Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 23 September 2025.

I move that this bill be read a first time because, quite simply, it takes too long, in this country, to build anything. I’m proud to introduce the bill, therefore, on behalf of the coalition Government, because it meets a commitment in the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to permit granny flats to be built without a building consent and also a resource consent, besides. But the subject of this discussion and debate is on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill.

Before I talk to that bill and what it will achieve, I’d like to thank my New Zealand First colleagues for their consistent advocacy on this particular policy priority, as well as, of course, our colleagues and friends of the ACT Party for their equally consistent support of disproportionate red-tape removal in the interests of a more productive building sector—and society and economy more generally.

It currently takes too long, as I’ve said, and is too expensive. By way of illustration, it is now 40 percent more expensive to build in this country than it had been in 2019, and it is 50 percent more costly to build a stand-alone house in this country than in Australia. Kiwis simply want to build a simple stand-alone dwelling on their properties without a building consent, under the Building Act, because, while providing independent oversight and assurance as to building quality, the consent process currently adds thousands of dollars to the cost of a build. We don’t consider these costs to be proportionate, certainly relative to the benefits. Instead, we consider that lower-risk building work is better managed through stronger occupational licensing regimes and liability settings—more on those another day.

Removing regulatory barriers and taking a common-sense approach to the consenting system is a critical part of increasing housing supply for Kiwis. Making it faster and, again, more affordable for so-called “granny flats” to be built will provide families with more housing options, particularly for grandparents—as the informal name would suggest—but also people with disabilities, young adults, and workers in the rural sector, among others. We know that increasing housing availability also directly translates to lower living costs for our communities.

We received significant feedback on and support for these proposals through public consultation. To the nearly 2,000 New Zealanders who submitted on the bill last year: we have listened to your feedback. The changes proposed today deliver the outcomes you want, while striking the right balance between enabling housing growth and managing risks.

The terms of the proposal in this legislation: well, first, it will allow homeowners to build small stand-alone dwellings, up to 70 square metres, without a building consent, so long as they meet three core conditions. The first is that the building have a simple design, as will be defined, and meet the Building Code. I emphasise that the current requirements of the Building Code are not being undermined, are not being lowered; we are simply amending the way in which those can be verified as having been met. Second, building work is carried out, or supervised, by licensed building professionals. Third and final, homeowners must notify their local council before they commence building and once it’s completed.

To ensure that consent-exempt granny flats are indeed simple, lower-risk buildings, the bill provides that they must be new, stand-alone, single-storey dwellings of 70 square metres or less. To manage the risks associated with more complex building work, the bill also provides that granny flats must be built in accordance with a set of simple design specifications—for example, the dwelling must be constructed with lightweight materials for the roof and framing, and only contain simple plumbing and drainage systems. To allow for future amendments to these simple design specifications, the bill introduces a power to add, remove, or amend simple design requirements by Order in Council. This will ensure that any technological advances in building methodologies can be enabled for consent-exempt granny flats and that any unintended consequences can be addressed in a timely manner. We want that flexibility, as well as obviously providing strong guidelines at the outset.

I’d also add that it’s important that tradespeople, who can build without a building consent, have proven that they are skilled and competent and can be held to account when things go wrong. They must be responsible in the sense of the way that they conduct their work, but also able to respond in the event of failure. As such, the bill provides that all work associated with a consent-exempt granny flat must be carried out by authorised professionals. To ensure that future owners, insurers, and other interested parties can have confidence in the quality of the building work, the bill requires authorised professionals to provide records of work to homeowners for all work associated with a consent-exempt granny flat. Owners will be required to provide these to their local council, and this will provide a lasting record of what work was completed, who completed it, and when. This clear and lasting record will provide confidence to insurers and lenders of what has been built, support any resale of the property, and support the remediation of any defects that may arise in the future.

