Sitting date: 22 Oct 2025

(continued on Thursday, 23 October 2025)

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION (SMALL STAND-ALONE DWELLINGS) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good morning, everyone.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It takes too long, and it is too expensive to build in New Zealand. That is why the coalition Government, through the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, committed to making it faster and more affordable to build granny flats. Removing barriers to building small simple houses is a common-sense change that will be an important step in helping address New Zealand's housing crisis. This bill will help to increase the supply of affordable housing options for both young and old New Zealanders, as well as for people with disabilities and those in the rural sector, particularly rural workers.

Before getting into the detail of the bill itself, it's worth noting that this bill is widely supported by the public and across the House. This speaks to the design of the bill and what it seeks to achieve—firstly, accelerating housing growth by right-sizing the regulatory approach for simple lower-risk building work. If you take a look at the bill, the bill will permit non-consented small stand-alone dwellings, commonly referred to as granny flats, to be built without a building consent, subject to certain conditions. That is the building must be simple in its design and meet the building code. Building work must be carried out, or supervised, by authorised personnel, and councils must be notified prior to and on the completion of building work. The bill also maintains appropriate safeguards to provide assurance to homeowners, councils, insurers, and lenders that eligible homes will still meet the minimum code requirements and still will be healthy, safe, and durable. These safeguards include existing consumer protection mechanisms in the Building Act 2004, including pre-contract disclosures and a 12-month defect-free period. To ensure consent-exempt granny flats are simple, lower-risk buildings, the bill provides that they must be new, stand-alone, single-storey dwellings of 70 square metres or less.

The bill also provides that granny flats must be built in accordance with a set design specification set out in Schedule 1A. For example, the dwelling must be constructed with lightweight materials for the roof. The bill also introduces a power to add, remove, or amend some of these simple design requirements by Order in Council. The ability to change the simple design requirements will ensure that the building design conditions in Schedule 1A may be reviewed and updated in ways that will continue to meet the building code.

It's important that those doing the work have the competency to do so and can be held to account if things go wrong. As such, building work must be carried out by authorised professionals. These professionals are required to produce a record of the work that they are responsible for so that they have a lasting record of the work that was completed, who completed it, and when. This information will be valuable for future owners, insurers, and lenders who may want to know if the building does, in fact, meet minimum building code requirements. To ensure owners and councils can be fully informed of the proposed building work, the bill also provides that owners must notify the relevant council of their intent to build a granny flat by applying for a project information memorandum, also known as a PIM. The bill requires that councils issue additional information alongside the PIM to further inform owners in support of their decision making. This will include information on any natural hazards that may be present on the land and whether the council has a view to make changes to the proposed design or a building consent is required to manage the risk presented by the building work in connection with the natural hazard. It is important to note that this is for information purposes only. Homeowners will have the freedom to determine how they respond, and it will be up to the owners to determine how they may wish to utilise this information to build a compliant granny flat.

The bill also offers a much simpler process in regard to building a code compliant granny flat compared to the normal building consent process. Firstly, a homeowner will engage qualified tradespeople to carry out the building work along with lining up their insurance and lending requirements if applicable. A homeowner will then apply for a PIM and receive that within 10 working days. A homeowner will then use that information to complete their design plans and ensure that all the exemption conditions are met, along with applying for any relevant authorisations to connect to a council network if not received at the point of the PIM. At that point, building work will commence. As the work is completed, records of this work will be produced and provided to the homeowner or to a homeowner and a council for restricted building work. And then, when an owner has received all relevant records from tradespeople, they have 20 working days to provide these to the council and to pay any development contributions owing.

This is a common-sense, straightforward approach to building a granny flat. Building owners will then be able to choose if they wish to follow this process or if they wish to go down the normal building consent process, which can see homes taking several months to receive a code of compliance certificate. This bill will make it easier to build, it will make it more simple, and it will make more lower-risk homes that many New Zealanders will be able to live in and benefit from. It will also help unlock productivity in the construction sector, which will help to increase the supply of affordable housing options for Kiwis. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a final call on this bill which has been an example of cross-partisan working support through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, ably chaired by Andy Foster. A Minister who enthusiastically engages not only with the sector who builds these things—the people on the ground who know and want to be able to build granny flats and to stimulate the work that they need and to improve productivity in their industry—but also engages with many of the submissions that have come through the select committee process.

