Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
Given that this bill was originally initiated by Shane Jones, the Labour member, and that the National Government fully supports it and is taking it as a Government bill, I seek leave to take the bill as one question. I know that Ms Dyson is shaking her head, but there has been an agreement with the Labour whips that we can take the bill as one question and have a wide-ranging debate.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There being none, the bill will be taken as a single question.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
I intend to be terribly brief on my first call, and then I will take any questions afterwards. This is quite a small bill, but it does three very important things for the building sector. First of all, it introduces a new regime called national multiple-use approvals, which I think will be welcomed across the nation. It means that volume builders, such as Versatile Buildings—I do not want to name companies, but there are heaps of them—that build lots and lots of buildings of the same design will be able to apply for a national multiple-use approval certificate for each design. The consent will be attached to the design, which means that builders will no longer need to get a consent every time they want to build that design on a property. In other words, the design is consented for once only and the company can build it as many times as it likes. That is a fantastic step in the right direction towards reforming the building sector.
The second major area is around minor variations. This bill differentiates between major and minor variations to consented building work. Every member will know of situations in which people have wanted to move a handbasin to the right and bring the shower to the left, bring the toilet block a little further around, or move a window slightly away from the shower. What people have found in the past is that, because of the rules and regulations, they have had to get a consent to get such work done. This bill defines what minor variations are and allows such changes to be made without needing a consent.
The third and final thing that this bill does is to make it voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum from a building consent authority—that is, the territorial authority. Important information that was previously contained in or attached to a project information memorandum, such as the development contributions notice, is now accessed through other mechanisms, and the project information memorandum is not required.
In a nutshell, this bill does three things, and I am pleased to note that there is wide-ranging support for it. I give credit again to Shane Jones, who was the author of the bill. The bill allows for a national multiple-use approval, so that a design can be consented for once and only once, and then people can get on and build it; minor variations will be allowed without a consent; and the project information memorandum will be voluntary rather than mandatory.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
I endorse the comments that the Minister for Building and Construction, Maurice Williamson, has just made and thank him for his generosity in respect of the previous Minister, Shane Jones. As a former Minister for Building and Construction myself—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
That is true; there is a large alumni. We will need to form our own club or friendly society. There has been a wide-ranging level of experience on all sides of the Chamber in respect of the building and construction portfolio. In fairness, the portfolio has been a bit of a rat’s nest in terms of trying to unwind, reform, or make more efficient the processes around building.
Without labouring the point and without being political, I think the tragedy around leaky buildings led the previous Government to a call to arms to try to assist people. We came from a regime whereby there was less than adequate training. In the old days, people could shake the hand of a builder and know they would get an A1 job because the builder was trained—had gone through a thing called an apprenticeship or through trade training—or was professional and stood by any mistakes made. Those days, sadly, have gone for many in the sector. But I will say that the vast majority in the sector are still, I believe, good, professional, world-class builders and construction experts.
It is also worth mentioning that part of the delay related to growth in respect of local authorities. Many local authorities took on the Building Act as it was redrawn at the time. I remember one or two members citing a reference to kitchen benches in the Building Act. The Act did not prescribe whether one was required to have a marble or a Gib board bench—which one would not have. It basically said that one had to have—and I paraphrase—a kitchen bench that was healthy. It could not be made out of a substance that would allow botulism or hepatitis to flourish, or something like that.
The interesting thing about the Building Act, I am sure the Minister would concede, is that it allowed local authorities to be flexible and to adapt their requirements to local circumstances. The problem was that, post the leaky building situation—although we are still in it—a number of local authorities went right over the top. There was a little bit of paranoia—and that then created delay—based on the fact, in fairness, that many local authorities were engaged in drive-by inspections. I can see the Minister nodding. The local authorities are the last line of defence against signing off a home that is not A1, and many would concede that, through their inspectorate and the infrastructure around it, they did not execute that duty very well. Then they were hit with liability, and the reaction was to overreact.
