Hutchison Paul: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13272] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 “Validation and transitional provisions” of this unfortunate building amendment legislation—the fourth amendment since 2004 and by golly the Building Act has needed amendment. It is somewhat ironic that Clayton Cosgrove talks about puffery and hot air; he is the man whom one could describe as a strutter and a poser. 
John Hayes 
: And a puffer. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: And a puffer. Nevertheless he admitted that these transitions will impose more costs. More costs are exactly what this Labour Government has imposed on the building industry and these transitional provisions do exactly that and also impose extra costs on the local bodies. 
I want to concentrate for a little bit on clause 93 “Transitional provision for content of project information memorandum” because that was an issue that just about all the local territorial authorities commented on. They made the point that what the Government was trying to do was absolute duplication. 
I will for just one moment look at the absolutely positive Wellington submission which says: “Council is concerned that some of the proposed amendments will not effectively address the current technical issues. Of prime concern to Council are the proposed amendments to change the definition of restricted work to the definition of owner that do not address the problems of ongoing accountability to the fee regime that do not address the key issue of appropriate cost allocation and for accessibility provisions on PIMs that are not necessary and will not address the identified problem.” 
That is what I am concerned about because it is quite clear that the purpose of a project information memorandum is to provide project-specific information that is relevant to the proposed building work. It is designed to act as a big issue. This is made utterly clear by the Auckland City Council. It says that the project information memorandum is designed as a big issue to filter covering areas such as land features district plan requirements fire evacuation schemes etc. It says in its policy analysis that including accessibility and disability requirements in project information memoranda has the potential to deliver more clarity to consumers about the standards that buildings need to meet; however the manner in which project information memoranda are provided renders them ineffective for a variety of reasons. The council points out that they are required in building consents anyway. But no this Labour Government insists on a belt and braces approach in this area of accessibility and disability requirements in project information memoranda even though every local territorial authority throughout the country pointed out that it would impose more costs. As my colleague Lindsay Tisch said: “The largest %age increase in cost has been the rise in local authority infrastructure levies and fees—900% over five years.” 
Mr Chairman I think you are wondering what this has to do with the content of project information memoranda. Indeed I am sticking precisely to that matter because I am concerned that every territorial authority in New Zealand was concerned that these requirements are being put into the project information memorandum as well as the building consent. They will impose greater time greater effort and greater costs which are the very characteristics of what permeates throughout this Labour Government amendment bill. It is such a travesty in terms of what has actually been happening in the building industry in New Zealand over the last 5 years.