Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe otirā e ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a call and support the previous speakers in the second reading of the regulatory systems bills. As a member of the hardest-working select committee—the Local Government and Environment Committee—I am going to focus my contribution on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill. Clearly we support it. For me it is an oil and change-up. It is a time to look at our regulatory system particularly around the building and housing sector to make sure that we have a regulatory system that is fit for purpose is updated and like it says is trying to reduce compliance costs. We in Labour are supporting the bills to improve the regulation of the various pieces of legislation. I do want to acknowledge the submitters who came before the Local Government and Environment Committee and the issues they raised. I do want to touch briefly on some of them. Can I say that the Unit Titles Act was I guess the focus of what we at the select committee addressed and many of the submitters came and submitted on that particular Act and made some suggestions. I want to note that the Government just recently I think has completed a wider-ranging review of the Unit Titles Act. I am hoping that maybe one of the Government members can perhaps shed some light—given the work that we have undertaken and the support we are doing in terms of this part of the legislation—on whether the review that was recently completed throws up any other anomalies that we need to consider in the passage of this legislation. Maybe it might be useful if one of the Government members could shed some light on that.I just want to point to again like I said some of the contributors to this piece of legislation. I want to particularly acknowledge the Auckland Council which obviously supports anything to do with housing. Obviously the housing crisis that this country is experiencing means that we need to ensure that our regulatory system does not inhibit the need for high-rise buildings. The Auckland Council submission absolutely supports the amendments in these bills but it believes—again in its submission—that the unit titles area does not go far enough. So again I am just interested to hear what the wider review has thrown up in relation to Auckland Council's submission.We also heard submissions from the New Zealand Law Society again supporting what the Government is trying to do here in terms of checks and balances on our regulatory systems. Again their comment was that it did not go far enough in terms of the unit titles work but in all honesty the submitters who did come were heard by the select committee. The amendments were made and I am confident that those who submitted were well received and where we did make changes those changes have been presented in the legislation here today.Changes obviously to the Unit Titles Act are needed. There need to be much more broader structural ones than the bill provides for and it addresses the body corporate operational rules common property licences and unit plans generally. The residential apartment sector is growing as we all know and we need for it to continue to grow. It is worth something like $40 billion now and any improvements to the Unit Titles Act are most welcome for those working in there.Sorry I missed the point that the Auckland Council raised and that was around staging. In its submission it said that it believes that we also need to make sure that what we are saying in the Unit Titles Act is not contradicted in the Resource Management Act (RMA) particularly when it comes to staging. So it raised the very important point but we do not address it I believe in this legislation but it is an important point for us to remember—we cannot have conflicting bills. Under the unit titles legislation they were allowed to put staged building whereas in the RMA the expectation is that when building proposals go up they need to know exactly what is going to be built. So it is an area that I think the Government should look at if we are going to encourage more buildings to go up.Most noticeable is better protection and accountability requirements for body corporate managers better disclosure rules for those purchasing apartments and better rules around long-term maintenance plans. Those are both a welcome part of this particular part of the bill. The amendments to the Building Act appear non-controversial and probably could have formed part of a Statutes Amendment Bill. I do want to acknowledge the attempt by the Government to give us a look at our regulatory system to make sure that it is fit for purpose. We are reducing compliance costs and we are making sure that the adjoining Acts Acts that impact on this particular legislation are not in competition because at the end of the day it is around ensuring that our building and housing sector is fit for purpose. I do not want to go on much more but just again I reiterate the support for this particular bill and I am sure other colleagues on this side of the House will address the other bills that form this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.