I recall one developer saying, when I was the Minister, that he now required nail patterns. I asked him what a nail pattern was and he said he had to show the pattern in which he would nail in the beams. It was ridiculous. The old Kiwi thing used to be that when people could not afford to build their whole house, they would build the frame and maybe line it and put in the ablutions and drains. But they would leave the lounge and dining room unfinished and would live in a bedroom, and maybe an ancillary room. Then they would get the builder in each week to do a bit more work before getting full code compliance. One local authority, whose name I will not mention, was telling people they could not move into their homes until they had full code compliance, and people just believed it. I was quite rightly lambasted by a developer, so I investigated. The developer thought that the rule was in the Building Act, but the Act did not say that, at all. The local authority was lying, and was found out and had to change its practice. So a whole series of things created delays.
Equally, some local authorities had an explosion in requests for consents. If I owned a supermarket and the number of my customers doubled and I did not put on one extra checkout person, I suspect there would be delays at the checkout. Some local authorities had a 100 percent increase in the number of requests for consents and would not put on one extra typist to type up the paperwork while the building inspector went out and did the business of inspecting. They would not do any of that. We introduced an accrediting process. I recall that the Palmerston North local authority was the first to get accredited. The next-door Manawatū local authority said that it was too small to do that but that it would contract and cluster with the Palmerston North local authority so that it could build up capacity and move the consents through. There were a number of contributing factors.
I commend the Minister for this bill. I think the Minister and his predecessor, Minister Jones, have the twin objectives, as we do. They are to try to cut the costs and speed up requirements and, at the same time, balance that against the syndrome where if someone gets a cowboy builder in and he makes a mess of it, people’s rights are protected. I commend this bill, we support it, and I think it will go a long way to making a contribution to the homeowner.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) Link to this
Indeed, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Maurice Williamson, and a former Minister, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, both of whom have considerable expertise in this particular portfolio and have spoken so eloquently and in such detail. It is a pleasure because their speeches were informative and instructive, and they provided ample background as to where the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) came from and why we have it. I remember that when it came to the Local Government and Environment committee, there was a move to call it the “Shane Jones Building Amendment Bill”.
Yes, he would have, but Labour members said no. National members thought it would have been all right, but Labour members said they did not want him getting beyond his station.
Chris TremainA small step.
This bill has been described as a short bill, a small bill, but I suggest that it is a very important bill. It has three significant aspects. It allows the Department of Building and Housing to issue national, multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings that are to be replicated on a substantial scale. It came as a surprise to learn—and the Minister or the former Minister can correct me—that 40-plus percent of dwelling houses fit that category; that is not a small consideration.
This bill is designed to reduce the statutory time frame for processing a building consent application from 20 working days to 10 working days where the application includes a national, multiple-use approval—so that halves things. It differentiates between major and minor variations to consented building work, so that minor changes can be made without going through the full process. This will reduce costs and save time. It makes it voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum from a building consent authority that is a territorial authority. I was recently in Ōpōtiki and Whakatāne, and I had the opportunity to speak to a gathering of builders. They were very supportive of this type of change being brought into law.
As I mentioned before, we say that this is a little bill, but its significance goes well beyond the bill itself. It is an economic reality that businesses will relocate to where conditions are favourable to them. Investors will put their money where it can get a good return. This type of bill is designed to assist the development of good business practice. That is why this Government is focused squarely on improving New Zealand’s economic performance. I suggest that when this bill was brought in by the Hon Shane Jones, it was recognition that it was a time for change.
This Government has three key economic objectives: to increase New Zealand’s productivity, to maintain high levels of employment, and to reduce New Zealand’s vulnerability to adverse events. That means getting better at producing goods and services, and getting paid more for them. This bill will help in that direction. The most fundamental problem facing New Zealand’s economy at the moment is poor productivity growth. This bill will accelerate growth in the housing and building sector. Our productivity is already low in comparison with that of other developed countries, and in recent years it has grown much more slowly than productivity in most other countries. We need a business environment that enables firms to put resources to their best use. In short, we need to reverse the trends of recent years and get the business and building sectors growing again, and this bill will help do that in a big way.
As I said, let us remember that 40-plus percent of dwelling houses will be affected by this legislation. A few things have come about to encourage this bill, and, again, I am not trying to take away in any shape or form the credit and merit that are due to the originator of the bill. I wish he was here—he is in Auckland at the moment, and we understand that; it is not a criticism—because it would be nice for him to celebrate the passing of the bill through the Committee stage.
