Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
We should remind ourselves at the beginning of this Committee stage of what this bill is about. Thousands of homeowners for years have been waiting for some justice and some sensible response from the Government to get a solution to the plight of their leaky homes.
It is almost like Groundhog Day again in Parliament. In 2002 Labour put legislation through this Parliament in a mad rush to provide for the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That was a shambles. It did not resolve the problem. Then in 2006 the Minister in the chair, Clayton Cosgrove, again introduced a bill. There was a review period of about 12 months before that introduction, during which owners of leaky homes were told to wait and see, because Clayton Cosgrove would have the solution. We then passed that bill in 2006, and here we are, not much more than a year later, at the Labour Government’s third attempt to find a bill that will solve the problem for those thousands of homeowners.
I will highlight the statistics of the Government’s record on this issue. Five years down the track, the Government has spent $96.4 million on the bureaucracy of what was the leaky home resolution service—which is now the tribunal—yet over those 5 years less than one in six of the lodged claims has been resolved. What we find out is that it is actually costing the taxpayer $131,000 for each claim to be resolved—not to fix the house, but to pay for the Minister’s bureaucracy. It is madness, particularly when we read the figures that show the average settlement is $80,000.
I tell the Minister that it would have been better value for the taxpayer to send the damn cheque to the builder and get the house fixed, rather than fund his bloated bureaucracy.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
What I am saying to the Minister is that I would be happy to. Maybe the chirpy Minister would like to tell the Committee whether he thinks taxpayers are getting good value for their money. Oh well, the Minister has suddenly gone silent. It is a perfectly reasonable question. We know that he has spent $96.4 million. I ask him whether he thinks taxpayers got value for money.
Let us look at the figures, even for the last month that he has been in charge. If we look at the number of successful claims—and the vote for this year is 23 million bucks, so we are looking at about $2 million a month—we see that the official figures on the website show that in the last month he has resolved 10 cases. Ten cases in a month is $200,000 a pop, I tell the Minister. Over 2 years ago the Minister told the House: “Clayton to the rescue! Now that I am in charge, this will all be fixed.”, and the situation has got worse.
Then if we look at the specific provisions in this part of this bill, we see that they are to fix up the mess that the Minister was advised of at the time of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act, which was passed in 2006. The arrogant Minister, who is so typical of this Government’s Ministers, said in 2006 that, in terms of damages, the legislation included general damages claims. He was wrong. He refused to take on board the submissions that were made at that time, and that is why we are back in the pickle, back in the House—third time round—trying to amend this legislation.
So National simply says that the legislation has been a failure. If we reflect on the struggle it has been for those thousands and thousands of homeowners—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The Minister sarcastically chips in. I ask him again whether he thinks it is good progress to have resolved less than one-sixth of claims, 5 years on. And on that basis, I tell the Minister, it will take us about 26 years to resolve this problem. By anybody’s interpretation, that is a failure. That is not good enough. Although National supports the extension for general damages that is in this bill, we say that anybody who thinks that this will resolve the problem for owners of leaky homes is simply dreaming. We know this from the record and we know from the poor progress that has been made. Just to revise, there have been 4,432 claims and, 5 years on, the Government has resolved 734 of them. This is the issue that the Prime Minister said in 2001 was a non-issue. This is the issue that George Hawkins, when he was Minister, said would be all over in 12 months. Five years down the track, it is not.
So National is saying that this bill should be passed. It should be passed quickly, because it is holding up the process further. I know that both adjudications and other hearings are being held back until this legislation is passed. But I just think we should see a little bit of humbleness from the Minister. He should acknowledge that this bill is before the House only because he got it wrong in 2006; that when he got it wrong in 2006, he ignored submitters to the select committee who claimed that the provision did not include compensation for general damages; and that if he had listened at that time, the owners of leaky homes would not now be held up further—waiting for legislation, waiting into the never-never for some sort of solution to this problem.
