Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services(Remedies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services(Remedies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9707] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill is another sad chapter in the ongoing bungles of this Government in dealing with the awful plight faced by thousands of New Zealanders who have leaky homes. This is the third attempt by the Government to try to get the law right in this area but every time it is rushed and every time the Government gets it wrong. Each time National has expressed concern about this mad rush the Government has ignored us. The end result is that we have had one problem after another and now we have found out again that the law is broken. 
The first attempt was back in November 2002. At that time the Government rushed the legislation through in just 3 weeks to address the leaky home issue. Then the current Minister Clayton Cosgrove came to the House last year to rush a bill through. On that occasion he said after the third reading speech: “I’ve got it right; it’s all fixed; homeowners can have confidence.” 
Well what is the story today? The Minister is back in the House saying that we have to have another crack at it. He says it relates to a decision that was made by the court. Let me reflect on the date. The decision was given on 29 March. I say to the Minister that that was 2 months ago. How long will the Minister give the select committee to check whether this third time is right? Just 3 weeks! What has the Minister been doing if this is so urgent? If there is such anxiety for those homeowners how come the Minister has been sitting on his butt for 2 months but will give Parliament only a mere 3 weeks to address this issue? 
I say further to the Minister that on the very specific issue of being able to make claims for general damages I remind him of what he said in December. He said that homeowners would be able “to claim for a similar range of damages as that they would be able to claim in a court process”. Does the Minister stand by that statement now? He has just told Parliament that he got it wrong—that he stuffed it up. What is worse is that he keeps doing that. We even had submitters I tell the Minister who came to the select committee during consideration of his previous bill saying—and I will quote specifically from Mr Fuller—“This bill does not provide for general damages and if the Minister had done his job properly he would have made changes to that bill so we would not be back in the situation when the ink is barely dry on your old Act back patching it up.” 
National members pointed out then and we point out again today that this bill is not adequate for dealing with this problem. We argued then that homeowners should be able to claim reasonable legal costs associated with their claim. The Minister refuses to allow that. My question for the Minister is how he expects the average homeowner typically in a tribunal hearing—faced with as many as a dozen lawyers on behalf of builders architects developers councils and insurance companies—to be able to do that without legal representation. Yet he continues with this bill to refuse the reasonable requests of the Leaky Homes Action Group to ensure that those provisions can be— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Ask David Moore. He settled a couple of days ago; got 100 percent of what he wanted—no lawyers. John Gray settled—no lawyer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us look at the Minister’s record of settlement; let us look at the overexcited Minister’s record of settlements. The Government has allocated $100 million to the bureaucracy around leaky homes. That is how much money is to be spent. Of the 4000 claims how many have been settled? It is a mere 700. What is worse is that since Mr Cosgrove has held this portfolio the number of assessments being done each month has dropped by one-third. The madness is that the cost to the taxpayer of the bureaucracy of running the leaky homes tribunal is $108000 a case and the average level of settlement is a mere $70000. The taxpayer would have been better off just to write the cheque out for the poor homeowner than to run this overheated bureaucracy that has failed so badly for New Zealanders. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I ask this question of the new member of the House Lesley Soper. She may not have been here for the previous debate. What we had earlier was the decision that this problem should be dealt with by the Department of Internal Affairs. That is what George Hawkins and the Government had said. Then they said: “Oops stop; we do not want the Department of Internal Affairs. We want to give this job to the Department of Building and Housing.” Then last year the Minister said: “Oops we got that wrong too. Sorry we are now going to give it to the Ministry of Justice.” So we can look at the game of pass the parcel that has been going on within the Government. How many Ministers have we had? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: In the nick of time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well in the nick of time we might have a decent Minister. We started with Mark Burton. He was the first Minister responsible for this area then responsibility for the tribunal went to George Hawkins. Then it went to Margaret Wilson then it went to John Tamihere then it went to Chris Carter then it went to Clayton Cosgrove and now it has gone—guess what—all the way back to Mark Burton. So we have had a game of pass the parcel where this problem has gone from Minister to Minister and the poor old homeowner is yet to see any justice for what needs to be dealt with in respect of this important issue. 
Lesley Soper 
: It is funny that John Gray of the Leaky Homes Action Group has praised this. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says that the Leaky Homes Action Group has praised this bill. It says this bill is needed. Yes it is needed—it is needed because Clayton Cosgrove stuffed it up. 
Lesley Soper 
: It’s needed because the National Government— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Actually no. In fact let us look at the reasons for the bill. They are to amend the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006—to amend that Act. Who was the Government in 2006 I ask the member who is just piping up? 
Lesley Soper 
: Go back a bit further. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She says that but it is this Act that we are amending. We are amending the 2006 Act an Act that was passed through Parliament only in December. [ 
Interruption 
] Clayton Cosgrove says we should blame the High Court. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No I said you don’t understand—you really don’t understand about court proceedings. You are a clot-head. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is now resorting to personal abuse; that is the standard Labour Party technique. The truth is that he told Parliament last year that people could claim general damages. He said that that is what his Act would enable. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: And two District Court precedents agreed with me. But the High Court— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What has happened? The High Court has said he is wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] I say that in relation to the High Court if the Minister believes the law is OK he could appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. He has not; instead he has decided that his law was wrong and thus he has introduced this bill. 
The last point I wish to make is that here we have this bill that is to be rushed through Parliament and reported back within 3 weeks. The next 2 weeks is an adjournment break. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I say to the Minister that he has known about this court decision for 8 weeks so how is it fair to this Parliament for it to have only 3 weeks to try to address the issue? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: They try to work. We’ll be there; you don’t have to turn up. We’ll be at the select committee— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I simply make the point that the Minister rushed the first legislation through on this issue and he got it wrong. He rushed it through the first time and because of that rush he got it wrong. That is why we are here again. He rushed it through again last year and he got it wrong again and he now wonders why members of the National Opposition say to him: “Slow down. Let us get this law right. Do not rush this process. There is not the need.” 
Leaky homeowners deserve better law than we are getting. They certainly deserve better than the mess where only 10 percent of the claims have been resolved after $100 million and after 5 years. That is failure in anybody’s eyes. Sadly leaky homeowners are not going to get a solution until this rotten Government is kicked down the tracks.