Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13253] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I want to point out the context of this bill which is that homeownership has become incredibly expensive for families because of this Government’s failed building policies. I note that in my own electorate the price of housing for New Zealanders has increased by 122 percent. 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The increase in the price of housing in my Nelson electorate is 122 percent. Over the whole country it has more than doubled. At the same time poor financial management by this Government has resulted in interest rates going from 6.3 percent when Labour came to Government to the latest figure of 10.4 percent. The consequence of both those high house prices and increasing interest rates is that we have seen record declines in the level of home affordability and also in homeownership rates. 
National seeks a simple test for changes to the building legislation: how will this bill help home affordability? We have heard the rhetoric from the Prime Minister that she thinks home affordability is an important issue. I remind her that during 8 years of a Labour Government we have seen home affordability in New Zealand—a country that has prided itself on homeownership—becoming the lowest in the OECD. 
I remind the Minister in the chair Shane Jones that the average mortgage as a percentage of income in 1999 was 42 percent. Today that figure is 83 percent. How many of us members of Parliament really believe that a family can afford to spend 83 percent of its average income on servicing a mortgage? It is nigh on impossible. 
What are we getting in this bill from the Government? We are getting a bill that is going to increase the costs and the bureaucracy of our building laws and make home affordability even harder for New Zealand families. 
I want to remind the House of the heritage of Norm Kirk. I grew up in North Canterbury where there was great pride in the fact that former Prime Minister Norm Kirk was able to build his own house in Kaiapoi. What does this Government do? It regulates that possibility out of existence. It will now be impossible for any New Zealander who wants to aspire to build his or her own home; that person will not now be able to do it. I ask Shane Jones whether he really wants to go down in history as the Minister for Building and Construction who took away the opportunity for the average Kiwi to be able to build a roof over his or her head. 
Then we come to the provisions on rates in this bill. We have just had an inquiry into the increased costs we are putting on ratepayers. Do members realise that under this Labour Government rates have been increasing at three times the rate of inflation? Local councils all over New Zealand are pleading with us as parliamentarians to stop dumping extra costs on them. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why do you oppose development levies then? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: And what does Darren Hughes want to do? He is imposing increased costs with this bill. I want to know from Darren Hughes why he is going to put up the costs of rates in his electorate in Levin and the surrounding communities. Why is that member so intent on dumping extra costs on them? I will tell members why. It is because that member has no idea. He has no understanding of the building industry no understanding of the struggle of average families to be able to afford their own home and no understanding of the increased bureaucracy involved. 
I remind members what the Wellington City Council said. It said that the amount of paperwork required to get a building consent for the average home has more than trebled under this Government. Dunedin City Council has just announced that it will have to expand its building department by an extra 15 staff at a cost of $1.3 million. Who will be paying that cost? It will be those who aspire to own their own home. 
National members say that this bill should improve home affordability yet it does the opposite; it imposes regulatory constraint. I have a submission here from the Institution of Professional Engineers which is a very respected institution. The submission states that this bill will require people to get a building consent to re-putty the windows on their home. I know of red tape going mad and I know that members opposite have no appreciation for the bureaucracy and red tape they are imposing but even they must see stupidity in a bill that the Institution of Professional Engineers says will require people to go to the council for a building consent to re-putty the windows on their house. 
We hear all this garbage from the Government about sustainability. Do members know that it costs an average of $1100 to get a building consent for a solar water heater system? The Government is very generous. It will give people a grant for $500 if they meet a whole lot of bureaucratic costs but it will be imposing a cost—through this legislation—of over $1000 to get a consent for a solar water heater system. It is no wonder that Australia has three times as many solar water heating systems being installed than in New Zealand as a consequence— 
Dianne Yates 
: It’s free with at least three councils. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to the member opposite that it is a disgrace that in Australia three times as many solar water heating systems are being installed than in New Zealand despite all the Government’s bull and rhetoric around sustainability. On the practical elements the Government is failing. 
Does the Minister in the chair accept the view of the Institution of Professional Engineers on this bill? I put this question to the Minister: why is it proper to charge councils for the costs of his bureaucracy in approving councils as building consent authorities? The silence is deafening. The arrogance of the Minister in the chair is such that he does not think he has to answer to anybody. He thinks he can just ram legislation through Parliament increase the costs on councils and increase the cost on homeowners and there will be no come-back. Well I say to Mr Jones that there will be a come-back. It is coming in about 11 months’ time and it will be with a vote of no confidence by the people of New Zealand in the bureaucracy the Minister is imposing on the building industry of New Zealand. 
In this bill we have provision after provision that will further increase costs for councils and builders wanting to get on with business. I met with a builder last night at a Rotary club. He told me that he has had it up to the eyeballs with the Minister’s red tape such that he and his colleagues see no future but to move to Australia. We saw the figures today—more New Zealanders left for Australia in the last year than at any time in 10 years. I say to the Minister that stupid bureaucratic laws like this which he is putting through our Parliament are part of the red tape and the control-freak element of his Government that is driving New Zealanders overseas and taking away from New Zealand talented builders and those who work within this industry. It is because of the red tape he is imposing. 
Members on this side of the House say that we do not need more of this sort of legislation. We need legislation that will provide for proper business accountability by those who work in the building industry but not more and more unnecessary bureaucracy. 
The last point I want to make in this debate is in respect of the submission by the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand to the select committee. The submission stated that there are unnecessary red tape costs of $30000 for each house built in New Zealand. There is $30000 of extra imposition as a consequence of the mad red tape that this Government is imposing on the building industry. 
The organisation had something else to say and I thought it was even more extraordinary. It said that it now takes longer in New Zealand to get consent to build a house than it takes to actually build it. When it said that to the select committee we thought that it could not be true and that the organisation must be pulling our leg and exaggerating a bit. So I talked to some builders in my home area and they gave me examples of where it had taken twice as long to get the consent from the council for a building than to build it. That is nuts.