has been detailed wrong - designer is at fault Product has failed - manufacturer is at fault.

It has been built wrong - Builder is at fault. The LBP scheme is good and the industry needs something

like this. It seems to work very well. "

36.DONT GIVE THE ASIAN ALISCENCE OR HAVE SPOT CHECKS ON THEM

"37. Site licences should enable sign off for most trades.

One person should be able to be "" in control of the site."""

"40.Currently virtually anyone can get a licence.This is obvious by the number of unqualified people in

my area thet have been given them on the say so of supposed referees. A good example is a former

Carter Holt Manager obtaining a Building Licence for Carpentry when he has had no training in

costruction."

"41.More testing on LBP's . people providing products will have to be more accountable that their

products suit our inviroment. The government should not have allowed any name changes ie

department of housing and building as the previous organisation should have been made accountable

for allowing poor building practises and allowing the introduction of materials not good enough for the

job."

43. Licence all chippies,require regular upskilling and education for construction workers so mistakes

are not made due to the boss knowing what is required but the informationm has not been passed to

the work face,this is an all to common occurance when you have staff that turn up and are spoon fed

informatoin on what they are doing today.They need to be well informed and know that they are

building correctly and to a high standard.

47.To make the scheme more efficiant and improve productivity the responsibility needs to be left with

the main contractor to get it right. The building authorities with their inefficient inpection regime are

slowing down sites progress and often contradicting what is on the plan that the BA has approved.

"48.Subject all prefessionals, Architects, Engineers, building surveyors, ""project managers"" as an

outside independent government funded Q A system. As noted above, institute some well publicised

procedings in the short term to show that the scheme has some effective punch and thus value to the

general public as well as the buiding industry. Generate further publicity to drive the process into the

minds of the general public. "

50.I would encourage the NZ Government to presue an Insurance based scheme and remove the need

for Government inforced licencing altogether. The NHBC & Zurich House Insurance schemes operated

in the UK are successful methods. The Insurance companies employ competent surveyors to ensure

buildings are completed in accordance with the Building Code. The role of the Council Building inspector

would change to enforcement of the Building Regulations - simple.

51.Government insurance scheme. Independant consent processing i.e. no Council involvement

"54.That anyone that is hands on on the building industry be an lbp. In some cases we have seen their

bosses sign off on work and use an lbp license to cover all work. Eg... Waterproofing and tiling.

In the case just mentioned above, I think that it takes away any personal accountability.

Perhaps you could encourage mentoring from more experienced builders that are successful to show

that they use the lbp scheme effectively. This would encourage more builders who are not as confident

to stand up for themselves when dealing with clients or dealing with not so ethical building companies

that use Smaller building companies and take advantage.

"

"55.Keep the costs down Reduce staff at the DBH, Hate to think my fees were funding jobs at the DBH.

(I am aware they have amalgamated, but they are still DBH to me.) Simplify the CPD (Continuing

Professional Development ) system. How do you prove you have read a book, and not all seminars send

you the certificate of attendance. All builders, licenced or not, should read manufacturers instructions,

this will go a long way to achieving the licence goals. Continue monitoring designs of buildings, Licencing

was a direct result of leaky homes, which was a design fault. Poor old builder follows plans and are

blamed. Majority of bulders in NZ don't set out to do leaky homes. Follow through with the threat that

bad builders will be tossed out, otherwise the whole scheme has no teeth Don't allow ""sideline""

builders any sort of foothold into the industry. They are the ones ruining the industry Make it illegal to

sign off ""sideline"" builders work by a licence holder Ensure that a person receiving a licence at least

has some experience before getting a licence. Get the DBH to do more advertising to the public as to

what the scheme is about. Be interesting to do a survey on public perception of the LBP scheme Give

credit to the builder belonging to Master Builders."

56.All the controls were previously in place . There is no need for this nonsense in the Industry . Firstly

get rid of Insulcad Systems secondly get rid of all Hardies sheet products Then get rid of unqualified un

NZ Trained Immigrants out of the industry oh and along with daft Architects . We had none of theses

issues in the 60s - 70s but we had fibrolite with asbestos in it which was resilient not made of paper

mache like today. Reliance was not on silicon sealants for flashings solder was in vogue Think about it

its not hard Crap products , cowboys and dickhead Architects in a nutshell I have told the Dept of

Building and Housing this but they believe a plastic card will fix all . They have the same scheme in

Queensland but they still have leaky buildings. All this is to put the onus on the builder so the Councils

and Govt are off the hook . Does this mean we will not need Building Inspectors in future ?? as they will

still be liable if they are doing final inspections ??

"57.Limit registration to trade certified people. Register for 3yrs min. Remove council inspections since

they take no responsibility."

"58.Education, proper training. Responsibility should always remain with the specifier, builder, supplier,

project manager. To maintain this there should be an intermediatory controlling body, Council or other,

to keep a 'watchdog' check throughout the works. This body must also take responsibility for their role.

Peer reviewing is an acceptable form of checking, and should negate the need for the current doubling

up processing that exists today through Council. This would save cost to the consumer. "

59.I don't know how it can be made so jobs go through council without all the detail

61.Make it 5 years

62.LBPs too be assessed on job by LBP assessor .

