Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
I move, That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill be now read a third time. Firstly—despite some of the rhetoric—I thank the House for expediting this bill. I know that those people listening who are affected by this issue will be grateful for that, even though the content of some of the debate may have been less than it should have been.
I thank the Social Services Committee, chaired by my colleague Georgina Beyer. I will now do something that is rare in this House, which is to thank all members on that committee, from both the Opposition and the Government. Although we may disagree on the path forward, hopefully we do agree on the objective being attained, and I thank that committee again for its cooperation in expediting this bill back into the House. The bill as reported back from the select committee contains a number of amendments, which we have debated in the last hour or so, dealing with the operation, or efficiency and effectiveness, of the bill. The committee was under pressure and it had a shortened time frame, and, in order to get this legislation implemented by the stated time of 1 April, it did a phenomenal job of getting it back here.
I also thank the interest groups—the individuals and organisations—who made submissions on the bill. I am aware, despite the hot air of some, of the plight and heartbreak this issue causes and its impact on people’s lives. I visited many of these people. When I visited them, I shut up and I listened to them, rather than pontificate to them. During the review of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service we listened to organisations and individuals, like Mr Gray and the many thousands of clients whom he represents, who are ordinary people. We listened to what they believed the solutions should be and, of course, we listened to our officials—and I thank my department and the committee officials. We listened to them all and I believe we have come up with a bill that will work.
A house is probably the biggest asset that most New Zealanders will ever have in their lives, and maybe the car is the second biggest. When people have the Kiwi dream of building their dream home or of having it built for them and are then confronted by shonky workmanship, shonky design, and—in some cases, but not in all—councils that have abrogated their responsibility in respect of inspection, and when there is a systemic failure caused historically by having very few minimum standards and having a lack of proper trade training—which this Government has now remedied through putting 9,000 people into trade training, going up to 14,000 next year—what does that all boil down to for the average Kiwi? It boils down to a tragedy. I acknowledge the guts of those Kiwis who have waited for a solution.
As I have said, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service originally was set up as a call to arms. Yes, there was a bit of a rush about it, but it was done with a good motive to try to find solutions to fix these folks’ tragedies. When one does that I acknowledge that some things are missed. I acknowledge also that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service, as it sits today, has not worked as it should have. That is why we have taken this opportunity in the House to remedy, I believe, this problem.
This bill is central to the Government’s commitment to actively help resolve the problems of leaky-home owners. In the Committee stage, one member asked how will we do that. Well, it is quite simple. If we can get claimants into the system, have the claims heard, find the liable parties, attach liability to the person who did not do the professional job—because, of course, the taxpayer did not build the house or hire the shonky professional—and get compensation for the homeowner, then, I would say to Ms Bennett, that it is quite a simple thing to get those homes fixed. If people are provided with the money, then they can get in a professional, and we are licensing people to ensure that we do have building professionals. We can sort the wheat from the chaff, the cowboys from the professionals, in the trade.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
If people get their compensation faster, then they will hire somebody to fix the problem. I would have thought that was self-evident; for that member, obviously it is not. The primary objective is to get the cowboys out of the system. That is why we are licensing building professionals, which is an add-on around this bill.
I think that, collectively, these measures will assist people. I believe these measures will get more claims through the system faster, they will drill into those liable parties, and they will get compensation for people so that they can have their homes fixed up and can get on with their lives.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
But I do note again, just for the record—despite the twittering from the “grey warbler” across the way there—that it is not a solution proposed by an Opposition, and it is the role of an Opposition to be critical of the Government. I would have hoped that members opposite might have provided a solution, or their view on what they would do, but, sadly, that has been lacking in this debate.
In May this year I announced these enhancements. After a major review during which we listened to stakeholders, we have now kept our promise of passing these measures before the end of the year. Although we have in the legislation a “go date”, if you will, of 1 May next year, the stated objective of the Government—which I believe we will meet—is to have this system implemented and up and running by 1 April.
I thank the Consumers Institute and David Russell. I thank John Gray and his troops. I thank those in the building industry: the master builders; Pieter Burghout and company, the certified guys; and the local government representatives who collectively have all given their views. Yes, we have disagreed on some issues; I accept that. I accept in respect of Mr Gray that we disagree on the 10-year limit. He has a different view on legal costs; I accept that. But I believe—and I acknowledge and respect him for his views—that, collectively, this bill will tackle the problems identified. This bill will assist those that it needs to.
