Bradford Sue: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7162] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party continues to support the passage of this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill as it progresses through its final stages in the House today. Although submitters to the Social Services Committee were on the whole quite critical of the inadequacies of this and previous relevant legislation at the same time there was an overwhelming indication that it is better that the Government do anything it can to improve streamline and speed up dispute resolution processes on this issue rather than just leave things as they are. Some of the submissions were quite harrowing coming from people who had lost everything or almost everything through ending up stuck with an expensive home that had lost almost all of its value and without recourse to anything like the amount of compensation—if any at all—necessary to fix their problems. I think every member of the select committee no matter what political party he or she came from felt tremendous sympathy for such people of whom of course those speaking to us represented just a tiny fraction. 
Over and over I thought back to what it was like in Auckland in the 1990s and reflected on those massive developments that we saw going up all around us at the time. I will never profess to being an expert on building materials or construction issues but even so I remember how at the time I was totally suspicious about the nature of so much of what was being built. So many of those new housing developments looked inadequate and shonky and ill-suited to the wet reality of Auckland’s weather. They were real disasters waiting to happen. 
We heard a lot about culpability and blame during the select committee process and I certainly do not think it can be sheeted home in any one place. Overall it seems in retrospect that a big part of this sector in the 1990s was blighted by a blindness to the reality of what construction types and materials work in our climate and by a drive to profit at any cost in the excitement of a newly deregulated market place. In 2002 the Hunn report named this as a major systemic breakdown across the whole building industry. After hearing the submissions on this bill and the desperation of so many homeowners and local authorities caught out by what has happened I can only agree. Instead of using the tremendous growth in building developments in the 1990s as an opportunity to learn and put into practice sustainable building techniques for the future the opposite happened with results that affected and desperate homeowners are still having to live with today. 
Within this context the bill before the House this morning is welcome with its focus on improving the system for resolving leaky building claims submitted to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. The Green Party supports the substance of what is being achieved here including the goals of reducing the time it takes for claims to be resolved thereby cutting the costs for homeowners in taking claims; encouraging the resolution of disputes through early negotiation between parties as much as possible—especially for lower value claims—and removing some existing barriers to the registration of claims and resolution of disputes by owners of units within multi-unit apartment complexes. We believe that it is critical that the existing resolution service processes are improved so that in the end people’s homes can be repaired more quickly and the associated trauma brought to an end with as much speed and as much support for the homeowners as is practicable. 
I know that this bill is not perfect but I think it is incumbent upon the Government to do what it can. A huge range of complex issues were brought out by this bill and the select committee process was notable for me in being the first time I had seen the situation arise where an amendment to a principal bill was so complex and confused that in the end counsel had to redraft and amalgamate the whole bill into a new Act. On top of that a number of amendments were made during the select committee process in response to submitters and to the committee’s consideration of the bill and even further amendments have since been put up by the Minister for Building and Construction to be dealt with by way of a Supplementary Order Paper today. Some of these changes which we support include the extension of land information memorandum notifications to existing active claims already in the system a requirement for claimants who bring a new claim under different eligibility criteria to do so within 1 year which provides certainty as well as allowing claimants to extend the period within which they can bring a case and the provision of clarifying clauses and a useful diagram in schedule 2 to help make the process clearer for all concerned. 
When I originally spoke on this bill I was like many submitters concerned about the 10-year limitation period which means that any leaky building claim must be brought within 10 years of the home being built or altered. However after learning more about this issue during the select committee process I have come to understand and accept that for the most part there are good reasons for this limitation including the fact that it is very hard to determine liability after 10 years that it is difficult if not impossible to collect adequate evidence after such a long time and that it is a provision that already applies to other claims in respect of building work. On top of that we were told that research and the Hunn report itself show that if there is a problem with a home it should be showing signs of it well within the 10-year time frame and that it is actually better for all concerned if people make their claims as soon as the problem appears. 
Another big issue for claimants for which I have a lot of sympathy is legal costs. It has been and continues to be almost unreasonably expensive for people even comparatively well-off people to take claims when legal counsel are involved and are up against lawyers representing every other party. My hope is that the simplification and speeding up of processes implemented by this bill will help to reduce those costs markedly if not altogether—the latter particularly in respect of lower value claims. 
One suggestion from submitters in which I was particularly interested was the concept of setting up a special court for building issues as exists in the UK. I could see a lot of merit in this suggestion not only for dealing with the ongoing leaky homes crisis but for acting in future as a specialist building disputes service within the court system overall. Although the select committee did not see fit or feel able to support that proposal at this juncture and decided to leave the service as a weathertight homes - specific disputes tribunal I am keen to learn more about this concept of a building court and to work with parliamentary colleagues and people involved in this sector towards a possibility of implementing such a court in future. 
In conclusion like the committee chair Georgina Beyer I thank all those who have worked on this complex bill including my fellow select committee members and particularly the officials who put in an enormous amount of work under considerable pressure of time. Above all I would also like to thank the submitters from all backgrounds who took the time to put together often very useful and detailed input to this legislation and to express on behalf of the Green Party my sincere hope that the passing of this bill will lead to the achievement of its goals as soon as possible for the sake of everyone concerned.