Building Amendment Bill (No 4)

This Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is a piece of legislation that the Government is fully supporting and wanting to get through the process of Parliament, and I commend the bill to the House.

I join my other colleagues and do not support this bill, the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). It is with a considerable level of disappointment, because many of the reforms that Maurice Williamson has shepherded through were actually begun towards the final stages of our tenure under the leadership of Helen Clark. There remains a hang of a lot to be done in respect of the building sector. Really, with the growth of activity in Ōtautahi/Christchurch, with the inevitable increase in activity in Tāmaki-makau-rau/Auckland, especially in 15 to 18 months’ time, once we begin and embark on our ambitious programme—highly popular, as well—of building 10,000 houses a year, and 100,000 houses over the course of 10 years, we need to ensure that the statutory framework that will be relied upon is capable of assuaging the concerns of homeowners and property investors.

It might come to pass that there is a valuable lesson being learnt in the context of this debate, in terms of how long the Government has allowed the situation in Christchurch to really spin out of control. I have no doubt in my mind that considerable damage has been done to the reputation of that place in terms of dealing with building consents. Although it is easy meat to blame the current mayor, who in my view is a show pony—and the sooner he disappears, as our colleague, the favoured candidate, moves into the boxing ring, the better. But it is for the ratepayers and the voters of Ōtautahi to pension off the current mayor. But as much as one is tempted to lay a lot of the blame at his feet, in terms of the stripping away, more recently, of the authority to deal with building consents, really, overall stewardship rests with Maurice Williamson. Overall stewardship rests with those members of the Executive Council who are charged, by dint of the warrant they hold, with ensuring that the building industry is suitably regulated, not squashed to death. It is difficult to imagine what the current Minister for Building and Construction is trying to achieve.

I was recently in Tai Tokerau and had, I guess you could say, the pleasure or misfortune, depending on what end of the argument you are at, in relation to our Mayor of the Far North, Wayne Brown—but there is a new system that has been introduced by this Government that has put between $5,000 to $7,000 of additional costs on every section likely to be created by subdivisions in the north. It is an example of where the Government talks about freeing up opportunity for industry to build jobs, but in actual fact this bill does nothing of the sort. In addition to that, there is this additional $5,000 to $7,000 worth of dough that has been imposed on the purchasers of sections because of a new sort of bureaucratic freight that has been tossed on top of the subdividers. It deals with a policy that was conceived in isolation here in the bureaucracy about perceived hazards. The indiscriminate way in which that policy has been applied, which, unfortunately, will not be simplified through this bill, is to treat farms and orchards as if they are akin to old tips, and requires an enormous level of analysis—in my view, a waste of time—and petty bureaucracy to do with potential hazards.

The entirety of the area that I come from at one stage probably was a farm, or, if it was not a farm, it was land that was not involved in a tip, but it was used for productive purposes. I think that is a small example where this current Minister talks the language that he wants to simplify process and expand opportunity for industry, but, when you get down to it, I do not think that he is actually in charge of, or he has not got enough authority over, his own bureaucrats. That is unfortunate, but the only happy thing about that is that within 15 months he will be out of that role. I thought he might have stood, actually, to contest his credentials. For a brief period of time they reached the sort of starry heights of sitcoms in America—that is Maurice Williamson I am talking about—but when he had the opportunity to step up to the plate and take on Mayor Len Brown, despite keeping people dancing as if it was some sort of exercise of the seven veils dance, he did not prove to be either confident or, I suppose, at the end of the day, interested.

We cannot support this, because, as earlier speakers have pointed out, what is needed is a comprehensive set of changes, not this piecemeal, reactive, bit by bit approach to the point that the majority of the submitters who came to this particular committee, the Local Government and Environment Committee, expressed a complete lack of confidence in terms of this particular bill. It is bill No. 4; there have been other bills, which we supported. Indeed, I held the spokesperson role on behalf of the Opposition—Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—in an earlier period of time in the last 5 or 6 years, and I have to say they have passed rather tediously. In that period of time we did agree with some things, but we will not be agreeing with this.

We have received some very good advice from our member who is focusing on these issues, Raymond Huo, and, without a doubt, he understands the importance of ensuring that petty bureaucracy and inflexible rules do not actually frustrate the ambitions of young families wanting to own their own home, whilst at the same time holding accountable those who are putting investment capital at risk and creating subdivisions and then going on to build houses. But house owners, young families, at the end of the day, are consumers. They come to the task trusting in the quality of the craftsman or woman. They trust also in the robustness of the statutory allocation process. More recently, over the last 10 to 15 years we have learnt that elements in the industry have let us all down. It may prove to be the case that our Government in 2002 and 2003, in the days of George Hawkins, perhaps should have initiated and funded a class action against Fletcher’s and allied companies, which did bring product to the market grossly unsuitable for the climate, conditions, etc., in New Zealand, but that has come and gone. That is why many of us supported what Maurice Williamson sought to do in trying to get a compromise to enable people to escape from houses that have begun to resemble aquariums, but this, unfortunately, does not capture our support.

The licensed building practitioner regime, which, to a certain extent, is covered in this piece of legislation, was initiated by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, a person whose stature might rise in Christchurch; that remains to be seen. He was a very, very knowledgable and competent Minister for Building and Construction at the time, and what we sought to do was to build a regime so that builders could have a similar level of authority to a plumber and an electrician—i.e., to a certain level, one did not need to require a statutory consent in order for them to do the job.

When I was the Minister for Building and Construction for a lamentably short period of time, what we sought to do was identify a range of building things that a qualified tradesperson could do that did not require a consent from the council. In order for that to be expanded so it emulates the powers enjoyed by plumbers and electricians, they need to go through the licensed building practitioner regime, and that has not worked. Not so much that it has not worked; the momentum has not been developed to the extent—we thought people would go through the process, achieve a level of qualification, and free themselves from bureaucracy underneath a certain level of building complexity. That was the theory. It is a theory I actually agree with. I think that if there are competent carpenters, construction workers, and supervisors who can build to a certain level, one should not need to go to the council to get a permit; one should just treat it like a plumber’s task or an engineer’s task, but, sadly, this bill does not take this House or the country anywhere in that direction. Consequently, we will not be supporting the bill.

I congratulate the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Maurice Williamson, on his tireless efforts in bringing this bill, the Building Amendment Bill (No 4), to the House. Nō reira, mārama nui ngā mahi kei riro i a noho.

[Let industry be rewarded lest idleness get the advantage.]

Ka whakamihi ahau i tēnei pire ki to Whare. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.