Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Could any member of the Government tell us? They say this bill will enable homeowners to get justice, and to get justice more quickly. We believed them in 2002, and we have found that it was a fraud and the bill has been a failure. So I ask the Minister in the chair, Clayton Cosgrove, given that he settled only 180 claims last year, how many he will settle with this new legislation next year.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Can he give an estimate? A target? We know that 3,000 claims are outstanding. Can the Minister give me any estimate? The silence is deafening. Every member of the Government has his or her head down. Why is that? Maybe Marian Hobbs will answer. I ask her how many settlements she thinks we might get next year. How many of these homeowners might get some justice next year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

The member considers it is a joke. It is a very serious question. The Government presents a bill to the House, slams that bill through under urgency, and says that it will address the problem of leaky homes. It is a simple question. How many claims will the Government resolve next year? We know that claims are flowing in at a rate of about 400 or 500 per year. I say to the Minister, at the very least, that if he is to get on top of the problem we suggest that he settle as many claims as are newly lodged—or will 2007 be the same as 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2002, in that we are going backwards, and more claims are being lodged than are being resolved?

I say to the Minister that by his not answering that question he is effectively saying to those leaky-home owners that this is just another spin job, another fraud, and another delay tactic in trying to avoid, duck, and halt those New Zealanders being able to get justice. I simply say to the Minister that if he is not prepared to test the mantle by actually giving a target to the new tribunal as to what it is to achieve, he is failing. The Government can change Ministers—he is the seventh Minister to have the responsibility in this Government—change departments, and change names, but leaky-home owners need solutions, and the Minister needs to set a target.

I also want to hear from the Minister about this. He is proposing to shift responsibility over to the Minister of Justice. Does that mean Minister Clayton Cosgrove will still be responsible for it? That is a fair question. After May, when the responsibility for the tribunal will transfer over, will Clayton Cosgrove—the Minister who has told the House that this bill is the solution—be responsible, or will we have just another chapter of “pass the hot potato”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

We could get Minister No. 8. I ask the Minister, when the transfer—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

I know that member is going to have only 2 more years in the House before Nathan Guy takes him out. Can the member answer for me whether this bill will result in a new Minister being responsible for resolving this problem.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

There we are. We are none the wiser. On the two key issues of how many resolutions we are going to get with this bill and which Minister will be responsible, the Government is absolutely silent. The National Party simply says that leaky-home owners deserve better than this. This Government is continuing to fail them. This is a fraud of a Christmas present for those leaky-home owners.

PAULA BENNETT Link to this

How is the Government going to guarantee that? How is it going to guarantee that that money is—and it is not, at times—actually used for fixing the homes? I know that the Minister is hoping the land information memorandum notification will fix some of that, but National members have huge concerns as to what it will actually do. One of the things that we tried to get through the Social Services Committee was the requirement to have a trail of evidence going through the land information memorandum report, so that if it had to be notified, there would be a trail of evidence that repairs had then been made. Some of that real dilemma is created by retrospectively forcing the disclosure of claims on to land information memorandum reports. What does that mean for those many homeowners who have made claims on the basis that claims would not be disclosed? Has consideration of that been taken?

The other thing I would like the Minister to take a call on—and it is quite a serious question—is what happens if one has had a private assessor’s report done, finds that there is a leak, but decides to sell and not take a claim to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. There is nothing in the bill that requires an owner to declare the water entry or the damage in that case. The bill states that that must happen only if a claim has been taken. So where is the protection—if that is what it is really about—for the homebuyer, if the seller has not taken a claim? I would be interested in hearing from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, who is furiously taking notes—I presume on what we are saying—so that he can address that.

There are so many issues that go on. The simple case is that everyone here is saying that the bill does not go far enough. The Minister himself addressed that at times, saying that it will, hopefully, make the process a bit speedier, but acknowledging that it will not fix the problem. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and give people a bit of a heads-up on the changes he plans to make—if, of course, he is still in the job, because we are up to Minister No. 7 looking after leaky homes in just 4 years.

PAULA BENNETT Link to this

Yes, we are up to Minister No. 7 in just 4 years. He could let us know what changes he may perhaps be thinking of making next year, if he is still in that role—if we are not up to Minister No. 8—to address those very serious issues. Perhaps the Minister could stand up and be counted, and make a real difference for those homeowners. Perhaps he could show them that he actually gives a damn by doing something worthwhile. Perhaps he could put a fund together and make it substantial so that people can see some difference.

