Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): To be fair to the Minister in the chair the Hon Michael Woodhouse he is not the portfolio Minister but I just wonder whether the portfolio Minister Dr Nick Smith—who is I am sure here although I cannot quite see all avenues of the Chamber—given that this is such an important issue might be prepared to—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think the member is aware that drawing attention to the absence of—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I did not say that.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I think the member did indicate he is not in the Chamber which is an indication that he is absent. So I will just ask the member to address the questions.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well I would hope to put it this way that the Minister in the chair who eminent Minister though he is this is not his portfolio can make a valiant attempt to answer some of these technical questions which ordinarily given the gravity of this piece of legislation and the tragedy that we are dealing with—42000-plus claims—I would have thought this was such an issue of moment that the portfolio Minister would at least take a call wherever he may be.I want to refer to the regulatory impact statement. I would like to ask the Minister a question on paragraph 4—and this covers the entire legislation; it is an interesting piece of prose—which says “Due to the sensitivity of the weathertightness issue and the negative impact speculation can have on leaky home owners to make informed decisions and the impact [it] can have on ongoing discussion with territorial authorities and banks consultation has been targeted.” I can understand that to some extent. Then it goes on “Limited consultation means that the present analysis has to rely on limited evidence.”—well that is self-evident—“Therefore there is uncertainty about the costs and benefits of the option(s).”That is quite an interesting statement from officials. I will not name the official. I know the official. The official used to work in my office as my adviser—a very eminent official actually. It worries me that an official of that stature would write this down on a piece of paper and I take that official absolutely at their word. But it creates a whole series of questions around the cost and benefits when you have an official document—a regulatory impact statement—saying “Therefore there is uncertainty about the costs and benefits of the option(s).” I am sure others for the avoidance of doubt for those who are following this debate who are subject to the difficulties that we are trying to address would like an explanation from the Government in some way shape or form as to what that means.I would have thought that this is an issue of such moment that the Government would have despite the sensitivities to quote this report done extensive consultation would have gathered extensive evidence and would be able to put quite definitively estimates of costs and say with some authority based on evidence that it was certain about the costs and benefits of the options. This raises a whole can of worms because it is a document produced by the Government that says in essence if we take it literally “We don’t quite know whether this is going to you know have any effect at all whether it’s going to be beneficial whether it’s going to achieve what the Government policy wants.” If you actually look at the point I made before about the estimates of 16000 claimants—and we have got 87 actually in the system; I think I said 86 but it is 87—then that evidence would bear out the uncertainty contained within this regulatory impact statement.So I say with all seriousness this is a serious issue that is raised in the regulatory impact statement one that on the one hand we are clarifying through taking out the criteria from the Gazette notice and placing it within the legislation for the avoidance of doubt to ensure there is total clarity which we all agree with and on the other hand we have a regulatory impact statement that basically says: “We don’t know which way’s up. We’re uncertain about the costs and benefits of the options.”I have been in the odd select committee and when officials come in to see you—I think there was some Inland Revenue Department bill we dealt with earlier in the year—you ask officials: “Will this work?”. When I have been a Minister the first question I have asked officials is “Will this work?”. If they look at you strangely and they cannot quite answer you then you realise pretty quickly if the old grey matter is working that there is something wrong inherently. Now we are at this stage of this bill—we have been through the select committee and are into the Committee stage and it went right through the Cabinet process prior to that—and we have got a regulatory impact statement that says the Government is uncertain about the costs and benefits.So I do not know whether the Minister could indicate—and again in fairness he is not the portfolio Minister and these are quite technical issues specific to the portfolio and he has obviously sort of been dropped in it tonight so I do have a bit of sympathy for him. But perhaps he could gain from his officials some answer. You know he is the sort of guy with his shovel behind the elephant. Perhaps he could ask his officials who are learned whether they could pass him some notes and give us some explanations to put some certainty and dissolve some of the uncertainty that has been raised by the regulatory impact statements. It is on page one it is in paragraph 4 it is sitting there it is glaringly obvious and when you read it you think: “Well you know why are we here? Why weren’t these issues resolved well before this legislation was put to the Parliament and put through the select committee?”.So this is not just an issue of politics; there are people there are lawyers dealing with the victims of leaky homes and there are victims of leaky homes sitting out there hoping that this will provide them some assistance. They will be looking at this going “Well what does that mean if the Government’s own officials themselves aren’t convinced of the validity of this policy?”—[Interruption] Well you may want to wind it up Mr—I cannot remember his name the one who stood for Wellington Central.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): “You” is not winding anything. Well you might wind something up pretty soon actually.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Not you Mr Chairperson the gentleman beside the junior whip. I cannot actually recall his name. But you know he may want to wind up this issue. He may want to go around perhaps Wellington Central and other places and visit some of those folk who are in desperate need of assistance. We are trying to act with some goodwill over here. That is why we would like—you know I know the member is new—some answers to pretty serious questions. The member has been in Government. Maybe if he gets a report like this that says “We don’t know the costs and benefits of a particular policy—we’re uncertain about it.” you know in his little world maybe that does not mean much but to other people it is sort of “Hang on. Is this going to work?”. He may be happy to push through legislation whether it works or not. It may be a political stunt.I actually have some goodwill for the Government; I think it is trying to make a genuine effort. So that member may want to go around and you know tap on a few doors and ask a few people how they are doing in respect of their leaky home issues and then wind up. So I would appreciate some of those questions being answered and getting some of this stuff on the record so that we can do away with the uncertainty that this particular document now puts before us.Part 1 agreed to.