64.Needs to be a hell of a lot more public notice and advertising, the general public havnt still got a glue

what this is, i have only seen very brief adds on TV and only in the past year, i hear vertiually nothing

on the radio, for this scheme to work it needs to be more out there, when i go to placemakers, Carters,

ITM, no one knows or even regonises what these cards are and what they mean, these licences should

be treated just as important as a car licenece, and the public should be able to reconise this straight

away, but they dont a sthe advertising is non existant.

"68. 1 Change the relisencing time frames out to two years 2 Automatically license carpeters who hold

a trade certificate in carpentry 3 Reintroduce the web page outlinning learning points, no excuses make

it happen."

69.Yes!

"70.Abolish the annual levies, and at least reduce them. We've all paid handsomely to be assessed, and

we are subject to ongoing upskilling and disciplinary action if we don't perform.It becomes a revenue

gathering exercise, when our priority should be making building affordable and saving the industry and

current workforce. Every time the industry faulters we lose experienced practitioners, then when things

pick up, they get replaced with inexperienced practitioners."

71.People have a tendancy to look at the bottom line dollar price and do not really understand what

the difference is between a repetable builder and a cowboy. That is until after or even during the build

of course, after the contract is signed and it is too late. I think people need to be educated to understand

WHY my price is 20% higher than someone else. They are really getting 30% more value in the end.

72. If there is to be more accountability by the LBP's then we should be able to pass the more minor

inspections ourselves and issue a PS3.

78.I would like the scheme to advertise to the public that customers need to deal with us and that the

bigger homes companies are not registerd themselves

79.I would like the scheme to advertise to the public that customers need to deal with us and that the

bigger homes companies are not registerd themselves

81.There appears to be no feed back loop from the "front line" ie : experienced and qualified builders

into the extremely rapid evolution of weathertightness details (E2AS1) which appear out of no-where

and have little understanding of the realities of residential construction.

"82.tougher licensing rules on-site inspections, including unnotified (surprise checks)."

83.the government should supply more free good quality learning as a way to get LBP points. The hassle

is already enough to put people off. As soon as the scheme became mainstream it seemed there was a

suspicious amount of expensive training seminars and courses that the then DBH recognised as

approved learning.

84.Its all good being registered but the industry is bad,Branz is consistantly approving materials that

are crap,the start of leaky homes started in there back yard,with untreated timber,lack of flashings

being mantatory in recessed windows and archtices trying to step outside the sq, large companys

flectchers should not be controling the industry, the more screws they say are required in fixing one of

there produces the more screws they sell,everybody is now so afriad of failure, that serious over kill is

happening at an increased cost to the client

86.i am not happy with the fact that you can be USED by clients to submit concents to council ,then

after not being payed (ripped off).. the client can remove the LBP from the concent ,with out any

contact from council with the LBP

87.Not sure, but changes certainly could help the scheme

"88. I am not in favour of the stated goals - we don't need a nanny state, we need to allow personal

accountability and responsibility. Leaky homes - shouldn't be the Council's responsibility. The Council

should be ensuring that I don't tread on my neighbour's toes, not that I have ""washed behind my

ears"". ACC - I damage myself - I have the right to be cared for by the state. Benefits - I don't provide

for myself - I have the right to be cared for by the state. Socialism is too near to communism to be

comfortable, or good for NZ."

"89.more communication between councils etc and trades on problem issues."

90.Do away with ccc s (Code compliance certificates — Building consents) for private buildings.

Responsibility should lead directly to the person or organisation making the decisions about design,

materials, labour engaged etc for a building being constructed, and through them to any employees or

subcontractors. Council should have no control or responsibility for issues other than planning controls.

Having council trying to take responsibility for buildings to be constructed leads to nitpicking,

timewasting , ineffectual, obfuscating paperwork which wastes a great deal of time (money) and

diffuses responsibility.

"95.By ensuring the BCA's are standardised; by this I mean consistent interpretation by all inspectors of

the rules and regulations not only surrounding consent issues but LBP issues as well. I have been told

by a friendly inspector that he has been told by council representatives to be ""more lenient"" on under-

performing ""builders""...this to me is an absolute abhorrent situation as the council are once again

creating another ""leaky building syndrome"" that could be called ""LBP syndrome"" in coming

years....we need consistency! "

"96. 6 September 2012

LBP Consultation, Building & Housing Group

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

P.O.Box 10729

WELLINGTON

Fax: 04 494-0290

E-mail: [email protected]

Dear Sir

Further to our recent attendance at the LBP Consultation Workshop at Unitec North Shore held on the

10 July 2012, a questionnaire was provided to us which ‘MOBIE’ are requiring feedback on the Site

Licence requirements, current licence classes and any requirements for new licences classes, Aspec

Construction would like to express the following feedback and concerns highlighted from the above

seminar;

1. Current Licence Classes

Before considering what roles a Site Licence should hold, there was an overwelming response from the

majority of the attendees at the seminar, that the naming and roles of the current licence classes,

requires major restructuring before proceeding forward with new roles.