I challenge those who may throw mud at this legislation to get behind the proposal. We all have constituents. Probably every electorate in this country has constituents who have been impacted by shonky design, by shonky building, or by some cowboy dealing to them—not just with leaky buildings, I might add, but shonky building right across the board. I lay out a challenge to members of the House, as a collective of 120-plus members, to put politics aside for once and support this proposal.
Paula BennettHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Yes, Ms Bennett voted for the bill and opposed it at the same time, which is a very interesting position and one that people will judge.
I challenge every MP in this House to get behind this proposal, and to go out and encourage their constituents to rock up to this new resolution service, so that we can assist them. We know there are 15,000 people out there. We also know that there are possibly a number of people out there who have not engaged with the service or a court because—as members on both sides have said—they do not have faith in the current resolution service and they do not have the money to go to court. I encourage members to go out into their communities, say that assistance is available, and ask people to give it a go, because I believe it will work. The challenge, of course, will be whether certain individuals can put their political protestations aside and represent their constituents in an appropriate way.
I thank the department and the officials, who have put a hell of a lot of time into this legislation. The Department of Building and Housing is criticised occasionally, as all bureaucratic entities are, and the boot goes in. But the team that has been working on this for many, many months has some of the most passionate individuals that I have seen, and they are passionate because they actually want to help people. Staff in my office have taken phone calls from people, and one of the department’s officials said to me that occasionally people can be heard bursting into tears on the phone because this tragedy has impacted on their lives so much. I thank those officials, because they have put heart and soul into this legislation. They believe in it and they believe that it can work.
I say to those in the communities affected that I believe that this is a sound policy, built around not just what the Government thinks, what I as a politician think, or even what the bureaucrats think, but by working with stakeholders in the community like Mr Gray and his group, and by listening to what they say, what their needs are, and what they would like—what they believe the solution should be. After all, they are the ones standing in the houses or, in many cases, the ones living with their kids in the houses. I believe that we have listened. We have disagreed occasionally, but we have listened.
Overwhelmingly, I believe, we have put in place legislation that at its very base will assist those people and that will, over time, get them out of the situation they are in. I thank members on both sides of the House for their support of this bill, besides the disagreements, and I commend it to the House.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
National will support the third reading of this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill, but without the sort of rhetoric that came from the Minister that somehow this will be a solution. Yes, the legislation will provide some small improvements, but in no way is it a solution for the 15,000 leaky-home owners out there.
The Minister Clayton Cosgrove said that National in the Committee stage had thrown mud and been personally derisive. Let us get the record straight—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Well, let me deal with each of those. We have cited the statistics of his Government’s record. We make no apologies for doing that. When the original Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was set up, the Government said that the problem would be resolved within 2 years. Four years later only 7 percent of claims have been resolved, and we would be derelict in our duties as an Opposition if we did not challenge the Government on that record. I have not referred to the Minister by any sort of derisive term, yet he has called me a grey warbler and made all sorts of other comments. It is typical of Clayton Cosgrove that when he cannot answer the questions he gets personal and he gets nasty.
I have a very simple question I put to the Minister in the Committee stage, and I will put it to him again. In the last year there have been 500 new claims and fewer than 200 settled. If that is the solution, will he tell me how many claims will be resolved in the year 2007?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
It is a fair question. Will he even assure the House that next year there will be more resolutions than new claims? The silence is deafening, because the Government knows that this is a con. You see, this bill changes the department that is responsible for the job. It changes the name of the service. We are now to have not a seventh Minister but an eighth responsible Minister in the term of this Government. I ask the Government how keeping on changing the Minister provides any solution for the leaky-home owner.
I want to point out the appalling legislative process that has been around in dealing with this matter—that is, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act of 2002. It came into the House on 1 November, and became law on 26 November. It was a failure, and even the Minister has accepted that today. Yet today we are being asked to pass 10 pages of law that has never been to a select committee, and that was only tabled in the House today. The Government has learnt absolutely nothing in terms of resolving this issue. A bill was introduced and sent to a select committee, but only two of its clauses have survived—the title clause and the commencement clause—36 of the 39 clauses have been changed, I tell the Minister. If he had done such a thorough and excellent job, what sort of process is that? The process of dealing with this issue by legislation has been appalling. It failed once; it will fail again.
And here is the chronic contradiction for the Minister. He said to the House that he wants the builders, the architects, and the developers to participate constructively in the mediation and settlement process, so that we can fix the houses. He says that the Building Industry Authority and the Government failed in the 1990s, but will the Government now participate in mediation? Will the Government be part of the adjudication process for finding a solution for homeowners? Not on your life! In fact, the Government has spent $6 million of taxpayers’ money on lawyers, going all the way to the Court of Appeal, to eliminate any liability. So this Government is again saying: “Do not do what we do; do what we say. That is, if there is any liability for us, we will fight every step of the way through the courts. We will spare not a dollar in finding the best Queen’s Counsel in the land to avoid the taxpayer having to spend a single penny on fixing one of these houses. But if anybody else is involved, then they should somehow participate.”
