Chadwick Steve: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5691] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 The member of the Opposition Bob Clarkson knows a little about building but with respect I point out that he shows a clear lack of understanding about local authorities’ functions. The Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill is the most ridiculous bill I have seen on a members’ day. It simply shifts the costs of building consents that take more than 20 days from the applicant to whom? To the ratepayer. Members should wait until the ratepayer hears about this because there are overheads related to the building consent process that have to be met by somebody. Obviously the member opposite does not even understand that. 
This is simply astonishing from a member who purports to understand building issues processes. That member and members opposite have whinged and carped about Government cost-shifting on to local authorities. It is one of National’s key lines of rhetoric. It is simplistic and naive. Its approach to the building consent process is an absolute flop because it has completely the wrong incentives. It shows a lack of local government experience a lack of knowledge about the current building consent process and above all a lack of trust in local authorities. 
I have heard amazing speeches that will be recorded in  
Hansard 
 and will be useful when we go out to build relationships with local authorities. National members say local authorities are just a bunch of bureaucrats who deliberately hold back and delay on the building consent process. Why would they do that? There is absolutely no incentive for them to do so. This bill will add to ratepayer and business costs. We will enjoy going out there and telling local authorities about that. The bill also puts at risk for building practitioners development initiatives that are already under way. 
 A “free consent” is a nonsense notion. The cost has to be met somewhere. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Clarkson that this is not about imposing a fine on the local authority. That is not part of this bill. This says that after 20 days the consent is free. Who will pay for it? The cost will fall on the ratepayer. People will soon know about it. The decision chain—something members opposite purport to understand in their rhetoric about compliance costs—lies with local councils. Who will meet the cost? The ratepayer will. Let us make it right. The wrong incentives are in this bill. It also contains an interesting mechanism: it will stop the clock as people seek clarification on consent near the 20-day line. It will slow it down. I do not understand what the member is even trying to attempt. 
The bill should not be referred to the select committee. Quality will give way to speed thus risking safety. In fact in the Social Services Committee we are currently looking at the weathertight homes legislation needed because of “speedy” decisions that compromised quality and compromised safety. I cannot believe that the member opposite thinks his bill is a responsible bill. It puts more uncertainty into a currently booming construction industry. That is why there are delays—there is such a booming industry going on. Indeed 81500 total authorisations were given out by 30 June this year. That is what is putting the pressure on local authorities not the process for local authorities. 
The Government is doing something about that. It is improving quality and the time lines of the building consent process. It is doing that by auditing monitoring and accreditation. All the members opposite know that fact. The registration of building consent authorities will be completed by 30 November 2007. This bill is absolutely silent on building consent authorities. It has so many gaps one could drive a bus through it. Penalties are not the levers this Government intends to use. We will not be supporting this bill.