Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:14973] 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What responsibility does the Government accept for the fact that the cost of building a home has increased from $232000 to $422000 over the past 7 years? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I am advised that although people are paying more to build houses they are getting more in terms of size quality and confidence in the asset they are investing in. I am further advised that the principal drivers of housing costs are land scarcity labour rates and materials. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why will the Minister’s Government not accept responsibility for this $190000 increase in the cost to build a home when last week’s joint report by the five Government departments concluded that Resource Management Act and Building Act changes by this Government have significantly contributed to the increase in costs? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: We have heard on numerous occasions from Dr Smith that he wishes to go back and reinvent what Parliamentarian Lee introduced. This is the report and I point out to the Minister that not only am I not responsible for the Resource Management Act but that only a tiny fraction—less than 1.5 percent—of this supposed cost increase relates directly to a building consent. 
Sue Moroney 
: What action has the Government taken to address the failings brought about by the 1992 deregulation of the building industry? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The Government has announced a comprehensive work programme to look at improving housing affordability prospects. This includes looking at introducing more flexibility into the building consent process beginning with simplifying designs and building consent processes for starter homes and looking at improving productivity in the sector. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that the so-called development levies now charged by local councils are in reality a new home infrastructure charge which can add many thousands of dollars to a new home and that those levies should go once the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill—now No. 2 on the Order Paper—is passed thereby giving councils the ability to go back to the traditional financing of infrastructure through debt securities? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The member no doubt knows that the levies he refers to do not fall under the Building Act; they are imposed by local authorities which have discretion under local government legislation to identify what levy is appropriate to maintain their ability to meet the cost of infrastructure development as housing projects are established. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Should this Parliament not hold Clayton Cosgrove responsible for the bureaucratic nightmare of the new Building Act when he arrogantly dismissed the concerns of industry of councils and of other parties in this Parliament and when now even the Government’s own advisers conclude that that new Act has resulted in a marked decline in productivity in the building sector and has contributed to the crisis that we now have over home affordability? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Of course what Mr Cosgrove had to deal with was the abject failure of National’s policies in liberating liberalising and opening up the building sector and allowing the cowboys and far too much activity to go unmonitored and unchecked. Not only has he introduced a set of additional reforms but those reforms are now being embraced by a wider number of councils which realise there is scope for them to improve their act. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister still think the building consent process is going “swimmingly well” when under the new Act councils have had to increase their fees by over 50 percent when the paper work required for getting a building consent has grown tenfold when there are huge delays all over New Zealand in getting even the most minor of building consents and when even his own department acknowledges that there has been a significant drop in building productivity as a consequence of his Government’s Building Act? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: It really does lower the standards of the House when Dr Smith stands up and wildly tosses around figures as he did last week quoting 30 40 and 50-page documents—a 300-page document comes to mind in relation to some of his wilder gestures—when in actual fact he referred to the Rodney District Council. I have its document and that document is 11 pages long. The number is inversely related to the man’s ability to get it right. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the 110-page Rodney District Council building consent application package. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Government be introducing amendments before the election to fix the mess that has been made to the Building Act and the Resource Management Act noting that the following key finding in the report released last week by the five departments was that the most likely way to achieve long-term reductions in housing costs was to focus on streamlining the Resource Management and Building Acts—almost word for word what John Key has been saying for over a year—or will New Zealanders have to wait— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: At least they don’t change their minds every 5 minutes like he does. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I will ask the question again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member just continue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Government be introducing amendments before the election to fix the mess it has made to the Building Act and Resource Management Act noting that the key finding in last week’s report was that the most likely way to achieve long-term reductions in housing costs was to focus on streamlining the Resource Management and Building Acts—ironically what John Key has been calling for for over a year—or will New Zealanders have to wait for a change in Government to have these important statutes fixed? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Flowing from the report that the member refers to a number of pieces of work are under way not the least of which is work looking at whether it is relevant in terms of urban boundaries as an impediment to land supply. We are doing work and I hope soon to be able to speak more publicly about it in relation to adding flexibility and greater simplicity to the building consent process. Those ideas are not John Key’s; his ideas are made up as he tacks in the wind. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister not see a rich irony in that he is now promising to introduce flexibility and streamlining of the Building and Resource Management Acts when for the last 8 years the Government has been removing flexibility making building more constrained and adding huge compliance costs—is there not a great irony that the Government has been swimming in one direction for 8 years and then suddenly has had a road to Damascus conversion 6 months out from the election? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There is no irony in the fact that local government performances are improving. They are becoming accredited despite the best efforts of Dr Smith in Nelson and builders are becoming licensed. No systems are static; they are dynamic and can always be improved. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have here the conclusions of the cross-departmental report which concludes that the most important thing we need to do— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I have not got to the point of seeking leave Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When a member seeks leave in relation to documents could he or she please do it succinctly—not only this member but other members as well. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table that report which concludes that reform of the Building Act and the Resource Management Act is the key reform required— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.