Cosgrove Clayton: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10732] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I will unpack the lack of logic around this bill but despite all the hot air the member finished by saying two things. He said we should help out the average Kiwi. I will put that aside and get to that in a moment. But then he quoted the jewel in the crown of local authorities the case winner for him the Hamilton City Council which he says is doing this and he uses this as the only example in New Zealand that should win the argument logically in this Chamber for him. Well it is interesting. 
Let us read the reaction to his bill by a chap called Graeme Fleming the environmental services manager for Hamilton City Council the council that Dr Smith quite rightly cites as the be-all and end-all as one that is doing this—[ 
Interruption 
] Hang on taihoa. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 17 February 2007 quoted Graeme Fleming of Hamilton City Council as saying that Dr Smith had got it wrong that “It’s no use being a quick consent if it’s not a quality consent.” 
The second thing that Dr Smith rabbited on about was this: he said and I agree with him on this that we should think and do something for the average Kiwi ratepayer. I agree with that. We know that Dr Smith’s National Party policy is not to visit extensive rate increases on the ratepayer. That is what he said and he nods in agreement and I acknowledge that. I am glad to get him on the record. So what does this bill do? This bill says that if the person wanting the consent—the person wanting to build a house—rocks up to the council and the council does not meet the 20-day deadline then the costs of that consent are absorbed by the council and the person who wants to build the house gets the consent for free. That is what the bill says. But Dr Smith’s understanding of economics and cost accounting is so limited that he fails to acknowledge that the costs associated with that consent process do not vaporise into the ether but are then spread across every other general ratepayer who does not want a building consent. If he is so naive that he thinks that local authorities will not raise rates in order to absorb those costs then he is a lesser man than even I think he is. His understanding of what we should do to assist the average Kiwi ratepayer is sadly lacking. 
This bill is a simple political pamphlet. It is thin; one A3 page is all there is of it. That is the intense thought process that Dr Smith went through. That is the depth of his knowledge and research. The bill does not address the systemic organisational problem that one finds in every organisation. If an organisation has a doubling in its customer base and if it has a doubling in building consents then the organisation needs to address the organisational factors within. Does the organisation have enough building inspectors clerical people and consent people to get the consents out? Are there management systems in place to deal with them efficiently? Are there resources to back the consenting process? Nothing in this bill addresses that. And Dr Smith got the following wrong. The Labour Party has said that councils would be incentivised not to deal with the small consents but to deal with the large commercial and residential consents—the big ones—because that is where the high risks and the big dollars are if a council misses the 20-day mark on them. And mum and dad average Kiwi ratepayers whom Dr Smith purports to want to protect get done over. 
Dr Smith waxed eloquent last night and did the old parish political pump. He had a go at the leaky building stuff saying we need quality we need safety and we need benchmarks. I agree. Yet his bill tonight does not propose to address any of those issues. It does not address the issue of a council that has not met the 20-day mark but has addressed quality and safety issues. It says that if the 20-day mark is not met then that is it. That is what the bill says. It does not address quality. It does not address safety. It does not address the inherent failures we have had in some local authorities when building inspectors for instance have not done their job. That is what the bill does not address. 
The bill is a limp attempt at politics. I say this: members do not have to believe what I say about the bill; let us have a look at the reaction to it. I cite this wonderful piece of information called the  
East Coast Informer  
and what that newsletter called the bill. A woman called Pat Seymour a National Party member and chairwoman of the East Coast branch of the National Party called the bill “daft”. Now I am a young man—I know that people will not believe this—and I had to look up this word “daft” in the  
Collins English Dictionary 
 to see what it meant and this is what it says: “daft—foolish simple stupid” and the clanger for Dr Smith is that it says “insane”. It is an insane piece of legislation from a daft member. This is what a member of his own National Party said about him. I quote from Pat Seymour and I can do no better than that member of the National Party when she said: “From a local authority perspective this is a daft piece of potential legislation. The only one that will end up paying every time is the general ratepayer.” Pat Seymour a member of his party and a member of Anne Tolley’s electorate committee said that. She understands absolutely what will happen to the average Kiwi general ratepayer. 
She goes on to say: “All costs have to be budgeted for within a local authority. If a consent not provided within the described time frames is made a free consent to the applicant—then departments will simply budget a sum within the rate strike to allow for any such eventualities.” She said: “From my experience council officers make every effort to meet statutory time frames and there is usually a very good reason for consents being late.” Now they are the words from one Pat Seymour East Coast National Party electorate chair in January 2007. Do not judge me by what I say judge the member’s own party member who has worked out that this is a daft to quote her piece of legislation from a daft member. 
This is about politics. This bill does nothing to address the systemic failures that have occurred within local government. So the question is: what is the alternative and what should we do about it? Well the member is right. We have embarked upon an audit and accreditation process. What does that mean? That means we go in with International Accreditation New Zealand an internationally renowned accreditation procedure and ask: “Are your systems up to it? Are they efficient? Do you have the skills and knowledge? Do you have the people and are you adequately resourcing”— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Do not bring the Speaker into it please. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sorry. Are the councils adequately resourcing the consenting function? That is basic organisational theory. One does not go into an organisation saying: “Look you haven’t got enough people your systems are not good enough you haven’t got enough resourcing so if you don’t beat the mark we’ll chop ya.” One does not say that—or say: “Give it away free.” That is not how one solves a logical problem. But we know that there is inherently a basic lack of logic with this member. That is what one does. One goes and addresses the systemic failure. And of course councils are doing that. Some councils are finding it tough. Smaller ones are struggling to meet the 30 November deadline but they are working towards it. Palmerston North has met it. The Government has put 3 million bucks into a system to address the core issues. 
The crowning jewel for this member was Hamilton City Council. Well that has been torpedoed. His crowning jewel was his National Party policy. Well Pat Seymour has put the sword into him tonight slashed him open and slashed the policy open. What will the member say? Will he get up and say that Pat Seymour is wrong and his colleague Anne Tolley is wrong? Yes—he nodded his head. Let us have a look at what Len Clapham the Chief Executive of the Building Officials Institute said. He called the bill “idiotic”. Let us look at what the media has said about this great genius from the National Party. The Christchurch  
Press 
 states: “Nats’ own-goal”. The  
Southland Times 
 states: “Consent fee waiver plan nonsense” and “Consent bill very dangerous”. I have a quote from the  
Whangarei Leader 
—and I see that John Carter is here—“Building consent plan short-sighted”. These are quotations from the independent media. 
So on all counts Nick Smith has no credibility. He stood up and said National wants quality in the building industry yet this bill does not address that. He stood up and said National does not want costs visited on the general ratepayer. Well this bill does that. Pat Seymour the National Party member agrees and knows it and has put it on record. On every count this flimsy political pamphlet of a bill with about as much thought in it as he gives most of his work has been done over. I say to New Zealand that the Government is dealing with this. Local authorities are stepping up to the plate and we are going to deliver to consumers in the correct way in the proper way and in a way that works—not with political stupidity. This is a daft bill from a daft daft member.