This is a sensible change that is designed to stimulate more building work at a time when the construction sector desperately needs it, and to improve people's access to simple buildings that will be built in connection with people's single homes on parcels of land which can accommodate them. It creates a new system for councils to be able to notify people of any risks associated with that, and that remains something that the Labour Party will continue to watch and determine whether that works because, as I have noted along the way in this process, there are systems in this which have been designed quickly; we do not know the full impact of them. It is on all of us who have been supportive of this legislation to make sure that it works for the people who'll be affected within their communities. Those systems have to be robust, and so we'll make sure that this is a building system addition that contributes to New Zealand's building system—overall, being affordable, delivering houses that are in the right place, and being safe.

I wanted to highlight for the House, at this point—the third reading—just how important this is for New Zealand because, at a time when we are seeing more Government policy that makes it harder for people to afford their rents and harder for them to afford their housing cost, there should be some element of Government action on this. This isn't where Labour would have started. This is a change of the supply side which will make a small movement of the dial to make housing more affordable, at a time when rents continue to rise and when people in New Zealand are still facing a housing stock which has significant challenges of dampness, of thermal inefficiency, and—particularly for those more vulnerable communities—real issues in terms of affordability. Things like poor sanitation, which the ministry in charge of the building system and acting as a steward for the housing system, as a whole, have pointed out to successive Governments. It is not something we expect in New Zealand; it is not a standard that we should set ourselves for our homes.

Any small thing that will enable the building of new structures that are of a higher standard and that can get people into better-quality housing at an affordable rate, and make some kind of measure on the supply side to address the real needs in our communities, that is a good thing. But this is not the silver bullet. I was reflecting, when I was sitting in the committee room alongside my colleagues who have all brought a huge amount of enthusiasm to making a change here that will be lasting and that will be robust, and listening to the views of others in the community about how to make this something that New Zealanders can buy into—I was listening to the submissions of Māori architects, and there was one who came along with his two young daughters. They introduced themselves to the committee. I believe the one who was speaking was about 11 years old, and she spoke of her home in Te Urewera and about the building standards that she hoped for her community, that we could be using more local knowledge and that we could be providing for a community there who, for generations, have lived with underperforming housing stock but reclaiming some of the knowledge that her father was reviving through his work as an architect.

It highlighted for me the missed opportunities that we have there, and it connected with me because my father was born in Te Urewera in the early 1930s, at a time when that area of the country was vastly cut off from the rest of us—

Hon Peeni Henare: It still is.

ARENA WILLIAMS: It still is, says the Hon Peeni Henare. My father was moved as a baby over to the shores of the Ōhiwa Harbour where he grew up in a raupō whare. That raupō whare had a dirt floor, it had a thatched roof made of reeds that were replaced each season to keep the rain out. But he recalls that being a warm whare where he, you know, really enjoyed his life with his grandparents who were part of the Ringatū Church and were there safeguarding an area that was important to the life and the death of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Tūruki.

Reflecting on those building practices, that this little girl—11 years old—had come along to speak to the committee about, and that we could not include in this bill. We could not include it in any legislation which is moving through the House on building systems made me think about the lost opportunity that we have here when we restrict ourselves to a narrow view of what is possible in Aotearoa for a future that this little girl was advocating for. There is something to be learned from these young people who are hoping for more, from a building system and a housing system that houses the people who need it most, when we cannot make any shift of the dial for her and her aspirations, and looking back to those practices which worked so well for my father in her own rohe.

When you think about the policies of successive Governments from then, when he was born, until now, it tells a picture of housing inequality in New Zealand which we are missing too. Successive Governments from the 1940s, those were Labour Governments, absolutely changed the picture for housing ownership. Rates rose over those two decades that were post-war years to increase housing ownership from about half to about two thirds. That was because people were able to build their own homes cheaply and it was because they were able to be supported by a State programme backed to build State houses.

State ownership increased and housing quality increased over those years because those two things went hand in hand. The big difference in housing policy arose in the 1990s when a National Government implemented a housing policy that involved slashing all controls around people's access, and increasing rents. Some people saw their rents of State houses go up 300 percent in six months. The difference there is that successive Labour and National Governments have believed that it is the role of the State not only to increase supply of housing, like this bill does, but to ensure that demand for housing is also supported.

