Turner Judy: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10744] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on this second reading and I congratulate the sponsor of the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill because he has tried to address a very serious issue. I know that a number of constituents who have come into my own office outside Parliament have reported some really concerning stories particularly around mistakes that had cost dearly in terms of time and wasted materials. So I appreciate what the member has intended to do with this bill. 
This bill has also highlighted something that probably concerns United Future even more than what is being attempted here. I have had some very interesting discussions with members of the master builders association and they have assured me that they believe compliance costs on homes could be reduced substantially as part of the efforts we need to be making to make housing more affordable. This issue needs to be considered seriously beyond this bill because if the kinds of figures that were quoted to me by the gentlemen from the master builders association are true then those figures are shockingly high. A sum of something like $30000 may be able to be recuperated while still maintaining robust regulations around housing practice and I think that is something that needs further exploration. 
United Future is unable to support this bill going any further. We commend the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work it has done. Obviously some very interesting content came out of the submissions which confirmed a little bit for us some of the reservations we had about this particular approach to solving the problem. I think the biggest concern for us is that people who put a real effort into making a very sound application would end up paying the price for that work and that those who had put in poor applications with insufficient information and without meeting all that was required and who then had delays as a result of the fact that they were required to put in more information could end up getting a free consent process. 
I am also concerned about the fact that this bill is a little bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Some other issues need to be considered around things like the combination of factors regarding the workforce and the serious need for workforce development. The sector could improve to the stage that a bill like this one could become a very viable option but in the current environment with the lack of experts who are able to complete that work in a timely way it would be a foolish step to take right now. 
 I do congratulate the member; I think his intention was extremely worthwhile. I think the discussion has been worth having and I for one am very very keen to go back and talk to people like the master builders in order to find out the specific detail on what we could be changing around building compliance so that we can start to see the costs of New Zealand homes tracking downwards as part of a multifaceted approach to making houses more affordable in New Zealand. I am sorry that we cannot support the next stage of the bill but we think there is more work that could be done.