It has been a failure; $96 million has been spent on a very poor process. This bill patches up bad legislation. We want to see the Minister take some responsibility, and we are keen to get this law on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
I will take just a short call because that speech from Nick Smith has been registered in this Committee by that member. He has only one speech, and that is to moan, carp, and complain. Nowhere in that speech did he tell members what he would have done. He got close to saying that he might write a cheque, but he will not say that, given the other election promises that he is about to embark on.
What this bill does, and I am sad that the member does not have an understanding of it, is to reconfirm a clause that was placed in the new legislation, that was transplanted across, and that was tested and upheld by two District Court decisions. Normally, when one writes a clause, it is unlikely that one has any sort of anticipatory caution when that clause has been tested by a court, not only once but twice. It was reconfirmed, tested, and upheld, and it was transplanted, therefore, into the new legislation.
Unless the member is clairvoyant—we know that he has some issues, but I do not know whether he is a clairvoyant—he would not have known that after the provision had been tested by two District Court decisions, found and confirmed to be correct, and transplanted into the new legislation, a High Court judge’s decision would overturn Parliament’s intent, even though the law had been tested by two District Court judges and upheld. Maybe the member can see into the future; the rest of us cannot. It was out of the blue.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Yes, the High Court was wrong. That is why we are here today. Maybe the member needs to take note, read the Standing Orders, and find out why we are here. We are here to correct what the High Court did indeed get wrong. The High Court did not reflect Parliament’s intention as confirmed by two District Court decisions.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Well, that is not what the District Court said—twice. But, of course, the member has a selective memory. I have a bit of a psychological hold over that member. No, I am wrong; actually, I have not. The whole House has a bit of a psychological hold over that member. The point is this—
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take some offence at the remarks from the Minister in the chair. In my speech, yes, I did give the Government a hard time about this issue, but I could make all sorts of personally derogatory comments, too. I think the sorts of comments that Mr Cosgrove has made are outside the bounds, and I take offence.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
I thank the member. I was considering them to be personal reflections, and the member will desist.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
I withdraw. As I have said to the member, the reason we are here is to correct what the High Court judge did, what the High Court did, which was contrary to Parliament’s intent. I say again for the member, and I will use small words, that that intent in that clause was tested by two District Court judges in two cases and it was upheld. [ Interruption] And the “tweeties” at the back there, would do well to learn by this.
I would also point out that it is interesting that one of the victims the member talks about is a guy called John Gray. John Gray is head of the Leaky Homes Action Group, which represents claimants every day for no cash and no salary—unlike that mob over there. What did John Gray say about this correction? He acknowledged that it could not have been anticipated. Unlike the member for Nelson, he does not have a crystal ball. He supports this move, because Parliament has moved swiftly to reconfirm what Parliament’s intention in both pieces of legislation was and is—that is, to provide for general damages, particularly for mental anxiety. So this is actually about assisting people.
I say to the member that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—and I am on record as saying this—was, yes, a rush; yes, a call to arms to try to assist people. I have said on record and publicly many times that when we move to try to assist people swiftly, sometimes we miss things. The service, though it resolved cases, did not perform in the way we wanted. So we reviewed it, we revamped it, and now it is about 2 months old and it is resolving cases.
I cite the case publicly, because I have permission to do so, of the Rev. David Moore of Christchurch. I cannot say, because I do not know, what he got in his resolution claim—it is confidential. But I know that in that claim he represented himself, he did not require lawyers, and he told me that he got swift justice under the new service and 100 percent of what he wanted.
So I say to the Committee tonight that we can, as Dr Smith has done, play politics. Tonight we can, as Dr Smith has, choose to put the boot in, but we cannot, as Dr Smith does, not propose another solution to the problem. We have our solution out there. Yep, we have revamped the system, I tell Dr Smith. Yep, he was right—the first one was not as good as it could have been. That is why we have revamped it, that is why we listened to every submitter whom we came across, and that is why we have spent a lot of time with people like John Gray from the Leaky Homes Action Group. He is a person I hold in high esteem—more so than that member—because John Gray has no axe to grind, and he does not get paid for his services. John Gray won his case under the old system, under his own steam. In addition to doing his job and being with his family, he spends every day representing and assisting claimants, and, I might say, assisting the department and giving advice— as he did when we revamped the second bill and, now, as we correct a court decision that did not reflect Parliament’s intent.
