Cosgrove Clayton: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5683] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 Let me say from the outset that the Labour Party will oppose this Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill for a series of logical reasons. The first thing I would point out about this mammoth weighty tome of about one A4 page is that this is the typical Nick Smith bill—it is light. It is very very interesting that Nick Smith finished his speech by talking about giving the people a win and reducing compliance costs. Well here is a really interesting point: the National Party joined the call to reduce compliance costs and reduce general rates increases. National says of course that those are an impost on the general ratepayer. Let me point out to Mr Smith that thanks to his light research this bill would do exactly the opposite of what National’s policy is. 
At the moment if I apply for a building consent—myself the user—I pay. Nobody else pays and the general rates do not go up. I pay because I am the person who wants to construct the house or the building. Under Mr Smith’s bill if the council misses the 20-day mark that person—that is myself the user who wants the consent—will get it for free. Well that is a nonsense for a start. There is no such thing as a free consent. So of course the council which still has overhead costs to meet but which cannot charge the user will impose that charge generally on every other ratepayer in the local authority. So I say to all ratepayers sitting at home listening to this who are not in the position of wanting to construct a building that if this bill goes through their rates will go up. I also say to Dr Smith that the primary objective for the local authority under this bill—as Dr Smith himself admits—would be to get the consent through in 20 days whatever the cost.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. Good job! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He says: ‘That’s right. Good job!”. Well I say to him that quality inspection would be sacrificed. That is what would be sacrificed because what would the objective of the local authority be? It would be to meet the 20-day rule or get pinged. What the local authority would then do—even those small local authorities like the three in the far north that are very smart and clustering their services in attempting to get their act together—is to throw quality out the window. Councils would also make damn sure that they meet the big commercial consents because that is where the big dollars and the big penalties would be. 
 So what does the bill do for mum and dad Kiwis whom Dr Smith purports to say he supports? Well mum and dad Kiwis would go to the bottom of the queue because if a 20-day consent on an average home is missed it is a heck of a lot smaller penalty than if one of the big ones is missed. This is a pathetic bill—an absolutely pathetic bill. 
Dr Smith talked about history. He talked about what had occurred in the construction sector. Well let me say and remind him—and he purports to be an engineer of some note in his own mind; I just wish I was as good as he thinks he is— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have a PhD. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Let me say this to Dr Smith—oh he has a PhD. Well blow me down I do not. If he has a PhD God help the person who marked his paper—if he were to read this flimsy piece of legislation that shows Dr Smith obviously did not learn much. 
I say to Dr Smith that the history of the mire the building and construction industry is pulling itself out of now rests squarely with the legacy of that member when he was in Government in the 1990s. The legacy was—and this is the member of Parliament who promoted it along with his colleagues—the total deregulation of the building industry. What does that mean? That means that he got rid of any minimum standard any rules and any minimum framework. Any cowboy even Dr Smith could pick up a tool belt call himself a builder and go to work. He did that the National Government was in power and he passed that. 
The second thing he did was to abolish the Apprenticeship Act in the 1990s. He abolished it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He says “rubbish”. He abolished the Apprenticeship Act he drummed it out of Parliament and what did that do to the industry? Well if there are no minimum standards because there are no minimum rules and regulations and if people are not being trained to be the tradespeople and the master craftspeople of the future then there is a debacle. Firstly there is a billion-dollar problem of leaky buildings that rests with his legacy. Secondly there is a sacrifice of quality. 
I say to Dr Smith that the Department of Building and Housing is going around auditing and accrediting territorial local authorities to get them up to speed because the truth is that many territorial local authorities were good but some were appalling. I will come to an example in a moment. We are telling territorial local authorities that they have to get their inspection quality up they have to get their processes up and they have to get their resourcing up because many of them did not resource their inspectors their officials or their processes. 
The one thing Dr Smith did say that was on cue was that there has been a building boom. That for Dr Smith’s small mind indicates there is some pressure on local authorities. This is not the 1990s when the construction industry languished and fluctuated regionally. No there is a building boom because people have money in their pockets for construction. 
I ask whether Dr Smith is on the side of the ordinary man. I point to a guy called the Rev. David Moore in Christchurch. This is a public case so it is on the record. What happened to that bloke? He thought he had a leaky building problem and he did. What happened? Well he got stuck in and had a look and yes it was a leaky building. He peeled off the Gib and the cladding and noticed that not one nail had hit the beam—the problem was nothing to do with leaky buildings. His door frames were sinking the place was an absolute mess and it almost destroyed his family’s life. I visited him. I do not posture like that member over there; I visited that home. That bloke has pulled himself out. Do members know what happened? The building inspector came around. There was a problem. The Gib was up; the cladding was up. No one could see the beams the dwangs or the braces but the plans were OK. I was told that the building inspector said: “Well mate if she’s on the plans it’s OK.” It got a big tick just to get it through in under 20 days. 
That is the sacrifice we will have a sacrifice of quality and Dr Smith will perpetuate what he started: the degradation of the building and construction industry. So every person who is sitting out there tonight who wants a building consent should not rely on his or her territorial local authority to give a quality job if this legislation gets passed. The authorities cannot be blamed if this bill gets passed because the pressure will be on them to hit the 20-day mark—to hell with quality to hell with safety and to hell with anything else but just to hit the 20-day mark. 
This is a silly bill from a silly member a light bill from a light member and a troppo bill from a troppo member. I say to him— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member cannot say that. Please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I say to him that we are embarking on the biggest transformation and reconstruction of the building and construction industry in its history supported with the licensing of building practitioners by builders and with absolute protection for DIYers despite the mistruth he printed in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that said I had passed a piece of legislation outlawing DIYers. Well I have to tell that twit over there that to date I have not passed a piece of legislation. That is a lie from him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No no. The member needs to apologise. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. That is a mistruth because I as a new Minister have the bill before Parliament and I have not passed any legislation yet. So the member should work that one out. I say that his credibility is in the outhouse. 
This is a light piece of legislation. It does exactly the opposite of what the party Dr Smith belongs to wants to do. National is saying: “Lay off the ratepayer.” but he has produced a stupid piece of paper that says the user will not pay. If someone does not hit the 20-day mark everybody else will pay—to hell with quality to hell with safety—and the pressure will go on. 
Not only has Dr Smith come here with a plan but he has come here with a plan to exacerbate the pressure on already stretched local authorities. Under our legislation those authorities in the far north that are smart clustering their services reforming their processes wanting to get up to speed and wanting to be building consent authorities once they are audited and accredited will be able to go out to consumers and say: “If you get a building inspection it’s going to be a proper inspection and it is going to give you confidence that your builder will be licensed”—not like Dr Smith’s—“and will be a dinkum builder on a register on the Internet and able to be checked up on”. There is no policy from Dr Smith. Under our bill the inspection will be a decent building inspection. It will have to be A1 because people will be paying an A1 price. 
What will Dr Smith’s bill do? It is light it is stupid and it demeans him as a front-bench member of the National Party. There is no thought in this political pamphlet—none; zip. It is a typical Nick Smith special: “Let’s throw a slogan in let’s jump on the bandwagon of something and let’s have a go.” I have to say that any ratepayer listening to his speech who is not building a house will think: “Hey this is not a bad idea.” But until we drill into the bill and until we look at it carefully until that point we do not realise how light and how troppo it is from a troppo member. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I assume you are going to ask him to withdraw and apologise for the last derogatory statement he made. I know that he does not have substance. He always resorts to personal abuse but I think it is proper for the House to require him to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for the last remark. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise