Willis Nicola; Mallard TrevorNICOLA WILLIS (National): This bill is one small and overdue but welcome step towards addressing one of the great challenges New Zealand has—and that is that we have a lack of housing supply not enough to keep up with demand and that is of course driving problems across our communities as people are unable to fulfil their aspiration of homeownership face increasing problems with housing affordability and where we see across the board the impacts that has for families and communities.So this bill is a good thing because what it tries to do is address that issue that right now houses can't be built fast enough and the consenting process is slow and costly. The intent of the bill is to lift the efficiency and quality of building work and that is of course fundamental. We need to ensure that we're not adding excess costs to the building of new houses because that will only end up making houses more expensive for those who wish to buy them and it's appropriate that our legal and regulatory system be evolved to keep up with modern techniques modern frameworks and modern ways of building. And this bill does that—or at least in its intent attempts to do so. So on this side of the House we say yes to a high-performing building sector and we acknowledge that there have been systematic problems holding the building and construction industry in New Zealand back. We particularly agree with the need for better information on products and the need for improved certification schemes and we also acknowledge that we are now living in a time where modern construction techniques have evolved considerably. Ours is the time of modular and prefabricated construction and design and we on this side of the House are optimistic about the way that those new techniques could reduce costs for the sector for builders and those constructing new houses but also ultimately reduce costs for those wishing to buy them. But of course if people are going to be confident about taking up those new techniques we need to make sure that the regulatory system the certification system and the information about those products is up to scratch. And this bill provides a framework in which that will be more possible. So overall it's my understanding that the builders and developers who deal with these issues on a daily basis think that this bill moves things forward and is positive. And so on that basis I think it is it is probably well put. But I think the select committee process here will be particularly important because as we in this House know wherever we are seeking to create new regulations new certification schemes the potential to tie people up in more red tape and create regulations that constrain rather than encourage innovation is always there. So I will encourage those who are builders those who are involved in development to have their say on this bill. And I do so very conscious that the nature of the building and construction sector in New Zealand is largely small and medium sized businesses. We have a model in New Zealand where tradies and builders often own their own businesses and subcontract other workers to come and help them with projects and in turn are subcontracted by others. I do want to flag a concern that is something the select committee may want to think about which is that if you're in the building and construction sector and you're a small or medium sized enterprise you may not be reserving a lot of time in your diary for submitting to a select committee. So I would challenge the House and those on the committee to think about how we hear from the voices of those really at the hammer face: really the builders who are going to be most affected by this regulatory framework. I also just want to flag up that this is a bill that looks at the levies currently able to be applied to the sector and it expands what those levies can be used for. Now at face value National doesn't oppose this but we are wary that when you say to a Government department in the future You've got more scope to use the levy for what you want." Government departments can sometimes take that ball and race a little bit too far with it. So we will be examining the bill carefully and hearing from those in the construction industry about whether they think the loosening of those levy requirements is appropriate and proportionate. Finally it must be said that this bill while it is a worthy step in reducing the red tape processes of consenting and evolving our regulatory framework it is but a very small step. And it is a shame that 2½ years into the term of a Government who promised that they would solve New Zealand's housing woes and build 100000 new houses this is the most substantive thing that's been offered up because fundamentally and it seems to be increasingly agreed across the House while these changes will take us some of the way until we repeal and replace the Resource Management Act the builders who will be complying with this bill will still be subject to unnecessary delays and cost.So on balance National isn't going to oppose this for opposition's sake. We acknowledge that its intent is good. It's trying to make building work more efficient and of higher quality. It's trying to build confidence in modern construction techniques and to ensure that there is better information available on products. It's a modernising bill. It's a potential step forward. But we urge very careful examination by the select committee in the further stages we urge those in the building and construction sector to have their say and tell us how it will impact them and we further urge that far more substantive steps are needed if we are truly to address the problems with the cost of building in New Zealand and the lack of housing supply. Thank you Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye—[Interruption]Matt King: We had a split call with Labour.SPEAKER: Well—Matt King: They didn't stand up so—SPEAKER: If no else takes a call—well I've put the motion Mr King.Matt King: I was waiting for Labour; they didn't so I stood up.SPEAKER: Should we take leave for Mr King to have a speech and then I'll put the motion? Is there any objection to that? Right there is objection—there is objection. OK.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Environment Committee."