There is a huge amount of confusion between the Residential and Commercial sectors of the industry.

The current residential ‘builders’ seem to be confused as to where they should sit within site licence

classes - the titles of these licence classes could be simplified by following the current industry roles

between residential and commercial. These roles have been known in the industry for many decades

and are still used in today’s industry.

We have simplified the roles below, which would fall under the main label of “Site Class LBP” with the

individual licences listed below falling under this category.

a. Carpentry – (A person on the tools undertaking carpentry works)

A carpentry role can be in both Residential and Commercial sectors. Carpenters are provided

instructions and directions by Builders (in Residential) or Site Foremen / Site Managers (in Commercial)

and report and overseen by a Builder in Residential or Site Foreman / Site Manager in Commercial.

b. Builder – (Residential - timber framed structure up to 10m which can include foundations/

blockwork basements only and minor structural steel beams between timber frames)

A Residential Builder has a role that is on the tools for a percentage of time and concurrently managing

Client, Architect, Engineer, Council - planning tasks ahead, managing small sub-contracting teams and

small (3-4 man) carpentry teams and ordering materials in residential type buildings as described in

the role description.

c. Site Foreman / Site Manager – (Commercial - all building requirements that fall outside a

Residential Builders role description as above in Item B)

A Site Foreman / Site Manager is solely related to the Commercial sector of the industry - encompassing

engineering, civil, construction, interiors and maintenance. Their primary roles are not on the tools, but

to organise and manage all areas of a commercial construction site, from site possession to code

compliance inspections and documentation. This includes managing Client, Architect, Engineer,

Services Consultants, Council - planning tasks ahead, ordering materials from suppliers and co-

ordinating specific material design and approval processes through to fabrication / manufacture for

delivery and installation by large sub-contractors. Also managing large (5 to 100 man) carpentry teams.

These roles report to a Commercial Project Manager.

d. Project Manager - (Manages all Commercial building requirements outside the Residential

Builders role description as above in Item B)

A Project Manager in the Commercial sector of the industry - encompassing engineering, civil,

construction, interiors and maintenance - manages all areas of a construction project including

Financial, Health and Safety, Programming, Environmental, Operational Procedures and QA. A Site

Foreman / Site Manager reports to a Project Manager and a Project Manager can have more than one

site under his / her control.

e. Clarification.

The role of Site Foreman / Site Manager or Project Manager in Commercial construction, encompasses

all the above sectors of the Commercial construction industry, e.g. engineering, civil, construction,

interiors and maintenance. These roles transfer across all Divisions listed above within many of the

major construction companies across New Zealand. These roles have been gained by skill base, not by

division base. Note: these are transferable roles.

2. Role of a Site Licence

The role of the current Site Licence as noted in the attached questionnaire, would need to be adjusted

to suit the suggested role descriptions as noted in Items B, C, and D above. The roles are currently

performed and are well recognised in our industry, as they hold the responsibility of works being

conducted - to meet code practices and standards, Council approved Consent documentation and

revised detail design variations as issued by the designers consultancy team for the project.

We identified that it would be important that these roles are compulsory as they have a responsibility

to the LBP for the overall quality assurance (QA) of works undertaken and that they meet the

requirements of the approved Council Consent documentation or revised details issued from the

designers consultancy team for the project. If there is an issue with works conducted by a site based

LBP and it is found that they have not followed the approved documentation then they would be

reviewed by the Disciplinary Board, however if the works have been conducted to the approved

documentation issued to the project and if there is any issues arising from the finished product, then

this responsibility would need to go back to the designers consultancy team where they would be

reviwed by the Disciplinary Board for review.

3. Inconsistencies in Assessments for LBP Licence Approvals.

There have been a number of inconsistencies identified by the Assessment Teams. These need to be

resolved and assessment procedures followed to avoid continuing frustrations with the applicants who

have been in this industry for 20 + years and are now being advised that they do not fit the criteria.

4. Determinations of Confirmed Restricted Works.

Determinations of restricted building works need to be consistent between all LBP administering

parties. Currently the industry is finding that the LBP Rules as set out by the Ministry of Business

Innovation and Employment, are not consistent with the Building Consent requirements and conditions

set by local Council by-laws.

The LBP Licence Holder also needs to be kept updated immediately with the rule changes that are

continuously occuring.

We have not filled out the specific questions with the attached LBP Consultation paper as there has

been a huge amount of unease relating to the issues within the current site Licence format as identified

at the Seminar and noted above. "

97.all builders including asian and indian should be licence before building consent to be granted

98.Provide two options for the consumer, one being contract an LBP who will be fully responsible for

that project including all inspections, producer statements etc. Alternatively employ a non licensed

contractor and have BCA's monitor and assess the work. Not the current system with so many people

involved working for their own interests.

105. Make it easier to up skill

"107.I would make practitioners more accountable for their work by diminishing the role of building

inspectors and making carpenters etc sign off on their own work. Failure of that work would carry a

penalty. This would generate a higher level of responsibility and ultimately quality of work. Give the

practitioner all the responsibility to do the job without the disruption of the inspection process bur

make them accountable for their work. I have been in this industry for over 30 years. I'm not afraid to

stand by my work. Let me."