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū) Link to this
Between 2004 and 2005 I was privileged to be the Minister for Building Issues and the Minister responsible for the Department of Building and Housing. This bill, introduced by the previous Labour Government, is one that the Labour Party is supporting, for the reasons that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove outlined earlier and that the Minister himself mentioned. The bill is about facilitating a more expedient and logical process in obtaining building consents.
When I became Minister, I met, as one does, with all the different sector groups. One of the consistent themes that came through from builders, particularly those who were working across the wider Auckland region, was the inconsistency that occurred in the consent process among different territorial authorities. I did as I guess my successors have done: I asked the officials to investigate what the process was all about and why there were those inconsistencies. They visited the different territorial authorities in Auckland to look at how long consents took to take place, and the process around the way that building inspectors operated. There was an astonishing inconsistency, and many of the complaints that we received were quite justified. Territorial authorities were able to be like that, because there was not a regime around ensuring that efficient and effective processes took place. So this legislation is very important.
One of the great debates that we had before both the 2005 and the 2008 elections was about the affordability of homes for people. Nothing can be a more important investment for a family or an individual than the buying of their home. Often it is the largest investment they will make in their lives. We debated at length in this Chamber the causes of the steep rise in house prices. The then Opposition, the National Party, took it to be the shortage of available land, and those members were great proponents of extending out the urban limit in Auckland, in particular so that more land would be freed up. As Minister, I kept pointing out that there was a considerable amount of land already available but that speculators were sitting on it, and I asked how we would force them to free up some of that land.
I suspect that the Opposition and the then Government both knew that the reasons for the high prices of houses were complex and interrelated. They related not only to the price of land or the price of mortgages but also to building costs, and the consent process is one of those building costs. One of the ways of making the cost of houses more affordable for individuals and families is to try to lower those costs. We looked at other things and not only at the consent process, because in the total package of the cost of a home the consent is not large but it is nevertheless real.
Building materials were another area that I felt, as Minister for Building Issues, we needed to look at more closely, because there did seem to be quite an anomaly in the costs between building materials in Australia and those in New Zealand. In a higher-waged market, building materials seemed to be cheaper. That was an area that we definitely needed to make more progress in, and I am sorry that we had such a short time to do it in—certainly in the time that I was Minister. Of course my job changed after the election and I moved on to other things, although one of them was being Minister of Housing.
The bill is good; it sets up a speedy process. I know that it is not often in this Chamber we have a consensus from political parties about the usefulness of a bill. In a way, the decision by the now National Government to take this Labour legislation and continue it through the House is something that we should all support, because it is a multi-party approach to an issue that is very important for people. As I said a few minutes ago, no asset is more significant in its purchase for a family or an individual than a home.
Another area that I guess the Minister will be looking at is this whole area of affordability, and I urge him to look again at this whole question of the costs of materials. That is another area where I feel an act of intervention, or at least a message from Government to the building sector, would be a powerful incentive to lower the costs associated with at-home construction. I know that Shane Jones was working not only on this legislation but also on the concept of an affordable house, and that is something very commendable that I urge the Minister to look at, as well.
NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). It has gone through the select committee process with very little debate, and has been well supported. Of course, it amends the principal Act, the Building Act 2004. It is interesting, and perhaps a little bit disappointing, that the Act of 2004 proved to be so heavily bureaucratic and tied up with red tape that we have to look at it again so soon—5 years is not a long time for a bill to last.
As I have said, the amendments have been very positively received by the industry, architects, builders, and anybody who realises the importance of construction. The aim of the bill is to amend the Building Act 2004. It is basically to reduce both direct and indirect costs to property owners and developers, but all the time ensuring that quality homes and buildings are still constructed, and that housing is affordable. The amendments are designed to cut time and costs out of the building process, and to provide a stimulus for increased construction and the jobs that go with it.