On a related note, I will point out that in order to ensure that homes are built in locations that are suitable for construction, along with the public utilities needed to support them, the bill provides that owners must notify the relevant council of their intention to build a granny flat by applying for a project information memorandum, or PIM—I’ll call it PIM from here on in, please. This may also support councils to plan for and manage assets, including water and transportation services. The PIM is already something provided for in the Building Act, and many people who submitted on the proposed changes last year supported including the PIM, in some form, if the building-consent exemption was to progress. Clearly, it is progressing; we’ve included it accordingly.

To support owners in making fully informed decisions regarding their building work, the bill also requires councils to issue supplementary advice when issuing a PIM on whether, first, the proposed work is likely, unlikely, or unclear as to whether it will meet the core conditions of the exemption—for example, the maximum floor area being limited to 70 square metres and the single-storey requirement. Second, whether the construction of the dwelling is proposed to occur on land that is subject to a natural hazard. We do need that awareness. Third, whether there are any applicable council bylaws that may impact the design, construction, or location of the proposed work.

I do want to point out and emphasise that it is important to note that this is advice only. In the accompanying PIM, and in those other criteria of advice that need to be provided, where relevant, homeowners will still have the freedom to determine how they respond to the advice, and it will be up to owners to utilise this information to build a compliant granny flat. I must also highlight that the effect of the bill is to apply a more common-sense approach to the consenting system. This is the broad context in which we are making these changes. We are removing regulatory barriers where they aren’t necessary, while ensuring that Kiwis can remain confident that their homes will be safe, durable, and healthy. Accordingly—and with gratitude, again, for the support already provided in respect of this policy, to our coalition partners and further afield—I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour supports removing barriers to building more houses. We want more houses built. We want more people in warm, dry homes. So this is something we’re willing to support at first reading and through to select committee. I was distracted by the questions from the ACT Party because of course the Labour Party supports these measures to remove barriers, and we have a real interest in building more houses, unlike members of this Government who have continuously bulldozed through reforms when sensible reforms to the Resource Management Act would have seen more houses being built right now. There are plenty of things this Government could be doing to see more houses constructed, but instead they have picked a path where more houses have been held up in the building. They have cut a billion dollars from emergency housing—and on the false pretence that demand is reducing.

If this bill, which is designed to create more houses because demand is rising, can possibly be useful, then you would assume that the Government also knows that there is demand for housing and that the demand for public housing is also growing. This is a bill which is about solving a problem of those people who need to be housed and reducing the cost in the housing market to make sure that more can be built and that there can also be more housing available for rent.

So this speaks into that, and we believe in that, unlike ACT members who in this very Budget debate have put forward alternative views about what is happening in the housing market and all to justify the Government’s cuts in the Budget as a whole.

Speaking to this bill, it important for us to understand as a House the questions that we’ll be raising, because there are a number for the select committee stage, particularly around how we think this will play out in our major cities where demand for housing is very strong in some particular areas, and how this will affect not only councils that are losing the ability to consent and stop this kind of work that they had before but also the professions that now are expected to absorb the liability and the responsibility for creating granny flats and smaller dwellings, as they will be sort of the final sign-off.

I want the House to really understand that the same rules here will apply to builders and to plumbers and to gasfitters. It’s an unusual thing in our building system. We’re talking about creating small dwellings here where licensed professionals are expected to be the sign-off mechanism. But the sign-off mechanism for those things is quite different. When you’re a licensed building practitioner, you go through a long period of education where you learn the ropes and you’re able to practise on your own account for things like residential building. And it is really right that we trust these professionals to be able to sign off on that kind of work.

But there’s been quite a different system for plumbers and gasfitters because they operate in quite a different context. If you’re a plumber, you’re making a connection to a plumbing system underneath the ground where there will no longer be a check from a council to see, “Well, if we have the right sorts of pipes under the ground for 50 houses on a block, but now with granny flats there are going to be another 50, and so there will be 100 there. What are we connecting into and is it appropriate for the infrastructure that is below the ground?” The same kind of mechanisms that apply to the builders will also apply to the plumbers, but in a very different context. It’s the same issue with gasfitters. Gasfitters have been regulated in quite a different way in our building system because when things go wrong with gas, it is very difficult to respond to the problems. These are very, very high-risk situations when things go wrong. But we will not have a layer of consenting which existed there to keep people safe and to avoid disaster.