109.should be a ratio of LBP to other persons forming the construction on each site

112.To bring in the latest proven and tested knowledge from the world wide building industries to our

CPIT and not try and have quick fixs which often are from panic and cover upinstead of research and

atried and tested practice

"113.What are the desired goals? Licensing wont stop leaky homes, training will. Licensing is only

looking for a head to go in a noose. How can a builder employ 1 tradesman and then have 3 or 4

apprentices. What quality of training are they getting? I have been to numerous point gathering

seminars only to find Beam vacuum systems pushing their products or solartube or having to listen to

Hardies talking about their new weatherboard system (only how good it it, not the technical info

required). The information i would expect to be getting is changes in the industry, so you know about

the changes before the building inspectors arrive on the job telling you that ""thats not the acceptable

method anymore"". Very frustrating. I have been building 40 years, both trade and advanced trade cert,

running my own business, have designed and built 4 complex houses over that time for my myself and

when i applied for a site 2 license, i couldn't get one because i hadn't built a complex designed house

within the last 6 months. A builder will need to have all employees licensed (at what cost) or he will be

liable for anything they may do into the future. To me, this is a start, but they are also chasing a lot of

builders out of the industry that are getting near the end and taking a lot of good skills with them. We

didn't have these problem with leaky homes etc when the training was carried out properly. "

115.scrap it all together, hold the council accountable for their shabby building inspectors, have faith

in the Trade Certificate system.

116.make it aplly to all work outside schedule one (A building consent is not required ).

"119.Sort the area of site and building linc before making any more changes "

"121.Only let the Qualified tradespeople carried out LBP work. Hard lined but would work, The cowboys

can work for the qualified tradespeople & may learn a thing or too "

124.Scrap the scheme and have decent independent third party assessments on building projects

126.I suggest that the LBPs be qualified and experienced in the building trade.

"127.The paperwork will prove to be a problem over time. Carpenters become carpenters because they

are not into paper work!"

131.they should gibve the scheme a chance to get up and running properly before they keep playing

around with it. It seems like every few months things are changing which adds to the confusion.

132.Get rid of half the paperwork and have an inspectorate that can actually come and see how you

work and what you do and have ratings based on council monitoring of your work.

"138.The maintance hrs a bit to steep, as attending extra upskill events starts to look all the same with

similar products and people presenting them. Classes should be simpler but more of them for all

trades."

139.I am in the construction industry, not residential therefore licencing has not yet been required for

commercial construction sites. I am a firm believer that just because you have a qualification does not

make you a good tradesman. Leaky comercial buildings were due to poor desingers, the lack of

experience or care from contractors doing the work and also the main contractors site manager who

should be doing their own QA while the work is being done. You would find that these guys are more

than likely all trade qualified yet failed in the build. The only positive from the LBP system is that if this

sort of thing continues then they would lose their licence. The question would be out of the three or

four involved who gets the blame?

"140.It should apply to all building work. The categories should be put back to the original configuration,

based on complexity and not building type and size."

"143.The process and criteria to become a LBP is far to easy and unprofessional. The vetting process is

open to manipulation. Most applicants are engaging consultants ( or their employers) to assist in their

individual applications. You can even use Placemakers gratuity points to finance a consultant to assist

you compile your application. Once submitted, you receive a phone call from DBH to verbally test you.

You are encouraged to have a copy of your application nearby to reference during your 10 minute

phone test. This doesn't assist the competence of the applicants, it purely gives them raised blood

pressure for ten minutes, then they return to normal duties and conduct with their LBP card in the

glove box. The requirement to record Professional Development annually is also weak. The criteria

contains items such as , reading industry magazines, attending trade breakfasts?? I have employed (

until recently) 14 construction staff for 15 years. I can confirm that non of them are any more

competent or knowledgeable since becoming LBP. The DBH has missed an opportunity to actually raise

the competence of the industry. Each applicant should have to sit two 3hr exams testing there

knowledge. These exams should cover construction detailing ( leaky house avoidance ) material

knowledge, contract structuring, formal communication, record keeping etc. This ensures that the

industry beyond doubt states a confirmed minimum level of competence. Currently the DBH has

created a facade of competence that is fodder for the public to lap up. "

"144.It is easy to see the problems but answers are less obvious. I think that all work above a certain

value should be carried out by LBP from documentation for consent through to completion, but that

there should be a threshold below which the documentation and need for formal building consent can

be waived for project less that 40m2 with risk matrix below 6 and value of less than $50,000. These

should simply be recorded with council with a description of what was carried out and who the LBP was

that completed the work. Typically this is the scale of a double garage or small residential addition.

Local planning rules would need to be checked and adhered to but it must be possible to streamline

this lower end of the market where compliance costs are inordinately high. I also think that All areas of

Design need to be covered by a Design licence - the present limitation to the definition of restricted

work in design is confusing and also sends a contradictory message"

"More wieght placed on actual building experience More apprentice training and retraining for

unqualified or non trade qualified personel "

149.The building act states that DBA personal shall have or be working towards a suitable qualification.