We have a choice here tonight. We can, as the member says, expedite this bill, or we can hear other proposals. The member could rise and tell us exactly what he would do, and what his proposal is. If my proposal is wrong, I would love to hear his. If my proposal is not cutting the mustard, I would love to hear his. The only thing that has come out of the mouth of that National member Dr Nick Smith is the boot going in and politics. And Bob Clarkson has said—I believe that he said this to the select committee—that we should write a big cheque. Well, that would of course be the easiest thing for Parliament to do; let us be plain about it. But if we wrote a big cheque, as National wants us to do, every builder who ripped somebody off, every designer who ripped somebody off, every architect who ripped somebody off, and every council that did not cut the mustard and inspect buildings correctly—all the people who did the wrong—would be let off the hook by the taxpayer, who was not responsible. Or we can provide an alternative resolution service for those who cannot go to court and cannot afford it. We can provide an alternative resolution service, let those claims be examined, and drill in to the liable parties and get the money from them. But if tonight it is National’s policy to write a big cheque, let all the dodgy builders and all the cowboy developers off the hook, and have the general taxpayer pay for the lot, then I would be grateful if Dr Smith and his colleagues would place that on the record. I would like to go out and tell communities that that is what their policy is.
In conclusion, I say that this bill simply reconfirms Parliament’s intent in the previous legislation, as tested and upheld by two District Court decisions. Two District Court decisions said that the provision was valid and that the intent was right—that general damages can be allowed and awarded. But then out of the blue a High Court judge made a judgment. Well, I am afraid that this is the highest court in the land—it is called Parliament—and Parliament’s intent was not reflected by that judgment. John Gray agrees with that, the victims who have written to me agree with that, and tonight we have a change to correct that situation, and to allow those claims to proceed.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
I rise to speak to the Committee stage of Part 1 of this bill. Clause 4, which is the main provision, confirms the purpose of the bill. Any claim may include a claim for general damages for mental anxiety and distress, and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal may award such general damages for any eligible claim.
My colleague Bob Clarkson told the Social Services Committee many times that we would not need this clause if homes were simply fixed in a timely manner, to begin with. Homeowners become stressed, anxious, and upset only when they have a leaky home, and are in dispute as to who is responsible and who should fix it. This is what causes the stress and anxiety—the leaky home itself. All this bill does is create a law to allow homeowners to be compensated for the stress of having a leaky home.
A submission to the Social Services Committee from Local Government New Zealand, dated June 2003, raised this very issue. It stated: “The explanation for the bill states that it will return the law to what was intended by Parliament and the Government. We know that there are several aspects of the current Act that do not seem to be consistent with what Parliament and the Government intended. It is unfortunate that the Government has moved first to fix a matter of current profile in respect of claimant and cost awards, when there are other fundamental matters where the act does not perform as intended. For example, we had previously submitted to the select committee that the Act needs amending to ensure that homes are actually getting fixed at the conclusion of the resolution process. We would agree that getting homes fixed is the intention of the Act, and yet this matter was not addressed in the latest amendments to the Act. We have also previously submitted on cost-sharing and liability issues, where we believe the implementation of the Act in practice is not as intended by Parliament.”
This situation still has not changed in this 2007 amendment bill. The homes are still not getting fixed. It has been stated in this debate already that in many instances homeowners never receive a dollar in compensation, even though the courts award compensation to them. Even the Minister, in the second reading debate, confirmed that general damages for mental anxiety and distress would not add an extra dollar to the compensation received by some homeowners, but he did say that claimants valued these awards as an acknowledgment of the stress they have suffered. That is interesting—they value these awards as an acknowledgment of the stress that they have suffered.
I am sure the claimants who have not received any compensation, who are out of pocket, and who still live in homes that leak like a sieve would not agree with him—especially the elderly couple who have no additional money to fix their leaky home. They poured their money, their savings, into their dream final home, but they have a leaky home. It leaks like a sieve and they have to live in it, day in, day out. They are now suffering from high blood pressure and sleepless nights. The stress and pressure on this elderly couple are incredible. This legislation has failed to produce a practical remedy for them. Will they value these awards as acknowledgment of the stress they have suffered? I do not think so.
