Dean Jacqui: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5686] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I intend in speaking to this Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill to stick to the bill. But before I do that I note how deeply disgusting I found the contribution by the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove in which he was compelled to withdraw and apologise three times. This surely must be a record even in my short time in Parliament. I think the previous contribution did the member no credit at all but it is probably of the quality we are getting used to. 
Let us turn to the bill and wonder why it is such a threat to Mr Cosgrove. I think I can tell members why; it is because this bill calls for accountability in the local authority. It is as simple as that. The purpose of this bill is to provide for a late consent to be a free consent. If members cannot tell me that 20 working days—with a provision called section 42A set within the Building Act whereby if further information is required that clock can be stopped—is not enough for the bureaucrats within the building departments of local authorities to process a consent for a garage then we are living in a very strange and inefficient local government sector. 
I want to address the rather—shall we say—excitable contribution of the previous member who said there was no free consent. I believe that of course there is no free consent. What this bill does is put accountability where it belongs. It puts accountability back on to the bureaucrats. 
Now I will not get excitable about this bill even though I have to say that it is quite an exciting bill. When it is passed this bill will provide some kind of certainty for the building industry. When builders who have one or two people working for them are planning their work programme they will be able to have some kind of certainty that the work they are applying to do and the consents they are applying for will be actually granted in a timely manner. Let us not make this an issue about rocket science. This is an issue about granting consents under the Building Act for constructing garages and houses and other buildings; it is not very difficult. The 20 days provided for under section 42A of the Building Act—in my experience as a local authority member—is quite enough. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise to my colleague. The Minister has been constantly interjecting all the way through this member’s very considered speech. In the last interjection he said the word “you” three times which is of course a breach of the Standing Orders. Are you going to require—[ 
Interruption 
] I understood that points of order are heard in silence. My simple point is to ask whether you require some standard of conduct from Ministers in the Government in respect of the conduct of this debate. 
Darren Hughes 
: We contest Dr Smith’s assertion that Minister Cosgrove was barracking the entire way through that speech. He interjected a few times but to be lectured by Nick Smith of all members of Parliament about interjecting on other people’s speeches and making inane comments is just too much. It is a robust debate and I thought the member on her feet was handling it reasonably well. To have her speech broken up by her own colleague—one of the worst offenders—seems to me to be a bit strange. I think the point of order that he makes therefore is out of order. 
Eric Roy 
: The premise that someone has some historical attitude in the mind of the member who was speaking to the point of order is irrelevant. Past issues are not dealt with again as Madam Speaker knows. The issue is about the conduct of the House at the time this member is speaking. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right but certainly I did not see anything for me to rule on. I think the interjections were quite within the Standing Orders. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: It is interesting that the Government is so passionate about economic transformation. I am not even sure what it means by that and I would be very interested to hear from somebody who would take a call and explain exactly what “economic transformation” means in the context of an argument that the Building Act does not need to be efficient which is what the previous member who spoke Mr Cosgrove was asserting. His assertion was that it does not matter; the Building Act and the building industry do not need certainty. Well in my view that is absolutely rubbish. I would love the member to take a call rise to his feet actually address the bill and tell us how that assertion fits in with the Government’s noble notion of economic transformation because I am blowed if I know. It is interesting that there is $13 billion a year of work in the building industry and there are over 100000 people employed in the building industry who all rely on efficient local government processes.