National says that that is wrong. We say that there are four parts to the solution. Firstly, lawyers are a part of, and required in, the process, and their fees should be able to be claimed. The Government says no. Secondly, National says that we should spend the money on fixing houses and not on the process. Thirdly, National says that in finding a solution, we should be able to deal with all the problems with homes and not just with the issues of leaky houses. Finally, we say that we want the focus to be on getting results, and the fact that this bill will not work is reinforced by the fact that no one in the Government will give any commitment as to the number of claims that will be resolved in future. Sadly, leaky-home owners will have to wait for a change of Government before this problem is fixed.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this
I am somewhat saddened by the pessimistic remarks that have been made. Although I can understand that from a political point of view those comments may seem justified by those who make them, I think we need to look at this whole bill in a more positive light. I know that my colleague from Te Tai Tokerau the Hon Dover Samuels often talks about Santa Claus at this time of year. I suggest that for a number of leaky-home owners this legislation will almost be like something they would receive under the Christmas tree.
This bill goes towards bringing some resolution to what has been a harrowing experience for the owners of homes affected by the problems of leaky home syndrome. It is a result of the fact that the existing legislation has not been effective enough—hence, this bill. I say that if something is wrong, then we should fix it. To the credit of this Government, it realised that the original legislation was not effective in the way we would have liked it to be, so we have this bill. I want to recognise the select committee for having the courage to recommend to this House that the principal Act be amended in the way that this bill has been presented to the House. The select committee has clearly put a lot of effort into bringing this bill back, and again I acknowledge the intestinal fortitude of the members of that committee in bringing it back in this form.
Whatever we may say, and whatever criticisms we may have, about this whole sorry saga, it is important, and it is incumbent on this House, that we provide an effective resolution of the leaky homes problem. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say I believe that this bill will actually do that. Notwithstanding some criticisms of the bill, we still believe that it is in the best interests of those who own such homes. It is also in the best interests of the territorial authorities that we have a coordinated approach to resolving the issue.
I will not speak for the full 7 minutes still left allotted to me. Suffice it to say that I just reiterate New Zealand First’s support for a really important bill that will go a long way towards providing closure for those whose homes are affected by this sorry saga.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this
I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill. As we round off this debate on this important legislation, I think it is important to remind ourselves exactly why this amending legislation came before the House in the first place and what exactly we are trying to address. The first thing is that currently, prior to the passage of this legislation today, it was taking a very, very long time for claimants to resolve their issues. The process had become extremely adversarial. Claimants were under-resourced compared with the respondent territorial authorities and often felt very much on the back foot. The process was costly, with the costs of the process often being higher than the claim itself. A very good example was Wellington City Council, which reported that it had spent $70,000 in court defending itself over a $4,000 claim.
The other problem was that the claims were only for actual and visible damage at the time. There was no provision within the Act to anticipate the ongoing consequences of a leaky home. Lastly, we needed this legislation because there were some huge barriers for people who were in apartment dwellings, in terms of processing their claims. So this bill provides for those people’s class action for multi-unit complexes. It widens the scope so that potential damage—that is, damage that has not yet occurred but is likely to occur—can be covered. It improves assistance for claimants. It also sets up a new process for people who have a low-cost claim, so that it is not too expensive for them. There are new statutory time frames, including a date by which all settlements must be sorted out. A new tribunal is established. The thing that United Future is very pleased about is the better opportunity for prospective homeowners to receive information about the weathertightness history of the house they are about to buy.
So as we end this matter, we have to ask ourselves whether this is the end of it. Others in the House today have said they hope it is; I have to say that I suspect it is not. Although many of the ongoing issues that United Future would like to see addressed may fall directly under this legislation, we would like to see the Government move to provide better education for homeowners around home maintenance. I think we need clearer boundaries around areas of responsibility for all those who feature in the housing industry, from local councils, real estate agents, builders, plumbers, and other housing-related trades, architects, inspectors and assessors, legislators, and those who set standards and codes. Although we welcome the chance for claims to be settled in a timely way, we do caution the House to remain watchful to make sure we do not end up with an unacceptable forced settlement process that would further victimise homeowners of leaky homes. We are happy to support this third reading.