Tisch Lindsay: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13263] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I wonder what happened to the house that Jack built. Do members remember that back in August 2004 in debates on the same topic we had a bill that was 358 pages long? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How many? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The Building Bill as it was at that stage was 358 pages long. Now we have some amendments to that legislation by way of this bill which has about 30 pages. I said at that earlier stage that the regulations that would come from the legislation would be horrendous. That is what I said. I want to quote from that— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I thought it was a good bill! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: If it was such a good bill why are we amending it today? Why are we here if we got it right the first time? You see it was not a good bill. 
We identified at that stage that the compliance costs involved in this industry—costs that Nick Smith identified in an earlier speech—were going to be absolutely horrendous and that is exactly what has happened. An article on 16 July 2004 in the  
National Business Review 
 stated “Government puts another nail into home improvement”. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Come on “Stumpy” you can do better than that! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: At least I am standing up when I am talking. 
When we consider all the extra compliance we see that this bill will be a handicap and that it is absolute overkill. National cannot support a bill of this nature. It is a very prescriptive regime that is overkill and an overburden of bureaucracy and administration. That is what it is. 
My colleague mentioned a few facts on the question of housing affordability. I know that the Minister in the chair Shane Jones was on the Commerce Committee that has been looking at housing affordability. I am sure he will very clearly recall the submission from the Registered Master Builders Federation which made some significant and very timely remarks on the whole inquiry into housing affordability. The federation identified a number of problems issues and challenges that the building industry especially the housing industry is facing here in New Zealand—also offshore but specifically here in New Zealand. The federation said that about 50 percent of the increased cost of housing could be attributed to rises in land costs— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What’s this got to do with Part 1? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is very much to do with building. Probably the greatest asset people will ever have is their own home. So when we are talking about building I say to the list member from Napier we are talking about a significant part of people’s assets. Everyone strives for homeownership. We have gone past striving for the quarter acre paradise of the 1960s but we do want to be able to afford our own homes. 
I go back to the point that the Registered Master Builders Federation made. It said that in terms of the increased cost of housing it was quite clear that rises in land costs accounted for about 50 percent the rises in local authority infrastructure levies and fees accounted for approximately 15 percent and the increasing compliance costs accounted for 15 to 20 percent. The increases in labour and material costs accounted for approximately 20 percent. 
I come back to the very prescriptive nature of this bill that both I and Dr Smith mentioned earlier on. This bill is making the law around building extremely difficult when it could have been tweaked at the edges. You see this legislation is overkill. This is bureaucracy at its worst. What are the Government members trying to do? They are bringing in more legislation to try to fix a problem that they perceive to be there. I said back in 2004 that there was no need for the Building Act 2004. If the existing Act at that time had been tweaked at the edges and if we had been able to identify what those challenges and issues were we would not have had to have 358 pages of bill at that stage. Now here we are 3 years later trying to sort out those things that we on the Government Administration Committee at that time identified as major challenges. Three years later those challenges are coming through and here we are having to deal with those same sorts of things. 
I mentioned the compliance costs as one of the major factors. If we were to look further at what the Registered Master Builders Federation had to say we would see that it talked about the infrastructural levies and fees. I quote from page 7 of the federation’s submission: “The largest %age increase in cost has been in the rise in local authority infrastructure levies and fees—900% over five years.” Let me say that again: “900% over five years.” How does the Government account for that? Where is the justification for local authorities having to comply with the costs that have been imposed on them by the Building Act? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: 900 percent. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The increase was 900 percent over 5 years. 
The federation goes on to say that since the passing of the Building Act 2004 “higher levels of design detail are now required to secure building consents: 9-10 pages of plan detail sufficed to obtain a building consent in the early 2000s whereas now some 30 pages of detail are required;”. Seven years ago it was 10 pages; now 30 pages are required. The point made at that stage was that the local authorities do not have the staff to be able to implement and to understand what this all means. They do not have quality people with the expertise or the knowledge because people with these skills are few and far between. 
When we look at the costs that are being incurred we see that they are completely outrageous. The situation is overkill. It is far too prescriptive in terms of a homeowner or someone wanting to build his or her first home. That is the thing that people strive for—a stake in the ground—going back to those early days when everybody owned his or her own home. Homeownership is now outside the reach of so many Kiwis today. That has come about because the Building Act 2004 along with the legislation we are talking about tonight is over-prescriptive. This legislation does not need to happen and National is voting against it.