New Zealand has always had a great tradition of homeownership. For many years, it was the Kiwi dream of a quarter-acre pavlova paradise; every house with a picket fence, a big vege garden, and space to play backyard cricket. Although now in the 2000s the dream remains, it might look slightly different. The Kiwi dream in the 2000s could be a fifth-floor apartment or an inner-city heritage villa, but regardless of style, homeownership is an enormously important part of the Kiwi way of life. The National Government wants to make sure that homes are affordable for as many New Zealanders as possible.
One of the silver linings of the current recession is that house prices have dropped and affordability has improved, but it is an enormously high price to pay for affordable housing. Unfortunately, over the last few years under the previous Labour Government it had become increasingly difficult for people to own their own homes, and New Zealand had become one of the least affordable countries in which to own a home. The major amendments in this bill cover three main areas, and each is designed to improve the timing and cost of the consenting process, so that houses can be built more cost-effectively.
The first one is to allow the Department of Building and Housing to issue national multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings that are replicated on a substantial scale. It was interesting to hear from my colleague Chris Auchinvole that 40 percent of houses are replicated.
Actually, 40-plus percent of houses are replicated. This is the tract housing that we see in suburbs around all our cities. It is also required to reduce the statutory time framework for processing building consent applications, from 20 working days to 10 working days, when the application includes a national multiple-use approval. But I note that those approvals still need consents for the specific site. They are only for the design or template. We all know that time is money, so the introduction of these national multiple-use approvals will streamline and simplify the consenting process, and cut costs.
Secondly, the bill differentiates between major and minor variations to consented building work. I do not think there would be a single building that does not have to have minor changes as it goes up. Whether it is moving a window or tweaking a door, these are small but important changes that happen through the process, and this new system allows for the consenting of minor changes to go through without the full consenting process, which saves time and money. The differentiation between major and minor variations will simplify and streamline again and cut those costs.
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this
I take great delight in speaking to the Building Amendment Bill (No 2), which, of course, Labour is supporting. I note that all of National’s speakers whom I have heard so far on the bill this evening, perhaps with the exception of the Minister for Building and Construction, because I did not hear his complete speech, and with the exception of the previous speaker, have neglected to mention anything to do with housing affordability.
It has taken my colleagues on this side of the Chamber to acknowledge the issue of housing affordability. That is the origin of this bill. It does not originate in red tape cutting at all costs, which is a predilection of the Government. Its origins were in the previous Labour Government’s wrestling with the issue of housing affordability. We had to wrestle with that issue because in the 9 years that we were in Government, house prices went up 80 percent. This was not through Government action or any intrusion into the market, but because of the bubbles that we now all know about so wisely in hindsight, and about which we can have such good theories and be so condemnatory on. Those were the origins of this legislation.
I am delighted that Nicky Wagner mentioned housing affordability, because she is the only one of the National Government’s speakers who has done so. I remember—and I feel very passionately about this because I was the Minister of Housing at the time—when we proposed multiple-use consents, the chorus from the Opposition of the time was: “Oh, houses made of ticky-tacky! Little boxes on the hillside! You want everybody to look the same.” That was the cry from members over the other side of the House when National was in Opposition. They did not care about housing affordability. That was not in their frame, at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is not in their frame now.
Housing affordability has not been mentioned once by the new Minister of Housing since he has taken up the portfolio. I say to Mr Williamson, that I am referring to the Minister of Housing, Phil Heatley, who has not mentioned housing affordability once since he has taken up the portfolio. I am so delighted to support this bill and I am very pleased that the Minister who is in the chair at the moment has chosen to see it through to this place. One of the things that will make a difference is the national multiple-use consent, which is provided for in this legislation.
National may have had some sort of epiphany and realised that housing affordability is complex and quite hard, and the fact that National just shot slogans and clichés at the issue when it was in Opposition is now relegated to history. I am delighted that National has now come to the realisation that this bill will enhance housing affordability for New Zealanders. The idea of having multiple consents for standardised houses is not anathema to the national psyche or character, albeit we very much love our own customised windows and doors, which is part of the problem that makes houses so expensive in New Zealand. But it will not be the death of our individualistic culture, as National used to rail against when it was in Opposition.