That is, I think, the point here: that we are missing a trick if we think that these measures will make the difference that we need to radically increase not only home ownership but the quality of housing in New Zealand. So for this, this is something that we can all support and this is something that we all need to keep working on, to make sure that sort of "crust", as I like to call it, Cameron Luxton—the crust of regulations that has grown up over those decades that I'm talking about—is not holding back anyone to build cheaply and affordably, which is something we believe in, too. But to also make sure that we have the policies—the crust, that has grown up—that we need to be brushing away.

There is also a role for us in making sure that those interventions that we can make, to make sure that home ownership is increasing continues because, you know, it has been successive Governments of both stripes. Keith Holyoke's Government stands out to me, in the 1960s; a Government that prioritised home ownership. He was the Prime Minister of home ownership. We need to see that commitment being bipartisan and being widely agreed as important to New Zealand because it increases our productivity overall. It increases our economic resilience; it increases resilience at the household and family level. It gives people something to be proud of and to hope for and a connection into their communities, which is unparalleled. It is a meaningful Government policy that we should not walk away from when times are like this, when the economy is tough for people, and we need to make an intervention on both sides.

I'm looking forward to watching how this bill impacts New Zealand. It's predicted that 13,000 of these small dwellings might be built because of this intervention. That's a good thing. Where they are in the country makes a big difference, and how they are received by their communities makes a big difference because people need to buy into this and it will change the way some neighbourhoods look and feel. We need to make sure that people can support a process, and councils that also work within the process are supported to be able to do that, have the funding and financing adequate to be able to administer this system. These also became larger during the process of our consideration of the bill; up to 70 square metres. That is also something that we will watch closely because the intention here is—I think, in most Kiwis' minds—that they will be small, but these will be larger buildings, so we need to make sure that the system is working for everyone.

At this final stage, we're proud to support this bill and we look forward to it making some small difference.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party at this third reading of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. As we reach this final stage of the bill's journey, it's time to reflect on some of the things we've achieved, what we're still not sure about, and what we need to address in the future.

We support, particularly, enabling tangata whenua to build on their own land. We support making it easier for multi-generational whānau to house their kaumātua, their rangatahi, or other relatives. We support giving people who do have land to add housing capacity more simply—I have to say that 70 metres is a lot larger than where I live, but it's an interesting change to the size. We do believe that housing is a human right, and we urgently need more affordable, healthy, secure homes in Aotearoa. But this bill is a very small tool in what needs to be a much larger toolbox. As it becomes law, we must be honest about both its potential and its limitations.

I want to say a little bit about the council role. It's a very major shift introducing how councils operate in relation to building oversight. Instead of a consent process, councils will now provide the project information memorandum, the PIMs, and it reduces their liability in some ways, and it quite dramatically changes their role. Councils will still need to manage the infrastructure impacts—the stormwater, the wastewater, the roading—but with less information and less oversight. What happens if there is a surge of these dwellings in just one area? What happens if landlords use them in different ways than we had been expecting?

At the second reading, some members spoke about preventing councils from wriggling out—or possibly wiggling out—of the bill's intent. But, you know, we can't hold councils responsible on one hand and remove their oversight on the other. So it would be interesting to hear from the Minister in his closing speech what resources might be provided to councils for this new system? What training is council staff going to receive? How will the public know what they can and can't do? What support will licensed builders get for any changed responsibilities? The risk is confusion, uneven application, and potentially unsafe buildings.

Reuben Davidson earlier rightly highlighted the importance of digital records. Master plumbers in their submissions suggested that there are some tools that need to track these buildings nationally, because it's a big change from a sleepout to something that's got plumbing, both for the incoming water and for the sewage. Is the Government going to fund any digital systems for councils to monitor these buildings, or is it creating yet another unfunded mandate for local Government?

The legislation was developed quickly. The regulatory impact statement says it was rushed due to the coalition agreement. As Arena Williams said, not just now but earlier, there will be things we come back to because they do not work as intended, and there are some important questions that will only be answered in practice. Will insurance costs rise for buildings that are made under this particular area? How will banks treat lending for these dwellings? What happens if development does overload infrastructure? I would have suggested that we need some kind of more formal review in five years to check on a range of these buildings, whether they've been safe, whether their sewage and electricity infrastructure is functioning as intended.

The estimates suggest somewhere around nearly 13,000 additional dwellings over 10 years. That's not exactly tomorrow. It's helpful, but it's modest. Julie Anne Genter said this is a tiny number, given the scale of our housing need. The other thing is these dwellings are going to be scattered without strategic coordination for good urban design, transit access, or infrastructure efficiency. These dwellings are going to reduce neither car dependency nor emissions. They're not going to support compact, walkable neighbourhoods. Scattered backyard builds are fine to address some narrow needs, but they do not deliver climate smart cities. This Government's preference for urban sprawl in places is not going to help.