As with the 2006 legislation, this amendment bill has been rushed through Parliament. It whizzed through the select committee, yet still will not deliver to homeowners its true intention. Once again, rushed legislation has been brought on through the case of Hartley v Balemi and others. We have just heard from the Minister that it was the High Court that was at fault. That is an interesting comment. So the judges in the High Court got it wrong—
Never the Minister’s fault. One of the issues that this bill is trying to fix is an error in the law—an error that was pointed out to the select committee in 2006 by the National Party in a minority report, which was ignored. So here we are, again, fixing this legislation, again; fixing an error and wasting Parliament’s time, when the legislation could have been drafted correctly the first time. But, no, this is another whiz bit of legislation being whizzed through Parliament, whizzed through the select committee.
No submissions were asked for, but we were allowed to get the Law Commission in to have a look at this new draft. The commission came up with suggested amendments, so it is lucky that we got it in. The Law Commission said that it should be simple and that it should be concise. It took out references to the case of Hartley v Balemi and others and made the legislation simple, because the intention was that lay people could read it for themselves, understand it, and go into a tribunal to represent themselves.
PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this
I have quite a simple question to ask the Minister—if he got it so right, and if it was only the judges’ fault, then why are we here? If the Minister had clearly stated his intent and there was no question in the bill as it was written, we would not be here fixing this mistake. He can prosper, and he can make personal attacks on members in this Chamber as he stands there, but the reality is that yet again we are here trying to fix a mistake that has been made in this legislation.
I was thinking that it is not unlike the community sector, which I have a personal interest in and am very passionate about. Often we hear people say they will accept a contract that will not quite work for them but they do so because they want to make some sort of difference—it is better than doing nothing. That is a bit how National Party members feel, yet again, on this legislation. We do not think this legislation will fix the problem; there is no way it is fixing people’s homes, but it is a little bit of something, and it is something that we have to do. As a consequence, we will go through this charade and actually make the Minister’s intentions clear to the judges whose job it is to administer it, yet again.
But there are questions that are not being addressed. The Minister can bandy around popular names like John Gray, who is doing a fantastic job in Auckland and I have spoken to him a few times, and think that will get him off the hook when the job is not being done correctly. But the reality is that people’s homes are not being fixed and they are in the same situation that they have been in for many years. This is probably when I should stand up and confess to a conflict of interest, because I think that is only fair. I have a leaky home in Auckland and I am currently in the process of getting it fixed, and it is one of many. So I stand here with some personal experience, but my experience is nothing compared to others in Auckland—and other places in New Zealand, but it is probably Auckland that I know better—who are dealing with far worse problems than I am. It is a home that I do not live in, so it is more as a homeowner that I am dealing with the situation, but I already have an understanding of the hours that are put in, and the anguish.
When I look at my neighbours and think about the fact that they cannot afford to pay for repairs and are having to take out extra loans, I am incredibly grateful for the salary that I have that means I can pay my extra bits each week. But if members look at the financial burden and the health burden on many people, and the effect those burdens are having on their lives through and through, this patch-up is, of course, necessary because of the botch-up before, but it is not fixing the problem.
The Minister can stand up and ask if the National Party will write a big cheque, and will it do this and will it do that, but he is in Government and it has been nearly 8 years. It is time something was done—something that is going to make a difference for these people. National members looked at the legislation that went through. I was on the Social Services Committee at the end of last year, when it considered this bill. It felt rushed. It felt like we were not getting through everything like we should. It felt like those people who submitted to us and pointed out to us some of these problems, which we are now fixing, were rushed through and were not listened to as clearly and as well as we would have liked them to be.
The reality was that the Minister had put such a tight deadline on this bill being reported back and in that select committee, which is run by Labour, National members did not have the power to slow it down and make sure that we got it right. As a consequence, we see us going backwards. Yet again in that select committee, prior to Christmas, there was that point where we did not agree, and thought that the legislation was not everything that we wanted. However, we felt that something had to be done and this small step was way better than no steps, which had been happening pretty much previously.
