Jones Shane: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3812] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe te Assistant Speaker i tenei po. Let me stand and reflect from our side of the House that the Local Government and Environment Committee acted in an expeditious manner. The members seized themselves of the issues. As we have heard they were modest in number as a consequence of the quality of thinking and architecture that went into the original bill if not the policy. 
We have very little to differ over but let us just rehearse some of the reasons why this Building Amendment Bill (No 2) was necessary. The first reason was that after the leaky homes episode broke it was evident that excessive liberalisation had taken place in the building industry in the regulatory approach used to manage the effects of poor building or of builders who were operating either without following plans or in a way that was just not up to it. As is often the case in our country the pendulum swung. It was my view for the period of time that I was the Minister for Building and Construction that the pendulum had swung too far. This was an attempt to maintain a level of confidence amongst house purchasers and also within the building industry so that regulatory creep did not thwart initiative within the industry. 
I am particularly glad and I am sure that I speak for my colleagues that the current Minister embraced the initiative originally brought forward by Shane Jones— 
Hon David Parker 
: The Hon Shane Jones. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: —the Hon Shane Jones and has been happy to claim it as work for himself. Of course we look for some distant sign that the Minister will be able to replicate and emulate this kind of thinking as he takes the portfolio forward in areas such as the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board but that is for another day. 
In my view the notion that central government should be involved in allocating building consents makes a great deal of sense. It enables those developers and architects of houses that are of a relatively uniform nature to gain consents that reduce the costs they face by getting a consent within every single territorial authority and being confronted by gratuitous levels of variability. So in that regard I think that the officials have done quite a reasonable job in striking the balance between not only expeditious processing and committing themselves to a time frame but also preventing entities companies developers and other commercial interests from being put through a protracted process. 
There was a member of the select committee who feared that the national multiple-use approval system would lead to a homogenisation of ticky-tacky houses. I completely understand that all members of the select committee are entitled to form their views but I think that view was misguided. 
At all times those of us who have our pen above the regulatory pad need to bear in mind that what we pass as law or as regulation can easily fall into the hands of sub-national levels of Government. Their attempt to give effect to that law drives industry either completely nuts or imposes costs on the members of the industry or the actual people who simply want a dwelling for them and for their families that is safe warm secure and will not leak. This national multiple-use approval system will offer that in a way that does not impose unnecessary levels of delay or gratuitously high levels of costs. 
The notion of the project information memorandum attracted a fair bit of anxiety from people who felt that the interests of those who suffer mishaps etc. and who are condemned to live life with a physical handicap might not be taken care of and the Historic Places Trust felt that those buildings that fit within its category might be torn down without people having to go through a necessary process and knowing what the historical value of the building is. That is all very fine. The select committee formed a view and the Minister has carried it on. Indeed members on this side of the House felt there was an unnecessary level of bureaucratic burden. 
Possibly the last thing I would say about this bill is that when the original response was derived as to how to deal with shonky builders—not only in Auckland but predominantly in Auckland—in the residential house construction sector there was a fear that every nook and cranny crevice and sliver of opportunity for wretchedness had to be rooted out. It would appear that we exceeded what was necessary. That is why there are minor variations and customisations if people want to change. In fact I know of some people who have been known to do house alterations and have 11 metre gaping holes in their dwellings. Things of that nature would need a building consent. But if someone is going to change a window or a door or build a little bit of a whare outside for the teenagers after they have discovered the pleasures of life that have since passed this generation by why should one need a building consent? [ 
Interruption 
] I congratulate the member on recognising that my rugby playing abilities have not departed despite being at the age of having been born in 1959. 
But there is a range of amendments that need not require the full attention of a consenting agency and Kiwis ought to be able to attend to those problems to get on with life and to hire a decent builder. If they do not have the presence of mind to hire someone who can do the mahi do the work and if they do not make a decision as simple as that then why should ratepayers and taxpayers constantly be burdened with meeting the costs of their perfidy? We are not having any of that. That is why this is a very good minor variation section. 
In all I just hope that the bureaucrats are encouraged by the Minister to pass the necessary regulations in a mercifully short period of time and that they are adequately resourced because this bill is designed to make the industry and the sector more efficient. As I said earlier it reflects a great deal of effort from the officials. But the quality of the legislation is reflective of the quality of the mind lying behind its architecture. Kia ora tatou katoa.