Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:643;Page:12776] 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: How has the Department of Building and Housing lived up to the statement by the Minister of Commerce that the Government’s Quality Regulation Review was “the most effective review of red tape that this country has ever seen.”? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 The Quality Regulation Review was completed in August and set out a range of projects to address issues raised by business. Those projects are under way and going well. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister say the review of red tape is going well when Wellington City Council has noted “A typical house plan four years ago was three A3 size plans and 30 supporting pages. Developers are now required to file 12 A3 pages and up to 300 pages of … documentation.”; if that is a review going well can he tell me what it would look like if it were going badly? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: This may come as a surprise to the member but I have a report—by the World Bank no less—showing that New Zealand is second-best in the world in terms of dealing with building permits for projects on the scale of a warehouse. In cases where regional or local government is seeking some assistance my department has up to 11 projects under way and they are going swimmingly well. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can— 
Hon Member 
: How’s the case going? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please ask his question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If the Government members would shut their gobs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. That is what causes disorder. Considerable comment has also been made when other members have asked questions but it was not at such a level that the members could not be heard. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who does the Minister think would be more credible on the issue of compliance costs in the building sector: the World Bank on the other side of the world or master builders who have said of the Government’s new Building Act that “About $30000 of the cost of the average new home is unnecessary regulatory red tape”? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The World Bank report covered a whole host of OECD and other jurisdictions. I am happy to provide that report to the member. In relation to the amounts of money he refers to I say a lot of those so-called costs relate to energy efficiency and other very sensible things where there is a short period of time before the householder gets a handsome return. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has the Minister read the study on housing costs before the Commerce Committee that noted that the single-biggest difference in housing costs between New Zealand and Australia is the cost of consent fees and levies which have increased by 900 percent under this Government and given those figures is it any wonder that a record 40000 New Zealanders are leaving for Australia where housing is so much more affordable? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I would like see those references to affordable housing in Australia at some dim point in the future. In respect of costs etc. I repeat that there are 11 projects flowing from work carried out by my colleague. There are up to 11 projects and they cover the points that the member has referred to. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister received any reports that the member who asked the question complaining about excessive regulation of the building industry is the same person who complained about a lack of regulation of tanalising timber agents and who as a consequence of that is being sued for $15 million? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The member’s questions and answers are in their various ways a matter of great amusement to the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister think it is amusing to the House and to the people of New Zealand that $93 million has been spent on leaky homes and after 5 years only one in seven claims has been resolved and that the cost of bureaucracy to the taxpayer for each home is $126000 when the average settlement is only $84000; and does he think that that is value for money? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There is a jumble of questions in there. In relation to his initial question— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the Minister is having trouble understanding a pretty straightforward question perhaps you could invite the member who asked the question to ask it again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member who raised the point of order knows Ministers need address only one of the questions contained in supplementary questions. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The establishment of the weathertight remedy represents our desire to see all of the homeowners who were afflicted by poor regulation save what investment they can out of a shoddy experience—one that is attributable to those members who are now on the other side of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question asked the Minister whether New Zealand taxpayers had got value for money for the $94 million spent. I do not think that the Minister’s answer addressed that question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister in responding pointed out that in fact this expensive process is a result of very poor regulation by the previous Government and the questions have been about the expense of regulation in the building industry. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the  
Hansard 
 from 1991 that shows that Dr Cullen supported the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.