We’ve also got some outstanding questions around how things like stormwater management will be considered in situations of flooding in very dense developments. We have seen the issue of stormwater run-off being a real problem for people living in these homes. It creates real risk for people in these homes and the surrounding area, and we want to make sure that there is a mechanism by which we can plan for our communities, because it’s not just about how this affects individual homeowners but it’s how it affects their neighbours and how it affects their wider communities. We also want to know how this fits into the Government’s programme and plan for housing. We cannot see how this will solve all of the problems, but we do support it because it will solve a few problems.

Mr Speaker, I will also indicate to you that I will seek to take a call on the motion to refer this to select committee—it’s a pretty novel interpretation of Standing Order 298/2 that indicates that four months is required for there to be no debate, and I will give you a chance to consider that rule before I take that call.

Very generous of you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker; tēnā koutou e te Whare. I totally understand the desire to make it easier to increase the housing supply, and we were very supportive of the medium-density residential standards and other changes that would make it easier and more affordable to allow increased dwellings within the existing urban area. However, this bill is quite different to that in that it’s not about resource consent.

The Minister for Building and Construction referred to the fact that a 70 square metre granny flat would be able to be built without a resource consent, and that part we agree with. What we have difficulty with is now taking out the building consent. Because if it is to have plumbing and electricity and everything else, there is really potential for things to go wrong and there needs to be some sort of oversight. I think especially given the issues with the leaky buildings and the history in our country of things not going well, we need some sort of oversight on building quality. [Interruption]

It’s interesting, I know that Cameron Luxton—he’ll probably speak after me—is a builder. I don’t think any of the people currently heckling from the Government benches are builders, but my brother is a builder. My brother is a builder and when I asked him what he thought of this, he said it was going to be a disaster. He works here in the Wellington region. He’s very wedded to high-quality building and he personally thought this was going to be a disaster.

The sort of questions that he raised—and he’s not the only builder in my family—is: who is accountable when things go wrong? Are the structures going to be insurable? Are licensed building practitioners or, you know, sparkies, plumbers—are they going to have to carry additional insurance to cover the possibility of their work being wrong? And there’s the issue of increased load. That’s not about what about when things go wrong in the building itself; it’s what is the overall impact of increasing the number of dwellings within a given area on things like the reticulated water systems that council is responsible for.

I totally acknowledge that there are issues with the way building consents are administered and the differences between different councils. I’ve talked to many builders here in Wellington who’ve told me that one of the biggest difficulties is they’re building in different municipalities, different district councils, and the building inspectors they get from different councils have really different approaches and have very different interpretations. I think that is an issue that we could deal with—I think there’s a whole lot we could do to improve the building consent process and to take liability away from councils.

Because what ends up happening is you’ve got extremely experienced designers who’ve mainly worked overseas who want to come in here and build highly energy-efficient, very top-of-the-line structures. They’re way, way better than our Building Code, but because they aren’t like the lowest common denominator acceptable solution in the Building Code, they find it harder to get a building consent. Like, that’s crazy. We should make it easier to get a consent for something that’s higher performing. But our whole system needs work. And just getting rid of a building consent requirement for granny flats isn’t, I think—and the Green Party doesn’t think—sufficient to address the issues with the Building Code, with the building consenting process, with productivity in the building sector, and the overall shortage of housing.

According to the regulatory impact statement, this is only going to have a very tiny marginal impact on housing supply. I mean tiny. Actually, it’s probably going to be just easier for people like me to put up a sleepout outside that my in-laws can stay in. That’s great, and I know that I would get really high quality—I want oversight, you know; I want oversight by people who I can trust. Because the truth is we do have cowboys in this sector. They’re not the majority, but it does exist and I think that is the reason we have building consents: because people want some sort of assurance and quality control.

