Shanks Katrina: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shanks Katrina: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10656. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Committee stage of Part 1 of this bill. Clause 4 which is the main provision confirms the purpose of the bill. Any claim may include a claim for general damages for mental anxiety and distress and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal may award such general damages for any eligible claim.  
My colleague Bob Clarkson told the Social Services Committee many times that we would not need this clause if homes were simply fixed in a timely manner to begin with. Homeowners become stressed anxious and upset only when they have a leaky home and are in dispute as to who is responsible and who should fix it. This is what causes the stress and anxiety—the leaky home itself. All this bill does is create a law to allow homeowners to be compensated for the stress of having a leaky home.  
A submission to the Social Services Committee from Local Government New Zealand dated June 2003 raised this very issue. It stated: “The explanation for the bill states that it will return the law to what was intended by Parliament and the Government. We know that there are several aspects of the current Act that do not seem to be consistent with what Parliament and the Government intended. It is unfortunate that the Government has moved first to fix a matter of current profile in respect of claimant and cost awards when there are other fundamental matters where the act does not perform as intended. For example we had previously submitted to the select committee that the Act needs amending to ensure that homes are actually getting fixed at the conclusion of the resolution process. We would agree that getting homes fixed is the intention of the Act and yet this matter was not addressed in the latest amendments to the Act. We have also previously submitted on cost-sharing and liability issues where we believe the implementation of the Act in practice is not as intended by Parliament.”  
This situation still has not changed in this 2007 amendment bill. The homes are still not getting fixed. It has been stated in this debate already that in many instances homeowners never receive a dollar in compensation even though the courts award compensation to them. Even the Minister in the second reading debate confirmed that general damages for mental anxiety and distress would not add an extra dollar to the compensation received by some homeowners but he did say that claimants valued these awards as an acknowledgment of the stress they have suffered. That is interesting—they value these awards as an acknowledgment of the stress that they have suffered.  
I am sure the claimants who have not received any compensation who are out of pocket and who still live in homes that leak like a sieve would not agree with him—especially the elderly couple who have no additional money to fix their leaky home. They poured their money their savings into their dream final home but they have a leaky home. It leaks like a sieve and they have to live in it day in day out. They are now suffering from high blood pressure and sleepless nights. The stress and pressure on this elderly couple are incredible. This legislation has failed to produce a practical remedy for them. Will they value these awards as acknowledgment of the stress they have suffered? I do not think so.  
As with the 2006 legislation this amendment bill has been rushed through Parliament. It whizzed through the select committee yet still will not deliver to homeowners its true intention. Once again rushed legislation has been brought on through the case of  
Hartley v Balemi and others 
. We have just heard from the Minister that it was the High Court that was at fault. That is an interesting comment. So the judges in the High Court got it wrong— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not the Minister’s fault; never the Minister’s fault.  
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Never the Minister’s fault. One of the issues that this bill is trying to fix is an error in the law—an error that was pointed out to the select committee in 2006 by the National Party in a minority report which was ignored. So here we are again fixing this legislation again; fixing an error and wasting Parliament’s time when the legislation could have been drafted correctly the first time. But no this is another whiz bit of legislation being whizzed through Parliament whizzed through the select committee.  
No submissions were asked for but we were allowed to get the Law Commission in to have a look at this new draft. The commission came up with suggested amendments so it is lucky that we got it in. The Law Commission said that it should be simple and that it should be concise. It took out references to the case of  
Hartley v Balemi and others 
 and made the legislation simple because the intention was that lay people could read it for themselves understand it and go into a tribunal to represent themselves.