Suitable qualification is not defined in the act and most people employed by DBA's have NO

qualifications. What is the point of having everyone else registered and suitably qualified if you get

some clown inspector on site who doesn't know a shake from a shingle? I have been asked for a

manufacturers PS1 for schist, for example, by a genius processing a building consent application.

150.There needs to be a timeframe in between qualification and LBP status so that Carpenters can gain

necessary skills without supervision.

152.All LBPs should have done an apprenticeship in their particular trade, this would ensure a highly

skilled industry. I think the current National Government are doing an excellent job in running the

economy and growing the economy in a sustainable way. Most cost increases incurred in the building

industry happened under the last Labour Government, which had no business sense at all.

155.Instead of giving free magazines for 1 point, a better idea would be to give points for every job that

has been inspected and passed.

"160.I would develope a system of licnsing where a persons skills where actually evaluated on site

rather than on paper. Then I would attempt to gain a sense of the practicioneres attitude toward their

workmanship. I would choose assessors who actually had a thorough understanding of the trade and

good practices of the trade they were assessing. Also, their (the assessors) personal work ethic must be

one which genuinely cares for best possible performance in thier trade. This has not been the case with

some of the assessors who are known to be cowboys with shonky past performance . Assessors are

chosen from an extremely limited pool of trademen who have been willing to pay out and attend

assessing course. This assessor training has nothing to do with their trade knowledge. For our trades, it

is far too early to gain an insightful opinion on how the scheme is working (6.5 months). Your thesis

work is very relevant.....thank you for pursueing this topic."

161.I think the Carpentry license should include block foundations as it already includes standard

foundations

163.Keeping design liability of building work to a maximum of10 years. Making clients responsible for

their decisions and actions. Extend license renewal period. If you don't belong to Certified Builders,

Master Builders, NZIA, ADNZ, or DANZ etc then you must become licensed. People in industry

organisations such as the above shouldn't have to go through licensing. They shouldn't have to do their

time again and pay for it again.

167.Have People who are qualified to make visits to LBP jobs and check they are doing things the correct

way.

168.Big companies have to employ NZ trained and NZ qualified tradesmen to sign of on parts of work

and not be able to ride on there company name, by employing temp staff from all over the world that

are not LBP's

169.References should be scrutinised very carefully as I know of many builders who are not much good

in the trade but can still phone a friend/accquaintance for a reference and obtain a licence with no

hassel at all. It is all too easy and can be done over the phone with a few simple questions.

170.References should be scrutinised very carefully as I know of many builders who are not much good

in the trade but can still phone a friend/accquaintance for a reference and obtain a licence with no

hassel at all. It is all too easy and can be done over the phone with a few simple questions.

"172.A gradual move toward trade qualification being a pre requisite of being an LBP. Building work

should be secured against personal equity or professional insurance, if you can’t pay for remedial work

in the event of workmanship being subpar, you should not be able to Carrie out the work in the first

place."

175.It has made it hard for the country builder disgner as it is set up for the group builder not the

aromatic heal builder and all rounder which is lacking in the citys

"177.as long as your qualified, and the projects are finished to standard there should be no problems,

the workmanship of he final product falls directly on the shoulders of the contractor employed to do

the work. Sub contractors are the responsibility of the Contractor any short falls in there work should

be passed on to the contractor. Insurance is one option id like to see to protect the customer against

failures in standards or when contractors go out of business and can no longer manage there work

obligations. Insurance company would only insure capable workers with acquired levels of skill and

character. That way having a insured contractor would give a lot of piece of mind for protection of

product delivery."

"178.cut compliance costs push out licence to 5 years for same cost get rid of points system, if you are

in the industry you automaticaly keep up with the latest building developments and trends if you have

completed a apprenticeship you should be automatically licenced after 2years in industry and passed

the required criteria."

181. 1. Have the licensed renewed every 2 years rather than one. 2. At the moment if I have 5 licensed

carpenters (staff) on site I am required to get each of them to complete a memorandum even thou they

are under my direction and I am willing to take responsibility for their work under my license. This is

unnecessary paper work.

183.We MUST keep the BCA inspection process, as a producer statement in many cases are not worth

the paper it is written on by many of the LBP's. It is alway good to have a second set of eyes to check

things over and it is amazing how many times a inspector will pick up important items that some LBP's

miss.

184.the local building inspectors should be able to give references, they are at the front line and are

aware of incompetent builders

191.Change the Building work to make Like for Like requirements the same as all new work. ChCh

earthwuake work has exposed the pitfalls of that with many many complaints about standards not

being met.

