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

Members, the House is in committee on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 24—”Amendments to Building Act 2004”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening to all members of this committee of the whole House. Here’s just a brief introductory remark from me. I think the policy intent was pretty well understood at the second reading of this bill. Obviously, some changes recommended by the select committee and being accepted by the Government—and, hopefully, the House as a whole—were discussed. I don’t intend to take up the committee’s time going through those. I will record, however, that I’m grateful to the select committee, including cross-party participation thereon, for the changes and indeed the spirit in which they entered the discussion, which was—and I hope will remain—unanimous support for the bill.

In Part 1, we’ll see that there are a few particular conditions that enable the building of these so-called granny flats or small stand-alone dwellings—these being, first, that the dwelling has a simple design as defined and that authorised professionals, again as defined, will be those carrying out the work; that, second, they must provide records of the work to the relevant council or territorial authority, the keeper of the keys, the depository and repository of the records relating to the property, which is important, obviously, for ongoing ownership but also for other reasons that councils need to have such records; and that, third, the territorial authorities actually are informed in advance of the work taking place so they can provide what’s called a project information memorandum—or PIM—which contains key details relating to the property so that the authorised professionals can go ahead and conduct the work in a known, safe manner in accordance with the building code. I look forward to the discussion tonight.

The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, good evening and welcome to what will be the most interesting committee stage tonight. You’re in for a treat. This is a bill which enjoys cross-partisan interest and support for good reason. It advances something which most people in this House can get behind: more housing for people who need it, built more cheaply.

There are some things in this bill that we have had to do very quickly. They have been at pace and some of these changes were introduced part way through the system and were not things that were consulted on in 2024. And so they deserve our scrutiny, even those people who support it, perhaps mostly those people who support it.

I really welcome contributions from Andy Foster, who is a very good chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that dealt with this bill—very open to feedback, not only from submitters but Opposition members. And Cameron Luxton, the ACT MP with responsibilities for this portfolio, has been a very helpful contributor to those of us in the committee who aren’t experts in the building sector. I don’t know, I’m not calling anybody out particularly on this—would welcome any of you thinking that I can build a house.

Todd Stephenson: You could swing a hammer, I reckon.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Would welcome that comment, Mr Stephenson, that I can swing a hammer. I can and I do know what a dwang is. Thanks.

Todd Stephenson: And a stud?

ARENA WILLIAMS: I do—I do know what that one is, too.

I have really enjoyed engaging with the sector on this. We have learnt a lot at the committee, in the committee room and around the country, with members engaging in this in a cross-partisan way, and it has been another good example of how parliamentarians can come together to solve a problem.

I propose to ask a few questions, now, about the supplementary analysis and advice, particularly around those things that haven’t really been traversed with the sector fully because the consultation was done in 2024 and didn’t include some of these changes. So I’ll ask the Minister how we around the House, as supporters of this idea, in principle, can get comfort with some of the issues that have been raised by officials and haven’t been fully, you know, fleshed out with industry and with the sector.

Then I propose between myself and my colleague Tracey McLellan to go through those clauses that we think could be clearer because, you know, we have been able to work at the committee level on some of these in a cross-partisan way. But when you are working through quickly with those, inevitably you are going to end up with some anomalies, some things which might be drafted in a way that gives more power within either the primary legislation or the regulations that they purport to change, which might not have been their intended effect. So we’ll go through some of those.

The first questions I have are around the number of dwellings that we might expect from this change: 13,000 units was a number that was raised with committee by our officials in the committee’s proceedings. Over 10 years, 13,000 units built because of these changes is a higher number than what we expected last time we were in this House. That makes a difference because as we think about the way that these things will impact on the communities they are in, they will have an effect. They will have an effect on the councils that have to deal with them, particularly if they are in one part of the country, and they will inevitably change the way that some neighbourhoods feel. Communities should have a say in that. They should be able to look to an elected person and say they are responsible for this change, and they are responsible for the way that my neighbourhood has changed.

We need density, and we need density done well, but we also, I think, owe it to those people who put us here to be able to change the way that people’s neighbourhoods feel, to be able to account for that. This will change the way that some places look and the sense that you get from being in a neighbourhood at that level of 13,000 new dwellings. Can the Minister give the committee a sense of how that number is predicted? If it is significantly more than that, will he raise concerns with his officials? Does he have a watching brief on that? What are his conversations with councils around the country tuning up in terms of exposing issues that some councils will have, because this will not be evenly felt. There will be more of these in some different parts of the country. So what is he hearing about the large numbers that might go in some neighbourhoods, and what assurances can he give those communities that might see a change for more of these granny flats being in their area?

I also want to ask him at this juncture: officials raised with the committee the part of their advice around the number of latent or undetected building defects that might increase because of the increasing size from 60 square meters to 70 square meters. What assurances has he had that the level of latent defects is something that he can have comfort with, and what are the assurances that he can bring to this Chamber that he will be monitoring that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her thoughtful discussion and participation at select committee and, indeed, at previous readings. It seems to me that Ms Williams brings up a couple of major areas of focus. One is in terms of the intended or expected outcome of 13,000 new units over a 10-year period, as she has quite rightly outlined. That was the advice. It’s not a number that I can particularly vouch for. Indeed, it’s an educated guess at best by anyone, even those much more smarter—”much more smarter”; that’s good, isn’t it? It’s going to be a long night.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It’s less dumber.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Less dumber—Duncan Webb would know. Apart from having derailed myself syntactically and semantically, the point that she’s made, I think, is the right one. There will be a major change. We can’t quantify it exactly, but we can hope and expect that there will be a significant number of new units. Indeed, that’s the whole point. As she’s referred to, those of us in this Chamber—and I hope it’s all of us—who want it to be quicker and more straightforward and more affordable for people to have access to quality housing in this country can be pleased with that, even as we interrogate the details, quite rightly so.

In terms of changes to neighbourhoods, though, I think it’s worth noting that, first of all, there will be development contributions able to be levied by the relevant territorial authority. The mechanism by which that can be sought and, indeed, demanded is the development contribution as triggered by the project information memorandum that I referred to earlier. Of course, the rating base for a council will increase according to the increase of the property value in each individual case, and the number of residents, frankly, is a relevant factor there too. It’s not as though councils will be left short changed.

