12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister for Building and Construction
How has the Department of Building and Housing lived up to the statement by the Minister of Commerce that the Government’s Quality Regulation Review was “the most effective review of red tape that this country has ever seen.”?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
The Quality Regulation Review was completed in August and set out a range of projects to address issues raised by business. Those projects are under way and going well.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How can the Minister say the review of red tape is going well, when Wellington City Council has noted “A typical house plan four years ago was three A3 size plans and 30 supporting pages. Developers are now required to file 12 A3 pages and up to 300 pages of … documentation.”; if that is a review going well, can he tell me what it would look like if it were going badly?
This may come as a surprise to the member, but I have a report—by the World Bank, no less—showing that New Zealand is second-best in the world in terms of dealing with building permits for projects on the scale of a warehouse. In cases where regional or local government is seeking some assistance, my department has up to 11 projects under way, and they are going swimmingly well.
Madam SPEAKERPlease be seated. That is what causes disorder. Considerable comment has also been made when other members have asked questions, but it was not at such a level that the members could not be heard.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Who does the Minister think would be more credible on the issue of compliance costs in the building sector: the World Bank on the other side of the world, or master builders, who have said of the Government’s new Building Act that “About $30,000 of the cost of the average new home is unnecessary regulatory red tape”?
The World Bank report covered a whole host of OECD and other jurisdictions. I am happy to provide that report to the member. In relation to the amounts of money he refers to, I say a lot of those so-called costs relate to energy efficiency and other very sensible things where there is a short period of time before the householder gets a handsome return.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Has the Minister read the study on housing costs before the Commerce Committee that noted that the single-biggest difference in housing costs between New Zealand and Australia is the cost of consent fees and levies, which have increased by 900 percent under this Government, and, given those figures, is it any wonder that a record 40,000 New Zealanders are leaving for Australia, where housing is so much more affordable?
I would like see those references to affordable housing in Australia at some dim point in the future. In respect of costs, etc., I repeat that there are 11 projects flowing from work carried out by my colleague. There are up to 11 projects, and they cover the points that the member has referred to.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Has the Minister received any reports that the member who asked the question complaining about excessive regulation of the building industry is the same person who complained about a lack of regulation of tanalising timber agents and who, as a consequence of that, is being sued for $15 million?
The member’s questions and answers are, in their various ways, a matter of great amusement to the House.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister think it is amusing to the House and to the people of New Zealand that $93 million has been spent on leaky homes and, after 5 years, only one in seven claims has been resolved, and that the cost of bureaucracy to the taxpayer for each home is $126,000 when the average settlement is only $84,000; and does he think that that is value for money?
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Minister is having trouble understanding a pretty straightforward question, perhaps you could invite the member who asked the question to ask it again.
As the member who raised the point of order knows, Ministers need address only one of the questions contained in supplementary questions.
The establishment of the weathertight remedy represents our desire to see all of the homeowners who were afflicted by poor regulation save what investment they can out of a shoddy experience—one that is attributable to those members who are now on the other side of the House.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question asked the Minister whether New Zealand taxpayers had got value for money for the $94 million spent. I do not think that the Minister’s answer addressed that question.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The Minister, in responding, pointed out that in fact this expensive process is a result of very poor regulation by the previous Government, and the questions have been about the expense of regulation in the building industry.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table the Hansard from 1991 that shows that Dr Cullen supported the—