It also does little for productivity in the construction centre. One-off granny flats are not likely to be standardised. Productivity would come from more coordinated large-scale builds. Also, some of these dwellings are going to be used as airbnb's. Tamatha Paul brought that point forward. That's fine for tourism, but short-term rentals are not going to solve our housing crisis.

So these new dwellings will add some capacity to our housing system. Not all are going to be homes for people in need. Most critically, this bill does absolutely nothing for social housing or addressing homelessness. It doesn't help people, whether they're grannies or solo parents on the public housing wait-list or sleeping rough. These dwellings require existing land and existing money, so to some extent they will help people who are already better off.

Tamatha Paul said it plainly: we are in a housing crisis; homelessness is increasing. This Government was warned that their policy changes would increase homelessness, and it happened. The Green Party has a petition calling on the Government to reverse emergency housing eligibility changes, fund wraparound services to house people, and reinstate the public housing build programme. The previous Government built over 13,000 public homes, the most since the 1970s. This Government has cancelled 3,479 homes, cut $1.5 billion from Kainga Ora, and is selling off existing stock. Now, they want applause for enabling a few thousand granny flats over a decade.

We will be watching the implementation of this bill closely. We will be continuing to push for much bigger systemic changes, not just to more housing but to better housing—to housing that uses sustainable materials, to training for building apprentices that's improved and better funded. It's quite hard for people to move to new areas for apprenticeships without rather stronger support. You can look at the changes to the polytechnics; you can take a look at the changes to jobseeker 18- and 19-year-olds—all of these things impact on our ability to provide safe, sustainable, affordable homes.

So we have got oversight reduced, the risks remain, and we haven't really addressed our overly prescriptive building code, which holds back innovations like passive housing and energy efficient design. Rather than just deregulating this aspect, we should raise the bar and make it easier to build high-quality, long-lasting, resilient homes in the right place. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's fantastic to stand up in this third reading of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. It's been through a great process in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, where there was a kumbaya, there were a lot of problems sorted out. It would have been good if the previous speaker Celia Wade-Brown had actually been on the committee, because a whole lot of the questions and issues that she raised were actually answered. I mean, scattered backyard builds, urban sprawl—this is infill by definition. And standardised—these buildings are the almost definition of standardised. There's literally, in the end of this bill, a description of what you're allowed to use: light cladding materials. There is an envelope restriction. Now, I have some issues with the restrictions around the envelope—what building can actually be built and where it can be located on the site. But, hey, we've come to a kumbaya agreement at select committee and across this House, that we are seeing a way forward.

Arena Williams talked about interventions on both sides—this is the type of supply-side intervention we need. We do not need any more demand-side intervention like KiwiBuild and other flops that did nothing but drive up the cost of housing in New Zealand and make the other side of the House ungovernable. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Are you seeking a call?

Dr David Wilson: Mr Speaker.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): I stand in support of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill third reading, and I know my colleague Andy Foster, who is at the funeral for the late Rt Hon Jim Bolger, would much rather have been speaking to this third reading. However, we're delighted to speak on this third reading. The bill makes it faster and more affordable to build simple, small stand-alone dwellings—one part of responding to our housing supply challenges, as was mentioned by the member from the ACT Party Cameron Luxton, with whom, I see, we're actually agreeing today.

New Zealand First campaigned on removing consenting costs for small stand-alone dwellings, aka "granny flats", and this was included in our coalition agreement with National. Today, we deliver on that promise, as we have delivered on so many other campaign promises. It's just another example of the pragmatic solutions-focused, not problems-focused, approach that New Zealand First takes to issues confronting everyday Kiwis—not really just for grannies but for anyone wanting to build, own, or live in a small stand-alone dwelling. Just consider the current very high, very tight housing market for our kids and their ability to get into the housing market, or any other whānau arrangements, such as those mentioned by the member from the Labour Party, such as papa kāinga—and those about the Labour Party's influence—or what they actually want.

Hon Mark Patterson: It's one of life's great mysteries!

Dr DAVID WILSON: Yep. It still needs to meet all the insulation standards, as was mentioned by such member. It saves on time, saves the disruption to construction when waiting for a building inspector, and saves the direct cost of fees, as was mentioned by the Green Party member.