So we will start looking at the money. I might stand to be corrected, but I was looking at a figure of $96.4 million going in. How does that relate to people and their homes that they are trying to get fixed? That is the key question.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
I was not going to take an additional call, but after the speech from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, I feel compelled to respond on two important points. The first of those is that the Minister told the Committee that neither he nor his department had any idea that there was a problem with the provision in respect of general damages. I was accused of being clairvoyant, and all sorts of other derogatory things.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Well, the Minister made other claims.
I would like to read this submission on the Minister’s original bill from the now-retired chair of the Leaky Homes Action Group. It said: “In the past there have been grey areas over what a mediator, an adjudicator, will allow in claims and there have been a number of inconsistent decisions in this regard. It is recommended that this bill is specific on this matter to avoid confusion. Claims of stress should be allowed by specifically providing for general damages.”
Well, hello, hello! I say to the Minister that that is a very specific submission from an organisation that only earlier in his debate he said was a respected organisation. Why did he not listen to that submission? Why did he not listen at that time? Leaky home owners would not be in this period of uncertainty, and we would not have had the decision of the High Court, if the Minister had made the law clear.
It is all very well for the Minister to stand up in the Committee and say it is all the High Court’s fault and Parliament’s intent was quite clear. Parliament’s intent cannot have been quite clear or the problem would not have occurred. What is more, I say to the Minister that he knew that the law was unclear, because that had been made very plain in the submissions.
So I ask the Minister in the chair again if he bothered to read the Leaky Home Action Group’s submission on the 2006 bill he was in charge of. I put the question to the Minister again—and I think the silence says it all. He did not bother to read the Leaky Homes Action Group’s submission. If he did, he would have known in 2006 that his bill was flawed, he would have fixed it, and we would not have had the High Court decision because Parliament’s intent was unclear.
The Minister then asked what National’s policy was. I am very keen to answer that. National thinks it is better to spend the $100 million - odd on fixing homes than on bureaucracy. National does not think it is smart to be spending more money on the adjudication process than it actually takes to fix the houses.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
No, I said we will spend the money on fixing the houses, and that makes pretty good sense.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The Minister seems to disagree with that. I tell him that I look forward to debating all over New Zealand the fact that the 96 million bucks would have been far better spent on fixing some houses, rather than spending it on his 200 or 300-plus bureaucrats that he has expanded the department by.
The further point is that I also believe it is quite flawed for the Minister not to allow leaky home claimants to claim for legal expenses. I say to the Minister that it is totally unrealistic for him to line up a leaky home owner with sometimes as many as a dozen lawyers for other parties and expect that owner to get a fair deal. So a further part of National’s policy, as we indicated previously in 2006, is that we will allow leaky home owners to claim the reasonable legal costs of going through the tribunal process, because we think what the Government has done is grossly unfair to leaky home owners in that regard.
I come back again, though, to the real point on the minds of New Zealanders in respect of the tribunal, and that is the question of whether the Minister believes we are getting value for money, having spent $96 million and having resolved, over 5 years, less than one in six of the claims. I ask the Minister: when will we get some performance, how many claims will we resolve in the next year, and when can New Zealand’s leaky home owners finally expect to get some justice out of this tired, repeatedly mistaken Labour Government?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this
The question now is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part. There will be three votes. We will take clause 1 first.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
I just want to take a call on the title of this bill. I think it should be called the “Government’s Third Attempt at Trying to Provide Justice for Leaky Home Owners Bill”. This is a Groundhog Day sort of bill, and we have seen a series of Government Ministers in this portfolio. In fact, there have been seven Ministers in just 7 years, so it is no wonder there has been a series of debacles in this area. I could go through and list all of those Ministers. We started with the Minister in charge of this portfolio, Mark Burton. Then he passed it on to George Hawkins. We then had John Tamihere—he had a go. The hot potato was then passed on to Margaret Wilson, our dear Speaker. Then it was handed to Chris Carter, and then to Clayton Cosgrove, who had it from 2005.
