Garrett David: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Garrett David: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3818] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will just take a short call on the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). I have the pleasure of being on the Local Government and Environment Committee under the able chairmanship of Chris Auchinvole the member for West Coast - Tasman. I say that it is a pleasure because as a new member one comes into Parliament with the desire to see some sensible things being progressed in a multi-partisan way and the select committee process was an example of that. I agree with all previous speakers that it appears that the idea came from the Hon Shane Jones and was progressed by the National-led Government. 
I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Building and Construction say that this bill was just the start of a process. In our view a great deal more needs to be done in this area. I heard the wonderful phrase “regulatory creep” from Mr Jones and we can all work out exactly what that means. For me I relate its meaning to when Sir Edmund Hillary came down from Mount Everest and wanted to build his house. As I understand it he had some plans drawn up by his father-in-law or someone who knew his father-in-law and the two of them went away and built the house. As we now know the house was nothing very flash but it sheltered the Hillary family for 50 years and probably would have continued to do so for another 50 years if the site had not been bought. In that case there was limited or no red tape—or another expression beginning with “b”. We have come from that situation to one where if we want to move a window we must get a consent. 
I have two examples from my own life. I own a 1918 villa north of Helensville. It is the standard design with no dwangs and no insulation. Originally it had conduit wiring and double-hung windows and members will know the type of design. To me it is utterly absurd that if I wish to build an extra bedroom—which I need to do in order to accommodate my sadly soon-to-be teenaged family—the extension that will cost $50000 or less will need to be built to 2009 building codes. Part of the house will be built to 1918 building codes and part of it to 2009 codes. It makes absolutely no sense that the bit at the end will have to have insulation in the walls and double glazing. I can see some sense in having 2009 wiring because we cannot buy conduit wiring any more even if we wanted to but what sense does the 2009 requirement make? It will add to the cost even to the cost of the plans. 
I said that I have two interests in this issue. My flatmate down here in Wellington happens to be an architectural draughtsman who is also a friend of mine of 20 years’ standing. He tells me that because of the ridiculous level of regulation that has grown up over the past 10 or 20 years the plans that he will draw up for that extension will cost about twice as much in real terms as they would have when we first met. That is not only because of the extra changes that have been made to the plans but also because there are requirements as ridiculous as the one that states that instead of drawing a light fitting and saying that it must conform to “New Zealand standard No. whatever” he has to draw every single light fitting. What sense does that make? It makes absolutely none. I am told by my flatmate that as things stand anyone who cuts a metre-square hole in the wall of his or her house in Wellington is committing an offence. 
We have come a very long way from Sir Ed and from my old mate Bernie Woods who also came back from the war and with Edna built his own house. Bernie was a photographer. I lament that change and I want to see us go back to a sensible situation where ideally I can choose to build my extension without going through all of this nonsense and without a permit if I choose. Provided I give a waiver to the relevant council so that I or somebody else cannot come back at the council later I should be able to do that. That should be my choice. I should be allowed to build my extension to 1918 codes except where I choose to diverge from them in areas such as wiring. 
In supporting this bill I say to the Minister and the National Government that we will be hot on their heels to follow this up and to get further changes. If we cannot get back to Sir Ed’s day we can at least get to somewhere near it where I do not have to get some little clerk in a cardigan to give me permission to build a deck that happens to be 1.2 metres in its dimensions and which I can quite capably build myself.