Gallagher Martin: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10748] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I want to briefly compliment the previous speaker. I did not agree with everything he said but I agreed with the tone with which he addressed the House. He emphasised the very good Local Government and Environment Committee we have which is ably chaired by Steve Chadwick. In the select committee we take a very cooperative approach to a number of things even in the case of this Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill where there was genuine division. 
I also want to commend particularly the contribution of the Hon Brian Donnelly. I have to say I was a little sad that one member on the National Party benches took it upon himself to interject and interject rather than listen to some of the words of wisdom from the Hon Brian Donnelly and I say for the benefit of that member that as he grows older he will realise that Mr Donnelly is a very wise man indeed. 
I acknowledge that in the House we have a difference of opinion on the bill. I certainly acknowledge the work and effort that Dr Nick Smith has put into presenting it. I think the actual debate in the House is a good thing and I think the work we did in the select committee is a very good thing in terms of highlighting this issue. I respectfully differ as to the solution but certainly the debate is a very important one to have. 
I note that Labour opposes this bill for the simple reason that in our view it shifts the cost of building consents that take more than the 20 days provided for under the Building Act from the user to the ratepayer. We also believe that the bill risks adding to ratepayer or business costs and risks leading to a reduction in the quality of building consent processing and inspection. In our view it would also put at risk capacity development initiatives for building practitioners who are already under way. I will quote in a moment from the majority conclusion in the select committee report. It is Labour’s view that certainly as a result of our very buoyant economy under this Government New Zealand’s current building boom is partly responsible for processing delays. We note that existing provisions in the Building Act are already largely remedying these problems. 
I also want to acknowledge the good work of many councils around the country—and I will talk in a moment about a collaborative relationship which I do not think this bill will achieve—that are taking some very sensible steps to manage their workloads and to process those building applications. 
 In respect of the issue of staff recruitment which I think is something that previous speakers on this side of the House including Brian Donnelly and others from other parties have highlighted I just say that it was the considered view of the majority of members on the select committee that this bill would unfairly penalise territorial authorities that have had real problems in recruiting enough staff. 
I think the bill would set negative precedents in the consent process such as benefiting poorly prepared applications which take longer to process than well-prepared applications. Notwithstanding the arguments I have heard tonight it is still our considered view that low-fee applications would be disadvantaged as clearly local authorities would have a real incentive to give top priority to the high-fee applications. In our view high-fee applications in effect would be the priority. 
I acknowledge there is a range of views on either side for and against this bill. On balance however I would agree—and I am not being gratuitous—with the East Coast electorate chairperson for the National Party quoted in the  
East Coast Informer 
 newsletter which I think is a parliamentary publication from the local member where he disagreed with this bill. I would not use— 
Darren Hughes 
: What did she say? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: “She”—I apologise to Ms Seymour. I personally would not use Pat Seymour’s language. I would not use the terms she used that from a local authority perspective this is “a daft piece of potential legislation” that will mean “the only one that will end up paying every time is the general ratepayer”. I am not going to use the words “daft piece of legislation”; I am actually going to acknowledge that having sat on the select committee and having listened to the evidence first hand I will not agree with the words of the electorate chairperson Pat Seymour. I will not agree with her. 
Sandra Goudie 
: This Government has probably already jumped on the council enough. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I do not think it is appropriate that the member for Coromandel should be criticising the East Coast electorate chairperson. All I am saying is that I respectfully disagree with Pat Seymour the National Party’s East Coast electorate chairperson. I am not going to use the words “daft piece of legislation” because I accept absolutely that there is a legitimate concern with reference to this issue— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. We have a point of order. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I can tell you that Pat Seymour opposes the Labour Government. I wonder whether the member agrees with that. 
Hon Members 
: Yeah! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind members that I am ruling on a point of order. There are two members who are very lucky to remain. They know very well that a point of order is heard in silence and when I am ruling on it there is to be silence. That is a warning. The member knows very well that was not a point of order. Please continue. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Thank you. My politics and those of Pat Seymour differ but I acknowledge her community service. All I am saying is that the fact I have quoted a hard-working chairperson of an electorate committee of the National Party whom I acknowledge means that the views on this are not straightforward. There are even people who are strong supporters of the party opposite who do not agree with this bill. I was merely using that as a respectful example of the diversity of viewpoint. I said that I would not have used the word “daft” because I respect that there were many submitters who came before the select committee who disagreed with the conclusion I eventually reached. I will not call them daft because of that. 
In terms of the select committee considering a member’s bill this was a useful useful exercise. I listened very intently—as did the chair of the committee Stevie Chadwick who does a fantastic job and other members—to the local authority submissions in particular. I think that local authorities are well aware that in some parts of the country there is genuine concern around delays in processing applications. But the majority of the committee respectfully do not believe that this bill is the way to change things. We believe that this bill is something of a mallet to whack a problem that is not necessarily as great as perhaps other members would say it is. 
Hon Member 
: It’s a huge problem! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Is it not sad that when someone with a slightly different point of view makes a respectful contribution to this House we have members opposite—not all of them because there are some good members opposite—who probably have not done too much work themselves on this bill ready to heckle and interject. I think it is sad that one or two members opposite did not listen to the very considered wisdom of Brian Donnelly. 
In the time I have left I will quickly summarise the conclusion of the select committee. I compliment Dr Nick Smith in the sense that I think that this bill was a very useful bill. It really enabled us to consider the very serious questions around this issue. It certainly enabled us to consider what I thought were some very thoughtful and conscientious submissions particularly from representatives of local government in New Zealand. 
I quote from the select committee’s report: “We acknowledge that delays in the building consent process have caused frustration and increased costs for the building industry in recent years. However the majority of us do not believe that making late consent a free consent is an effective solution. Many of the factors that cause delays in the consent process are not entirely under the control of local authorities. The most significant of these is the ability to recruit and retain qualified experienced staff at a time of expansion in the sector and low unemployment. The majority of us are satisfied that initiatives planned or operating will reduce the problem of consent delays but they must be given time to work. These initiatives include accreditation of building consent authorities and the recruitment drives being undertaken by some authorities.” The committee goes on to note: “The majority of us are concerned about the equity issues raised by the negative financial incentive set out in this bill. Poor applications which take longer to process would be more likely to be free than well-prepared applications thus rewarding poor practice.” That is the view of the majority of the committee—its considered view in the light of the submissions we received. As I mentioned before: “Small (low-fee) applications would be disadvantaged as authorities would give priority to high-fee applications. The consent process might be hurried in some cases”—and this is my real worry—“with poor-quality buildings being constructed as a result.” We certainly do not want to see that. 
We oppose this bill but I do want to commend the work of the select committee and all members of the select committee in raising what I believe to be a very serious issue. The select committee members however disagree on the solutions that have been suggested in this bill.