10. BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) Link to this
to the Minister for Building and Construction
Is the taxpayer getting value for money from the Government’s initiatives to fix the leaky homes problem?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
Yes. Of specific importance is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act that came into force on 1 April 2007, and it provides a speedy, less costly, and more effective resolution because it has comprehensive assessment of properties that improves the ability to estimate repair requirements and costs. I can make its measures available to the member at a later date.
How can the Minister justify spending $650,000 on administration of the loans scheme announced in Budget 2006 to help leaky home owners, when only seven loans have been issued, amounting to an administrative cost of $93,000 a house?
The response of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service goes beyond the single loan facility that the member refers to. The loan facility is extremely highly sought after wherever there lies an opportunity not only to expand that but also to expedite people through the mediation process, and to the disputes resolution process. I say to the member that within 10 to 12 weeks people are having their claims effectively and successfully dealt with.
Madam SPEAKERWould the member please be seated. Another comment like that and the member will be asked to leave the Chamber.
Is it not an appalling waste of public money that the Government would spend $93,000 on administration costs on each leaky home, and an average of $100,000 costs in the Weathertight Homes Tribunal claim area, when the average cost to fix a leaky home is $120,000?
On the question of an alleged waste of money causing public angst, I remind the member that it was under his party in Government that this leaky homes fiasco actually originated. The former parliamentarian league radically liberated the sector, and look what we have got—a public legacy of debt and virtual suicide.
Pita ParaoneTēnā koe Madam Speaker, tēnā hoki koe e te Minita.
[Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to you also, the Minister.]
Would the Minister agree that the issue of leaky buildings would never have occurred in the first place if shonky property developers and speculators had not tried to rip off investors and homeowners by using shoddy material and building practices?
I direct the member to an article in the newspaper that refers to a court case that has involved the producers and suppliers of those products stepping up to the plate to engage in a settlement—and I remind the member that Don Hunn described the failure as a systemic one, including the behaviour of poorly skilled people, poorly skilled counsellors, and very unethical company directors.
Why, in response to the building industry’s concern that the loan scheme was a sham, did Clayton Cosgrove cruelly raise the hopes of desperate leaky home owners by stating that the scheme would open the way for thousands to have their homes repaired, when only seven loans have been granted?
There are two main avenues that people are using with greater regularity. No. 1 is the mediation service; No. 2 is the dispute resolution service. For a sum of $500, anyone who has a complaint may approach the department and have a very professional engineering quantitative assessment of his or her problem and the likely costs. In the market, that might cost $9,000. The Government and the department are making that available for $500. However, we do confine the providers of those reports to professional, competent, and trustworthy people.
How many chances should this Government have at fixing the leaky home problem, when Helen Clark initially said that it was just a media beat-up, when there have been four attempts by the Government to fix it, when the current Minister is now the 10th Minister to have responsibility for it, and when last year’s initiative to fix this problem with a loan scheme has failed?
The initiative to reduce stress and actually settle people’s concerns is not failing. People have the choice of going to the High Court, and I direct Mr Clarkson’s attention to the newspaper today to show that some are making use of that option. Others—growing in number—are going down the mediation and dispute resolution route. That is taking place over a period of 10 to 12 weeks, and the sums they are being allocated are not insignificant.