Wagner Nicky: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3819] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). It has been very interesting to listen to what has been coming out in the House today. We have had extremes of opinion but what underlines the importance of this bill is that we are looking for more affordable housing and more affordable buildings. 
This bill is designed to update and improve the effectiveness of Labour’s 2004 Building Act. As we have heard it is the first step in a more comprehensive review of the legislation that is presently under way. Although the Act was passed in 2004 which was only 4 years ago it already needs to be substantially reviewed. It needs to be amended because it is too complex prescriptive overly bureaucratic and full of regulatory creep. It is costly as well. If we want more affordable houses and buildings we need to fix this Act. 
This amendment is designed to reduce compliance requirements and costs and to improve the efficiency of the building consent process. It is designed to make sure that regulatory processes are as effective and as efficient as possible while always maintaining the quality of construction. We need to reduce the costs for homeowners developers and builders and we must reduce those costs without ever compromising the building quality. 
The bill simplifies and streamlines. It streamlines the building consent process by increasing flexibility and efficiency but it preserves sufficient checks and balances to make sure that quality homes and buildings are constructed. Although the amendments will have only a modest effect on the total cost of the building they are expected to reduce the time and transaction costs involved in the whole consenting process and any drop in price will be readily received by the public of New Zealand. We are well aware that time is money and during the select committee process we were made aware of the frustrations of designers of builders and of property owners in the face of very complex rules and regulations and enormously long waits for consents. Builders told us that they really wanted to comply with the Act but found it almost impossible to get it right. 
The bill has three main amendments. As we have heard discussed tonight the first is the introduction of the national multiple-use approvals. The idea is that these approvals will simplify the consenting of multiple similar buildings. At present volume builders who are builders of large numbers of houses in a subdivision even if those houses are identical have to apply for a consent for each house separately and wait until they have that consent before they can begin building. Once this bill is passed a housing construction company building a large number of similar houses will be able to get the design approved and consented at a national level and be issued with multiple-use approvals. These are multiple-use approvals for similar designs but each consent will still have to be tailored to local conditions and this is how we make sure that the buildings are designed for the people in the areas they live in. It will mean that new homeowners will get the advantage of economy of scale plus the advantage of a more speedy consenting process and homes that can be built more quickly and cost-effectively. 
Secondly the bill goes into a lot of detail and effort to define a new process for managing minor variations and what are called customisations of plans. Anyone who has ever built a house or a building knows that however hard we try however much we plan there are always changes that need to be made along the way. This bill provides a way to do that in a simple and cost-effective manner. Under the 2004 Act even the most minor alteration had to go through the process in exactly the same way as any new building consent. The bill allows regulations to be made that define when a variation is minor and does not require a formal amendment to the building consent. 
It also defines a process for managing minor variations and in the process it clarifies the process for managing major variations. A minor variation can be approved by a building authority by recording it in writing by sending an email or by making a file note or even by putting a handwritten adaptation on the amendment to the plans. The building consent authority will not be required to issue an amended building consent. This will save a whole heap of time and costs for both the applicant and the building consent authority. Quality will be maintained because the amendment will be required to comply with the building code. 
The minor variations or customisations that this amendment will cover are things such as changes in timber treatments or a change from a window to a door. We have heard about our colleague who wants a new door and he will be able to do that as a minor variation. The layout of a room can be changed and the branding or types of insulation can be changed. These are quite different variations from those that are considered major variations which will still require a formal consent. Those are changes like where a deck or carport is put on a building or where a change is made in the type of material—for example from brick to timber—in the type of piling or in the building system. 
The final amendment is to do with obtaining a project information memorandum. This bill makes obtaining that project information memorandum voluntary. Under the present Act all building work requires a project information memorandum. The idea behind that was that when we get a project information memorandum we get all the information that is relevant to do the building. We get it before the work is started so that we can make sure that all the bases are covered. Evidence presented to us in the select committee showed that most project information memoranda were not applied for until it was too late. In other words the process was absolutely useless to those people. Project information memoranda were not valued by builders and therefore were an unnecessary cost. 
Making project information memoranda voluntary means that people who find them useful can access the information but they will not have to pay for the information if they are not going to use it. The costs of obtaining a project information memorandum are not insignificant by the time one has paid council fees and professional fees to make the application. But the biggest expense is the delay in building which seems to happen very regularly. Voluntary project information memoranda will save a substantial amount of money and the Registered Master Builders Federation estimates that at least 30 percent of all projects do not require them at all for things like putting in fireplaces solar panels and internal alterations. 
I support the amendments to the Building Act. They will improve the legislation making it more efficient and effective and the changes will help make new housing and buildings more affordable and cost-effective. Thank you.