Sio William: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionSio William: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8913. Text is subject to correction.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I asked the Minister in the chair Nick Smith earlier whether he would clarify to this Committee whether it was him or Minister Paula Bennett who was reported in the media as advocating for a freeing up of the industry again. I think the terminology in one of the reports was that the industry would self-regulate—that the industry would certify its own work. I said to the Minister then and I say it again is that not the reason why we are in this problem? The Minister answered and said that it was Labour that put a bill through here in 1989 but I want to refer the Minister to the words of the Hon Maurice Williamson who in this House claimed responsibility and said that it was him and his Government that passed legislation deregulating the industry which has subsequently led to the situation that we now have.I want to say that I take on board what the Hon David Cunliffe said. Look this is not about blaming. Let us just take responsibility for where we are. But I did ask the question earlier whether it was his intent or the intent of Minister Paula Bennett to again lead this industry to a situation of more deregulation. I would caution the Minister and say look is not that why we are in this situation? We have got this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill which is a mouthful and most people will not know what this is about. It should have been the “Leaky Homes Solution Bill” because that is what we are trying to identify here: a solution to help those people whose homes were leaky as a result of shoddy building and of the use of untreated timber during the period of the 1990s. If my memory serves me right that was again during the Jim Bolger period. I want to say that I do not understand why it has taken so long—why it has taken this long from when the bill was first introduced to this House. I am not sure whether the starting date is going to serve the interests of those people whose issues we are trying to deal with here tonight.The greater issue here is that most people as a result of the leaky homes syndrome do not feel confident about the building industry. In fact I think most people are asking their neighbours whether they know a builder whom they can trust and have confidence in before they embark on building work. This is what has happened as a result of a Government that was so set on a freer industry or deregulating the industry that it did not care what took place. And when it did not care what took place it actually was saying it did not care what happened to ordinary Kiwis and now we are having to foot the bill for the result of that. This is another example of how this Government attempts to pride itself as the master of our economy and promote the fact that deregulation is good.Once upon a time this country was hailed worldwide for having a mixed economy where business could operate within the regulations set by Government. Time and time again we have had politicians or members of Government step forward and say that freeing up industry was good. But here you have an example where greater freedom for an industry actually meant that it was looking at cutting costs without any concern about the subsequent consequences of shoddy work and the use of untreated timber. That is why we are here.We are told that there is a small number of people who are going to have their claims resolved through this particular bill—about 70 homes I understand. But Grimshaw and Co. identified that there were 42000 homes affected as a result of the leaky home syndrome and it also said that that is about 80000 New Zealanders. I do not know whether this bill addresses these 42000 homes affected but I am hopeful that if we are genuinely concerned and want to make sure that we resolve the issues raised by these people we will then have this Government consider seriously the consequences of its actions before it embarks on another deregulation exercise that it believes is good for the economy when all we have seen and all that these 80000 New Zealanders have experienced is that deregulation has not in fact helped them out. Thank you for that opportunity.