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

Members, we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on “Title” and “Commencement”.

Madam Chair, we’re here; we’re at the end of the committee stage, which I have very much enjoyed the back and forth across the committee. For anyone watching, that was a particularly unusual and good committee stage where we had the unusual situation of two experts in this policy area—Cameron Luxton from the ACT Party and a Labour Party spokesperson for housing, Kieran McAnulty—discussing the same issue from almost the opposite perspectives, and a Minister for Building and Construction in the middle trying to find a way through. It’s a great example of how asking questions, teasing these issues out does result in a better process for people. This is what the committee has been good at.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Andy Foster, has worked through this bill and listened to submitters on it. Many of those submissions were really positive and wanted to see this come in and wanted it to work. Then the question becomes: how does this Parliament make sure that this is the best bill in the best shape it can be? Therein lies the question of what should its name be? Is this the best name for this bill? Madam Chair, I would suggest to you that my amendment changing it to the “Building and Construction (Big Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill” is better.

The Government is very proud of this change. It is the Government’s policy change that it announced to great fanfare that it would be making the size of these dwellings bigger. If that’s what it means, then it should say that. It should say that these are larger house-sized buildings in people’s backyards; it should be proud of the density that is going to be created by this.

But we should be clear with those people whose neighbourhoods are changed by this, that is what is, in fact, intended by this legislation: that there will be larger dwellings, that that will be a change for them. Because that is something we support. We want to see more of these dwellings being built for people. We want to be able for, you know, intergenerational living for families that are expanding for—in the case that was brought to this House by the member for Māngere, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, around whānau coming from overseas to stay. We want to enable that for people and there is a real problem with the affordability of housing that we are trying to look for solutions that are creative and that allow for people, whatever their situation, to be able to make some small contribution to within their communities.

That name change would be at least clearer with people about what is happening here and what the effect of this will be: 13,000 of these dwellings around the country. Not evenly spread—there will be some areas where people will see this more. We need to be upfront with people about what this will mean. We think that there should be a monitoring component of this, especially around those broader regulation-making powers that can see these change without it returning back to the House, the nature of the buildings change. We just want to be clear about that; we want people to be fully cognisant that in your mind what you might think of as a granny flat is not necessarily what you will see being built, but it is in fact something that we want to see working well in our communities.

Every member in this House who represents an electorate would also want to hear from their constituents how these things are going, because we know that when it comes to the provision of housing and of changing the way that our neighbourhoods look, people deserve a say in that. They deserve to be able to go to someone who they know, who has their interests at heart, who represents their area. There are a number of members in this House who represent their areas vociferously and that is how we are constitutionally designed to work.

That is an important function of everyone who has listened to this debate today and has managed to get into the detail, because these are important details but they’re details that everyone can grasp. It’s about where houses should go; it’s about what they should look like. So people being able to come and say to their elected MP, “This isn’t working for me”, we’re interested in that. We want to make sure this is right; this is working for our communities. That’s why we should change its name and I hope you accept my amendment.

I’ve also noticed something that I never noticed before, which is sometimes—members, you will know this—the Parliamentary Counsel Office, when they are drafting you a member’s bill, they will make you call it something very sensible. We could get around this, me and you. I could be proposing to you some really funny political name that you want to call this. You want to call this the “Building and Construction (Chris Penk: Superstar in a Cape Solving Problems) Amendment Bill”. I mean, we could sort that out, so you let me know. All right, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I too would like to take the opportunity to say that this committee stage has been really informative, in so far as I feel as if I’ve learnt a couple of life skills listening to this conversation and listening to the Minister for Building and Construction actually engaging with the questions and providing answers that elucidate on what is ultimately an important piece of potential legislation that affects the day-to-day lives of many whānau across the country.

I too have an issue with the title, insofar as, whilst it’s been acknowledged that it’s possibly not as ambitious as it could have been and doesn’t necessarily state what it could, from my perspective—I’m looking at this amendment in Arena Williams’ name. Whilst I’m not going to argue with her about the previous suggestion where she said about it being “House sized”, I particularly like the one that says “Extra House in the Backyard”. I like that one in particular because, from my perspective, it lends itself a little bit more closely to the type of scenario that I’m envisioning, in so far as it is an extra house in the backyard and, by definition, therefore is one that’s drawing on the utility that’s already existing, it’s drawing on the infrastructure that’s already there. And it feels a little bit more descriptive of the type of issues, through those notes, through those memorandums, through that reporting that’s going to be held at the territorial authority or local authority level, tasked with keeping a tally or keeping an eye on forecasting for future problems, should that utility, or should those pieces of infrastructure, be overtasked.

So, along with my colleague Arena Williams, I too would like the Minister to take a little bit of time to think about those names. I’m sure he’s pored over this and sweated on this and had many a sleepless night trying to make sure that this piece of legislation is appropriately titled. But the title is important because it is what it says on the tin, and I think the “Building and Construction (Extra House in the Backyard Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill” is worthy of some further consideration and potentially some comment from the Minister.

Thank you. I wouldn’t normally comment on the title of the bill, as the Minister in the chair, but I will say, first of all, I’ve enjoyed the committee of the whole House process. I think we’ve thrashed out some pretty important issues; that’s been helpful all around.

I’m not inclined to suggest to the Government side that we accept any of the name changes, but I will say, for the record, that my office and I did push pretty hard to have the phrase “granny flats” in the title. Let’s all just take a moment to enjoy the fact that there was serious criticism levelled at my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop and I when we were talking about granny flats from some who thought it was some combination of sexist and ageist or, maybe, that it discriminated on the basis of family status. Anyone can gain the benefit of a granny flat, of course; it’s multiple different scenarios in which that could be useful. So we don’t want to constrain it by being too definitive but, nevertheless, I think the title, technocratic as it is, describes well the intent and a certain amount of the content of the policy.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Small” with “House sized” be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ two remaining tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2(1) replacing “on a date set by Order in Council” with “28 March 2027” be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ three remaining tabled amendments to clause 2(1) replacing the words “Order in Council” are ruled out of order as not being serious amendments.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.