Auchinvole Chris: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3813] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I stand to speak in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). Indeed it was the first bill to progress through the Local Government and Environment Committee when chaired by me. [ 
Interruption 
] I thank members. What a nice bill to start with! There was a suggestion at the select committee that the bill should be renamed the “Shane Jones Building Amendment Bill”. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Modesty precludes me. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It did not preclude the member at the meeting. The suggestion was voted down. Fair tribute has already been paid by the Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson to the origin of the bill; that has been recognised. There are a few very interesting aspects to the bill one of which is the percentage of houses that are built in New Zealand under the category discussed in this bill. It is a very large percentage. Others may remember; I think about 40 percent of the houses that are built fit into this category—volume builders build volumes. 
Mr Williamson and Shane Jones—honourable gentlemen both—have given a thorough analysis of the bill which saves me a couple of pages of my notes. The bill will make the amendments to the Building Act 2004 necessary to achieve the purpose of increasing the flexibility and the efficiency of building consent processes in order to facilitate an increased supply of affordable homes. It is indeed a shame that the Act has to be amended so soon but it is a good thing to do; it is necessary because the original Act imposed massive costs and complexities on the construction industry. It crippled the industry in some ways with excessive bureaucracy and administration—something the Labour Party unfortunately is highly fond of or was highly fond of. Thanks to its overzealous desire to burden the industry and consequently the homeowner with high compliance costs fewer New Zealanders were able to fulfil their dreams of owning the home that they would have owned if such cumbersome law had never been enacted. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What’s your proof? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I think it speaks for itself. We have only to ask around. The fact that this bill has been given some priority in treatment is proof that the Government is committed to improving home affordability and it is commendable that it is receiving support from both sides of the House. 
I point out however that the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will simultaneously make buying a home potentially more affordable and also ensure that the homes and buildings built are of good quality. There is no forsaking or compromising of the quality aspect of the regulation. We went into the last election with a clear manifesto that the new Government would put a high priority on reducing unnecessary compliance and that it would increase efficiency and reduce costs. That is what this Government is about. This bill is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to that manifesto. I am delighted to be chair of the select committee that handled this bill. It was as I said earlier a nice bill to proceed with. It came forward and it was simple straightforward and meritorious. 
I think it is prudent to summarise the points I made when speaking to the first reading as to what significant changes will occur as a result of the bill and why they are necessary. Firstly the bill will mean that instead of the status quo which sees applications assessed by councils on a case by case basis even in cases where the proposed building work is to be replicated within the same subdivision there will be a system of national multiple-use consenting for buildings that are to be replicated several times on a national basis. Instead of the long-winded process whereby developers are required to wait for each building consent to be processed before work can proceed the building design will be approved— 
Hon Member 
: Slow down. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Members can keep up; they should just think quickly. The building design will be approved on a national level and building consents issued at the local level. Decisions made by the local building consent authority will therefore be restricted to site-specific matters and any customisation or variation of a multiple-use consent— 
Hon Members 
: Say that again. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Do members want it in Scottish this time? 
Secondly the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will allow major and minor amendments to be distinguished and hence treated differently. For example amendments that are likely to affect compliance with the building code will continue to go through the formal amendment process whereas minor variations—as described by my parliamentary colleague on the other side of the House Shane Jones—will be defined in relation to the national multiple-use purpose approval as a minor modification or additional variation to the plan. Amendments will now go through a far less rigorous procedure obviously reducing compliance costs. 
Thirdly the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will make voluntary the obtaining of a project information memorandum from a building consent authority that is a territorial authority. Under the original Act a project information memorandum had to be obtained before a building consent could be issued. The original primary purpose of a project information memorandum was to save owners or developers time and money by providing advance warning of issues that needed to be taken into account when developing plans for building work. 
However as most project information memoranda are applied for after a building consent application is made they become somewhat redundant and are now in many ways an unnecessary cost. This Government is in the business of eliminating unnecessary building costs and is not in the order of imposing them. 
The Building Amendment Act (No 2) has been before the Local Government and Environment Committee. The select committee received 17 submissions: nine from local government three from industry bodies three from private companies and one each from a Crown entity and a community advocacy group. They each provided wide support for the purpose and proposals of the bill. Is it not a good sign that this House can put a bill forward to a select committee and those making submissions provide support for it? Key issues raised were around the clarification of the proposals the implementation of the proposals and the details to be included in the regulations. As a result the committee recommended few changes and the general consensus of the vast majority of interested parties was reflective of the fact that this bill is essentially sound. 
The purpose of the recommendations is primarily to ensure greater clarity in the legislation. The main recommendations were as follows. The first was to have an amendment that would explicitly allow minor customisation as prescribed in regulations to be made to plans and specifications that had national multiple-use approval both at the time of applying for a building consent and after a building consent has been issued. The second was to clarify that any permitted customisations would fall within the scope of the national multiple-use approvals and amendments— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Tell us what you really think. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: If the member does not know what it means I will speak to him afterwards. The committee recommended amendments to the definition of “minor variation” and the insertion of a new definition of “minor customisation” to distinguish between plans that do and do not have national multiple-use approval. The third recommendation was to impose by regulation on the Department of Building and Housing a time frame of 40 working days for processing applications for national multiple-use approvals—and let us remember that we are talking about 40 percent of the houses that are built. 
The recommendations are eminently sensible. They will ensure that the national multiple-use approval is commercially viable for group home builders by providing the certainty of a time limit on processing applications and by allowing for some measure of customisation. The changes also provide greater certainty to councils when processing building consent applications that rely on national multiple-use approvals. The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) will be a clear boost for the building industry at a time when companies are struggling and builders are looking for work. Under the original Act builders were waiting for up to a fortnight at a time to get on-site building inspections done thereby increasing costs which is unacceptable. 
We are embarking on a process to improve efficiency and to reduce unnecessary costs in a number of legislative areas. This is particularly important in the current economic climate. Ordinary New Zealanders are struggling every day with overburdensome compliance costs and regulations and we are doing something about it. With pieces of legislation like the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) coming to fruition we are expecting that unnecessary time delays and costs will become a thing of the past. I am very happy to support the Hon Maurice Williamson in the second reading of this bill as it is time that we recognise the problems inherent in the Building Act 2004 and make sure we fix them. Thank you.