There was a lot of support for the bill, unanimity in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which was chaired by none other than Andy Foster. It started with 60 square metres. Following consultation prior to the bill being lodged, it was raised to 70 square metres—another pragmatic change. Many complying buildings will be factory-constructed dwellings able to be transported to site. Now, 70 square metres is small, but it still allows good space for a kitchen, bathroom, laundry, living area, possibly a dining area, two bedrooms—you can deliver a lot, and of good quality, for a modest price. We have seen many examples, during this process, for less than $250,000, which is well under the average building cost for New Zealand.

Under this bill, councils are not consent authorities and are not on the liability hook, as they are when they have to process normal building consents. What they are required to do is provide upfront the project information memorandum, as the Minister mentioned; identify any hazards; keep records of the finished dwelling; and levy any development contributions towards infrastructure, which addresses the Green Party member's concerns earlier. They may also have to oversee any connections to water infrastructure. We will also need to deal with any relevant resource consent issues, if any.

Getting more houses built faster creates jobs, creates housing where it's of need, mostly, so we commend this bill to the Parliament. Thank you, sir.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Scott Willis—five-minute split call.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party sees housing as a human right and the Government's role is to ensure that there is effective action to increase the supply of warm and cosy homes, secure homes, affordable housing. We all need shelter and we all need shelter that will keep us healthy. The Green Party is not opposing this bill, but we do have concerns.

Hon Mark Patterson: Say something nice, Scott.

SCOTT WILLIS: Oh, say something nice.

Hon Mark Patterson: It's a good bill. It's a good idea. Don't be so grudging.

SCOTT WILLIS: Well, unfortunately, just about everything this Government has done has made things worse for Kiwis. We're seeing people sleeping on the streets.

This bill's regulatory impact statement tells us that there's going to be something like 7,800 new buildings in the next decade. Kāinga Ora was building 5,000 homes a year. The Green Party has put forward a proposal to build 7,000 homes a year. So if we think about solutions, this bill is really a patch-up. It's a PR job to try and deal with the bigger problems.

If we think about the State homes that have been cancelled, I think particularly about 2-12 Albertson Avenue in Port Chalmers. Kāinga Ora put that land up for sale when was required to. The deadline sale failed. We do not have housing in Port Chalmers in Ōtepoti Dunedin because of the failure to build the homes that were ready to be built. This is Government action.

When you take away one of the biggest levers that the Government's got to address housing quality and supply, you make a big mistake. We need more direct intervention. The market is not going to solve the housing crisis. People building small granny flats is not going to help get people into homes. It'll help with some airbnbs, it'll help with some short-term rental, it'll help some people get into homes, but it will not deal with the housing crisis. There is always going to be a section of the market that will not be met because the market solutions do not deliver what we need. They do not deliver shelter for all.

I am certainly in favour of seeing the building, construction, of housing better. What we'd like to see is an improvement in the code so that we have improvements here—and Cameron's going to say this is all in the bill. Actually, what we haven't got is an understanding of how we can make things better through other methods such as component building, building from patterns, and using structural insulated panels. If we really wanted to make a difference, we would be amending the building code to make sure that we can build quickly to code from patterns and from component building.

This is something that I have experience of, and I also live in a community where there are homes that have been built, small homes that have been built, sometimes with a consent, sometimes not. There's not a great difference between the poor quality of those homes, and this is where we see a real risk, because if we don't have an understanding of what sometimes happens with builders, or plumbers, or electricians when they decided they've had enough—they've got too many risks—where does that liability fall? This is the real risk that we face with this bill. It looks like an election slogan without a lot of work done, because we saw in the regulatory impact statement that it was done in a rushed manner because it's part of the coalition agreement. It's just an election slogan.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call Dan Bidois, the last two speakers have not sought the call. I remind members that they are required to seek the call if for no other reason than for the people who are actually up in the broadcasting area. So if you're on your feet and not seeking the call, you are required to do so. If you don't do so, the risk is that I will go straight to a vote. I call Dan Bidois.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I wish to apologise for the previous speaker, Scott Willis, because I think he's a bit upset that we didn't get to debate the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill yesterday—his party's bill. I have one message for the member, which is: you've got to show up to this House on time. I'm here to show up to talk about this good bill that we've got.

