9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister for Building and Construction
Is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service, established in 2002, transferred in 2004, and amended in 2006 and 2007, working well?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
Yes. Claimants are getting a speedier, less costly, and more effective resolution service.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How can it be working well, when leaky home owner Mr Tim Scott of Christchurch lodged a claim in 2005, the service determined that his claim was valid, he sold his house at a much discounted price because he was under such extreme financial pressure, only to then find that due to a flaw in the wording of the legislation his claim could not now be pursued against the builder or the developer? Does the Minister think that is fair and just?
Over 5,000 claims under the legislation have been through various stages of the process. I invite the member to send me the actual details he refers to. At the end of the day, the decisions taken by homeowners—the pace at which they seek relief, or the point at which they sell their properties—are actually their decisions.
Dr Ashraf Choudhary Link to this
What increased value are claimants under the new system getting from the Weathertight Homes Tribunal?
I point out to the House that under the new system claimants are able to get an accurate assessment of the nature of their problems that otherwise would cost $9,000. It is costing them $500, and it is very useful in determining at what point they should go into arbitration, mediation, or some other course of action. Value is being delivered.
Pita ParaoneTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that the leaky homes issue, which the Weathertight Homes Tribunal was set up to address, was the result of the previous National Government’s decision to radically liberalise the building sector, and to allow shonky property developers and speculators to rip off investors and homeowners through the use of shoddy materials and building practices?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have two points. The first is that the Minister does not have responsibility for the previous National Government. Furthermore, Mr George Hawkins said at the time of the passing of the 1991 Building Act that National could not claim credit for it, that it was all Labour’s work.
Madam SPEAKERCan the Minister confirm that the leaky homes issue, which the Weathertight Homes Tribunal was set up to address, was the result of the previous National Government’s decision to radically liberalise the building sector, and to allow shonky property developers and speculators to rip off investors and homeowners through the use of shoddy materials and building practices?
The Minister is not responsible for National Party policy, but he may respond generally around the issue at that time.
It is well known that during the 1990s apprenticeships were derailed. A more liberal approach was taken as to how consents were issued and monitored, and we have had to introduce this raft of reforms to address—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Amongst that noise there was a most unparliamentary remark from Mr Gerry Brownlee. I ask that he withdraw and apologise for it.
Would the member please withdraw and apologise. I did not hear the comment; the noise was too great.
Gerry BrownleeHon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Madam Speaker, the member made the comment; he knows the comment that he made. Repeating an unparliamentary comment in the House, especially one as gross as that, is something that I will not do. He knows what he said.
Please be seated. The correct process is that I ask the member whether he made that comment, and if he says he did not, then his word must be accepted in the House. Did you make an unparliamentary comment?
Well, Madam Speaker, I do not consider that it was unparliamentary. Perhaps the member would like to tell me which comment it was. Was it the comment that the member should ask for his money back for his anger management courses, or was it the comment that Labour lies? If either of those is offensive, I withdraw and apologise.
I think we know the rulings on allegations about lying, so from that point of view I would ask the member to please withdraw and apologise for that particular comment.
Hon Bill EnglishI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In defence of my colleague, I want to say that he was responding to provocation from someone sitting over the back there who claimed that the apprenticeship system had been dismantled. That member may not be aware that Labour voted for the Industry Training Act, which updated apprenticeships, and those members used to claim that it was very successful.
That is not a point of order. We are all provoked in this House, but we respond in a parliamentary way that is consistent with the Standing Orders.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How can the system be working well when leaky home owner Helen Osborne of Auckland lodged a claim with the service, was advised that the claim was valid, and got an assessment, only to have her claim later dismissed because a wording fault in the Weathertight Homes Tribunal legislation, whereby the definition of the 10-year statutory limitation is different from that applying to the general courts, means that her claim is now out of time, and she cannot pursue the $360,000 required to fix her home; how is that either fair or just?
The number of claimants using the service is growing exponentially. Secondly, it is a pity that the member did not put down those details in written form, so that a considered and very accurate answer could be given to his description, which does not necessarily reflect the whole story; rather, it reflects his whakapaka with the Arapawa goats!
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How can the Minister say that the service is working well when, after 10 Ministers and three legislative attempts, the law is still riddled with problems, when fewer than one in five claims has been resolved, when the bureaucratic cost of the service is $107,000 per claim, and when the average settlement is less than $80,000 per claim?
Naturally, I thoroughly dispute the member’s numbers, and, secondly, I repeat that the number of those using the service is growing, more people are becoming aware of the service, and no less a person than John Gray from the Leaky Homes Action Group has congratulated the officials on their work in this regard.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Which particular number does he dispute: the fact that this Government has had 10 Ministers responsible for building and construction in its 8 years in office, the fact that there have been three bills to try to address this issue, the fact that the average administrative cost of each claim is $107,000, or the fact that the average settlement is just less than $80,000—which number does he dispute?
A claimant pays $400 to go through the remedy service and $500 for an appraisal form. That does not equal $26,000, $70,000, or whatever Arapawa goat number the member is coming up with.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister stand by the Government’s statement in 2002 that the Government would implement all of the recommendations of the Hunn report; if so, why, 6 years later, has the Government still not completed the stocktake of how many leaky homes there are and what the cost is of repairing them?
The Don Hunn report referred to a systemic failure. Not only have local councils been required to go through an accreditation process but an occupational licensing regime has been established, a weathertight homes remedial service has been created, and product certification is well and truly under development. A great deal has happened.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was quite specific. A recommendation in the Hunn report said that the Government should provide a comprehensive report on the scale of the leaky homes problem—both numbers and cost. My question to the Minister asked why the Government has not done that. The Minister did not address that question.
I have addressed the question. The way in which the various claimants’ concerns are being addressed is through a broad raft of measures. There is a wide range of numbers. Some have been promoted by mayors from Wellington and Auckland as being accurate figures. Obviously, officials are in regular contact with those claimants. The claimants themselves have to stand up and be counted, and move forward to seek resolution, rather than relying on the inaccurate figures of the member opposite.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I have in my hand the Hunn report, which makes that specific recommendation. I seek leave to table it.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I have in my hand the tribunal decision dismissing the claim of Tim Scott of Christchurch. I seek leave to table that document.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I have in my hand a letter from Helen Osborne of Auckland, to the Minister. If he read his correspondence he might know what is going on.