However, I could not let this bill go past this stage without drawing its origins to the attention of the Government and this Committee of the whole House, because the bill will make a difference to housing affordability. I congratulate the Government on coming to its senses and recognising that this bill is one of the pieces of the armoury that is required if we are ever going to return to having achievable house prices in this country. Mr Williamson has my support entirely with this legislation. He should not forget where it came from. I appreciate the tributes that have been offered to Shane Jones. That is a generous and genuine thing Mr Williamson has done and that National speakers have done. But let us not forget that the purpose of this bill was to reduce house prices through reducing consent prices, and that is good for New Zealand.
Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this
It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). I acknowledge the sterling work that has gone on in the Local Government and Environment Committee from members on all sides of the House. I thank the honourable member Maryan Street for pointing out that the bill does have a small effect on housing affordability.
The National-led Government made specific undertakings during the last election campaign. One of the most important was to encourage genuine growth in our economy by reducing compliance costs and red tape. In recent times the Prime Minister has observed that the New Zealand economy has flattered to deceive. Growth in our GDP, such as it has been over the last 9 years up to 2008, has been driven more by people working longer and by more people joining the working population than by us producing any more products of greater value. Further influences on GDP, of course, have been the increase in consumption, a debt-fuelled housing boom, and large increases in often ill-directed Government spending. With measures such as this bill, the Building Amendment Bill (No 2), the Government is aiming to build our GDP on the more solid foundations of real growth and investment in the internationally competitive sectors of the economy.
We must increase our productivity growth—that is, get better at producing goods and services that the world wants and being paid more for them. We must liberate the tradable sectors of our economy—for example, agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, tourism, and forestry. This bill will help the industries that make us money to do so. The streamlining of this bill will cut away some of the red tape and concomitant compliance costs, and make it easier to do business.
What, then, are the aims of this bill? We have heard some of them from the great leader, the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Chris Auchinvole.
“The great helmsman” is another term that is used—at the select committee only, of course. What are some of the aims of this bill? We wish to allow the Department of Building and Housing to issue national multiple-use approvals to dwellings and buildings that are to be replicated on a substantial scale. We have heard about that from the honourable member who spoke before, Maryan Street. That is a very important point. The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) is part of changes needed to address the compliance costs facing homeowners, developers, and builders. These changes, as we said, are crucial to New Zealand’s economic development.
As part of our first 100 days, as members know, the National Government streamlined and simplified the Resource Management Act to improve resource consent processing and cut compliance costs. The reform of the Building Act has the same intention as our work on the Resource Management Act, and is part of our ongoing commitment to cutting red tape. Last year, as we may have pointed out earlier in the debate, the Building Act was estimated to have loaded up to $20,000 on to the cost of building a new house, making housing affordability a thing of the past for many New Zealanders. As the Hon Maryan Street pointed out, housing affordability is a part of the allure of the bill to members on all sides of the Committee, and it is wonderful to see the cooperation that has taken place to allow the bill to proceed so swiftly.
The global recession is hurting our building industry and costing Kiwis their jobs. These changes to cutting red tape will make it easier for people to do business—for developers who are building the homes, and for homeowners who want to retain the services of a private builder and his team. They will make it much easier for those jobs to be done and will boost the building industry at a time when many companies are struggling and builders are looking for work.
Builders have complained of waiting up to a fortnight at a time to get on-site building inspections done, adding to costs that have been crippling for builders and frustrating for homeowners. This should not happen, and we are making changes to tackle problems like these.
Some other purposes of this bill were alluded to by honourable members. We are reducing the statutory time frame for the processing of building consent applications from 20 working days to 10 working days, particularly when the application includes a national multiple-use approval. We can differentiate between major and minor variations to consented building work, so that minor changes can be made without going through a full process.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
I thought I would talk through the life of this bill, the Building Amendment Bill (No 2).It has not been around long, and I thought it would be timely to consider it. The bill was introduced by Labour prior to the House rising for the 2008 election. Its first reading was in March of this year. It was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which reported back on 11 May 2009. I had the pleasure of speaking on the second reading of this bill when it came up on 26 May. We are now at the Committee stage looking again at this bill. It has support across the Chamber, which is always a very good thing.