This is good policy. It's a great example of bipartisanship in this House. It's a practical solution to our housing challenges, and I wish to thank the Minister, Hon Chris Penk—a great, hard-working Minister—for shepherding this bill through the House. I wish to thank the officials, who have done a lot of work to really make sure that we can ramp this bill up quickly, in record time. I wish to thank my colleagues on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I look forward to its implementation as a practical way for us to build. I wish to say that I look forward to its implementation. Go forward—build, baby, build! I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's my privilege today to speak on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. It's always interesting to see my colleague Dan Bidois comment on other actions and showing up to the House on time, when, in fact, I think his own party has issues in getting votes right and practices in this House. But I'll leave that for him to discuss with his own colleagues—foot-in-mouth syndrome, I think.

Hey, the last speaker also spoke to this being a practical solution to our housing challenges, and I don't think that that is fair at all. Labour certainly supports this particular piece of legislation. It "seeks to reduce the time and cost of building a granny flat by permitting small stand-alone dwellings up to 70 square metres to be built without obtaining a building consent, given certain conditions are met." Those conditions are, obviously, important, and I acknowledge the select committee, who have gone through a robust and thorough process, collectively, to understand both the implications and the opportunities that sit in front of people and home owners and communities for this legislation to take place. Those conditions are that the granny flat must be simple in its design; it must be meets the building code, that building work must be carried out by authorised professionals—that's an important one, of course, because there are some people that DIY at home and quality is important there—and thirdly, that councils must be notified prior to and on completion of building work.

But going back to: is this a practical solution to our housing challenges? That member will, of course, know that Glenfield Salvation Army is reporting a homelessness list—as he moves around the House uncomfortably—of 150 people, who are sitting on that register in our own community. That's the highest that Salvation Army Glenfield have ever reported. He'll be aware that De Paul House in Northcote are seeing the highest number of single kaumātua, kuia—seniors—accessing their support, so by no way is this a practical solution to our housing needs.

Saying that, it does provide a suite of opportunities for Aucklanders in Tāmaki-makau-rau, that they are able to use their property better, and that it's more cost effective for them to do so. We have seen incredible fees applied to people doing works on their homes in the consent process with Auckland Council. But those costs do have to go back somewhere, and so one of the points that was raised in an earlier speech was: what support is being provides provided to Auckland Council to assist their part of the role? Because what is at stake, albeit highlighted in this legislation, is the quality of those facilities. The Labour Government, despite doing the largest public housing build since the 1970s, particularly, has been criticised for transitional housing options and using motels as an alternative. But here is a Government that is putting up granny flats as that alternative, with less regulation in order to enable people to live in a warm, dry home. So there is a balance to be struck here, but we must move forward with caution, with two eyes open on actually addressing the housing crisis in front of us.

We know that under this Government, over the last two years, the construction sector has gone backwards. We've had thousands and thousands—tens of thousands—of people leave our shores, who likely came through New Zealand and the Labour Government's apprenticeship scheme. As Labour's tertiary spokesperson, I'm very clear that in the last two years, we've graduated 9,000 fewer apprentices in this country. That's on top of the 20,000 - odd that have headed offshore. As they scale up the infrastructure investment in this country—finally—we really find ourselves short of a skilled workforce that they actually can't deny because they know that it's there, so let's not play politics on that one. We do need a skilled workforce in order to do that.

The granny flats obviously need to have a very simple design element to them. They must meet the building code in there, and this bill provides that "a consent-exempt granny flat must be built in accordance with a set of simple design specifications.", and I understand that the select committee have gone through a process of elimination there, that they do understand that building code very well and the expectations there. Also in the legislation before us: "building work must be carried out by authorised professionals;", as I mentioned, and that "councils must be notified prior to and upon completion of work.". In dense areas, where we do see intensified housing across Auckland, neighbours are very important, of course, so a bit of the communication of where you're putting your granny flat is very, very important—that we acknowledge those that live next door, that we're working with them to find the best fit for that neighbourhood and that community and the people that live between each other. The last thing we want to see, of course, is neighbours at war, which can easily happen when building and construction happens in people's property.

I'm personally very supportive of this bill. I think it's an easy thing to do for households that can afford to do this. It shouldn't be an expensive exercise. I remember as a teenager that back in my day, it wasn't—well, it kind of was a granny flat, but my eldest brother had a converted area in our shed. This is back in the 1980s, so similarly, I guess, that's a granny flat; but it gave people a bit of space, families a bit of space. It also offers the opportunity for kaumātua and kuia to come and live with their loved ones.