The really interesting thing is that when Clayton Cosgrove took over the portfolio he said that the record was not good. So he was prepared to damn his previous Ministers. He said there would now be far more progress. I just remind the Committee of the figures for the last month. Ten claims were resolved, and there were 18 new claims, going backwards at a rate of almost 2:1.
I would love to hear from the Minister in the chair, Clayton Cosgrove, as to when he thinks this process might be complete. Otherwise this bill should properly be labelled the “Weathertight Homes Into the Never-never Bill”, or the “Weathertight Homes (Repeated Efforts and Failures by Clayton Cosgrove to Fix this Issue) Bill”, or “Another Labour Arrogance Problem Bill”. Lots of labels would be suitable, given the very sad history that has occurred around leaky homes. It is inevitable also that the title could be “Pass the Hot Potato Bill”, in the sense that this portfolio has been passed around among so many—
Craig FossHon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I am sorry; the member suggests it should be “Pass the Hot Kumara Bill”, given the number of Ministers in this portfolio. The number of changes is unsatisfactory; it makes it so much more difficult for both homeowners and this Parliament to hold Ministers accountable for the lack of performance. Every one of these Ministers has said: “It’s not my fault; it’s the last one’s fault”, and then we get another Minister and another mess.
So lots of other names could be given to this bill. But it cannot be given the name “Justice for Leaky Home Owners Bill”, because justice for leaky home owners will come only when there is a change of Government.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
I rise to speak to the title of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. A recent High Court decision means that neither the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 nor the 2006 Act permits adjudicators or the Weathertight Homes Tribunal to award damages for mental stress and anxiety. The amendments are to give the adjudicators and tribunal the same ability as the courts to make awards for general damages for relevant mental distress. Earlier on, I covered Part 1, and I would now like to touch on Part 2, which was not touched on, and which talks about amendments to the principal Act.
Basically, Part 2 covers the definition of “damages”, which means “any form of monetary compensation”. The definition “mental distress” is an adjustment for emotional or mental anxiety, or for distress or stress. I stated earlier that the “mental distress” definition would not be necessary if the leaky homes situation simply was fixed in a timely manner. But this bill fails to address that matter. The issue is more than simple: we should not allow homes to be built in such a way that they become leaky homes. We understand about putting battens between walls, and about putting sills underneath window fixtures, so we should not get leaky homes—it is as simple as that. But, no, we are building leaky homes and are continuing to build them, which is the scary thing.
If we look at copper piping, we see we are bringing in copper piping from Australia, which is certified for 50 years. We are bringing in copper piping from England, which is certified for 50 years. But we are also bringing in copper piping from Asia, which is not certified at all. More and more spec homes have Asian copper piping. Builders are expecting that copper piping to last for approximately 7 years. So all the piping that is going into those homes will eventually cause leaky homes. I would not want to flush my toilet and have the water go up through the tap in my kitchen. That is for sure! So leaky homes are still being built. If we just stopped creating them, we would not have leaky homes. If we just solved the issue of leaky homes to begin with, instead of dragging it out, and with nobody taking responsibility for building them, then—
Hon Lianne Dalziel1987. It should be noted that in the definition “relevant mental distress” the reference to “claimant” is changed to “claim”. That change widens the definition from the claimant to anybody who may have incurred mental distress from having a leaky home. That is quite fundamental, because not only can the homeowner claim now but it is much wider. It could be a relative, a neighbour, or a builder who has received mental stress from just being related to or near the person who has the leaky home.
Part 2 also includes new section 50 in clause 10, dealing with the remedies that may be claimed. They include general damages. The remedies should cover all fixing of the leaky home needed to make it a liveable weathertight home, and damages for mental stress. We all know that is relevant only if the homeowner receives the compensation, and in many cases, as Ministers have already stated, the homeowner does not always receive that compensation, even though it has been awarded. So the Act, in effect, is not even helping those homeowners to fix their home and get a resolution.
It must be noted the New Zealand Law Society has been extremely helpful in its submission on the bill, ensuring that the legislation is kept simple and easy for the layperson to understand. It must also be noted that the Law Society was the only organisation called upon to comment on this bill—not that it commented on the title.