That relates to the other point, on the flip side, as to whether they’ll have liability in relation to the fact there is a different process—one that doesn’t involve a building consent—and the answer is that the select committee rightly recommended that we have clarity to confirm that the territorial authority will not be liable in relation to relying on information provided by said trade professionals. Of course, these will only be constructed in areas that are already residential in terms of their zoning and, indeed, only on parcels of land that are already being used for residential purpose. It’s a stand-alone dwelling, but one that must have an existing dwelling—an ordinary one or a major one, I suppose, if we were to contrast with a minor residential unit on it—relatively small in size, which goes to not only any risk associated with the construction but also the fact that there will be relatively small additional strain on the infrastructure within the area. I don’t say that there’ll be no additional strain, but we live in an imperfect world, and we thought it was a reasonable trade-off to have the extra housing capacity as compared with all the strain and cost associated with, for example, greenfield developments for which a whole lot of extra residential infrastructure is needed, of course.

Now, I go to the second point of Ms Williams’ contribution—the increase from 60 to 70 square metres as a maximum floor area. There’s relatively little extra risk associated with that. Yes, it’s slightly larger, but, in fact, the relatively risky areas are those wet areas, so-called—kitchenettes and bathrooms—and particular provision’s been made to mitigate the risk associated with those. We don’t think there’ll be much additional risk of latent defects as a result of that change which we made along the way to increase the footprint.

Fernando Hernandez—Francisco Hernandez.

It’s all good, Madam Chair. Just a quick question, based on the remark that the Minister made: what do you see as the other trade-offs between increasing the housing supply and potential trade-offs to safety? What are the other sorts of trade-offs that you identify in this legislation, and how have you worked to mitigate those trade-offs?

I guess you will already know at this point that we’ve switched from supporting this bill, partly because of the number of public submissions that supported it, and because a lot of the improvements that were suggested by the submitters were accepted during the select committee stage.

I’m also interested in—just going to the legislation now—around some of the changes that have been made in terms of, it says here, “non-consented small stand-alone dwelling”. Now, there’s a definition of that in the Building Act. Could you elaborate if that’s different from the one that’s here or if it’s exactly the same as in the parent legislation? I’ll leave this contribution quite a short one for now.

Can I just ask members to refer to the clause that you’re speaking to, so that we can track it?

Francisco Hernandez: Oh, yes, I will do so in future.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. Just really briefly—a helpful contribution from Mr Hernandez, thank you. As for trade-offs, the key one is really that oversight through a building consent process is being replaced by, well, firstly, a confirmation. I should say that the building code standards still remain applicable, but the relevant qualified trade professionals—for example, licensed building practitioners, registered plumbers, drain layers, electricians, and so on—will be conducting the work and certifying it. That’s the main sort of trade-off, and we think it’s a reasonable one in terms of a relatively low restructure, in conjunction with those persons who should be able to vouch that their work complies with the code.

Secondly, I appreciate the comment around the public submissions and the improvements made. I’m happy to acknowledge those, obviously, in the context of any particular ones within the parts that are raised. But, as I started by saying, I think they’re helpful improvements to the bill, and we’re pleased to be able to accept them.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m asking the Minister a question about clauses 6 through to 11, which detail the operation of the project information memorandums, or PIMs. I have a number of questions about how the amendments to the system work and, I guess, the balance between giving councils a mechanism for notifying landowners of, say, natural hazards. This is also a system where project information memorandums exist in the current system, but they’re hardly used. This isn’t the way that they work now. It is generally a way of sort of notifying the council if you want to let them know about something. This will now be a mandatory system for this particular type of allowed work, because usually in council systems, conceptually, you have works that are either not allowed and so they have to have a consent, or they are allowed and so they don’t have to have any kind of notification. This is the in-between area, so it’s a new thing.

I want to ask about this new thing and the cost and coverage of insurance and bank lending. At what point do you expect, Minister, homeowners to be able to get lending and insurance for this sort of building? I also want to know what conversations you have had, particularly with insurers, around their concerns around this. The information system is a good one. It’s a system that will allow homeowners to have more information about what’s built, and it’s probably a superior system for document-keeping from their eyes than even a consent system where you’re relying on older documents. This information system is useful, but how will insurers respond to a different sort of information? It’s an information process which doesn’t create a liability for council—deliberately and rightly—but the question is, then, how can insurers rely upon it? And, if they can’t rely upon it, how will banks? Really, the guts of the question is: can people get lending for these granny flats, or do they have to borrow against their existing dwelling, if they have equity available? Are these products available to people who need lending that is on just those assets, or are they for people who have equity built up and can use it on these?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think they are very thoughtful and astute questions. Of course, we’re not in the business, as a Government, of directing either lenders or insurers of a private nature on what they must or can or should insure. They’ll make those decisions themselves. Obviously, case by case, it may vary according to their appetite for risk. However, I would say there are tens of thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of dwellings in this country that do not have consents at the moment. They were built before the current regime. Typically, that’s not a reason for them not to be insured.

Certainly, I would expect a prudent bank, other lender, or insurer to make an assessment based on the fact that a relatively low-risk structure in the first place, built with the benefit of knowledge of the conditions of the property—for example, the existence of natural hazards as exposed through the project information memorandum process and with the history of the property being knowable through the fact of an existing dwelling already being there—taken together along with the fact that a qualified registered professional would have signed off the work in order for it to receive the equivalent of a consent. It means that they should feel confident. There should be no reason that they wouldn’t insure or lend on these properties.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few questions that I’d like to hear answers from the Minister for Building and Construction on, just for the record, so I’m going to fire through them pretty quickly. I’ll do a couple and I might take another call if that’s OK with you, Madam Chair.

First of all, the question about a small stand-alone dwelling being a definition in the Building Act, could the Minister point us to that section in the Building Act? This is in section 4 of this particular amendment bill, but in the Building Act—the legislation which is under amendment here—there’s detached buildings, but what actually makes it a “small stand-alone dwelling”? How do we have that as a definition?

