Lees-Galloway IainIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): As my colleague Phil Twyford said there were a number of submissions made by a person by the name of Iain—no relation—although he does spell it with the Scottish version which is good to see. One recommendation that that submitter made—which Phil Twyford touched on very briefly—that I would like to look into a little bit more deeply is clause 4 which proposes an amendment to section 12. The proposed amendment is to change the wording to clause 2 of schedule 1 of the Building Act. So clause 4 would In section 12(2)(c) replace 'Schedule 1' with 'clause 2 of Schedule 1'." of the Building Act.This recommendation to change from "is likely to comply" to "must comply" as the official said amounted to a substantive change in policy. I would appreciate it actually if the Minister in the chair Mark Mitchell could tell us why this is a substantial change of policy because what clause 2 of schedule 1 of the Building Act refers to is "Territorial and regional authority discretionary exemptions". It says that "Any building work in respect of which the territorial authority or regional authority considers that a building consent is not necessary for the purposes of this Act because the authority considers that—(a) the completed building work is likely to comply with the building code;".The submitter recommended amending clause 4 of the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill to ensure that that clause 2(a) of schedule 1 goes from "is likely to comply" with the Building Act to "must comply" with the Building Act. I would be interested to know from the Minister or from any member who was on the Local Government and Environment Committee why it is deemed satisfactory that building work for which a consent is not deemed necessary must only be "likely to comply" with the Building Act rather than being "required to comply" with the Building Act and whatever criteria is used to determine whether or not the worker is likely to comply with the Building Act just how much of a shift is that to require it—sorry I have been saying "the Building Act"—to comply with the building code.Just how much of a shift how much of a policy change is it to go from being likely to comply with the building code to being required to comply with the building code? It seems to me as someone who was not on the select committee that if a territorial or regional authority is able to waive the requirement for a building consent then that authority must be extremely satisfied that the work that is going unconsented or that does not require a consent is going to comply with the building code.In the event that it is found that the work does not comply with the building code what then is the recourse for someone who wishes to challenge that? What is the measure by which we can determine whether or not it was likely to comply with the building code in the first place? Surely it is much cleaner if the work is required to comply with the building code as was suggested by that submitter at the select committee.In addition clause 2(b) of schedule 1 allows that "if the completed building work does not comply with the building code it is unlikely to endanger people or any building whether on the same land or on other property." So we have got a situation where it is possible for a building to be unconsented despite the fact that it does not comply with the building code so long as it does not endanger people. Well again how do you determine whether or not a building is going to endanger people or another building whether it is on the same land or other property? And again just how much of a policy shift would it have been had the committee accepted the recommendation by the submitter to go from using the words "is likely to comply" to "must comply"? So I would appreciate the Minister's answers on those questions."