Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe. Otirā ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on this the third readings of the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill and to say that Labour supports the third and final readings of these bills. Just to remind us these are three regulatory bills being amendments to maintain and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our regulatory systems. That can include policy changes that involve continual improvements to and repairs and maintenance of regulatory systems but not significant policy changes. It also differs from statutes amendment bills—those that are designed for technical short and non-controversial amendments. As a member of the hardest-working select committee the Local Government and Environment Committee I am going to focus my contribution on the building and housing bill and just say that we had a very robust select committee stage. We were allowed not only to debate the bills part by part but to debate every single bill separately from each other. I do want to note that particularly regarding the building and housing amendment bill we had one amendment to the Building Act 2004 which was really about clarifying the role of the territorial authority. But the substantive amendments to this particular bill were in Part 2 Unit Titles Act 2010" where we saw 16 amendments. The 16 amendments were related to addressing clarification and improvements in unit plans body corporate operational rules reassessment of ownership and utility interests registration of easements and covenants leases and licences of common property and extraordinary general meetings. But what I want to raise in my contribution are the three particular submitters that I believe raised very important issues through the select committee process but found themselves outside the scope of this particular bill. I do want to note their submissions because I think as I share what these submitters said it will become quite clear to members of this House. The first submission presented was from Property Council New Zealand. Essentially although it supported the bill in relation to Part 2 "Unit Titles Act 2010" it felt we could have gone a bit broader in terms of introducing a dispute resolution regime. It talked extensively about making guidance material available to bodies corporate the provisions around staged developments—particularly as clearly we have a housing shortage in this country and we want to ensure that if we want to build we want to remove barriers around staged development—the default body corporate operational rules and the process that must be followed when a unit title development is split into two or more separate developments. So here an organisation Property Council New Zealand saw an opportunity to submit to the select committee to enhance the regulatory systems around building and housing. Unfortunately like I said its submission was found to be out of scope. The second submitter was Auckland Council. Auckland Council was asking for an extension of a wider review and I will touch on that later—that there is a currently a broader review of the Unit Titles Act. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! When you are in a third reading speech anything that has been ruled out of scope in the Committee stage cannot be debated in substance. You can mention it but you cannot go into detail about it. I will just refer you to Speakers' ruling 137/1. It says that "(1) Any matter not included in the clauses of the bill; (2) a clause that was ruled out of order [or] (3) the merits of an amendment … ruled out of order in committee;" cannot be debated. So you can mention them but do not go into substance. MEKA WHAITIRI: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So in mentioning Auckland Council around proposing I guess an anomaly between the Unit Titles Act and the Resource Management Act I am seeking clarity around that. The third one was the Transpower submission which talked about the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for electrical safe distances around houses built under Transpower lines. The reason why I just wanted to draw the House's attention to that goes to my previous point around the 2016 review of the Unit Titles Act which talks about having a more comprehensive review of this particular Act. I mentioned it because I thought that was an opportunity to take on board some of the submissions that submitters had put in to ensure that the review that is currently going on will perhaps factor some of the concerns that people like the Auckland Council Transpower and of course the Property Council were raising through this particular process. When I look at the purpose of mending these regulatory systems it is about improving our systems. So I mention that only because it would have been nice to hear from the Minister at the time—and I did ask—where we were up to with that review and to get some assurances that people who I think were making very useful submissions to this process were getting heard by the Government. I wanted to raise that only because I think we have got an opportunity here in front of us to make sure that our regulatory system in relation to building and housing is at its most fit for purpose for now and as we go into the future. I do want to note that even though these amendments have been part of an ongoing commitment from the Government—which we support—the review and the timing of the review happening during the third reading of the legislation for me threw up a lot of lost opportunities where we could have lined up the review with the reading of these regulatory systems bills that we have here today. So again I am happy that we are supporting the attempt by the Government to make our regulatory systems fit for purpose. My point was that I think in terms of the housing and building bill there was potentially a lost opportunity. I do hope that the Minister in charge of the broader Unit Titles Act review does take on board those comments from the submitters who took the time out to submit. I commend this legislation to the House."