Which follows on for the next question which I’d like to ask in this brief contribution, which is: why would a small stand-alone dwelling necessarily need to be on a site with an existing—what would you call it?—major dwelling? What is the reason for that? Would it not simply be enough to have a piece of land zoned for the residential purpose and allow a small stand-alone dwelling to be on that piece of land? So those are my two questions to start.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member, the licensed building practitioner in the House.

The reason that we have the regime include only existing properties—residential, zoned, yes, but also with an existing dwelling is that by saying that there must already be a dwelling there, we’re confident and comfortable. We know the characteristics of the land and also we’re not requiring extra infrastructure such as pipeline infrastructure and water services and so on to be added new as though it we’re a greenfield development or a site that had not those connections already. So it will be literally possible to tap into those existing pipelines and infrastructure provision for all the services you’d expect for a residential property, precisely because there’s already a dwelling on site.

Now, there’s a reasonable argument, I think, to be made for expanding the policy whereby you could have existing parcels of land without property, you know, built environment on there already. It might be, for example, in a papakāinga context that Māori ownership of land is much more enabled in that sense. I think those are good discussions, but they’re not within the scope of this bill. A story for another day perhaps.

As for the “small stand-alone dwelling” definition, the relevant one for current purposes, which is the so-called granny flats at the subject of this amendment bill, are those set out in Schedule 1A: “Characteristics of small stand-alone dwelling”, that “it is stand-alone:”—which is to say detached—that “it is new”, “less than 70 square metres” in terms of floor area, and “has a single storey only.”

Thank you, Minister. I’ve not had the advantage of going to the select committee and seeing the progress of this. Despite not being a licensed building practitioner, we have actually built our own cabin, well back in the old days, when we could actually have building inspectors come out and check that we’d put the joists in, that things were the right distance, and so on. I do think there is something a little bit regrettable that we’ve moved completely away from the Kiwi “do it yourself”—obviously needing guard rails.

Until recently, we had the 30-square-metre rule, where you didn’t need a consent at all as long as it complied. We’ve recently had a 15 square metre studio added, which has not quite doubled but nearly doubled our area. We checked with the council whether we needed anything. We did not need anything. Did they need to have the information that it even existed? They did not. So, to some extent, would you agree that this legislation has, by replacing the 30-square-metre rule, in a limited number of cases, without extra plumbing and things like that, actually made it more difficult?

Then my last question is, really, you’ve talked about existing infrastructure in residential zoned areas—the Wairarapa electorate is one of the largest and very significantly rural electorates—and I’d just like to know: if you already have, maybe, natural flow irrigation from the grey water, or if you seek to put in a composting toilet—again, with the correct plumbing people rather than doing it ourselves—how would that apply in a rural area, whether you do or don’t have another dwelling? And, if you do or don’t have another dwelling, is it on the same title or the same block of land? I think this is quite complex, and I think it needs some further explanation for people who live in a rural off-grid environment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the work, including the experience with which the member speaks, but also including your local government background. She will know as a building consent authority administrator, so to speak, as the former mayor of this fair city, that there are complications in all these matters.

I think, with respect to the question of the 30 square metres existing exemption in Schedule 1 of the Building Act, I regard that as a different matter from the 70-square-metre exemption that we’re adding in a new schedule, Schedule 1A. Even though it’s similar in philosophy, as the member has quite rightly pointed out, nevertheless it’s different because this will be able to be used in a proper residential sense, not only for a so-called sleep out, but also with shower or bathroom facilities and also a kitchen area; it could be more independent. Therefore, the risk associated with people sleeping overnight in terms of, I suppose, danger to them but also danger or risk in the sense of the construction and things that could go wrong when you’re adding plumbing and so on, puts it in a different category. Even though, yes, it is more difficult to reach the threshold required even without a building consent for these so-called granny flats, nevertheless I think that’s justified given that we’re talking about a different and more differently demanding thing at stake than a mere garage, sleep out, and so on.

As for existing infrastructure in rural areas or the question of existing infrastructure, including those that might be determined as off the grid, I think that’s a fair point. I will acknowledge as well that there is considerable clamour for a liberalisation of rules as relates to tiny homes. I know that’s slightly off to the side, but I think, in my mind at least, there’s the same question about ways that we can make it easier for people to live off the grid or in ways that don’t represent the white picket fence around the quarter acre in a suburban setting as well. Any details that, I suppose, might flow from that—it’s not that it will necessarily be that the infrastructure provision is the same in every case. Perhaps I was overly simplistic to talk about that, but, in general terms, whatever is provided for an existing dwelling on a residentially zoned parcel of land is good enough for that existing dwelling and can be relied upon—or not, as the case may be if there is none for these so-called granny flats being added.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m speaking to section 7, but also to Schedule 1. In relation to what the Minister for Building and Construction said about where these dwellings might go, I have good news, good news for the committee. You will want to listen to this; so will you, Andy Foster. There is an amendment in the name of Vanushi Walters which introduces the ability for these small stand-alone dwellings to be built at marae. It is sensible change. The reason it’s a sensible change is because we know that it’s outside the scope of this bill about how many would be built, but it’s not outside of this bill where they would be built. So allowing for one of these to be built at marae doesn’t seem to create any problems that are foreseeable around the infrastructure that is at those marae. The plumbing is there.

We are not talking about marae that do not have ablution blocks and kitchen facilities already; these are something that exists at those facilities. Why it’s important is because more and more marae are asking for kaumātua housing to be part of what they offer to the community.

The member for Māngere here, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, she knows that in her area and places like Ngā Whare Waatea Marae and also at Papatūānuku Kōkiri Marae, the ability to have kaumātua housing in that area is so crucial to the South Auckland community, it’s also crucial to our rural and regional communities. We know that providing for older people who experience more and more housing insecurity over the years, particularly older women over the age of 55, it’s an incredibly important thing that community organisations, NGOs, and hapū and iwi can come to the party and help the Government to provide that service that would otherwise fall to the Government.