Are the councils properly resourced to do that? Are they doing it in the best way? Could we have a different approach? I’m totally open to all of that and we are open to hearing arguments at select committee that reassure us around the questions that I raised and changing our vote at select committee. But in the first instance, it doesn’t seem to me that getting rid of this building consent is the right way to solve the problem, and it’s quite possible that the cost and the impact on our communities might outweigh the benefits.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m glad to hear that this bill is going to select committee, from the speeches that we’ve heard today, but there are some legitimate concerns that have been raised, particularly by the previous speaker, the Hon Julie Anne Genter. New Zealand’s had a traumatic experience in the past. Mr Speaker, as a fellow builder, you know that the leaky homes crisis was something that scarred New Zealand’s view of housing deeply. But this bill is making it simple what designs are exempt for a small, stand-alone dwelling.

When I think of simple design, I think of large eaves, good soffits, decent, long-wearing roofing, no complicated joints, well-tested and trusted external cladding materials—things that make a building trusted. And the thing that also goes on top of all of that is the licensed building practitioner, the sparky, the certified plumbers and drainlayers, the gasfitters—everybody who’s able to self-certify—and also, through this bill and other measures of this bill, the licensed builders, the tradies, and everyone out there who’s getting a chance to show they can be trusted. Because New Zealand needs to start trusting these folks.

Getting it off the councils, who have, through a very—you know, you look at the incentives that are on councils, it’s not surprising it’s taking them so long to sign stuff off. We’ve got to get some of those incentives aligned better so that New Zealanders can actually put themselves in places where they’re warm and dry and stable. We’re going to have granny flats, we’re going to have places for intergenerational accommodation—bringing families together, providing accommodation. Yes, fixing a small part of our housing shortage, but doing it in a way that is sound, which is sensible, which is just starting to open the door to solving our housing crisis. Small, stand-alone dwellings in good locations is what we need. I commend this bill to the House.

We keep on saying we do have a housing crisis. This is just yet another initiative from this excellent Minister for Building and Construction, excellent Government, to help solve that housing crisis. This is actually a New Zealand First initiative, which is incorporated into the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, and it’s great to have these things being delivered. It’s been well signalled for a long time. It’s been through a consultation process. As the Minister said, 2,000 people submitted to that, and that’s really, really excellent. This bill has been really, really well signalled, and I’m looking forward to it going through the select committee process. There’s clearly going to be some questions which are going to be asked, and we will all be asking those questions.

This is about building consents for small, simple-design, single-storey buildings. That’s what it’s for. The council building consents—we’ve heard about that. They give assurances, but they come at cost, and they also often come at significant delay, and that often requires people to down tools and that is a real problem in the system. These small homes will still need to meet Building Code standards. They’ll be self-certified by professional people of good standing, who have done these jobs for a very, very long time.

Look, I want to tell you one very, very short story, if I can. I visited a company which produces 120 small homes a year, at the moment—

Dan Bidois: Short story.

ANDY FOSTER: —small homes—yeah, it’ll be longer if you keep interrupting. It’s 120 small homes a year, one every three days—they are all the same. They are all H1 treated. They’re all really good quality. And guess what? Every single one of them has to get the local council to sign it off with a building consent. The council official comes along and says, “Mmm, yeah, looks the same as the previous one. Here you are. Here’s a bill for $4,000.” That adds 2 percent to the cost of each and every one of those homes. That is crazy—that is crazy. And a lot of these homes are going to be that kind of home. That is about making these homes cheaper for the people who actually need those homes and I think that is a really, really great initiative. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou. I want to start by saying “Small mercies”, in this regard. It’s a sensible idea—dare I even say this right now, given what we were listening to, just earlier—but, I mean, I’m smart enough and we’re smart enough to recognise when it’s a good idea, and it can be applied in a very good and trusting way. And, obviously, because my shed is just about done, I’m relating to this conversation because I’ve just put up the flashings in it, and there’s caving and there’s drainage and there’s all of those things. I get that it is a very pertinent experience right now, and it’s a good thing, so I wanted to start my contribution in this way.

