Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5073] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. There have been roughly 40 minutes in this debate including the Minister’s time taken to introduce this bill. Twenty minutes of that time has been spent on an indication and an explanation of this bill. Unfortunately for the other 20 minutes all we have heard is criticism of the bill—no solutions other than that of the member for Whangarei who told us what he does and the advice that he gives to people who come to his office to see him about this issue when they are considering utilising the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. Well I can understand what happens when one stays on the Opposition benches for so long that one’s positive sense of thinking is lost. For the last 10 minutes we have had an example of that. It is sad that in spite of all those members’ criticism no positive alternative has been presented to this House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could give me some guidance. I spent 5 or 6 minutes of my speech talking about Standards New Zealand and how we could improve that. The member said that I gave no solutions. Could you give me some guidance as to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member will be seated—I am on my feet. That is a debatable issue. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Obviously that is confirmation of what I said earlier on. 
As has been mentioned this bill amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act and given the need to address the issues that have been identified since the passing of the original Act I say on behalf of New Zealand First that this amendment bill is timely. It aims to improve the efficiency of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—the same service that a number of speakers have criticised—by speeding up and streamlining the processing of the claims before the service. It will also hold those responsible for building leaky homes to account and enforce their contributions to the cost of remedial work. 
It is estimated that up to 15000 homes may be leaky with repairs likely to cost up to $1 billion. New Zealand First supports this legislation as we believe the building industry needs a shake-up although we fear that this bill may be too little too late for many owners of leaky homes. The package seeks to address many of the problems encountered by claimants which have been daunting enough in many cases for them to withdraw their claims and walk away from the process. We consider that to be unfair when people build or buy houses in good faith and are then faced with the nightmare of leaky building syndrome. 
Under the proposed new system the time taken to process applications will be slashed by almost half to an average of 8 months. There will be less scope for lawyers and experts to draw the processes out and there is the suggestion that it will cut the time frame by even more than half. The definition of damage has been extended to include future damage as well as damage that has already occurred allowing for a more accurate assessment of the final costs required to fix a house. However there is a concern that financial assistance is limited to those who are unable to borrow from private lending institutions which disadvantages those who have to rely on private loans. 
The bill requires territorial authorities to record claim and building consent information on the land information memorandum report. Such transparency is important in order to ensure that future homebuyers are aware of the history of their potential purchase. It is also important that the owners of leaky homes can record completed remedial work. Basically the land information memorandum report will tell a story of the history of that particular home. 
Also included in the bill is a change to the voting thresholds to enable class action claims to be taken more easily by apartment owners. That is crucial given that around 70 percent of claimants fall within that category. 
The public has a right to expect that professionals in the building and construction industry are just that—professional. The building practitioner licensing scheme needs to be robust and to ensure that work is carried out to acceptable standards and is approved by qualified and licensed inspectors. It is imperative that the quality of buildings payment of subcontractors and completion of work be guaranteed and that the regulatory system including the building consents process does what it is supposed to do which is to protect people from such disasters. Architects and building suppliers also need to accept their culpability in recommending designs and products that are obviously unsuitable for homes. This whole episode of leaky homes is a reminder of what can go wrong when there is insufficient protection for unsuspecting homeowners from unscrupulous building industry players. 
This fiasco is also an example of the end result of rampant free-market ideology with its focus on deregulation and laissez-faire theories. Unfortunately there are winners and losers in that situation. On such an uneven playing field it is often the opportunistic cowboys who laugh all the way to the bank while the mums and dads are left with the headaches and of course the repairs bill. 
The deregulation of the industry also saw the decline of the apprenticeship scheme the repercussions of which are still being felt today in the shortage of skilled and qualified trades people. That also closed career options for a whole cohort of young people not the least of them being young Maori men who saw the building industry as a career option. 
However the important thing now is to settle the claims in a timely fashion. If it is good enough for this Government and this House to support the timely settlements of claims made under the Treaty of Waitangi then this situation should be no exception to that. Of course the claims should be addressed in a timely fashion so that people can get on with their lives and hold those responsible to account. This initiative along with the new building practitioner licensing scheme will go some way towards providing a speedier claim resolution for those affected by leaky homes and it will hopefully prevent this disaster from befalling future homebuyers. 
The consumer education campaign will play a central role in providing information to affected homeowners and prospective homebuyers so that they can make sound purchasing decisions. It is therefore vital that the campaign be effective and wide reaching. New Zealand First of course will be monitoring that. 
The bill is certainly a step in the right direction. Should there be any “devil in the detail” or concerns about the effectiveness of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service then we would expect that to be picked up during the select committee process. Early eligibility reports need to be linked to an early upfront loan in order to get the necessary repairs completed. A question may also be asked with regard to limiting the term of availability as to when claims need to be addressed. Many affected homes are already reaching the 10-year limitation and many in that position have not yet been discovered or reported. When a home is sold in the middle of the processing of a claim the claim should automatically transfer to the new owner to facilitate the required repairs. We support the proposal regarding invasive testing which will be essential in order to ascertain the true extent of the problem. 
New Zealand First will be watching closely to make sure that the leaky buildings disaster does not recur in New Zealand. Because of the seriousness and importance of this issue New Zealand First will also support the call from the Minister to have this bill put through the process in a timely manner. Kia ora.