Turei Metiria: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10740] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call on the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill. I have say the speeches have been very entertaining given that the select committee process has been much more congenial than the debate tonight would suggest. 
 The Green Party voted in favour of sending this bill to a select committee because we thought some useful issues could be explored. That was the case and it was great to hear councils and people involved in the industry talk about the real issues. It became very clear that delays with building consents are serious and cost significant amounts of money to non-commercial developers developers of smaller projects and people doing small renovations. We are not talking about commercial developers of multimillion dollar projects. These people find it quite expensive if they do not have the time and resources to wait. 
In our view enough is being done to try to resolve the problem so we think Dr Smith’s bill is not necessary. In fact it is the wrong kind of tool to sort out this kind of problem. 
I understand that about 20 percent of building consents are delayed. There are a few primary reasons. Some applications are incomplete and often that is just a lack of information. Definitely there is a lack of qualified building consent processors and inspectors. I think that was the No. 1 reason given in the Local Government and Environment Committee. That is not the fault of councils. The question is whether councils should bear the cost for something that really is not their fault. There is also the difficulty faced by small councils in retaining qualified staff and in their disproportionate difficulty mismanaging the costs of building consents in their area. 
Changes were made to the Building Act in 2004 but they have not completely bedded in yet. I think we will see advantages coming out of those changes later on that will deal with these problems to some extent. It is certainly true that solutions are needed but ratepayers cannot take on the cost of the problem. 
I agree there is no such thing as a free consent. I completely agree with Steve Chadwick. It is rubbish to say there is. Somebody has to pay. The Green Party certainly does not agree that all ratepayers should have to pay because of late consents particularly where very large commercial developers benefit. They could probably afford it but lots of ratepayers simply cannot. 
Some solutions are in place such as the accreditation and registration of building consent authorities which are required under the 2004 legislation. That accreditation is required to be done by November 2007 so it is worthwhile waiting to see that process bed in. We should see some good progress from there. 
Some councils have systems and good models they could use. Some councils have a fast-track process where people pay more but that is useful only if the councils have enough numbers of staff who are sufficiently trained to do that work. But that system can be useful sometimes. It is always an advantage if better information is provided to applicants and they know how to complete an application so that there are no further delays when the council requires more information. 
On balance we do not see any need for this bill to progress any further. We do not think it is a sensible tool to deal with the problem but it did provide the opportunity for having a useful exploration of the issues. So we thank Dr Smith for bringing it to the House. Kia ora.