Dan Bidois: Will you support it?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Ha! Yeah, no, of course, I get it. Obviously, we support it, and we support it going to select committee [Members cheer and applaud] I know! Thank you.

But can I also say this. What I want to say is that with some of the recent things that have come out in the last 48 hours in terms of the Budget, I want to make this statement too, and that is: please do not get confused, with the support of this, about some of the other things that are coming out, such as the recent funding boost of $472 million that will be invested to manage the growing prison population and its associated costs. Please don’t let that picture be another housing remedy for whānau.

This bill does make it easier. It makes it easier because it’s affordable, and that’s a good thing. Whether it was deliberate or not, it considers the way in which Māori live, and intergenerational groupings. So that’s a good thing and we’re happy with that. We live in larger numbers in our whānau, and Tākuta Ferris made reference to that in terms of the way in which we’re growing and our mokopuna are coming into this world in great numbers and at a great speed, which is fantastic.

It’s a good idea, and we support it. I just acknowledge the work that’s been carried out, certainly by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and all of those people in that space, but we support it and look forward to it going to select committee, and small mercies. Kia ora tātou.

This is a great bill. It’s going to help improve productivity and ease our housing crisis. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, the person who’s just resumed his seat is the deputy chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I thought he would’ve had more to say in this particular space, so that is disappointing, but it’s reflective of the position of the current Government. [Interruption] As—

SPEAKER: No, listen, we’re going to quieten down.

TANGI UTIKERE: —my colleague Arena Williams has said, we are happy to support this bill to select committee, albeit what seems to be a truncated select committee process; we’ll have something to say about that. But this is a move to make it somewhat easier to effectively construct granny flats—as they’re commonly referred to—or small stand-alone dwellings. So, on face value, it does look sensible, but a lot of the issues might arise in the detail, and so we look forward to scrutinising that further.

It’s important that these constructions, as we understand, will still need to comply with the Building Code. So that is important and particularly goes to the heart of that need for—I agree with the Hon Julie Anne Genter—the assurance and the quality control aspects that would naturally flow from that.

Talking about “naturally”, one of the concerns that we do have is the way in which this would be rolled out in the sense of planning opportunities, because, naturally, when you have a sense of density at play, the nature of what, effectively, comes and goes from that existing footprint is somewhat questionable. We hear a lot about the development perhaps being a simple development. That’s what it says in the documentation; it’ll be interesting to see what that actually means in practice—considerations, for example, around grey water or stormwater, where there is a density of development, and ensuring that the infrastructure that is provided by the local council, or local territorial authority, is sufficient to meet the need that would be generated as a result of that. That’s the sort of detail that is important to us and that we will be delving into when it comes to select committee.

The interesting thing with this legislation is the role that local councils will have, because it looks as though, even though there needs to be some communication with the council, albeit before construction is sought to be undertaken and then once it’s been completed, the only other role really is for the council to be a basic receptacle of information. So we’ll be interested to tease that out a little bit and understand what that is.

When it’s referred to as a granny flat, you know, the whole point of a granny flat is the intergenerational connection that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has referred to—very common in many whānau or aiga community situations around Aotearoa New Zealand. But also, it’s interesting that it’s likely that, for some communities, that might be what this actually ends up being, but for others it might be an opportunity for them to address what is clearly a housing shortage that has been generated by the current Government. The Budget that we are talking about at the moment—and this is a piece of legislation that is in the Budget urgency motion—is around choice, and the Government has chosen to progress this under urgency. They are making or seeking to make it slightly easier to build on an existing property, and that may be because of the shortage of housing supply opportunities, the stripping away of funding when it comes to Kāinga Ora.

When I think about what that means for my own local community of Palmerston North, the only thing that this Government is building on Kāinga Ora land are bollards—bollards on Church Street, bollards on Crewe Crescent, bollards on Bolton Place; those sorts of opportunities.

