Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13269] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This part is another case of the Government imposing additional costs on our local authorities that flow through to rates. We may as well call this part the increase in rates provisions. But on top of that these provisions state that the Government made a stuff-up in 2004 in the way it struck the levy on buildings and that it will validate whatever it did wrong—make it right—so that it can still fleece local authorities for a heap of dough. That is basically what the provisions state. Back in 2004 when the original Building Act was passed the Government made a mistake in the way in which it set the building levy and in the definition of building value. 
The question is whether the councils should have to pay for the Government’s stuff-up. Let us remember that it is not the councils that pay the bill; it is actually the ratepayers. What we see in this bill is further increased costs for ratepayers. We heard Local Government New Zealand point out to the Social Services Committee how much the cost of accreditation will actually be for local councils. I give the example of the Dunedin City Council. The Dunedin City Council said that the Building Act this year will require it to increase its costs by $1.3 million a year. It will have to take on an extra 15 staff. Members opposite have said that the reason we need this bill is leaky homes. Well I hopped along to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and checked how many leaky homes there are in Dunedin. There are three. What is the total value of the leaky homes in Dunedin? It is $930000. Why are we imposing on the ratepayers of Dunedin an extra cost of $1.3 million every year for a problem that we know started off costing only $930000? 
My first point is that we have just had a great big rates inquiry. A key recommendation of that rates inquiry is that this Parliament take far more care in imposing additional costs on ratepayers. What does the Government do? It rams through Parliament another building bill that will just add to the rates bills of our constituents all over New Zealand. 
Then we come to the issue around code compliance certificates. I was interested in the contribution from Russell Fairbrother earlier. He said that this is a great bill a really good bill because it will require the issuing of the code compliance certificate within 5 days. But do members know what? I searched through this bill and I searched through the original Act. Could I find anywhere a penalty for a council that does not issue a certificate within 5 days? No. We know that members opposite passed a Building Act that required building consents to be processed within 20 working days. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What about Part 2? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am talking about code compliance certificates I tell Mr Fairbrother. We know that in respect of the timing of building consents they are meant to be processed within 20 working days. Half the time they are not. The Master Builders Federation says that it takes longer to get a consent to build a new house than it actually does to build it. Why would we have any faith in the provisions that are being put in place here around code compliance certificates and the 5-day rule when there is absolutely no penalty? 
Sue Moroney 
: What has this party got against local government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Ms Moroney where the penalty is for councils that do not comply within 5 days. 
Sue Moroney 
: What has the National Party got against local government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Sue Moroney asks what National has against local government. Has the member read the submission from Local Government New Zealand on this bill? The member opposite has obviously not read the submission from Local Government New Zealand which vigorously opposed what this provision in clause 92 is proposing. 
Sue Moroney 
: What has that party got against local government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She is like a broken record. I ask that member what she has against ratepayers. Why have rates gone up at three times the rate of inflation since Labour has been in Government? I ask Sue Moroney why rates have gone up at three times the rate of inflation under her Government. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did unemployment go up so much under the National Government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us talk unemployment then. Unemployment went up in 1984 under the Labour Government and continued to go up until 1992. Unemployment started dropping in 1992. It is absolutely true. It is absolutely correct. And unemployment continued to drop right through that period. I say to Sue Moroney and others on that side of the House thank goodness for the National Government and what we did in the 1990s; it provided for a sound economy that has seen a continuing drop in unemployment.