Copeland Gordon: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5689] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 First of all I begin by congratulating the Hon Nick Smith on having his Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill drawn from the ballot. I note that the next item on the Order Paper is also in Nick Smith’s name so he has had a bit of a run of luck in recent times. I am pleased to tell the member in advance that United Future will be supporting the first reading of both of these bills. 
We support this Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill at least on the first reading because we believe that local authorities need to lift their game and become efficient in the processing of consents relating to building issues. I have told the House before that I recently had an experience here in Wellington City where I was charged $583 for a consent fee for a fence 5.25 metres long. The city council told me that it would refund any of that consent fee that was not used up in the consent process. The council actually used only $503 so it owed me $80. After I told the House that story the Hon David Parker came across to me and said that it was nothing to do with the Resource Management Act; it was just the sheer inefficiency of my council. 
So when I found out that the council owed me $80 I wrote and said that it owed me $80. The council wrote back and said that it took 8 hours to process my consent fee for a 5.25 metre-long fence—a fence for which I had the written consent of my neighbour. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What year was this? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: It was this year. I can tell members that not one single ray of sunshine was shielded from anybody else’s property and there were no adverse environmental effects whatsoever. In fact it was positive for the biodiversity on my property. Wellington City Council said to me that I could not have my $80 back as the council’s policy is not to refund anything less than $100 because it would cost the council more than that to draw the cheque to refund me. 
When I have that kind of experience I say that there is something very rotten in the State of Denmark. We really need to address the wrong kinds of incentives that are there at the moment for many bureaucratic councils. I think it is good to incentivise some behaviour namely getting the consents done on time and as is normal in legislation passed by this House to impose a penalty for the failure to adhere to statutory timetables. After all if we as a Parliament put in place statutory timetables and no penalty is attached to breaching them then we have not made good law but have only given good advice—and good advice too often is simply ignored by people who have no real interest in advancing developments in our cities and towns. 
I will come back to the point just made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that somehow or other this bill will impose extra costs on taxpayers. It need not. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Ratepayers. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Ratepayers I beg the member’s pardon. It need not. In fact I believe that the bill will reduce the cost on ratepayers and I will tell members exactly how it will do that. The logic of extra costs on ratepayers is wrong for two reasons. First of all we are talking about consent fees. We are providing a service to people who are seeking a consent—people who want to get on and do something useful for their community and for their own private homes. They are the people whom we are charging. If we were to impose penalties the incentive would be for the council to get the job done quickly. 
Furthermore if that does not work I will tell the House exactly how we will get the thing fixed and it is simply this. We either deduct the extra cost to the councils from the chief executives’ salaries or we drop the chief executives’ salaries and we simply give them a bonus to have the consent fees done on time. That will change everything because there are chief executives of councils in relatively small cities such as Wellington who are paid a great deal more than the Prime Minister. I do not see them having any incentive at all to get on and do these consent fees properly and that is the aim of this bill. 
Let us face it the aim of this bill is to let development proceed and to ensure that statutory timetables are adhered to and I see nothing wrong with that at all. If local authorities do that then I will put money on it that the delays will disappear overnight if they incentivise their chief executives to have the consent fees done on time. [ 
Interruption 
] It really has nothing to do—with all due respect to the interjections—with the new Building Act because the new Act simplifies the consent process by giving certainty to it and that was one of its aims. So I think that is really a complete red herring. 
I signal with pleasure United Future’s support for this bill at this stage for the first reading only. Let us put the matter to a select committee let us hear the submissions and let us move this whole process forward as an important way of allowing developments in this country to go ahead consistent with good standards but with the lowest possible compliance costs.