ACT Building and Construction spokesperson Cameron Luxton is welcoming the Government’s announcement of reforms to reduce the role of council inspectors in certification processes.

“New Zealand’s overreliance on councils in consenting and certification results in bottlenecks and delays. This drives up the cost of getting almost anything built, and this cost flows through to higher housing costs and less productivity,” says Mr Luxton, who is also an LBP.

“ACT has long argued we need to provide alternatives to costly council processes for building. Our coalition agreement commits to ‘explore allowing home builders to opt out of needing a building consent provided they have long-term insurance for the building work.’

“Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction, but real change is needed to tackle the fundamental incentive problems that lead councils to grind construction to a halt.

“Rather than making everyone pay the price of burdensome regulation, we should hold bad builders to account. The market can do that.

“The fundamental incentive problem is that when building projects are botched, it’s councils, and therefore ratepayers, who shoulder the liability. It means councils only see risk whenever they look at a building project that doesn’t fit into their cookie-cutter understanding of building. Under this system it’s a wonder new designs get consented or certified at all.

“Instead of just fulfilling council box-ticking exercises, expert builders ought to be able to shoulder the liability with the protection of insurance. Crucially, to negotiate a good deal on the insurance market they’d need to demonstrate a reputation of quality work.

“By transferring the liability and risk from ratepayers and onto builders and insurance companies, we can bypass the box-checking processes and let insured professionals make calculated decisions to get things built efficiently, safely, and with innovation.”

© Scoop Media