Mark Ron: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9590. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well it is interesting. I am going to start by saying that I think the issues around this bill—the backdrop to this bill—have been very well canvassed. I have got to say though that sometimes one wonders whether we in this House are really in touch with the reality—the effects at the coalface—of the matters that we are discussing. I say that because a couple of the speeches I heard from the Government’s side would have everyone believe: “Oh there was a little problem and there was a court case and Auckland Council lost and so we’ve got the bill before us now and we’ve tidied it all up and it’s all better and it’s all going to be fine and we’re all going to vote in favour of this—so it’s all sweet it’s all great and there is not a problem.”I think it is probably a good thing to touch on a couple of issues. I will talk about a property in Onehunga which is a complex that has 25 owners. That property was built in 2000 and it was built at a time when the market was deregulated when the building standards and the building codes changed under the Government of the day. We know the problems from the Local Government and Environment Committee where eaves were not built and we had Mediterranean-type houses and complexes built; where the building code changed; and where the council responsible signed off on the work.But that problem has not gone away for those 25 owners today. Today as I speak there are some young couples listening to this debate right now because they are still embroiled in the legal actions trying to get the work started. I mean 16 years later they are now starting to work on this—and this legislation will enable that work to go ahead.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I want to thank the member for the assurance at the end there. I got—RON MARK: Yes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): —the impression that he was talking about something not in the bill.RON MARK: So this legislation is good in the sense that this work will go ahead but we need to remind ourselves that this is not a simple matter. There are human lives involved here. There are people who have separated through the stress. While all of these court actions have taken place and this legislation has dragged on in getting to a select committee and dragged on in getting out and dragged on in getting to a third reading couples have separated and couples have divorced—and we need to remind ourselves that those matrimonial settlements have still not been settled because this legislation has not been completed.So couples who might have separated 5 years ago or 2 years ago are still unable to settle for themselves in respect of the property that they jointly own because of this. This is not a small thing. People have left the country. Some of the people living in this particular block in Onehunga were actually scared—and I am just getting some texts through on the matter right now—into selling their properties for ridiculous money: $100000. “You could be free of all the stress. You do not have to carry the mortgage—quit it and sell now and be shot of it.”Other couples have had to carry two mortgages over all of this time—16 years of carrying two mortgages. This is not a small thing I would say to the National MPs who stood up and sort of said “Oh it’s OK. We’re passing the legislation.”—16 years of carrying two mortgages and of the stress. For some it has caused marriage breakdowns; for some it has not been concluded because one of the partners has died in the process. People were not able to get on with their lives—16 years later we are now doing this and passing this legislation in the House.The whole issue of work being done and signed off by the council of changing the requirements and of owners doing work only to find that that work should not actually have been done and that therefore they cannot get the 25 percent—they are not eligible for the 25 percent. People who cannot actually raise the first 25 percent—and under the current rules in legislation everyone in the body corporate has to sign off. Three people hold it up which requires those remaining owners to go to the High Court for a section 74 scheme to actually get control of the situation.So we pass this legislation but that ladies and gentlemen and members of the House is not the end of the matter for some people out there. So any MP in Auckland right now think of these people in this complex in Onehunga. Think that for them this journey is just going to start now. It is going to take 26 to 32 weeks I am told to complete the work in this complex and in that time those people are going to have to move out and they are going to have to fund all this themselves. We can sit here and pat ourselves on our backs and say: “Oh we’ve done wonderful work. We’ve passed legislation. It’s all going to be better. Take a little pill—it’s all going to be fine.” It is not fine.We need to remember that when we pass legislation such as that which occurred in the deregulation in the market which actually led to this situation and which has resulted in this piece of legislation being before the House there are downstream consequences for people. They are young couples young couples with babies and young couples who have struggled with the health issues of living in a mouldy home for 16 years whilst at the same time lawyers have argued and battled to get them the right to have the compensation that this House now says that they are entitled to.I just want to send a little message to the Government: do not get so cocky and confident that everything that one is doing is fine and that there are no human consequences. None of us sitting here tonight will have any idea of the long-term consequences for the health of those children raised in those houses and in this complex in particular; consequences of the last 16 years of living in a property in an apartment that was mouldy. None of us will understand that. But we will all pat ourselves on our backs and say: “Oh well it’s great. We’ve got free health care for children under 13. They’ll be right mate. We’re looking after them.” Well it ain’t right. We have not been looking after them. Parliament has failed them. Successive Governments over the time have failed them. The only people who have actually done them a good service is the court in the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court and the select committee process in the last few months.We would do well to remind ourselves that at the end of legislation are human beings—people. It is not something to be laughed about—Mr Jami-Lee Ross. It is serious—human beings and children and leaky homes full of mould. Young couples who struggle to pay the mortgage on a property that is devalued and on which they cannot get a loan because the value of the place has plummeted because it is a leaky home. Young couples who have to take on extra work because now they have had to move into another place where they are able to bring up their children in a healthy environment but they are still carrying the two mortgages: (1) at the leaky property which hopefully will now get fixed; and (2) at the home that they are living in and raising their children in. Sixteen years and this is the success? Sixteen years and Parliament sits here and congratulates itself and pats itself on the back? Yeah right!It is good to finally see this legislation pass tonight and if we get to rise early and all go home and feel comfortable about that well whoop-de-doo. But I just want this House to remember that in a complex in Onehunga with 25 apartments there are young people right now whose journey is only just beginning.