Formal Opposition to

Summary of Position

I submit this formal opposition to the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill (Government Bill 150–1), introduced by Chris Penk. While the bill claims to support housing by allowing small dwellings without building consent, it fails to state the required conditions — making it legally vague, publicly unsafe, and prone to deregulation by stealth.

This is not a benign housing reform. It is a consent-free loophole hidden behind comforting language — and it threatens the integrity of local planning, public safety, and Treaty protections.

1. Removes Consent Without Defining the Rules

The bill allows dwellings to bypass consent processes “if certain conditions are met” — but fails to define those conditions. This creates dangerous legal uncertainty and erodes public trust in the legislative process.

• What size, height, location, or infrastructure requirements apply?
• Will fire safety, drainage, insulation, and accessibility still be enforced?
• Why are conditions not included in the bill itself?

2. Enables Executive Deregulation Without Scrutiny

By omitting the conditions from the primary legislation, this bill hands rule-setting power to officials via secondary regulation. This avoids public consultation and parliamentary oversight — a serious breach of democratic process.

3. Undermines Public Safety and Local Governance

Building consents are a core safeguard for structural integrity, fire protection, and neighbour impacts. Their removal without clarity jeopardises:

• Health and safety of occupants and communities,
• Fair land-use practices and infrastructure planning,
• Local council authority and public participation in development.

4. Risks Treaty Breaches and Community Exclusion

The bill does not address how exemptions will align with Treaty obligations. If dwellings are permitted on contested or significant land without consultation, it repeats historic patterns of exclusion and disregard for tangata whenua.

5. Reflects a Wider Pattern of Loophole Lawmaking

This bill uses the same structure seen in other recent legislation:

• Soft language masks systemic power shifts,
• Critical terms are omitted and deferred,
• Public process is reduced to a formality,
• Oversight and Treaty consistency are sidelined.

This is not efficiency — it is erosion by omission.

Conclusion and Recommendations

I strongly oppose this bill. Consent exemptions cannot be justified without clearly defined conditions. Housing reform must be safe, transparent, and consistent with community rights and obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

• Withdraw or redraft the bill to include all conditions in the legislation itself,
• Guarantee compliance with fire safety, building standards, and accessibility codes,
• Preserve council oversight and Treaty consultation in all building processes.

Transparency is not optional. Especially in law.

Respectfully submitted,

Ukes Baha

Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst

ukesbaha.com