This is a piece of legislation that we are supporting because it will assist with housing, which is an unfortunate situation that this particular Government has created by stripping out, in not just this Budget but previous Budgets, funding when it comes to housing need. It is important that those considerations as to what is in the bill are given full consideration by the select committee so that those issues can be addressed and teased out. You know, the role of councils is very, very important, but so is the role of those who will be undertaking this work if this legislation does pass. The nature of the work that is undertaken—obviously, the footprint there is up to 70 square metres. That is a significant piece of land, so to speak, as a footprint, particularly on smaller existing sites, and so it will be important to delve down into the details of that.

So while we support this at first reading through to the select committee, we do hope that there will be a fulsome opportunity for the community and sectors to engage with it at that particular point.

I just want to give a shout-out to our top-quality New Zealand builders. These builders consistently demonstrate exceptional workmanship and uphold a high reputation for delivering quality work. I have no doubt that they will deliver high-quality housing that meets the New Zealand Building Code. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I wanted to start by saying I’m a little bit jealous of my colleague here, the member for Palmerston North, because he’s got bollards at his Kāinga Ora sites. In Dunedin, in my electorate, I’ve just got a few temporary fences where 41 apartment-type houses were scheduled to be built, houses demolished and ready to go. But what have I got? Fences. Not even bollards.

Tangi Utikere: Shameful.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It is shameful.

Simon Court: The private sector will build them. Sell the land.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m hearing from Mr Court that the private sector will build them. I guess that is a fundamental difference between this and that side of the House, and that we think that there needs to be good public housing in New Zealand. But it’s interesting that maybe on that side, the whole Government agrees with Mr Court, which is always a worry.

The Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill: we’ve heard that it’s about granny flats, and you imagine a granny flat—that does bring spring to mind. My husband’s situation when he was growing up, he did indeed have his granny at the back of the garden in Oamaru. She lived in a small house and would come into the main house to have her meals. He was delighted by this arrangement, she was a great grandmother from all accounts; I was never lucky enough to meet her. But the point is that these houses are houses—or they can be houses. As you know, 70 square metres is a large area. You can get houses of up to three bedrooms—only one bathroom, but three bedrooms—for 70 square metres.

So it’s important that we acknowledge that these aren’t just those little single units. They’re different from what is already permitted or exempt from Schedule 1 of the Building Code, being those 30-square-metre buildings with no bathrooms. These buildings will have bathrooms in them. They could have gas heaters. They could have a whole lot of other things. So that does have an impact on the infrastructure. It’s not the addition of one person; it could be the addition of a whole family.

Now, I have no problem with intensification, generally speaking, but we do need to plan for it. And so it is good that—

Arena Williams: Density done well.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, that’s exactly what we want: density done well, and it’s good that councils will be able to have development contributions and will be able to charge development contributions for this. So that means that where that extra house is causing some need for a widening of a pipe, then the councils can get some of that money from the developers, which is good.

Now, we know as well that the word “simple” is used a lot when referring to this bill. “Simple” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and we have a schedule to the bill that is very important and I very much hope that the select committee spends a lot of time on this. I’m hopeful too that Cameron Luxton is on this committee. He just gave us in his speech some examples of what he thinks are simple, sensible things, like eaves. But we have in the Schedule—so that’s on page 19 of the bill—what simple means—well, what it might mean—and that’s a single story, it’s stand-alone, it’s new, and it’s 70 square metres, but also it’s to be made of lightweight building products, being steel or timber. It has to be at least 2 metres away from other buildings or any legal boundary. Then it’s got that the water supply, sanitary plumbing, and drainage must also be simple.

But what I haven’t seen when reading through the regulatory impact statement and listening to the other speeches is if there was any analysis into what this will mean for the carbon embedded in those buildings. Has there been any analysis to see if there is a way to get low-carbon buildings into the scheme or not? What will these simple materials be made of? What are the simple materials? Where will they be manufactured?

