Kedgley Sue: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19959] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I noticed a subheading in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that stated: “Allowing the mining industry to self-regulate was an unfathomable mistake” and I think exactly the same thing could be said for the leaky homes fiasco. Allowing the building industry to effectively self-regulate has turned out to be an unfathomable mistake and one that has created as many have pointed out the biggest man-made disaster in our history. 
The Minister for Building and Construction said in his speech that there was not any one cause of this fiasco. Actually there is one underlying fundamental cause: the passage in 1991 of the Building Act which deregulated the building industry and was passed unanimously by Labour and National in this House. That legislation wiped out most of the previous protections in relation to building new homes and dwellings. It allowed builders to enter and exit the building industry without any real liability any accountability or any costs it removed requirements in relation to skill levels and training it loosened council inspection procedures it allowed private sector building certifiers to compete with local council inspectors for work and issuing building consents and of course it deregulated standards which allowed Standards New Zealand to allow the use of untreated timber and monolithic cladding. 
Under the new era of deregulation that was ushered through Parliament by both National and Labour who were wildly enthusiastic about deregulation and what it would do for the building industry effectively anyone could develop or build a home. They could build a house then wander off to the Gold Coast in Australia as so many did. We got a whole lot of cowboy developers who did not give a damn about anything except trying to cut costs building as cheaply as possible and getting as much profit as they possibly could with no responsibility. And of course we got a whole lot of builders who were not trained as builders. So it is a saga of greed as well as of deregulation. 
Basically as I said everyone who was in the House in 1991 has argued that they were swept up by the ideology of deregulation at the time. I looked back at some of the arguments in this House at the time. Apparently the new Building Act would reduce building costs increase competition in the building sector save money and boost the building industry. Instead of these wonderful promises that both sides of the House assured us would happen it has actually undermined confidence in the entire building sector. It has resulted in families all over New Zealand living in mouldy damp unhealthy and rotten homes. The Minister himself acknowledged that the dreadful mould that many are exposed to  
Stachybotrys 
 can actually kill people and probably is killing people even as we speak. It has resulted in endless misery and a $22 billion bill for taxpayers all because Parliament decided to deregulate the building industry and leave it to the marketplace. 
Let us be quite clear: if there is an underlying reason for this it is because Parliament created the problem by passing flawed legislation that deregulated the entire industry. Therefore by that standard it is Parliament’s responsibility to resolve it. We should be held accountable not the innocent homeowners who are stuck in cold rotting damp and insanitary homes. They did not create the problem although their lives have been blighted and in many cases ruined because they made a fateful decision to buy a home in good faith that is now leaking like a sieve. They are the innocent parties in this and we should remember that. This problem was created— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just remind the member that as I mentioned to the previous speaker third reading speeches are about the contents of the bill as reported back from the Committee. Your speech is a first reading speech. Although it is fine to bring up the points that have led to where we are spending 5 minutes on nothing related to what was reported back from the Committee is not permissible. There are a number of Speakers’ rulings on this issue. With the remaining time I ask the member to now concentrate on the purposes and contents of the bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: But Mr Deputy Speaker I believe and I have said before— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings. [ 
Interruption 
]—Order! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I was not even challenging your ruling. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. I am just mentioning to the member that if you look at Speakers’ rulings 117/2 and 117/3 you will see it is very clear. I am asking the member in the time remaining to actually concentrate on what is in the bill. This is a third reading speech. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: If we do not learn from history we will recreate it. That is why it is so important to do what the Minister did. The Minister spent a significant amount of his speech giving his version of what he believes created the problem and he was not called to order by the Speaker. It is also the reason— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a direct challenge to my ruling. I have been very fair in allowing all speakers an opportunity to go back to how we came to be in this position. I have given fair leeway in that respect. I am saying to the member now as I did to the previous speaker to in the time remaining just concentrate on the contents of the bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: What I was saying was that many submitters on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill argued that if Parliament had created the problem then surely Parliament must be accountable and liable for the problem. We acknowledge the Minister and the efforts he has made to solve this intractable problem; nevertheless we are concerned that although this legislation will protect the Crown which created the problem from liability and will limit councils’ liability it will not protect or benefit many innocent homeowners who are excluded from the provisions of this bill because they fall outside the 10-year time line. Nor will it protect many people in multi-unit dwellings. 
In our view it is unfair and unjust that people who are outside an arbitrary 10-year time frame will through no fault of their own miss out on the financial package or the provisions of this bill if their house was built in the 1990s. They will miss out completely. By some estimates as many as 15000 to 20000 homes were built before the 10-year time frame and will fall outside the time limits in this bill. We believe that that is unfair and arbitrary. We continue to argue that the provision should be open to homeowners whose homes were built in the 1990s in particular. 
We strongly supported amendments that would have allowed the provisions of the bill to apply to apartment owners and multi-dwelling owners who are effectively excluded from the package because of the difficulty of getting 75 percent of owners in a body corporate to agree to a package and because of the difficulty of getting banks to lend to bodies corporate. About 90 percent of apartment and multi-unit legal claims are stalled because owners cannot afford to pay legal and other fees and experts point out that actually it is the apartments—the multi-unit dwellings—that are most at risk of weathertightness problems and are most likely to suffer. They make up 25 percent of dwellings affected by weathertightness problems. So an estimated 15000 to 20000 are missing out because of the time frame and all these others—up to 25 percent of dwellings affected by weathertightness problems—are also missing out on this package. 
We predict that if we do not deal with those people we may be back in this House some years on dealing with this unresolved problem. Although we think this legislation is a positive step forward we need to remember that as others have said the experts are predicting that up to 80 percent or even 100 percent of houses built with monolithic cladding and untreated timber will fail irrespective of their design. Many people argue that contrary to official assurances there are still houses that were built after the reforms to the building code that leak like a sieve despite that fact that builders are using treated timber. There are still builders out there who are not registered builders developers who do not give a damn and owners who are trying to cut costs and build as cheaply as they can. We still have the huge health problems of  
Stachybotrys 
 of people living in damp leaky homes with these tiny spores that when inhaled cause huge breathing problems—asthma and other serious respiratory problems. From a health perspective alone we should be doing everything we can to fix the homes; otherwise we will be paying for the situation through our health bill. 
We think that the package as far as it goes is a good package. Previously we have said that we give credit where it is due. We have congratulated the Minister on what he has done but we think it is a mistake to leave out all of those people who are innocent parties who bought homes in good faith in the 1990s who are in multi-dwelling units and apartments and who cannot afford the 50 percent loan.