Williamson Maurice: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18655] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I acknowledge the hard work of the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee whom I believe worked very well together in refining the bill and bringing some minor amendments back to the House that I think improve it. I would also like to thank all the submitters who took the time to offer their comments and opinions on the bill. 
I am proud to commend this bill to the House because it enables an assistance package that helps address an issue that has been a huge burden on many owners of leaky homes over a very long time period. The social economic and health costs of leaky homes are affecting many New Zealanders and it is time to get those homes fixed. If one refers to the work done by PricewaterhouseCoopers one sees that its view was that the bare minimum damage done to the residential properties of this country by leaky homes was $11.3 billion so I make the House aware of the magnitude of this issue. 
Owners of leaky homes have said to me: “There must be some way out of here.” I have never been to so many meetings in my whole political life where people were crying on a regular basis because they were stuck. They could not find a way of getting funding and they could not fund the repairs themselves. Their house was rotting around their ears and there was as I said no way out. There is too much confusion in the current litigious process because a number of people who have sought litigation have ended up winning their case and then their legal fees have been almost the same size as—and in many cases more than—their settlement. It is a case of even when one wins one still loses. 
The hour is getting late and in my view it is important that this financial assistance package gets to market as quickly as it can and that we get it up and running as soon as possible so that those people out there who want to get their homes fixed get them fixed—not that we pay money to lawyers or that we give grants to homeowners and then let them decide what they do but that we actually pay this money towards getting their homes fixed. 
Last year the Government announced the financial assistance package to provide another pathway to the repair of leaky homes. I want to make that quite clear because there are some people out there who do not like this package. I fully appreciate that view but it is a voluntary package. Nobody needs to sign up to it if they do not want to; this is just another pathway that homeowners can follow if they so wish. The package is voluntary. It is up to the homeowners to decide whether it is the best option for them in the circumstances. 
Homeowners will remain entitled to pursue claims through the Department of Building and Housing dispute resolutions process and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal through legal avenues or a through a whole lot other things if they so wish. But if a qualifying homeowner chooses this financial assistance package then the Government will pay 25 percent of the agreed repair costs the participating council that approved the original construction work will pay 25 percent as well and the remaining amount will be met by the homeowner. The contributions will be based on agreed actual repair costs. It is a pretty good deal. I know that there are people out there who want it to be more. I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee will have heard people saying that it should have been more and that it should not have had the 10-year limitation. I know that a lot of superannuitants say that they cannot even afford the half so the Government should pay the lot. But every time I looked at any of the alternatives to what we have come up with here the sums of money involved made one’s eyes water. The Minister of Finance was quite clear that even this measure is a huge drag on the Government’s accounts and that anything beyond this would have been going too far. 
I am pleased that we as a Government have offered up a package. As I said before it will be voluntary. The package also includes assistance to owners to access bank finance for the remaining agreed repair costs—that is for the 50 percent left—by way of a loss-sharing arrangement with the banks which have agreed to participate for loans made to owners who qualify for the assistance and who can meet bank lending criteria. That is good and the details of that are currently being thrashed out between me and some of my officials and the Bankers’ Association and the individual banks. The scheme also provides an opportunity for builders designers and others to contribute to the costs of repairing leaky homes and therefore to limit their liability. It can be a financial contribution or a contribution in kind. 
I shall now outline what I think are the key changes contained in the amendment bill. The bill will limit the liability of participating territorial authorities and of any other contributing parties—for instance other solvent defendants—for claims being addressed through the financial assistance package. It will protect the Crown from liability for the failure of repairs made under the financial assistance package and any losses suffered as a result of the provisions of this package. It will provide a power for the appropriate Minister to prescribe and guarantee or indemnify in respect of a loan made for the purpose of repairs made under it and it will make the financial assistance package available for a period of 5 years from the time the package first becomes operational. 
These changes are necessary to facilitate the delivery of the package. So basically what we are saying is that if people choose to go with this the two things they will have to sign up to is that they will not sue the council because it is putting in its 25 percent so it is a done deal and they will not sue the Crown. The Crown does not have to do this. There have been a number of cases that have tried to join the Crown in litigation and they have been thrown out; they have failed. So the Crown could do what Labour did for 9 years and say that this is not our role and we are not getting involved. Well the current Government thinks that we should get involved and that is what the package does. 
The bill has been considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and I am pleased about it. The Local Government and Environment Committee received 39 written submissions and heard nine oral submissions. I understand that submitters supported the bill in general but for the last few minutes of my speech I want to go over the same point again. I do understand why some people think that the package does not go far enough but every time I tried to expand the limits of this and make it maybe a 15-year period rather than 10 years—even though 10 years is the period in the Building Act—it made the amount of money involved just horrendous. As it is it will be over $1 billion of liability on the Government’s books to do this over the period of time. 
But I also want to notify people out there now of another important point. A number of people have said that by the time the financial assistance package comes to market their house will be 10 years old and they will not be eligible. That is not true. If they get in and register their property with the Weathertight Homes Tribunal today tomorrow or whenever the clock will stop ticking the moment they register. So even if they do not apply for the package until 11 years or 12 years into the life of the home the clock will have stopped ticking before that time frame. 
I am pleased to be able to offer this package. I think it gives homeowners a way forward. I regret the history of this which dates back to decades of decision making and the systemic failure of the building industry. I think it is a point worth making again. Some people say to me that the leaky home saga happened only because of non-treated timber. That is not true. Other people say that it happened because of a lack of skills in the industry. That is not true. Others say that it happened as a result of poor design. That is not true. People say that it happened because of poor inspections and so on. What happened— 
Phil Twyford 
: Deregulation. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Phil Twyford calls out “Deregulation.” I do— 
Phil Twyford 
: All of them are the responsibility of the National Government. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Now he has bit the bullet. He is saying that it was the deregulation of the building sector that did it. What Mr Twyford does not know is that deregulation occurred from a thing called the Building Act 1991. One would suspect that that was under National right? It was a bill introduced into the House in 1990 by the Hon Margaret Austin and it went through its whole process in this House— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was she a Labour MP at the time? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: She was a Labour MP at the time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Never! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes she was. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Never! Never really. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes she was. She was a Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No not deep down. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Oh all right. Trevor Mallard says that deep down she was not a Labour member. 
Phil Twyford 
: Maurice National passed it. It’s your responsibility. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: National passed its third reading and now Mr Twyford is saying that it is National’s responsibility. Let us get it right. Labour introduced it Labour took it through the select committee Labour brought it back to Parliament Labour took it through the Committee of the whole House then National passed the third reading and now it is National’s fault. I love it! It is beautiful! That is one of my personal favourites. I will really use that one in future. 
If Mr Twyford were a bit more gracious he would have gone with my original statement. It is a systemic failure across the board of industry Government regulations and non-treated timber. I am pleased to have a package before the House today that will finally address that problem.