So this is an amendment which is a sensible step forward—it doesn’t solve the whole problem, does solve this problem, which is in the spirit of this bill because we know this doesn’t solve the housing crisis, but it does make a difference to the supply of housing cheaply and affordably. This would help Māori housing, and it is something we should support.

I want to tell the Minister about who I think of when I think of this amendment. I think of my Uncle Kelly at Tapuihikitia Marae. He is not someone who will sit on the paepae. He doesn’t have the reo that he feels like he needs to, to sit up there with, say, my Uncle Charlie, who is the Pou Tikanga Te Hahi Ringatu, too. We’re very proud of our Uncle Charlie, but we are also very proud of Uncle Kelly, who doesn’t have the reo but he gets up every time there is a hui or tangi. He’s there first and he’s up on the roof cleaning out the gutters, even though he’s in his late 70s now. I’ve been up at the gutters because I don’t want Uncle Kelly to climb up there, but I’m not home that often. And he will be in the ablution block at the end of the hui at 9 p.m., cleaning them out. He will be in the kitchen and in the kāuta fixing the oven. He will be driving around to Auntie Lynn’s house to pick up the pot that she took last Sunday and hasn’t brought back after housie. It’s that fella, it’s Uncle Kelly who will get that kaumātua flat if you build it, if you just build one at Tapuihikitia Marae, because he is the caretaker of that place. He is the embodiment of kaitiakitanga.

There is more to our working marae than the paepae. There is more to our working marae than the kaikaranga, there is more to our working marae than the people out the front. People like him, who, if we could provide for their housing needs, would be out of a State home, they would be provided for by their community, and they would be at the heart of it. That is a life of dignity for our kaumātua kuia. That is a life that I want for myself. I would love that, and I would love for that to be part of the aspiration that young urban Māori also have, that they could move back to their regional marae, to be a part of something which is meaningful and contribute in that way when they’re in their older years.

This is an amendment which we should adopt today. We can do it today. It is in scope of this bill. It is something we can change now and it’s something that would make a tangible difference to—maybe it’s not thousands; maybe it’s hundreds of people in the next year. Maybe it’s, you know, those people who have been waiting for this for a long time, they’ve had their consents at the council level, and they are waiting to do this already. There are marae around the country who have adopted this because of Labour’s policy to fund some of this housing. There are marae that are still waiting to be able to build these things, to move relocatable homes on to their marae and to be able to build something which is meaningful for people that will last as long as the marae will stand. There is dignity in that. Let’s adopt this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just really briefly, the passionate advocacy on behalf of Uncle Kelly, I think it’s really sensible, compelling. These matters can and will be addressed through resource management changes that essentially sit alongside the bill. Outside the scope of this bill, there’s the work that my colleague and friend Chris Bishop will be doing to enable, also, the certainty of such structures without a resource consent either but separate to the question of a building consent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to the next question that I had on this part, Minister, if that’s OK with you. It’s new section 35A in clause 11, to do with section 71 of the Building Act and the ability of councils to be in the project information memorandum process, which is a very important part of this bill, and it’s a respectable part of this bill that brings everybody on to the same page. It gives the councils the ability to point out where there are ground issues or where there could be slip issues, flooding issues, or any kind of hazard that could be existing in proposed projects.

Now, the question I’m proposing to ask the Minister is this: with this process, we’re trying to enable buildings to be able to be built in New Zealand on the backs of sections in order to create more housing. In the building industry, we’re worried that the councils have got the ability to get in the way by using section 71 of the Building Act and putting in place something that is kind of like a resource consenting mechanism, where it’s saying that this is how you’ve got to comply. Now, I know of builders who have had buildings that have just been given a flat no, when there are processes and ways to mitigate that issue with the project which haven’t been accepted by the council. What I’m looking for from you, Minister, is an indication as to how you see this interacting with councils, and whether councils are expected to be enabling, and taking the spirit of this bill as it is given, by using I think it’s section 67 to grant exemptions if they can, or section 72 to find mitigating abilities to make sure that things get built.

I’d like to see a change in the way that the culture of saying no affects our building regulations, Minister. What I really want to hear is that this is an enabling piece of legislation that will get housing built and that the sections in the Building Act that have stood in the way of the building industry to date are something that you are eager to hear councils get over. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Cameron Luxton for his comments. I don’t disagree that we need to be more enabling, and of course that’s the whole animating spirit of this legislation. I hope that that is interpreted and applied as such, but, of course, as always, there’s a balance. We don’t want to swing the pendulum so far one way to the other that we inadvertently create a different problem and crisis than we have at the moment, which is an affordability crisis, and simply replace that with some other quality or safety or sustainability issue in terms of our housing.

So I would say that it’s a balance, and we attempt to strike the balance in this bill by saying that while a council cannot say no, or has not been invited to provide a consent or deny a consent, it’s nevertheless being asked to provide information about the land on which the granny flat is going to be built so that an informed decision can be made by a responsible professional. That’s where we’ve struck the balance. We think, for example, that the provision of natural hazard information is a good way to ensure that those who are responsible will not inadvertently make a mistake, but to some extent there will be an element of responsibility being associated with decisions that will be made, and, as I say, we think that that will make it faster, more affordable, and more certain to be able to build.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

It’s a bit early, guys.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to have seen Cameron Luxton ask that question because it’s new section 35A, inserted by clause 11, that I was keen to explore as well.

I’m very conscious that the Minister, through his constituency work, is well aware of the issues that can be presented to homeowners in light of natural hazards and severe weather events, and the questions I have, which may be a series depending on the responses, are in good faith. He will know that we support this bill, but one of the consistent concerns that have been raised from people who also support this bill is what is the likely impact of intensification in areas that we know are prone to flooding. When we consider areas that were hit with the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, in intensive urban areas it was often the inability for the water to flow through residential dwellings that caused a problem, and I am keen to explore the advice that the Minister received about this.