"192.The councils know who the dodgy builders are and the are the ones who see the shortcuts being

made. Let the Insurance companies run the building inspection system, after all they are the ones

covering the buildings after they are built. They should be the ones who control the workmanship. This

system would unload council costs to the ratepayers, If you want to build , it is up to the customer to

cover all costs of home ownership. "

"195. Abolish it. If the people who just been given newly created jobs opose this - then there are some

adjustments that can be made. Force acrhitects & desiners to comply to a watertight code. Stop

accepting new products that haven't had the test of time. Return to age-old practices that even

""stupid"" builders can't get wrong i.e. wide soffits (for NZ where it rains every day), weatherboards or

cladding products made of H3.2 Treated timber or better, framing of H3.2 treated timber, abolish

particle board which is CRAP, I could go on. Do you know, these new LBP regulations have pushed all

the really experienced builders (who were the best to train apprentices) it's pushed them out of the

industry. How bloody stupid!"

196. More stringent vetting of applicants for licences is needed to ensure that substandard practitioners

do not continue to get them.

"197. Make it cover all areas, Widen and clarify each license Make design licenses include site work so

can be easily supervised, Where do you go to upgrade your license to the next level and where is the

info for this???"

200. it is to costley

202. get rid of consent prossess if a building is designed with in the peramiters of the code no consent

should be needed this just adds more unessecary cost .memoradum sheetsare rubbish as well who else

does this?

203.get rid of consent prossess if a building is designed with in the peramiters of the code no consent

should be needed this just adds more unessecary cost .memoradum sheetsare rubbish as well who else

does this?

204. Bring the seminars to the smaller centres as much as possible to save travel by builders designers

etc otherwise those costs are passed on to the end-user. Atter all its much more efficent to have a

speaker travel to a venue

210 .The points system for ongoing training needs to be more strict on what counts for ongoing

education.

215.The critera to be a LBP I feel is to easy. One phone call and you are in .

218. For TAs to back up the number of inspections on their LBPs thus lowering compliance cost to the

end user.

"219.Should only need to re-licnese every three yeasrs not every year - like teachers and nurses. The

points system set up is awkward to use - more on job training (by building suppliers) would be

preferrable to accessing seminars - which is very costly - both in time and money.

"221.The points system is open to abuse and relys too much on honesty. Declaring you have read AND

ABSORBED certain publications is open to abuse from both the publisher pushing increased sales by

having readers qualify for points who read their publication to guys just taking the points tear off out

without even reading the publication. As I am involved and have a responsible role on site within the

commercial centre I can easily earn ALL my points in one of several areas. For example site safety,

upskilling staff, not to mention keeping up with relevant law or practical changes within the industry. I

believe some form of written assessment should be done by-annually, you pass or you fail. The current

points system in no way improves building competence, and wont stop poor practices or leaking

buildings. Many licenced builders are still only average carpenters with limited experience but the Dept

is on the right track and IS TRYING TO IMPROVE THE TRADES,.....LONG OVERDUE."

222. Removing the ability of local government to add by-laws including tax (eg) excessive application

process fees, to the licence.

223.AS a roofing contractor I have to do a job as quick as possibly can to be able to make just enough

to pay bills and wages as well as have it look good and function for 20 years. I take pride in my work

and am very experienced where as rough and less experienced people who do same job faster

comprimisng quality with lack of concern make more money. There is not enough quality control.

"224.The requirements for reliicencing need to be a bit harder than just reading a few trade mags and

going to a trade brekkie "

225.Have MBIE ( old dept building and housing) be clearer in what classes of license cover particular

aspects of the trade. Site licenses are a non event and useless in the scheme, have the product

manufcaturers of high risk claddings and systems provide a credable insurance cover for their particular

systems, based on the fact no council has any cover for litigatuion due to cladding failures. if the testing

organisations were more stringent in their assesments and actually asked builders their opinion instead

of relying on 'lab testing' these systems would be more reliable. any system that relies ona 'coating

system' to make it durable is questionable. in summary, be harder on the alternative systems for

claddings. the trade is fragmented now with too many subtrades making it harder to manage,

230.Relicencing period extended to 2 or 3 years.

232.Let the builders self certify and get rid of BCA,s and building inspectors

"234.still need inspectors . not all builders have to be licenced . all work can not be supervised

architects are still designing possible leaky homes"

"237.there needs to be some central insurance scheme. If a LBP does work which is below standard,

and then leaves country etc, the client has no comeback. If the LBP is to take so much responsibility,

why are BCA inspections needed. There seems to be a grey area between BCA (building consent

authority) and LBP responsibility. "

239.Site 3 supervision of trade and site 1,2 licences. My trade experience covers competency in most

of the trade licences and basic design competency. I believe Section 2 should have been expanded in

the location area as I have been in the construction industry for 45 years with variety of locations where

a number of locations were around the 6 year mark inclusive of overseas experience. The one i have

chosen is my current and the most time in. 1”

241.Site 3 supervision of trade and site 1,2 licences. My trade experience covers competency in most

of the trade licences and basic design competency.I believe Section 2 should have been expanded in

the location area as I have been in the construction industry for 45 years with variety of locations where

a number of locations were around the 6 year mark inclusive of overseas experience. The one i have

chosen is my current and the most time in."

243.now that i have my LBP i am no longer as a qualified roofer/LBP allowed to submit simple roof

plans to the council for the consent process (which i have done for years without issue) and now have

to engage an architect/LBP designer to do this for me (at extra cost to the client), this is a ludicrous rule

and should be changed immediately!!!!!

