Auchinvole Chris: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5079] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 Indeed it is a pleasure to follow the Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Maurice Williamson and a former Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove both of whom have considerable expertise in this particular portfolio and have spoken so eloquently and in such detail. It is a pleasure because their speeches were informative and instructive and they provided ample background as to where the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) came from and why we have it. I remember that when it came to the Local Government and Environment committee there was a move to call it the “Shane Jones Building Amendment Bill”. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He would have liked that! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes he would have but Labour members said no. National members thought it would have been all right but Labour members said they did not want him getting beyond his station. 
Chris Tremain 
: Part of his leadership bid! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Perhaps it was the first part. 
Chris Tremain 
: A small step. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: A small step. 
This bill has been described as a short bill a small bill but I suggest that it is a very important bill. It has three significant aspects. It allows the Department of Building and Housing to issue national multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings that are to be replicated on a substantial scale. It came as a surprise to learn—and the Minister or the former Minister can correct me—that 40-plus percent of dwelling houses fit that category; that is not a small consideration. 
This bill is designed to reduce the statutory time frame for processing a building consent application from 20 working days to 10 working days where the application includes a national multiple-use approval—so that halves things. It differentiates between major and minor variations to consented building work so that minor changes can be made without going through the full process. This will reduce costs and save time. It makes it voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum from a building consent authority that is a territorial authority. I was recently in Opotiki and Whakatane and I had the opportunity to speak to a gathering of builders. They were very supportive of this type of change being brought into law. 
As I mentioned before we say that this is a little bill but its significance goes well beyond the bill itself. It is an economic reality that businesses will relocate to where conditions are favourable to them. Investors will put their money where it can get a good return. This type of bill is designed to assist the development of good business practice. That is why this Government is focused squarely on improving New Zealand’s economic performance. I suggest that when this bill was brought in by the Hon Shane Jones it was recognition that it was a time for change. 
This Government has three key economic objectives: to increase New Zealand’s productivity to maintain high levels of employment and to reduce New Zealand’s vulnerability to adverse events. That means getting better at producing goods and services and getting paid more for them. This bill will help in that direction. The most fundamental problem facing New Zealand’s economy at the moment is poor productivity growth. This bill will accelerate growth in the housing and building sector. Our productivity is already low in comparison with that of other developed countries and in recent years it has grown much more slowly than productivity in most other countries. We need a business environment that enables firms to put resources to their best use. In short we need to reverse the trends of recent years and get the business and building sectors growing again and this bill will help do that in a big way. 
As I said let us remember that 40-plus percent of dwelling houses will be affected by this legislation. A few things have come about to encourage this bill and again I am not trying to take away in any shape or form the credit and merit that are due to the originator of the bill. I wish he was here—he is in Auckland at the moment and we understand that; it is not a criticism—because it would be nice for him to celebrate the passing of the bill through the Committee stage.