Perhaps he could offer an interest-free loan to give those people money so that they can fix the problem. Half the problem, when they go to mediation, is that they do not know how much it will cost to repair the building and do everything; they do not know that until the building starts to be pulled down. They go to mediation saying “We think it’s going to cost X amount of dollars.”, and they may settle and get X amount of dollars, but when the repairs are done they find the price is double that.

They again lose out. They are losing out in not getting legal costs, they are losing out in not knowing how much the repairs will cost, they are losing out because the banks are not lending them money to get the repairs done before they go to mediation, and they are losing out because their homes lose value by the day. They are left holding something that is unfixable, and they have a Government that is not taking the matter as seriously as it needs to.

Perhaps the Minister will take a call about looking at having a building court with real expertise, so that people have one place they can go to get the answers and get their cases heard in a truly efficient manner. Perhaps the Minister can tell those homeowners how he thinks this bill will help to solve their problems.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

It is a very interesting point as to how many will be settled. It depends on a number of things. We have a natural justice issue, and it is that under the present law, and once this legislation is enacted, claimants will have the choice as to whether they proceed under their current scheme of arrangement—if they are in the system under the current law—or whether they jump the fence, adjust their claim, and move forward under the new scheme of arrangement. That is up to the claimants; it is not for members to pontificate as to what the claimants’ legal rights and responsibilities are.

I also make this point. I note from all the Opposition’s pontificating, including that of Dr Smith and Paula Bennett, that they are taking free kicks, then accusing the Government of being cynical because we propose a bill to fix the problem.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

I say to that member and to members of the Opposition that throughout the course of the issue I have not politicised it. When I met with John Gray, an eminent New Zealander who will go down in history as a person who does not take a dollar for his services and represents thousands of people who are in strife, I made a commitment to him and others that I would not politicise this issue. Yet here we have a stark difference. The Government has a large bill on the table. There are our policies, there are our solutions, and there are our proposals. Unlike Dr Smith, none of us can see into the never-never land. For every speech that Opposition members stood up today to make—Dr Smith, Ms Bennett, and others in the Opposition—not one solution did they put forward. They threw mud at us, they talked about setting up a fund, but they did not say the fund was their policy. They talked about interest-free loans. Of course, my colleague Chris Carter is putting together now a loans scheme at market rates. It is another solution that we are proposing, and it will be announced prior to the implementation of this bill.

So there was a lot of mud thrown, a lot of invective, a lot of venality, a lot of mean-spiritedness, and a lot of hot air—cynical hot air—as those people got up, but there was not one policy. If they were genuine about helping those in crisis, they would get up and say: “We may disagree with parts of this bill, but here are the solutions we think you should implement to make it better.” Not one solution was offered; it was just the usual National Party hot air. As the members of the Leaky Homes Action Group listen here today, they will judge the debate for what it is.

I am reminded of the words of John Gray in an interview on 9 May 2006—the day I announced the proposals, I think. The reporter said: “Some say Nick Smith’s leaked lifeline is pure politicking.” The reporter was referring to Dr Smith trying to ramp it up and make political capital out of the announcement, instead of actually being critical of it, as he is entitled to be, and providing analysis. Here is what John Gray said: “Yes, it’s a shame that he’s”—that is, Dr Nick Smith—“chosen to politicise the whole process, because the review outcomes are very positive for leaky-home owners, and we are looking forward to the Minister making the announcement in due course.” I gave a commitment to Mr Gray that I would try to help, and I intend to do that, and this Government has done it and will do it in respect of this bill.

But it stands as a stark contrast when we as a Government propose a bill, and propose our policies and ideas, and what do we get from the hollowed-out members on the other side of the Chamber? Zip—apart from a hyperactive member who stands up, waves around bits of paper, turns red in the face as the antennae and hair stand on the top of his head, and gets worked up. Where was his solution, where was his policy, and why did he kill off trade training, which has a direct correlation to this issue, because if one deregulates an industry and provides no minimum standards, and one is not prepared to train professionals to do the job, then that is a recipe for the disaster that a large number of New Zealanders are now feeling impacted upon them?

Those are our solutions. I stand by them, and I believe they will assist those people who need help the most.