Jones Shane: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeJones Shane: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11492. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SHANE JONES (Labour):I join my other colleagues and do not support this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). It is with a considerable level of disappointment because many of the reforms that Maurice Williamson has shepherded through were actually begun towards the final stages of our tenure under the leadership of Helen Clark. There remains a hang of a lot to be done in respect of the building sector. Really with the growth of activity in Ōtautahi/Christchurch with the inevitable increase in activity in Tāmaki-makau-rau/Auckland especially in 15 to 18 months’ time once we begin and embark on our ambitious programme—highly popular as well—of building 10000 houses a year and 100000 houses over the course of 10 years we need to ensure that the statutory framework that will be relied upon is capable of assuaging the concerns of homeowners and property investors.It might come to pass that there is a valuable lesson being learnt in the context of this debate in terms of how long the Government has allowed the situation in Christchurch to really spin out of control. I have no doubt in my mind that considerable damage has been done to the reputation of that place in terms of dealing with building consents. Although it is easy meat to blame the current mayor who in my view is a show pony—and the sooner he disappears as our colleague the favoured candidate moves into the boxing ring the better. But it is for the ratepayers and the voters of Ōtautahi to pension off the current mayor. But as much as one is tempted to lay a lot of the blame at his feet in terms of the stripping away more recently of the authority to deal with building consents really overall stewardship rests with Maurice Williamson. Overall stewardship rests with those members of the Executive Council who are charged by dint of the warrant they hold with ensuring that the building industry is suitably regulated not squashed to death. It is difficult to imagine what the current Minister for Building and Construction is trying to achieve.I was recently in Tai Tokerau and had I guess you could say the pleasure or misfortune depending on what end of the argument you are at in relation to our Mayor of the Far North Wayne Brown—but there is a new system that has been introduced by this Government that has put between $5000 to $7000 of additional costs on every section likely to be created by subdivisions in the north. It is an example of where the Government talks about freeing up opportunity for industry to build jobs but in actual fact this bill does nothing of the sort. In addition to that there is this additional $5000 to $7000 worth of dough that has been imposed on the purchasers of sections because of a new sort of bureaucratic freight that has been tossed on top of the subdividers. It deals with a policy that was conceived in isolation here in the bureaucracy about perceived hazards. The indiscriminate way in which that policy has been applied which unfortunately will not be simplified through this bill is to treat farms and orchards as if they are akin to old tips and requires an enormous level of analysis—in my view a waste of time—and petty bureaucracy to do with potential hazards.The entirety of the area that I come from at one stage probably was a farm or if it was not a farm it was land that was not involved in a tip but it was used for productive purposes. I think that is a small example where this current Minister talks the language that he wants to simplify process and expand opportunity for industry but when you get down to it I do not think that he is actually in charge of or he has not got enoughauthority over his own bureaucrats. That is unfortunate but the only happy thing about that is that within 15 months he will be out of that role. I thought he might have stood actually to contest his credentials. For a brief period of time they reached the sort of starry heights of sitcoms in America—that is Maurice Williamson I am talking about—but when he had the opportunity to step up to the plate and take on Mayor Len Brown despite keeping people dancing as if it was some sort of exercise of the seven veils dance he did not prove to be either confident or I suppose at the end of the day interested.We cannot support this because as earlier speakers have pointed out what is needed is a comprehensive set of changes not this piecemeal reactive bit by bit approach to the point that the majority of the submitters who came to this particular committee the Local Government and Environment Committee expressed a complete lack of confidence in terms of this particular bill. It is bill No. 4; there have been other bills which we supported. Indeed I held the spokesperson role on behalf of the Opposition—Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—in an earlier period of time in the last 5 or 6 years and I have to say they have passed rather tediously. In that period of time we did agree with some things but we will not be agreeing with this.We have received some very good advice from our member who is focusing on these issues Raymond Huo and without a doubt he understands the importance of ensuring that petty bureaucracy and inflexible rules do not actually frustrate the ambitions of young families wanting to own their own home whilst at the same time holding accountable those who are putting investment capital at risk and creating subdivisions and then going on to build houses. But house owners young families at the end of the day are consumers. They come to the task trusting in the quality of the craftsman or woman. They trust also in the robustness of the statutory allocation process. More recently over the last 10 to 15 years we have learnt that elements in the industry have let us all down. It may prove to be the case that our Government in 2002 and 2003 in the days of George Hawkins perhaps should have initiated and funded a class action against Fletcher’s and allied companies which did bring product to the market grossly unsuitable for the climate conditions etc. in New Zealand but that has come and gone. That is why many of us supported what Maurice Williamson sought to do in trying to get a compromise to enable people to escape from houses that have begun to resemble aquariums but this unfortunately does not capture our support.The licensed building practitioner regime which to a certain extent is covered in this piece of legislation was initiated by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove a person whose stature might rise in Christchurch; that remains to be seen. He was a very very knowledgable and competent Minister for Building and Construction at the time and what we sought to do was to build a regime so that builders could have a similar level of authority to a plumber and an electrician—i.e. to a certain level one did not need to require a statutory consent in order for them to do the job.When I was the Minister for Building and Construction for a lamentably short period of time what we sought to do was identify a range of building things that a qualified tradesperson could do that did not require a consent from the council. In order for that to be expanded so it emulates the powers enjoyed by plumbers and electricians they need to go through the licensed building practitioner regime and that has not worked. Not so much that it has not worked; the momentum has not been developed to the extent—we thought people would go through the process achieve a level of qualification and free themselves from bureaucracy underneath a certain level of building complexity. That was the theory. It is a theory I actually agree with. I think that if there are competent carpenters construction workers and supervisors who can build to a certain level one should not need to go to the council to get a permit; one shouldjust treat it like a plumber’s task or an engineer’s task but sadly this bill does not take this House or the country anywhere in that direction. Consequently we will not be supporting the bill.