These are good points that Julie Anne Genter made as well about building not just to code but beyond that. But also, it’s really important that natural hazards are addressed. Now, this bill, just the Building Act side of it, doesn’t get around the need for a resource consent. Apparently that’s going to happen in a separate process with the national environmental standards, but it is so important that that councils are able to stop buildings going into areas where they will create more of a hazard. This bill does mention that, but not nearly enough.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The best part of this bill is the effect it will have on the over 50 percent of ethnics that live in my electorate of Takanini to build a small dwelling on their property, especially when our Government implements our five-year parent visa. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those with that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. Carried. Is there a Minister? The Hon Louise Upston.

on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move that the Building and Construction—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry? Who called a party vote?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Tam did, but you didn’t hear—Tamatha Paul—but I—

SPEAKER: Well, you’ve got to do it quite loudly.

Hon Willie Jackson: Court over here, Mr Speaker.

Simon Court: I heard her, Mr Speaker—I heard her.

SPEAKER: Well, it doesn’t matter how many of you heard it; I didn’t. But we’ll conduct a party vote, just for the sake of it.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 298/2 and Speaker’s ruling 86/7. The Minister for Building and Construction has indicated in his first reading speech that he intends to move a short report back from the select committee, because he’s given the date of 23 September. So I’d expect you to go to a debatable motion after that. The reason I raise it now is because the Minister gave a date of four months for the report back. In 298/2, what’s contemplated there is a calendar day, not the date that urgency extends, which is the 22nd. If the Minister was wanting to indicate a longer report-back period, he would have given you 24 September and not the 23rd.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting opinion, except for House purposes we’re still in yesterday, which does mean that the Minister was speaking as if a date was one day back; counting forward from that day, he gets his four months and one day.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Further to the point of order. Thank you, sir. The problem with that interpretation, sir, is that the select committee will not, in fact, get four months to contemplate the bill. The effect is that if the House procedure in future nominated an earlier date than was contemplated than just one day, you would end up with select committees in the unenviable position of being treated as having four months, but not, in fact, getting four months. This will be a select committee that does not get four months. There is certainly an arguable proposition that it should be six months, and that is an amendment which I understand the Hon Julie Anne Genter would put were there a debate. I’m asking you to put a debate for this motion.

SPEAKER: Well, in all reality, it’s not a motion that you’re proposing. In all reality, the select committee could meet today, once the vote is through, and we’re in the middle of that at the moment. That might have some mitigating effect, but the reality is that, quite often, the House will pass a bill requiring a particular report-back date. So the report-back date is not necessarily associated with the meeting dates of the committee, and I think that’s the bit you’re suggesting I should consider, but I’m not quite following the logic, given the history of the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Sir, you’re quite right. If the select committee was to convene today, it would be convening on the 23rd, and so then it would get four months, instead of four months and one day. That’s in line with Speaker’s ruling 86/7, which was made in 1988 by Speaker Burke, where he ruled that calendar days are the days which select committee operates by, and not relevant to the urgency motion which applies only to this debating chamber.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s quite right. Select committees do operate to calendar dates, but the House doesn’t when it’s in urgency. So any bill that passes today is considered to have been passed on the day that the urgency motion was taken. You can’t have it all ways. If there is any dilemma here, it’s a matter that should be taken up with the Standing Orders Committee. But for today, we are in, effectively—what is the date today?

Hon Members: 22nd.

SPEAKER: 22nd, sorry, of—

Hon Member: Is it? Or is it the 23rd?

SPEAKER: Well, while the rest of the New Zealand might have moved on a day, we’re actually on the 22nd, and it is appropriate that anything that is moved today with a counter on it—in other words, a period of time—is considered from the 22nd.

on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move that the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 23 September 2025.

SPEAKER: There was a bit before that that you haven’t done. So what select committee are you sending it to?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: My apologies, Mr Speaker. It will be referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

SPEAKER: Sorry, Minister, I think the Clerk needs to call the bill. Sorry, the interruption here has thrown everything out of shape.

Bill read a first time.

SPEAKER: Right. And now you talk about where you’re sending it to.

on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I invite the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill, and report it to the House—

SPEAKER: No, no. The question is, That the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Do you want the next one?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sorry, this is not correct. [Referring to the paper in front of her.]

Instruction to Transport and Infrastructure Committee