If we are to talk about the title, that could take all night. In effect, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill could be the “Remedies Only if You Get Compensation Bill”, because homeowners are not getting any remedies. Who is paying the money? Lots of these homeowners are not getting remedies. Should we remove the word “(Remedies)” from the title, should we say “Leaky Homes Continuing Bill, or should the title be “Remedies but Only if the Person has the Money to Pay for Them”, meaning that the money has not been put through a trust or company, or hidden? What should we call the bill? Should it be the “Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Remedies (Sometimes) Amendment Bill”? Maybe we should call it that.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this
I just remind members that this is a debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3, which deal with the title, commencement, and an amendment to the principal Act. In addition, this can be a wide-ranging debate, summarising everything that has been discussed this evening.
PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this
I rise not only to talk about the title of this bill but also to give a bit of a wind-up of what has been going on this evening in this debate. Obviously, the bill should not be called the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill, because that is just confusing. There have been so many amendments to this bill that the public are confused, and this title will just confuse them more. So we need to come up with a new title.
Perhaps we could call the bill the “Minister Cosgrove Got It Wrong Again and Needs Parliament to Spend More Time On It Amendment Bill”. While we are doing a round-up of what this bill actually means, I say that the Minister, while we were doing the “Weathertight (The Minister Got It Wrong Yet Again and We Are Having to Come Back to Parliament to Fix It) Bill”, talked about the fact that we should not let off the builders, the architects, and the people who got it wrong. He is right, in so many respects. But who can find them?
What ends up happening is that taxpayers pay for it, perhaps via their rates because it is the councils that are left holding the can. That is obvious, and the Minister knows it, if he has heard any of the submissions and has spoken to any councils around the country. That is where real concerns come into it. It raises real concerns to do with the insurance companies that are insuring the councils. Councils are in the situation where they will not be insured to the same level, or they will have to pay in so much more money to become insured, and their rates will have to go up to fix this problem. As a consequence, people in their homes should be very concerned.
The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill is not an accurate title, and it is not what we in the National Party think it should be called. In fact, we are quite appalled that members are back here in the Committee, having to take the time to fix this situation. The Minister is constantly saying that it was the High Court judge’s fault and that the judge got the intention of the legislation wrong. Well, I say to the Minister that his intentions were not clear. If the intentions were clear, then we would not have to be back making amendments yet again, and wasting Parliament’s time, Parliament’s money, and, yet again, taxpayers’ money.
Should we call this bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill? No, we should not. I have real concerns, and my colleagues share them and we have been discussing them in some detail, about the confusion that will be out there when people look at this bill with that title. Our concern is that people will not know which amendment it is, because there have been so many of them.
Earlier I heard someone yell out: “Resign!” to the Minister. What a concern that would be, in talking about the title of this bill. If this Minister was to be taken off this portfolio, we would be on Minister No. 8 for it. So we could call this bill the “Weathertight Homes Resolution (We Have Been Through Seven Ministers; Here is Another One) Amendment Bill”.
We have had better Ministers and worse Ministers. The truth is that the Government is running out of Ministers.
We could pop in some shadow Ministers. I cannot actually think of anyone who could take on the role.
It does need a miracle, and it is of huge concern.
The Weathertight Homes Resolutions Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill, by its title, is of huge concern to the National Party, and it is something that we think does not truly reflect the problem. The title of this bill is not reflective of the bill itself and of the magnitude of the issue out there for the New Zealand public—not just in terms of the cost but, obviously, in terms of the emotional and physical trauma people are having to go through. This bill and, more important, its title, do not reflect what is actually happening out there in the communities, yet again.
So I say: “Shame!” that we have to be back here discussing the title of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill.
It did take an hour. It came from Craig Foss. I would say that it is probably not the first time that this Minister has heard that comment. It would not be the first time that this Minister has put up a Clayton’s bill, and it is probably not the first time that this Parliament has wasted huge amounts of time and huge amounts of taxpayers’ money having to do this. I personally find that to be disgraceful, and so do my colleagues. Thank you.