The unintended consequences of new regulations

On March 1 the Licensed Building Practitioner regime comes into effect.  This began as a response to the Leaky Homes issue, and was generally supported by architects as recognising professional competence and responsibilities.

The danger is that the complexity of the system will create a costly process that will frustrate and add unnecessary costs to building procurement.  

The NZ building industry is not alone in this dilemma.  The proliferation of rules that have good intentions but impose huge cost burdens collectively is becoming a major concern everywhere.  Like most countries, NZ needs a smarter approach to regulations. First, all important rules should be subject to cost-benefit analyses by an independent watchdog.

Second, all big regulations (like the LBP regime) should come with sunset clauses so they expire say in 10 years unless Government reviews and renews them. 

But most important of all - regulations need to be simpler.  All-purpose regulations submerge the important issues in a sea of verbiage.  Far better to lay down broad goals and prescribe only what is necessary to achieve them.  And the danger of handing too much power to unelected bureaucrats must be addressed by making them more accountable. 

Measuring Local Authority performance

The  obsession with rates as the measure of Local Government performance, however sensational, focusses on the wrong issue.  No one is happy with rises – that’s a given.  But the Shand report rightly points out how Local Authorities provide services people expect, have acceptable levels of debt, and in their widening functions do not significantly contribute to rates rises. But Shand also ignores the measure that people understand  - the perceived efficiencies where their functions interface with the public.

I doubt you can find a Local politician or senior officer not concerned at rising costs. And we all expect them to continue deliver an increasing range of services and environmental outcomes.

The real challenge is at the mid level of Local Government administration. This is where job role protection, team expansion, process complication and process time extensions provide job insurance. Anyone dealing with Planning or Building consents will have seen it.

Therein lies the real challenge! Talk to any of them and they will persuade you of the importance of their function - but the sum of the parts exceeds the outputs and creates the sad reality of non-performing Councils.

Is there a politician who will take up this challenge?

High density housing in Auckland and misleading journalism.

I,m all for investigative journalism- interrogating official positions and the like. But the privilege of newspaper space brings with it a responsibility to not mislead.   The Jan 15 HERALD ON SUNDAY article Slums to replace decent housing was an abuse of that privilege. 

The subject is worth debating – but not sensationalizing!  The Damien Grant article was journalism at its worst – presenting propositions as if they were indisputable facts.

To imply that the housing in The Strand, Parnell is an ‘upmarket version of what is proposed’ is at best disingenuous.

Claims like “high-storey housing is inhabited by sex workers, and urban poor” is speculative – and no doubt news to those who live in the upmarket high rise apartments in Auckland. What evidence is there that “Most people do not want to live in high-density housing”?  Do they all want to live on life style blocks?  Has such a statement been peer reviewed for accuracy?

The economic analysis, such as it is, of Greenfield costs and relativities is deficient, cursory, inaccurate and mis- leading.

This is a topic worth debating – referencing Auckland conditions with unbiased accurate data. This article reads like an argument supporting one point of view – Auckland deserves better.