Donnelly Brian: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10738] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Although I agree with the previous speaker Steve Chadwick that the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill is flawed legislation I must take issue with one set of comments that she made about apprenticeships and the fact that there was no vocational training in the 1990s. In fact the demise of apprenticeships actually occurred in the 1980s. Although it is true that National got rid of the Apprenticeship Act it replaced it with the Industry Training Act which referred to trainees. I tell members that in July 1996 there were 17000 trainees and in July 1998 just before the demise of the New Zealand First - National coalition there were 57000 trainees—the biggest percentage increase ever. Nick Smith will tell members that the delegation for vocational education at that time was held by a New Zealand First Minister. I could also say that when the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act was put in by the Labour Government there were in fact 47 pieces of legislation that referred to apprenticeships so they certainly were not completely got rid of at that time. 
New Zealand First recognises that there is a problem with regard to delays in the issuing of building consents and that there has been frustration on the part of some developers. Although New Zealand First members acknowledge that frustration the situation is not as monumental as has been made out in some of the rhetoric that has been used. As has been mentioned approximately 20 percent of consents are not issued within 20 days but there are certainly not deliberate delays by local councils. We need to look at what is causing those delays. 
There are two major problems. The first is that not all applications are completed adequately so councils have to go back— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true because they can stop the clock. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Yes they can stop the clock. I am well aware the clock is stopped in those particular cases but those applications are part of the problem. The second serious concern which is a major concern is the shortage of people with the capacity to carry out the duties of the job. The pool of qualified and experienced staff capable of carrying out that work is just not big enough to meet the demand from both the private and the public sectors. I think the mover of the bill would recognise that that is a genuine issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I acknowledge that but the Government has stolen them for the Department of Building and Housing. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: That does not really matter because this legislation says that regardless of whether the Government has done that it is—through the councils—going to penalise ratepayers the citizens of New Zealand. That is where the cost is going to go unfortunately. 
Recruiting and retaining staff is becoming increasingly difficult for local authorities to the extent that the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers earlier this year initiated a staff recruitment and retention project to overcome the shortage. I think this legislation is totally unfair. Whatever the cause of the shortage of skilled staff it is totally unfair then to come along with legislation that penalises councils because the shortage exists. 
Be that as it may the bill would lead to some—we believe—unacceptable perverse effects. As the Local Government and Environment Committee has pointed out expensive big developments would be given priority over small projects. Woe betide a householder who wanted to put in a small retaining wall with only a small consent cost or a deck with only a small consent cost because those applications would be shelved in favour of the big developments where there are big costs. That would cost the councils even more money and that would have to be handed on to the ratepayer. Moreover we believe that it opens a door for developers to put in proposals that are short on information and therefore to create delays themselves. It could lead—and this has been mentioned before—to unholy haste and shonky developments being approved. As has been said it is not good to have a quick consent if it is not a quality consent. We have to concur with that particular proposition. 
I will mention the worst outcome: the legislation would lead to increased rates for ratepayers. There is no doubt that when faced with a shortage of supply councils could do only two things. They could either cough up or not receive the money because there are delays to consents or they could put in huge salaries in order to attract staff. Whichever way is chosen there would be additional costs and additional rates. 
New Zealand First is the only party that has taken any constructive action over the issue of rising rates. National voted for Rodney Hide’s bill to freeze rates and now it is putting up legislation that will increase rates. How is that for a contradiction? New Zealand First will not support legislation that will drive up rates. As I say we put in place the rates inquiry. That was our initiative and we drove it forward. I do not have a clue what will come out of that inquiry because it has been completely independent and/or autonomous. However David Shand the chairman of the review inquiry has already come out and said that within the next 10 years rates will be unaffordable. This bill would impose additional costs upon the ratepayers and therefore we do not believe we can support it. 
Nick Smith has asked whether it is not time to take a stand on behalf of the ordinary citizen. Well by voting against this bill we believe that we are taking a further stand on behalf of the ordinary citizen to ensure no more drivers that will push up rates are put into the system. 
I have to mention Pat Seymour who has been referred to. She obviously has the confidence of the National Party because in the 1990s she was the chair of the Early Childhood Development Board. She was appointed to that very important position by none other than the National Government which obviously had confidence in her judgment about those things. It was Pat Seymour who said this bill is daft. 
I finally refer to the Whangarei District Council and I ask the member for Whangarei whether he can explain to that council why he will be supporting such short-sighted legislation. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.