Wagner Nicky: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1786] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) because it amends the principal Act the Building Act 2004 which was introduced by the Labour Government at that time. It is disappointing that we have to review the Act so soon. Considering the amount of time and work that goes into writing a bill it would be expected that an Act might last a little bit longer. We would expect it to have a bit more longevity. Often we are amending Acts that have stood the test of time over maybe 20 30 or even 40 years but not this one. This Act has been on the books only for a little over 4 years but already it needs to be addressed. 
The need to review the principal Act is not surprising to National members. We predicted it when the Act was first passed in 2004. It was David Carter who said: “This bill will impose huge costs and huge complexity on the construction industry … I tell the Government that … this legislation will be one of the first pieces of legislation that is back before a National Government—because it will be a National Government that will tidy up this mess.” It is all very well for George Hawkins to talk about Shane Jones and all the hard work he has done but it takes a National Government to bring the legislation to the House and to tidy up the mess. That is why we are here today. Back in 2004 Lindsay Tisch also warned the Labour Government. He said the bill “… introduces a very prescriptive regulatory regime. It is overkill and an overburdening of the industry with bureaucracy and administration … This legislation will add significant costs to all construction work and compliance costs for residential buildings will increase the most.” How prophetic was that? He stated: “It will potentially affect economic growth due to the significant increase in building compliance costs for both applicants and territorial local authorities …”. That has proved to be so true. 
One of the most valuable Kiwi traditions is that of homeownership but the Building Act has added so much additional cost that many New Zealanders are finding that homeownership is out of their reach. Many critics have talked about that increase in costs and they estimate that it could be up to $20000 per house. The National Government wants to make homeownership more affordable and this bill is a step in the right direction. Why is the National Government so supportive of homeownership? It is because homeownership is good for individuals families and communities. On an individual basis there is a real thrill a real sense of achievement when someone buys his or her own home. However humble it is or however much DIY opportunity that building has and however much it is a first step everyone gets a kick out of earning his or her first home. Suddenly weekends are focused on the house the garden or the neighbourhood. 
Homeownership is good for families and communities. Neighbourhoods are more settled house-proud and community-minded. Local kids get to grow up together to go to school together and to put their roots down in their neighbourhoods. Those neighbourhoods provide familiarity and security to young people. People say that it takes a village to bring up a child and many members will remember what it was like as a kid growing up in a suburb full of young families in their first homes. That community of young families gave us and our young mates the caring and support of a village. 
The amendments in this bill are designed to cut the costs of constructing houses and buildings without compromising the quality of those buildings. All amendments follow extensive consultation with the industry and with local government. Both the industry and local government are very keen to cut the costs time and energy that go into the consenting process. These amendments are part of the National Government’s ongoing commitment to cut red tape and speed up processes to stimulate the economy. It was interesting to hear George Hawkins talk about the fact that this bill does not need to be passed now. At what other time in our recent history has there been a time when we should stimulate the economy? At what other time has it been so important? Similarly the National Government’s resource management reforms were aimed at simplifying cutting costs and stimulating the economy. The international recession is affecting our building industry. Consent applications are down and builders and contractors are concerned about the lack of forward work that is coming on stream. The changes that we propose in this bill will cut the costs and time of the consenting process and stimulate the industry at a time when workers really need to keep their jobs. 
There are three major amendments. The first is the introduction of a system of national multi-use consents. The idea behind that is that designers and builders can get some sort of economy of scale for similar buildings which can be consented together. Under the scheme the building design can be approved at a national level although each site will need to be consented locally to allow for individual variations. But to speed up that local process the statutory time frame for processing a consent application that includes a national multi-use consent will be reduced from 20 to 10 days. This will increase the efficiency of the process and improve productivity. 
The second major amendment is a differentiation between major and minor variations to a consented building plan. Most buildings require some minor variations to their plans and this amendment will allow those changes to go through without having to go through the complete consenting process. Again it will reduce costs save time and increase productivity. 
Finally this bill also makes obtaining a project information memorandum voluntary. The reason a project information memorandum was first introduced was to provide advanced warning of issues when developing a building project. But as it has turned out the majority of project information memoranda are not applied for until after the consent process has been completed. Making the project information memorandum voluntary will reduce unnecessary costs to owners and developers—and they are big costs. There are costs for professional fees territorial authority fees and delays in starting the building. 
National supports this Building Amendment Bill (No 2) because it is time to streamline and simplify the Building Act 2004. Although the Act is only 4 years old National has always considered it to be very prescriptive and overburdened with bureaucracy. These amendments will cut through that bureaucracy. In the face of a worldwide recession we urgently need to cut the costs involved and the length of time required to consent building work for two reasons: so we can keep our building industry working and so we can make housing more affordable for Kiwi families. Thank you.