It's not a solution to the housing crisis; let's be very clear about that. The Government has taken us backwards in both building houses and also growing a skilled workforce for the construction sector—we have low number of apprentices graduating—but for the average Joe, in communities like mine, I think it's a good thing. It enables them to get on and create a granny flat in their backyard, and I really, really support that.

It's one action that the Government can take to support people at this time. The cost of living challenges are pretty heavy, and we aren't seeing any solutions there. Without further ado, can I acknowledge the select committee, the mahi that they've done on the bill; some of the expertise that sit around that table, I think are pretty good, and they've come from all angles, so I do certainly support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): It is great to hear that this bill received unanimous support from the House. Several speakers have addressed affordable housing regulation and workforce issues, but I would like to highlight something different. I want to speak for my ethnic communities. For many ethnic communities in New Zealand, including the Pacific and Asian families, multiple-generation living is not just practical; it is culture. These families value being close while also respecting each other's needs for privacy and independence. This bill allows the development of small stand-alone dwellings that support this way of living. It reflects our diverse communities and ensures our housing solution meets real families' needs. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a delight and a privilege to be able to speak in the third reading here of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. This is the first time that I've had the ability to have a contribution on this bill. It's something that I'm quite passionate about, believe it or not. This is an area that I think is a really positive one for this country, and, as has been traversed here for Labour today, we are very supportive of this bill and have been very engaged in the select committee process around it—

Hon Mark Patterson: You just need Scott Willis to get on board.

Hon JAN TINETTI: It seems like a sensible change. Mr Patterson, I'm pleased that you're really engaged in my speech here this morning—that you can call out and support that.

Hon Mark Patterson: I'm here with you, Jan.

Hon JAN TINETTI: That's really good—lovely to hear that, Mr Patterson. We see this as a sensible change, and what we are pleased about is that the new builds will still have to comply with the building code. That was a concern that we took through into the select committee stage and were able to traverse that and have that conversation, and we're pleased that the select committee made some sensible changes in that report as well, and that has been said here this morning in this debate.

I heard my colleague Shanan Halbert talk about a granny flat that he grew up with in his house. I was a member of a very large family; there were six siblings in my family, and we had a very tiny two-bedroom house that I grew up in. While it wouldn't have been compliant with this bill, my father did build a granny flat to add to our dwelling to make it a bit more comfortable as a family, and it meant that our family were able to stay together for a lot longer. It wouldn't have been compliant, because my father built it and he was not a certified personnel member, in this particular case, but that's what happened back in those days.

Hon Member: Don't throw your dad under the bus!

Hon JAN TINETTI: Ha, ha! It was a very safe dwelling, though, and it still stands today. I have to say that this is one of the things that I really think is important. With the changing nature of our families in this country, and in places where it's really important to keep families together, anything that we can do as a Government to help and support that is going to be helpful for those particular families. I say that from working in a particular place where larger families were more the norm, and it was hard to keep those families together. In many cases, when they came together—it might have been cousins coming together—back in the 2010s, they would often have to be in garages and in lounges and places like that, and it was very hard for them. This bill does make that easier. As my colleague Shanan Halbert said, it doesn't solve the housing crisis, and it doesn't go near to solving the housing crisis, but it does help particular families and particular places to be able to keep their compositions and make certain that they can stay a family unit.

One of the questions that I would have—and I would hope that, when this bill is looked at and reviewed down the track, we can see some changes—is will this make a difference to social housing? I say that because I've had knowledge, just this year, of a couple of families in my area around me who were in social housing; they had family—not even extended family, but direct family—a 16-year-old young woman who had a child and was wanting to put a granny flat on that particular social housing property, and that had been declined. Unfortunately, there was no emergency housing for that young person and her baby, and she had to live in a tent on the grounds of that house. I think those are questions that all of us can be taking forward and looking at to see whether that could make a difference for social housing providers to be able to put such dwellings on those pieces of land.

Again, those are questions for review down the track, but, overall, I think this is a really good change; it's a pragmatic change; it won't solve some of the big issues that we have as a country, but it will help certain demographics within the country. I have no hesitation in commending the bill.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a great honour to rise in support of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. We want to increase the supply of housing because, currently, it's far too hard to build a home in New Zealand. Even the simplest dwellings are tied up in red tape. This is about building the houses and the homes that New Zealanders need. We want to increase the supply. This is just one measure we're doing. We are also increasing access to overseas products that comply with overseas standards. This is going to really make a difference.