I know the intent of the bill is to make this a seamless process, but in the new requirement of the memorandum to accompany the project information memorandum, if a council identifies that where the proposed granny flat is going to be built is an area where when there is severe weather it does flood and that there are flow issues, and the person is informed of that and they do it anyway, it makes the issue worse for those around them. Now, surely that is something that we do want to prevent, even though we want to see, in the majority of cases, that these things are seamless.

We know from Muriwai and West Auckland and other areas the issues that this causes on a regular basis, so I’m keen to, in good faith, explore that with you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The member is right to identify this as an issue and I’m grateful that he’s referenced a real life example. For example, the area that I am fortunate enough to represent had a terrible time, as did other parts of the Auckland region and, of course, around the country in relation to the Auckland Anniversary floods, Cyclone Gabrielle. They weren’t the first, they won’t be the last either, so we do need to mitigate against the possibility that we will exacerbate that issue. So I think it’s a very sensible and relevant question.

I think the point that I’ve already made around a project information memorandum having to identify any natural hazards and provide a statement, including whether it’s unclear or not whether such hazards exist, should also be augmented by the point that was made by the select committee, which I did think about seriously but ultimately thought sensible to adopt, which is that in cases where it appears that—and I’m paraphrasing—there would be an issue associated with a natural hazard, for example, a flood-prone overland flow path through the property, it may be that a building consent is required and that will be at the option of the council to be able to require it. So even though that does, in some way, undermine the intent of the policy, nevertheless I think it’s a reasonable trade-off to avoid the issue that the member quite rightly raises, which is not only the properties themselves being subject to flooding and so forth but also the risk that the impermeable area would exacerbate flooding issues for their neighbouring properties. So, it might be, for example, that a granny flat would need to be built in an elevated manner so that water would flow through and not create a pooling or ponding effect that would make life more difficult for others.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The contribution from the Minister brings me to the question that is outlined in section 34A that leads to Schedule 1, which defines the boundaries and what is actually an exempt small stand-alone dwelling in this case. I refer to Schedule 1A (2)(1)(c), and in that it describes the maximum height above the ground that a floor level can be. First question: is that structure-bearing ground, and is it finished floor level? Some clarification on what that measure is. Is it off the structure floor or the finished floor level? Is it off the load-bearing ground or just the highest clump of mud?

The next issue is if we were going to do something about mitigating a new building and I was to turn up on site and say, “Look, we’ve got a section 71 issue here to do with flooding.” This is from my prior contribution where I’m worried that we are restricting the ability to build in a way that councils will be able to say, “Look, you can’t go higher than 1 metre and therefore the flow path of water will be obstructed. Therefore, I cannot allow you to do this. You have to go through a consent process which we’re not going to grant.” That’s a worry that I have. So I’d like to hear some rationale for that one.

Also how that relates to Schedule 1A (2)(1)(b) which is the maximum height of the building above floor. Again, finished floor level—floor level, is that to the flashing? I suppose that’s the entire envelope. But just how those two interact. Is there any ability for us to open that up a little bit in this committee to be able to say, “Look, let’s make an envelope that includes a total number. Let’s give enough space that we can work with the ground conditions that we’re given, the flood conditions we’re given, the structure we’re given.” And in the end, the type of home or building that will actually fit the people who are set to occupy, their design requirements, the design requirements of the neighbourhood, the aesthetics, and the usability.

Thank you very much. I’m conscious that we’ve got an unusual situation here where two members from opposite sides of the House both support the bill, are both concerned about one particular section, and are coming at it from two completely opposite directions. One thinks it’s too restrictive; the other is concerned that it might be too open. But let’s explore that, because we do want to get it right. This is the point of the committee stage.

Like I said, I’ve got a series of questions, but I’d like to go back to the Minister for Building and Construction’s response just for clarification. You were talking about how in certain instances, a council, if it feels that building a granny flat in a particular area does present an unreasonable risk from a natural disaster or a natural hazard perspective, can require a consent.

I think it would be useful to just get a better understanding of that process, how that is triggered, and what options are available to the landowner after that point, because I actually agree with Mr Luxton that that could be counted to the intent of this, but I am not concerned, necessarily, because there might be some instances where that is warranted. So I think for the purposes of the committee’s understanding and clarity, if you could walk us through how that process would play out, that’d be useful.

Madam Chair, thank you. I’ve been listening, really, with great interest on this bill. I wanted to seek clarification and ask the Minister for Building and Construction, with respect to new Schedule 1A clause 2 , inserted by Schedule 1 of the bill, the “Requirements”.

Minister, my question might sound weird, but I wanted to ask, because I’m quickly looking through: is there a limit on how many people will be allowed to be in the small stand-alone dwelling? The reason I ask is because you’ve got the big house and then you’ve got this structure. For Pacific families, we do, in village settings, when you’ve got visitors—be it funeral, wedding, whatever, whatever—the current practice is that you go to the garage because you haven’t got enough beds in the main house.

So I wanted to ask clarification: is there a limit on how many bodies of people, and is there an age? Whilst that might sound a little bit weird, it’s to get a clearer understanding, and utilising member Williams’ questions on marae styles. We do the same thing in Pasifika settings. When you have to host people who arrive on your doorstep at 3 a.m. in the morning because they’ve got nowhere to sleep, you just go to the next structure. So I just wanted clarification on that, and had that come up in any of the select committee? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A good series of questions—ACT to the right of me, Labour to the left; here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Lucky day.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Indeed!

Cameron Luxton: Hey, I’m just trying to enable the flow of water.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I appreciate you’re enabling the flow, Mr Luxton, and I am also grateful to Mr McAnulty. I think they were both very sensible questions, as he observed, actually, that were sort of coming from a different angle. We’re trying to establish the right balance, I think, and, certainly, that’s what we’d aim for in relation to that particular section.

The answer in terms of how it would come about that the council would make a determination that a building consent would be required in any particular case is found in new section 35A, as it will be, in clause 11. It’s set out at subsection (2)(b) that the project information memorandum would also contain, or be accompanied by a document containing a statement indicating whether they consider that “the construction of the dwelling”—and I’ll go ahead now—”is likely to accelerate, worsen, or result in a natural hazard on that land or any other property,”—to this point earlier about adjoining landowners—”or that it is unclear whether that effect is likely to occur; and”—then it goes on to say—”if the territorial authority advises under [that paragraph] that there is or is likely to be a natural hazard present on the relevant land, or that the construction of the dwelling is likely to accelerate, [etc.] a natural hazard”, then a statement is made that a building consent may be required.