I want to follow on from my colleague Maryan Street and talk about why Labour supports this bill and, in fact, introduced it. For the first part, we introduced it as part of a coordinated approach to assist in increasing the supply of good quality, affordable homes. Both the Hon Maryan Street and Nicky Wagner talked about housing becoming increasingly unaffordable in recent times.
I want to put on record the fact that the previous Government was very focused on the issue of housing. It knew how central having a decent place to live is to people’s lives. So it put in place a number of initiatives to help housing affordability. It looked at initiatives such as KiwiSaver helping people to save for a deposit, it looked at enhanced assistance for first-home buyers through the Welcome Home Loan scheme, and it also introduced a shared-equity programme. The rental for State housing was reduced, and we looked at initiatives like the Hobsonville development, which was started to assist in the provision of affordable housing. Of course, that recently had a sad ending when the Prime Minister made sure that it did not include the affordable-housing component any more. I do not think that people wanted it in their neighbourhood.
Certainly, as I said, the previous Government was very focused on affordable housing. It passed legislation to enable territorial authorities to increase the supply of affordable housing in their local areas. It announced a review of public land for potential new housing developments, and a boost for the not-for-profit sector. With this bill, through reducing compliance costs for starter homes and cutting red tape, it again assisted with housing affordability. That puts it in context.
This bill was introduced by Labour to help reduce unnecessary delays in the building consent process, which causes frustration for everybody, and also to reduce both the direct and indirect costs to owners and developers associated with the construction process, while ensuring that quality homes and houses are constructed. That is very important. It is not about getting rid of all of the requirements around quality, because we all know where that leads—this country has had a very unfortunate experience in that regard. It is about ensuring that quality is retained.
The main purpose of the bill—and Cam Calder also outlined some of this—is to extend the functions and powers of the Department of Building and Housing to allow the issuing of national multiple-use approvals for dwellings and buildings; reduce the statutory time frame for the processing of building consent applications from 20 working days to 10 working days; differentiate between major and minor variations to consented building works; and make it voluntary for an owner to obtain a project information memorandum.
Once the Local Government and Environment Committee had considered this bill it had very few changes to recommend back to the House. One of the main changes was to allow minor customisations, as prescribed in regulations, to be made to plans and specifications that have national multiple-use approval. Clause 5 states: “minor customisation, in relation to an application for a building consent that incorporates plans and specifications that have national multiple-use approval, means a minor modification, addition, or variation to those plans and specifications”, whereas a minor variation has been defined as a “minor modification, addition, or variation to a building consent that is permitted by regulations”. The select committee also recommended that the time frame for the processing of national multiple-use approvals should be able to be imposed by regulation
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this
The builders whom I know are generally can-do people—practical, efficient, and able to string a chalk line at the flick of a wrist and leave a sharp blue line that is as straight as John Key’s promise to superannuitants. Builders often have to make minor variations, and they can do that blindfolded, yet we have required that they submit new plans, fresh specifications, and new consents, at considerable cost and delay. This amendment bill is all about giving our builders a fair go. The red tape we have talked about has been a noose around their necks, mainly because the bureaucrats in our councils who have to give consents have become risk-averse.
We have some great builders in our country. In fact, I have built a few homes in the past, but I cannot say that I am a great builder, after listening to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove’s comment about many of us here in this Chamber having some experience. On the second house I built I decided I would save some money, and I am sure that that will send a shiver down many people’s spines as they think about saving money when building a house. But I was determined to design it and do the plans myself. It took me many, many months, let me tell members, to learn the NZ3604 code. As I learnt that, then learnt the art of using software to create a plan, I proceeded. After 6 months I applied for my consent and—believe it or not—it was granted. Then I gave it to my builder, who is a good friend of mine and excellent. He looked at it, and asked where we were going to put the windows—where was the detail? I said that he had them. Unfortunately he had to do some minor variations to the task, but in a sense he created a great improvement on what I had presented to him.
This bill recognises that minor variations take place, because we have builders out there who do an excellent job and want to improve buildings at the request of homeowners. Therefore, getting rid of the red tape is getting rid of the noose around builders’ necks. Thank you.