The other thing I'll mention is we've already seen up to 29 percent of real estate sales going to first-home buyers in New Zealand. That's the highest on record. This Government is serious about getting houses to New Zealanders. Therefore, I commend this build to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I stand in support of this bill, the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill, as my colleagues have indicated.

Jan Tinetti took me on a trip down memory lane. I am—I've said in this House before—one of nine children and have a very large extended family, and looking after our elders is something that's been entrenched in our whānau. When I was younger, my grandmother came back to Rangitukia to stay with us, leaving her granny flat here in Tītahi Bay to come and spend a couple of years with us so that—well, actually, so that my cousin could get disciplined by my mother, and also to have a bit of a taste of country life. So in that sense, in the sense of keeping whānau together, of course, we naturally support this bill.

Easier doesn't necessarily mean accessible. One of the barriers—which I accept that this bill removes a lot of barriers and that's why we support it—when building on whenua Māori, especially, there are enough barriers you have to go through. First of all, to get your whānau together to look at the land block and then to go to get the consent from the shareholders; and then to get your ducks in a row to finally get to Te Kooti Whenua Māori; and then go through that process to get your occupation order or your license to occupy. That can take years. Once that's done, you then have to go through the process of finding finance to go through the process of naturally building what often is a dream home on your whenua, to which you feel absolutely connected.

Sometimes, that dream actually becomes a nightmare for so many whānau because of the laborious process it can be, and that's a bigger-picture item for us, I hope, as a whole House to work on: removing that barrier and making that easier for whānau. While that doesn't remove those barriers, this does go some way to helping whānau access housing. While this may not be the express intention of this bill, to provide permanent long-term housing, let me tell you, that's what's going to happen. If you drive across not just Ikaroa-Rāwhiti but around the bay—probably some of a lot of the areas some of the constituent MPs live in—you will see whānau establishing makeshift papa kāinga. Whether or not that is the intention of this bill, that is what's going to happen. Whānau who don't have access to resources to build their dream home are going to see this as an opportunity to whack up what they will see as housing options, as permanent full-time housing. The risks that come with that, with the lack of infrastructure required, are health and safety risks, and just—well, quite frankly, we risk Soweto-type situations popping up around communities.

While the price tag of less than $250,000 might seem attractive, that is still far out of reach for a lot of whānau. I'll go back to the issue of accessing finance. Some of the criteria is such that I know of one person who couldn't get access to a $50,000 mortgage to renovate a family home on Māori land, but he could get a loan to buy a $77,000 vehicle. These are the realities that whānau are facing, and the risks that come with this legislation—while we support it.

That said, I want to reflect on the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle, where we saw whare āwhina pop up to support and house whānau from Wairoa all around the East Coast; and visiting a whānau member in Te Wairoa, who was so happy to be in her whare āwhina, which I think was about 30 metres squared. Why she was happy was because she still got to be on her whenua. So that's a beautiful opportunity that comes with the support that that provided and with this bill; it is going to allow people to put something that they want on their whenua.

The other positive thing that I want to raise is the opportunity for Māori providers who are already fulfilling builds of this nature. I think of Toitū Tairāwhiti, who—referencing Willie Te Aho, who's one of their senior advisors—has already stated that they have the ability to build these, so they come pre-built to your whenua, within around two to three months. We know that's a proven record, because as I've said, they have delivered already in situations such as post-Gabrielle. And actually, there are papa kāinga that are popping up around Tairāwhiti and Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

Again, just want to support and reflect on the comments of my colleague Shanan Halbert about the workforce that's going to be required to fulfil these whare—because speaking of post-Gabrielle, it was just so amazing to see apprentices in Hawke's Bay, in Ngāti Kahungunu, supporting the builds of houses which now sit at Omāhu Marae, who, as we all know, was a beacon of light for all communities post-Gabrielle. These are the considerations that need to be made.

I am very pleased for the whānau whom this will serve—whānau for whom this is accessible, who now can build a whare for their kuia, for their koroua, for their mokopuna in their backyard, and also build a dwelling on their whenua so they can be grounded and connected and be where they want to be. Nā reira, e te Māngai o te Whare, kei te tautoko au i tēnei pire.

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm thrilled to be the last speaker on this bill, the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. This bill will go a long way to solving some of the issues some of my constituents have building on their land. In particular, I'm thinking of one who I've been dealing with recently, so, Gordon, I hope this helps solve your problem. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

© Scoop Media