That’s the decision-making test, I suppose, which is that if it would worsen, accelerate, or otherwise interact with a natural hazard, then that’s at the discretion of the council, and, of course, it’s a balance. We don’t want to introduce uncertainty that it might be the case for, let’s say, every second granny flat - proposed dwelling that this would kick in. That would seem a lot, and it would defeat the purpose, which is to avoid having the need for a consent on every occasion, but we want to capture and have an ability to capture the occasional case in which that might be relevant and reasonable to require it.

That’s the attempt to strike the balance between the points that you both quite reasonably make. We won’t please all the people all of the time; indeed, we may not please all the people any of the time, but we’ll give it a go, and we think that we’ve struck the balance right in that respect.

As for the very technical questions that have strained me—luckily, they haven’t strained our friends and colleagues from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who are much more across the technical detail than me—in relation to the question around where the ground is measured from, it’s the lowest point of the ground, I understand. Then, in terms of the building design and with a higher foundation, the point is made that it’s often more complex in design and, therefore, wouldn’t be classified as simple. In terms of the combined foundation and building height, it’s 5 metres, 4 metres plus 1 metre—and that kind of way of enabling different structures on different ground conditions enables quite a variety of structures. We think that that’s quite enabling, as far as it goes.

Finally, to the point made by Lemauga Lydia Sosene, I certainly take the point that there would often be calls for considerable occupancy on a property, including at short notice, in certain cultural contexts, particularly. The Building Act doesn’t actually regulate occupancy, and so there’d be no maximum number specified within this legislation, but I certainly acknowledge the point that she is making, and I would just add that of course the whole intent is to provide for more housing supply. In an ordinary sense, I suppose, it would usually be envisaged, but there’s no reason that that kind of an overflow scenario couldn’t also be quite helped by the passage of this law because it would make it easier to provide additional housing in those kinds of situations, too.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m not ready for a closure motion just yet, Mr Bidois.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that. I appreciate the response; it didn’t sort of go beyond what was already outlined. Is he worried that this is going to lead to some inconsistent decisions that are made by councils? Which does go against the intent of this. You’re trying to streamline the whole process and make it clear for everybody they know what they’re dealing with. I’m very conscious that I’ve come at you saying I’m concerned about natural hazards and then you’ve explained it and I was like, “Well, that might be a bit loose”, which I think actually illustrates the balance that you’re trying to strike here, but if you can explain what considerations were done to avoid inconsistent application of this across the country from councils, that would be useful.

I’ll move on to the next area. I’m worried about people’s ability to get insurance for these dwellings if they build on an area that the council indicates is likely to be prone to natural hazards. I’m really interested to understand what considerations the Minister had around this, perhaps what engagement he’d had with the Insurance Council or some of their members to ensure that, if someone does choose to erect a granny flat in an area that, after dealing with the council, they end up with one of these memorandums that says that this might potentially be prone to flooding—let’s stick with flooding to keep it simple, for argument’s sake. I don’t blame any homeowner that builds or buys in an area that they are told they are allowed to. If there’s one lesson, after all the recent severe weather events, surely it is that there are certain areas of the country that shouldn’t have residential dwellings on them, because of the tendency to have severe weather or natural hazard events. If people are told they’re allowed to, then, of course, they’re going to.

I just want to be really clear: I’m not casting aspersions on those that find themselves in those certain circumstances—it’s not their fault whatsoever—but, looking forward, surely we have a responsibility to ensure that areas that we know are going to be hit shouldn’t be developed. If they are, we don’t want to, in good conscience, let people do it if there is a serious risk that they won’t be able to get insurance for that dwelling in the long run. It’s all well and good to have planning rules that enable things, but if we have had advice that the insurance companies have expressed concerns about this and indicated that in the future if the frequency is such that they then will no longer insure those areas and we knew that, or we could have put protections in for those people and didn’t, then we’re creating another problem.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the first point that Mr McAnulty makes, it’s fair question about consistency of application by building consent authorities, or BCAs. I think that’s a broader question that we need to address and we’re looking to do that as a Government—including with as much support as we can get across the aisle—whereby we’re allowing local councils to consolidate their functions, which will be helpful for them but also helpful for those looking to build, getting consistency within a region. Also, there are other ways that we could, potentially, have a more nationally consistent approach taken by building consent authorities.

Then, within this legislation itself, you’ve got a set process that talks about time frames and the way in which the project information memoranda have to be issued and so forth. Forms are being developed, regulations are being drafted to give effect to all this, and in conjunction with guidance that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will promulgate, there will be every reason and no excuse that councils will be applying this in the same fashion, or be it of course in an individual case by case basis—results may vary, as they say in the advertising field.

As for the second category of question, I think we’ve covered insurance tolerably well except to say that the Insurance Council of New Zealand, I understand, did indicate their approval with the natural hazard provisions. Of course, also district plans shouldn’t consent or allow the provision of housing in areas that are flood-prone and otherwise unsuitable for residential development. Now, I will acknowledge that there are cases—indeed, I’m all too familiar with some in my own area—where areas have been consented and zoned that never should have been, but if we’re talking about that now, as opposed to the enabling of existing areas having structures put on them, then what that becomes is a conversation about managed retreat more generally. It’s a very interesting, very important topic, but outside the scope of the bill.

Madam Chair, thank you. Look, just to pick up the point that’s just been raised about building in hazard-prone—we’re talking flooding—areas in particular, and Minister, you talked about the use of district plans and whether buildings are allowed to be built in particular areas. There is another way of dealing with that, of course, which I would like your comment on. That is where a council says, “Yep, look, the level that floods are expected to get to is X and therefore you can build there, but you must build at a level where the floor levels or the areas which you don’t want to get flooded are higher than the expected flood areas”. So I’d be interested in your comment on that because that might alleviate some of the concerns which are being raised.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to check with the Minister about the planning stage and also about preliminary and also final design plan. What I haven’t seen in this bill and I haven’t located within the supplementary analysis paper or even the regulatory impact statement is anything around insulation.