"245.Not sure if this fits into this box. We are a reasonable unique company. We have in house

designers (Design 3), Our own in house construction team (Carpentry) and we own everything we build.

Our designers can provide ""memorandum-certificate-of-design-work"" for the design. Our carpenters

could sign off the project BUT come and go usually before the project is finished (Up to a 3 year period)

Our project manager (Site 3) is usually there for the duration but isn't able to carry out any sign

off's.Although I agree with the scheme it doesn't really work for us."

248.no allowances were made for the experiance one had done and achieved with the given

information given.It probably put some off applying.

249. it seems to me that they have set out that being licenced is more important than being qualified

witch means there is still the skills shortage all it is doing is making people more liable, how ever not

more competant

250.Inspection of work every 2-3 years

251.Including all commercial builders in the LBP program

"252.To be an LBP you need to be qualified (min Diploma Tertiary education) but compensation should

be given to unqualified local experienced with a minimum of 5 years working und C zaer an LBP. Cost

of becoming an LBP should not be more than necessary and should be built-in the compulsory PI

insurance. Combination of the LBP and Local Authority giving the final COA of the project."

254.Hi I am a site 3 holder but still need to apply and pay for a site 1 this should be automatic.

"256the ability of non trade qualified people to get a licence , they should at a minimum have to

complete all written corse units and pass them as the rest of us had to.the ability of group housing

owners to sign off work that they wern't present to supervise.the scope of work needing a licence needs

to be increased, especially on the repear of older buildings, Ive seen some dangerous things done by

""handymen"".Fines need to be doubled for unskilled people undertaking work beyond their ability."

"257.The scheme needs to be extended to cover all classes of buildings, (not just living accomodation.)

It also needs to include owner / designers/builders etc."

258.This whole scheme has been implemented to fill the governments accounts to cover their costs in

relation to WHRS claims. Ultimately the government was responsible for the Leaky Building Crisis with

a substandard Building Code and they are now responsible for the Internal Moisture problems that the

rewriting of E2 has produced hence the real reason for disbanding the DBH. Many of the people who

have become licenced would not have qualified to be licenced if the government was really trying to

lift the standards. As a project manager I am working with several LBP's accross the board who still have

no idea of what they are doing. Most of the LBP training sessions are in the main centers, expensive

and not particularly informative to someone from a trade background. There is very little incentive for

people in the provinces to travel to the main centres with often a couple of days off work, travel and

accomodation costs. The government would be far better off listening to old school tradesmen and

bringing back an apprenticeship scheme where these people can pass on their skills. All the problems

in the industry be+A130gan when this was dropped and bureucrats started running the show. As for

BRANZ they need to be held accountable for their reports and publications, I note they are now stating

the plaster board should not be used for bracing, most of us already know this but BRANZ has pretty

much pushed it to being the norm.

260.Any system designed to improve the skill of a tradesman; the quality of their work and their

accountability for that is going to have some cost. I believe this is a necessary system and the benifit to

the consumer and the counrty will way out weigh the cost.

"265.1.Re-instate 3-year Trade-school. 2. Aspiring architects should have proper trade-training of at

least 5 years (3 year trade-school,2 years prac. experience )before entering architectural studies. 3.Alter

LBP with its high costs ; Tradeschool-diploma suffices for basic trade skills ; registration from site 1

onward for most trades. Registration open after min. 5 years proven experience.4.Extent trade

experience to more than 5 years ago. 4. Include overseas qualifications from credible countries."

266.List all work that has been undertaken and calculate the skills envolved

269. I would like the extension of time between permittable jobs to be increased to a comfortable

margin to enable my retention of my licensing

273.Independant inspectors funded from a regulatory inspection fee ,which could be backed up by

insurance backed guarantee's funded by contractors ( this cost would obviously be passed to the

customer by the contractor) but contractors with the best ongoing quality and reputation would receive

the cheapest premiums from insurance companies which would be passed on to customers.

274. The license should apply to commercial work. Why wouldn't it? The site license should be effective,

currently wasted. I don't agree that a Site LBP would sign off the record of work and LBP details for a

house. The Site LBP might collect them up, but one would be exceptionally silly to want to sign off other

peoples work. Why? maybe if you were a full time Clerk of Works then you could sign off the record of

work, but this role is no longer used in NZ as far as I know. Your question below (General Location) is

stated by province. I work all over NZ and on occassion in Australia. Located in Christchurch, family base

is Hawkes Bay

278.lower cost.Better point gathering systems.

"279.What we need is to do say a 2 day a year coarse run by intelligent people with no wasted question

time from the silly few who attend. There should be a multi choice test say one week later if you fail

you attend another coarse. "

281i think it has been watered down to much in most classes with to much inexperanced people in the

industry in design especially people dont know what they dont know councils need to harden up when

dealing with these LBP

282.If jobs have passed building inspection surely this should be enough.

