Building Amendment Bill (No 2)

E te Manatū o te Whare. Ka whakanui au i te reo o te tangata whenua, ka whakanui au i te reo o Aotearoa. Tihei mauri ora.

[Mr Speaker of the House, I celebrate the language of the people of the land and of New Zealand. Behold the sneeze of life.]

I rise to continue my speech on the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). It is good to see that the theme of the day is one of speaking about bills that are supported across the House, and this bill is another one of those bills. The intention of this bill is, obviously, to simplify and speed up the processing of multi-use building consents, to reduce unnecessary red tape, and to make housing more affordable and, therefore, more accessible for hard-working New Zealanders. This bill is similar to the Parliamentary Rugby Team, which played so successfully on Sunday, as the bill was initiated by the Hon Shane Jones, but it was picked up and will be taken over the line by the Hon Maurice Williamson. This legislation is a vital part of the Government’s programme, and I am pleased to commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. E ngā reo, e ngā mana, e ngā rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is with unalloyed delight that I rise to speak in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2).

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Unalloyed.

Unalloyed delight. At this juncture I acknowledge the excellent work done by members from all sides of the House to progress this bill both through the Local Government and Environment Committee and the House. This bill has risen like a phoenix from the ashes of the legislative wasteland of the final days of the lost, limping, listless, lethargic last Labour administration. Initially having been nurtured by the Hon Shane Jones—who was sorely missed in the tight five of the Parliamentary Rugby Team on Sunday—and more recently passing through the select committee helmed by Chris Auchinvole, this bill is of benefit to all New Zealanders. This principled, pragmatic National-led Government wants New Zealanders to have a decent wage packet so as to have real choice in their lives and a genuine sense of opportunity. We are working towards a New Zealand where all New Zealanders are inspired, share a sense of purpose and a feeling of belonging, and are drenched with exhilaration at the opportunities and possibilities open to all of us through hard work and commitment.

As Prime Minister John Key observed in a speech recently, “As a nation, the income we generate enables us all to enjoy world-class public services—like health care and education”, protect the vulnerable in our society, and “strengthen our national institutions.” Simply put, if we imagine the Government is New Zealand’s baker, then we must grow the economic cake bigger so that there are enough slices to go around. This is even more crucial in these times of global financial turmoil. This humble bill, the Building Amendment Bill (No 2)—some may say it is small, but it is perfectly formed—will help us to do just that.

In an earlier speech to the House I alluded to the fact that any growth in GDP New Zealand experienced under the leaden hand of the previous introspective, torpid Labour administration was built on an increase in consumption, a debt-fuelled housing boom, and large, often spectacularly ill-directed increases in Government spending. It was these influences, along with working longer, that drove GDP growth—not real improvement in productivity of high value, internationally desired goods in the tradable sector. The tradable sector, of course, includes agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, tourism, and forestry—the tight five for New Zealand’s future prosperity.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 2), by reducing costs associated with constructing new plant in all these sectors, will directly aid our competitiveness on the world stage and help us grow the all-important economic cake. This bill is yet another example of this principled administration keeping its promises and honouring a pledge that we made at the last election. The pledge was to cut burdensome compliance costs and red tape. This Government’s scalpel is finely honed for extirpation of further burdensome legislative verbiage where required. I urge the House to support this bill. Thank you.

Kia ora anō tātou. Firstly, I offer my greetings to Te Ururoa Flavell. I share his concern about the absence of the relation of the great Peter Jones from Awanui on the rugby field at Rotorua. That will be rectified in future games.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) was something that was driven as a consequence of the effective working relationship between the Labour Government’s Minister for Building and Construction and the building sector. In fact, I recall members of the sector threatening to create statues, not of clay or bronze, but of gold as a consequence of the good work done in this particular bill. We know that prior to coming into this House the member Cam Calder, who has just resumed his seat, has created a career around optical illusion. The rhetoric, if not the CV, reflects that he has a long way to go before he can emulate the deeds of the previous Government in working effectively to maintain unparalleled economic growth until such time when a side wind of international character blew us off course.

Let us look at what we have done. We have enabled the rats and mice that have bedevilled everyday applicants going to the council to be put aside, because a schedule in the new Building Act includes a host of usages that people want to be able to proceed with without being bedevilled by bureaucracy in local government. That is now law. Secondly, those people who are investing in housing will be able to gain national multiple-use approvals. There is very little investment by the State in State housing at the moment. Despite the best efforts of my colleague from Whangarei, he is actually shrinking the number of State houses that are being created. But those houses that will be created, if they are of a uniform character, will be able to gain a national multiple-use approval. This bill provides a chance for people who are on a limited income or who have been beaten down by the largely rightist-oriented local government bodies, which have let local government bureaucracy flourish. This bill strikes it down. This bill reminds local government bodies that their writ would not be permitted to carry on in that unfettered manner.

I look forward to the seeds in this bill being advanced. It may annoy a few of my colleagues that there is a bipartisan spirit in this regard, but at the end of the day, the people out there in the sector realise that this bill enjoyed its beginnings and support from members on this side of the House. The underlying message is that the building industry will spend less time ensnarled in red tape and bureaucracy, none of which has been reduced as a consequence either of Mr Hide’s rhetoric or of Mr Williamson and his colleagues’ loud voices. It is only when one passes legislation that that is achieved. To the newer members opposite, I say that they should study this bill. I will not take all the credit, but this is how one gets it done. Thank you very much.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora e te Whare. I welcome this opportunity to add my voice in support of the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2), although my voice is not as reliable tonight as I would like it to be.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Feel free to lose it.

I thank Mr Cosgrove. I appreciate his advice, but, as in all things, I will not be taking it.

I especially welcome the knowledge that there is multiparty support in this House for the bill’s progression through to enactment. As has been noted, there were 17 submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill. Submitters were overwhelmingly supportive of what is proposed, as a result of which only minor changes were required. As the Minister for Building and Construction did in earlier stages, I acknowledge the preliminary work on this measure that was undertaken by the former Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Shane Jones.

💬 Katrina Shanks: Which one? There were 11 of them.

Well, I am particularly acknowledging the Hon Shane Jones. He is paying me the compliment of sitting there and listening attentively to what I am saying—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can assure the House that there is only one Shane Jones, not 10 of them.

What an outstanding point of order that was; I am positively stopped in my tracks. As I say, it is good to have the former Minister, the Hon Shane Jones, sitting and listening attentively and appreciatively to this speech tonight, and it is good to follow him in this third reading.

As I understand, I am the final speaker in this debate. I simply want to reiterate and endorse the main purposes and expected benefits of this bill. In fact, I gather there may even be one more speaker, which is exciting beyond measure. I want to endorse the main purposes of this bill, which will be widely welcomed by representatives of the construction industry, developers, property owners, and, one would hope, local authority officials who are charged with processing building consent applications. At a time when New Zealanders are crying out for action to cut unnecessary red tape and compliance costs, it is heartening to debate a measure in this House that should substantially realise those objectives. My only regret is that it did not happen a long time ago.

Last week the Hon Maryan Street lamented a perceived lack of focus in speeches made by members on this side of the House on the issue of housing affordability. That is more than a little surprising, given that this Government has identified that as a priority issue, and that I am standing here tonight beside the Minister of Housing, who is working outstandingly hard and with tremendous and inspiring success on these measures. He is working very constructively, if the Minister will excuse the pun, to promote tangible measures that will achieve that goal. I simply say to the Hon Maryan Street to watch this space. It seems to me that Ms Street was struggling to find controversy where it does not exist—

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: And Maurice Williamson.

—and, as the Minister of Housing so rightly observes, the Hon Maurice Williamson.

The initiatives in the bill may have only a modest impact—it has to be admitted—on the total cost of building. However, and this is what is important, they are also expected to reduce the time and transaction costs that the building consent process involves for homeowners, developers, and builders, and for building consent authorities. The bill will also make the building consent process more responsive to different levels of risk, and this, of course, is something that the industry is really looking for.

As has been noted, the bill addresses, in particular, low-risk building work, such as building designs that are replicated on scale. Given the way things have developed in the construction industry in New Zealand in recent times, we are probably seeing more and more construction projects of that type. This is certainly true in my own city of Hamilton, where affordable housing is very important but also where there is considerable development. There is great growth and great demand as a result of our population increase. Hamilton is, after all, the most vibrant and exciting city in New Zealand in which to live, as a result of which everybody is migrating to our fine and delightfully weather-reliable city, which is totally free of fog and all sorts of other impediments. It is a very noticeable feature that these scale projects, replica projects, are becoming more and more apparent, and it therefore makes abundant sense, obviously, to ensure that they can be constructed with the minimum of bureaucracy, the minimum of red tape—

💬 Katrina Shanks: The minimum of regulation.

Absolutely; as my fine colleague Katrina Shanks has mentioned, reducing regulation will enable people to get on with the job, to construct these properties. This is what our city is crying out for. This is what we can do as one of the measures to promote housing affordability to ensure that more New Zealanders can realise the aspiration of homeownership that we as New Zealanders see almost as our birthright.

The bill also addresses the important need to be able to make changes to building consents that do not affect compliance with the New Zealand building code. Finally, the bill addresses the issue of building projects that do not benefit from the information provided in a project information memorandum.

These are welcome and worthy objectives. I am sure they will be broadly welcomed, and before my throat gives out altogether, I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this bill for the third time. First of all, let me start by acknowledging my colleague the Hon Shane Jones for his work on this bill and, of course, for the very fine contribution he made just a few minutes ago.

When I and my colleague Maryan Street spoke on this bill previously we talked about it in the context of its being one of a range of initiatives about affordable housing under the previous Labour Government. Affordable housing is a key challenge for us all. Mr Macindoe mentioned the aspiration of New Zealanders to have their own homes. We need to focus on this issue. It is a very difficult one for us. Housing affordability is very, very difficult for many New Zealanders.

The previous Government put in place a wide range of initiatives to try to help people to get into their own homes. Those initiatives included provisions in KiwiSaver to help people to save for a deposit for their first home, enhanced first-home buyers provisions in the Welcome Home Loan programme, and shared-equity schemes. We looked at the rentals charged for State houses. We looked at a whole range of initiatives around finding places where we could have affordable housing built.

The previous Labour Government had many, many initiatives in place, because for Labour, housing has always been a very important policy plank. That is because housing is not just about houses. Housing is about providing people with homes. Having a home is about having a place where people can live with their families, a place where they can get a sense of community and identity, a place that provides them with security, a place where they can ensure they are warm and safe, and a place that gives them some sense of ownership in their community. Housing is not just about houses. In fact, housing is about people and their homes, and I think that is important to realise.

Housing is an important issue, and affordable housing has become an increasing challenge in recent times. As Maryan Street noted in her contribution a couple of weeks ago, it became a particular challenge for the last Government, with the massive increase in housing prices. Houses became a lot less affordable. I believe that the last Government rose to the challenge, and I am very keen to see what the current Government has planned in this space. I acknowledge to members that it is a challenge. It is not an easy thing to do, and the Government needs to rise to the challenge.

I will reinforce the main provisions of the bill we are talking about. This bill addresses three main areas of concern. It looks at national multiple-use consents, and that is because 40 percent of all new homes in New Zealand are built by volume builders. It talks about achieving efficiencies by providing a system of national multiple-use consenting. But I stress at this point that the bill is very much associated not only with those efficiencies but also with retaining quality in this regard, and that is very important.

There are some who seem to think that regulation always gets in the way of efficiency and productivity. Regulation is often in place for very good reasons, and in the housing area I do not imagine anybody in this House could fail to recognise what happens when there is an inadequate regulation. First of all, the bill looks at national multiple-use consents. Secondly, it covers how we deal with amendments to building consents and the types of small variations that occur during the building process, and so on. The third area concerns the project information memorandum, or “PIM”, which is intended to provide a one-stop shop for all information regarding building work requiring a building consent. Only a minority of project information memoranda were being applied for prior to a building consent application being made, and, consequently, the full benefit of that was not being realised in most cases. Those are the main areas covered by this bill.

The Local Government and Environment Committee received 17 submissions on the bill, and a number of the issues that were raised were incorporated in the bill we now have before us. A couple of areas that were not able to be covered included submissions made by the Historic Places Trust, which raised particular difficulties around the fact that making project information memoranda voluntary may make it more difficult to monitor building projects that adversely affected historic places.

I will finish by focusing on some recent comments made by the Minister for Building and Construction, Maurice Williamson. He was talking about this bill recently at the annual general meeting of the Building Industry Federation in Auckland on 16 July. He said that the Government is committed to cutting red tape in the sector and getting rid of unnecessary rules and regulations, and that this bill will speed up the consent process and reduce costs. Hopefully, that is something we are all in agreement on, and, hopefully, that will be a very positive outcome of this bill. But he did go on to say that he thought it was a start and that it did not go far enough in addressing compliance issues.

As I mentioned earlier in this speech, for some people the whole issue of regulation seems to be a negative thing from start to finish. I hope that that is not what the Minister is saying in this case, because we need to ensure that our buildings in this country are of good quality and that we do not have a repeat of some of the dreadful experiences people have had. Mr Williamson talked about the fact that the Government will be reviewing the Building Act 2004 to drive down the regulatory costs associated with building. To give him credit, he did go on to say that the Government wanted to do that without compromising building quality, and that the terms of reference are currently being finalised.

I read the Minister’s comments with interest, and one of the things I thought was very interesting was the risk and liability framework in the sector and what concerns he was raising about the behaviour of councils. I know that this gets us into the territory of the Resource Management Act and other things that are going on around council regulation. He also talked about a number of other non-regulatory ways to improve performance, and I think that is an interesting area to focus on. The area that really jumped out at me is around getting better outcomes from the increased investment in trade training, and I think that is a good thing. The Minister talked about the proliferation of qualifications, the absence of good qualifications for some lower-level trade skills, and the different funding and assessment models for apprenticeship training.

I doubt that anybody in this House would have a problem with those issues per se, but I thought it was a little bit rich for a National Minister to be talking about trade training when trade training took a nose dive under the previous National Government. In fact, the current National Government has got off to a very poor start in this area. We are finding that the investment in adult education, industry training, and tertiary education generally is either flat lining or, in some cases, being severely cut. So I thought it was a little bit interesting that the Minister was talking about the desire to get better outcomes from increased investment in trade training, and I am looking forward to finding out what that increased investment is, because I do not think we saw it in the current Budget. Clearly, we would have to agree that increasing investment in trade training would indeed be a good thing. With that, I commend this bill to the House, and I again acknowledge the work of the previous Government in getting this bill into the House. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.