Now, I’m coming at this particularly from a seniors perspective, because one of the things that we do see in terms of granny flats is that, if there isn’t proper insulation, that’s going to lead to damper granny flats, which would then lead on to additional health issues. I want to check whether the Minister considered the insulation requirement when it comes to granny flats. Also, in addition to that, has the Minister consulted with either Te Whatu Ora or anyone else around any studies being done on the impact of the lack of insulation on the senior population. Again, when we’re looking at the construction of the granny flats, one of the considerations, I think, other people have also mentioned is being able to provide additional housing for a relative—particularly for parents or grandparents—so I think that seniors angle is particularly important. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that.

The second question I have is, again, picking up on the thing around insurance and also flood-prone areas. Now, my base is in Epsom and Tāmaki, which were affected a lot by the Auckland Anniversary flood. One of the things that we’re seeing in the most recent unilateral plan—particularly flood plan 47—is around the fact that there is going to be a different level of allowances for upscaling, upzoning, and downzoning in terms of density. I wondered how the building of granny flats, for example, would interact with any sort of zoning allowances within our unilateral plan for a council. Maybe that has been covered. If it has, then just let me know that has been covered, and I can go back and watch the video. Those are my two questions for the Minister at this stage.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to that final point, I think, with all due respect, that’s more around the resource management and planning as opposed to what the building code would require—or indeed the Building Act, which is the legislation we’re amending.

To the other point that Lawrence Xu-Nan makes, around legislation, I go back to the point that I started with in tonight’s proceedings, which is that all this work must still be conducted in accordance with the building code, notwithstanding that it would be an individual licensed practitioner who would certify that that’s the case, as opposed to a council officer. Therefore, it’s relevant to say that homes must meet the building code, including that they mustn’t worsen natural hazards and, in fact, must also actively mitigate natural hazards where present. Also, in terms of insulation, there are certain requirements as to the way in which we must build in the building code as regards energy efficiency, which includes insulation. That’s already baked in by reason of the fact that building code compliance is still needed.

Then, to Mr Foster’s point about the possibility that one can build higher in flood-prone areas, again, I point to the building code in relation to that, but also say we have already discussed, as a committee, the particular circumstances in which a council can require that a building consent be needed, notwithstanding that the general intent and the presumption is that it won’t. The difference being, as I’ve discussed back and forth with Mr McAnulty—and by the way, I can’t take that point any further. As stated in the amendment bill, it’s just simply that, if there is the presence of a natural hazard that might accelerate or worsen a natural hazard’s effect, the council may choose to exercise its discretion to require a consent in those circumstances.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to say I’ve got two questions, but one is probably more accurately a point of clarification. It may well be that the Minister’s previous answers have answered it, but I’ve still got a scenario in my brain, and I’m going to have to get it out, because I’m not quite 100 percent clear. That scenario is when I think about, when we’re looking at natural hazards, as has been raised, the impact on existing infrastructure, which we talked about earlier. I’m thinking of certain areas of Christchurch post-earthquake, when, because of events, there were suburbs that were all of a sudden prone to flooding. A lot of work went into mitigating that via looking at that underground infrastructure, particularly water waste. That has largely been remedied or remediated.

The particular suburb I’m thinking about is the quintessential quarter-acre bungalow, ripe for a granny-flat - type issue. We know that some of that mitigation is seat of the pants in so far as it’s doing a lot of the heavy lifting. The addition of granny flats in large swathes of streets in that neighbourhood could, conceivably, put—it wouldn’t necessarily be a known natural hazard, as the trigger for the council to deny the consent, or to trigger the consent, but it would certainly put pressure on that infrastructure. Is there any wriggle room or was there any thinking around that? I know that’s quite a specific scenario, but it’s not one that we’re unfamiliar with. That is, I suppose, my question. Has that been considered? Is that something that the Building Act, rather than other pieces of legislation, would take into account?

While I’m on my feet, if you’ll indulge me, I am looking at an amendment proposed in the name of Arena Williams in relation to clause 6. It is somewhat related because it says, in clause 6(1), under new subsection (b)(ii), “after ‘non-consented’ insert ‘but otherwise legal’”. One of the issues that sprung to my mind whilst listening to these conversations and these questions and answers, not being privy to them in the select committee process and being rather unfamiliar with the building process in general—although I do know what a dwang and a stud is. The third thing on that list, which I would readily recognise, is the fact that “consent” and “non-consent” are kind of the two dichotomous phrases that I have for “good” and “bad” or for “you’re on the right path” versus “you’re in big trouble”. As has previously been stated, this is a new thing, where, previously, things were either allowed or they required consent.

Every time I’ve seen the word “non-consent”, it automatically makes me think that that’s a bad and naughty thing. I think that this amendment is quite sensible and to the point. I wondered if the Minister had had the chance to look at that and had any thoughts about the harshness of just the term “non-consent” and any potential ramifications of that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank Tracey McLellan for her comments, including the post-quake flooding situation in Christchurch, which must have been incredibly difficult and stressful to deal with for affected owners and others. I would say, however, that the Building Act doesn’t regulate horizontal infrastructure, but it’s a relevant question to the extent that we ask ourselves: how would infrastructure be funded if we’re adding to the housing supply? The answer to that is that development contributions can and will be obtained. And the trigger for that in this legislation is the project information memorandum. That gives the council a chance for involvement without being required to give a consent in most cases.

As for the prospect that there would be natural hazards of which the council’s unaware—obviously, again, sympathetic and sensitive to the fact of that taking place in Christchurch with regard to a series of earthquakes, but we simply can’t know what we don’t know. If we were in the business of failing to provide consents, or even to require them where they otherwise wouldn’t be required, on the basis that there might be hazards of which we’re unaware, then, simply, we’d be very hidebound and have an even greater issue of productivity and affordability, in terms of housing in this country, than we already do.