283.More work shop training for the people who are building to get things done correctly

284.at the end of the day anyone can still build a house. just as long as they have a mate who is licensed

and they can use their number. its far to easy to become licensed- its just a phone call really. how many

referees said that this certain person was a shocka!!?? have any assessors seen any of the workmanship

of any applicants? its all about collecting money.

285. at the end of the day anyone can still build a house. just as long as they have a mate who is licensed

and they can use their number. its far to easy to become licensed- its just a phone call really. how many

referees said that this certain person was a shocka!!?? have any assessors seen any of the workmanship

of any applicants? its all about collecting money.

Appendix B. Questionnaire.

Strongl

y agree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Strongly

disagree

5 4 3 2 1

The scheme is lifting practitioner capability, productivity and performance in

the NZ building industry.

The scheme is making practitioners more accountable for their work.

The scheme is providing consumers with access to information to make

informed decisions about the competency of the practitioners they engage.

The schemes has an effective disciplinary and appeals process.

As a result of the scheme, consumers now have greater confidence in the

quality of the building work and the people accountable for the work.

Overall, the scheme is an important quality assurance regulation and an

effective solution to the systemic failure and weathertightness problems

experienced by the building industry up until 2004.

Advantages of the LBP scheme.

It effectively complements and reinforces the regulatory role of the

professional and trade organisations in New Zealand.

It effectively improves on the existing quality assurance system such as the

producer statements, manufactuers' warranties and compliance with the

building code.

It raises the quality standard for building works by ensuring that the

practitioners "get it right the first time".

It ensures that practitioners upskill continuously through the compulsory cpd

required for maintaining licence.

It mitigates poor quality of work and enhances safety and the image of the

industry by discouraging quacks and inexperienced people from undertaking

crucial building work.

Any other advantages? Please add to the list in the spaces below:

By:

Thomas Clarke

SECTION I : STAKEHOLDERS' OPINIONS ON THE LBP'S EFFECTIVENESS, SHORTCOMINGS AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

The following statements relate to the effectiveness of the LBP scheme so far. Using the 5-point rating scale provided, please

rate each in accordance with your level of agreement or disagreement.

General remarks about the effectiveness of the LBP scheme

No

idea

School of Engineering & Advanced Technology

Bachelor of Construction

Auckland, New Zealand; Tel: +64 22 656 1501; [email protected]

Research Survey:

Stakeholder perceptions of the effectiveness and the required improvement to the Licensed Building

Practioner (LBP) scheme in New Zealand

Questionnaire Cont.

Strongl

y agree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Strongly

disagree

5 4 3 2 1

Disadvantages of the LBP scheme.

The scheme is complex and costly; it adds to the over-regulated environment

and the cost of doing business in building and construction sector.

Restricting building work to the few LBPs could exercabate the current skill

shortage and rising building costs; consumers may be tempted to engage

unlicensed practitioners for a discount, thereby defeating the purpose of the

scheme.Amidst the rampant cases of negligence against BCAs and the poor performing

inspectors, licensing is a government ploy to pass on the risk of poor

inspections and litigations to the industry.

Reassessment every 2 years is quite demanding on practitioners.

The need for the scheme is obviated by the existing quality assurance

mechanisms such as the producer statement, warranties, guarantees, and the

quality oversight and disciplinary sanctions provided by the trade and

professional organisations.

Publically displaying practitioners' personal details and past disciplinary

actions is intrusive.

< 5yrs 11 - 15 yrs

5 - 10yrs > 15 yrs

Site Design

Site 1 Design 1

Site 2 Design 2

Site 3 Design 3

Carpentry External plastering

Roofing Bricklaying and Block laying

Foundations Other? (Please specify:)

Disclaimer: This project has been evaluated by peer review and judged to be low risk. Consequently, it has not been reviewed by one of the

University’s Human Ethics Committees. The researcher(s) named above is responsible for the ethical conduct of this research. If you have any

concerns about the conduct of this research that you wish to raise with someone other than the researcher, please contact Professor John O Neill,

Director (Ethics & Equity), telephone 06 350 5249, e-mail [email protected]

SECTION II: DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND

What is the length of your experience of the New Zealand construction industry?

Please identify which licensing class you are registered in. (Please choose more than one if licensed in more than one class,

but provide a double ticks (aa) to indicate the class you are mostly involved with).

APPRECIATION

Thank you for your time. Kindly post the completed questionnaire using the enclosed self-addressed and stamped envelope; to 33 Reynolds

place, Torbay, North shore Auckland; or Email: [email protected]; Attention: Thomas Clarke. If you have any

comments in relation to the contents or any aspect of this questionnaire, or if you have any further advice that may improve the outcome of this

project, you may wish to contact me directly by Mobile on +64 22 656 1501.

Any other disadvantages? Please add to the list in the spaces below:

What changes would you propose to make the scheme more effective and efficient in achieving its desired goals? Please

provide your ideas in the spaces below.

General remarks about the effectiveness of the LBP scheme

No

idea

Ethical clearance.

Massey University Research assignment 2012 “Stakeholder perceptions on the effectiveness and...

Documents

Transcript of Massey University Research assignment 2012 “Stakeholder perceptions on the effectiveness and...