As for the suggestion—and I think I understand the point that “non-consented works” might sound as though there’s some sort of value judgment being created, but, nevertheless, it’s just a straightforward statement of fact. It is possible for works not to be consented but not to be illegal, given that they didn’t require a consent, and I think that we’ve covered that well enough. Anyone who’s likely to be reading the legislation would be able to set aside their feelings of judgment or being judged and simply take that at its face value.

I can see that Arena Williams has one more burning, specific, new question.

I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll ask two questions in one, then. The first is about the regulation-making power. I’ll take the Minister to clause 14 at the top of page 9. It’s a pretty broad power, which allows the Minister to change everything that’s in Schedule 1 if he wishes. Just so we’re clear, just so we know what that means—

Cameron Luxton: What’s it of?

ARENA WILLIAMS: It can be the size, so 70 metres squared. It could be just to build a mansion. It could have several bathrooms, it could be large, it could be many floors, it could be a castle, it could be a swimming pool—it could be absolutely anything. It could include tiny houses now. It could include anything. Just to be clear, what we’re doing here: this is a regulation-making power that is very broad and would take it well outside of what most New Zealanders think we are doing here. So wouldn’t it be better if we adopted my amendment to be clear what that regulation-making power should be and shouldn’t be?

This is a situation where we’ve gone out of our way, actually, to say in the Schedule what kind of building we mean. This is an unusually detailed Schedule 1, in terms of actually setting out things like: the frame must made of “lightweight building … [materials] (being steel or timber)”. That level of detail isn’t something that you would normally find in primary legislation, but it’s appropriate in this legislation, because it sets out the kind of buildings we expect. It’s the kind of density that you expect. And New Zealanders are very fair-minded people. When it comes to density in our cities and our regions, we want that, but we want it done well. Right, Todd Stephenson? You’ll hear from your constituents who you talk to that they’re open to seeing more building of homes in the area, but they want to see that density well-formed and well-thought-through.

But this is a regulation-making power that allows the Minister a very, very wide range of powers to be able to change the sorts of homes that are built in the backyards of the people next door to you. We heard earlier from the Minister that, say, a bunk room for 30 people with a bathroom would be fine. We don’t think this will really be used for that—we don’t really think that that will be used for that.

Todd Stephenson: I don’t think he said it was fine.

ARENA WILLIAMS: He didn’t say it was fine, but he said that would be within permissive, as Todd Stephenson says. He also said, for the Hansard, that it is permissive. But what we are intending to do here is not that. That is not the expectation of Parliament here. So why wouldn’t we just say that? Why wouldn’t we just create a regulation-making power which was sensibly within the bounds of what we are debating here and not building this out to large mansions and castles? That would be sensible.

OK, the other question that I have is about the use of the word “must” from clauses 8 through 11. What I’m really getting at here, the guts of the question, is that this process for project information memorandum is one we haven’t really used in this way before, where building consents have a really clear and established process and also process rights for the applicants, where if a council doesn’t meet its obligations, then those applicants have an ordinary sort of recourse and a way to raise a dispute or to raise issues around timing—we’ve used “must” in the way that you might expect the process for building consents to be drafted, but this is not that.

I’ll take you to clause 8(1), which is a good example of where “A territorial authority must issue a project information referendum” within this time period.” The next obvious question for anyone in this committee stage is: what if that doesn’t happen? There is a clearly established process if you are using the building consent track, but this is not that. There are no penalties for council suggested here, nor would it be appropriate for that to exist. It makes sense to use that sort of “must” in the context where the council was after a development contribution, because there is an end point to that; the council are after money, so they’re incentivised to pursue that. They’re incentivised to act in a way where they are meeting the time frames and meeting the statutory time frames. But in a situation where they just have an obligation to give something and they might be overloaded, there might be lots of these applications—13,000 of them, say our officials—what happens if that small council doesn’t meet those obligations? What disputes resolution are available to someone? What is the process for someone to raise process rights under this new system where there is not a clear recourse if things go wrong?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond briefly to the second point: first of all, building consent authorities (BCA) that don’t meet their statutory requirements can have the punishment, and I use the term loosely, that they might not get accreditation to remain operating as a BCA. It’s probably in the nature of Brer Rabbit not wanting to be thrown in the patch, because it’s actually quite a good thing not to be a BCA, but that’s for them to worry about.

As for the second point, it’s not the case that the “Henry VIII” power relates to the whole of Schedule 1A. Of course, there is good reason that you want flexibility so you can update for technical reasons, as technology and building practices and so on increase. To be able to change the requirements for the small stand-alone dwellings, in terms of the detail of clause 2 within new Schedule 1A, is a good thing, but it’s not an unlimited power, because it’s still subject to clause 1, which can’t be changed by Order in Council. It will still be the case, whatever else happens, that it must be stand-alone, new, less than 70 square metres, and less than a single storey. That’s quite a tightly constrained envelope.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to clause 10(1) be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) amending the definition of “final design plans” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) amending the definition of “preliminary design plans” be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) amending the definition of “small stand-alone dwelling” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2) replacing “if any” with “as required by relevant decision makers” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 deleting subclause (2) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5(2) amending new paragraph (ba) of section 12(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5(2) amending new paragraph (bb) of section 12(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6(1) amending new subparagraph (ii) of section 32(b) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6(2) amending new subsection (2) of section 32 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7 deleting subclause (1) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(1) replacing “must” with “will, unless it is unreasonable or inequitable to do so” in new subsection (1) of section 34 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(1) deleting “working” in subsection (1) of section 34 be agreed to.

I’ve got a few more votes to take place here, and it would be nice if people could succinctly vote—we don’t want to be sounding like robots in front of the viewers that are watching.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8, deleting subclauses (2) and (3) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8, deleting subclause (4) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(4), amending new subsection (5) of section 34 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 9, amending new section 34A be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment deleting clause 10 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 10, deleting subclause (2) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11, deleting new section 35A(2) be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 35A(2) replacing the word “must” to “form” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 35A(2)(b) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 35A(2)(c) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 13, amending new subsection (4) of section 37 be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 14(2) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation