Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill — In Committee 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:7171] 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Weathertight homes resolution services 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have a very very simple question for the Minister Clayton Cosgrove in respect of the Committee stage of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill. On the bill’s introduction he said that the objective was to speed up the resolution claim process. We know that after the last 4 years it has been a disaster and a flop. We know that of the 4000 claims that have been made fewer than 600 have been settled and that it is costing on average $100000 per settlement and the actual amount that the homeowner is receiving is less. 
The test I want to give to the mantle of the Minister is how much difference will this bill make. We know that last year 180 claims were settled and we know that another 500 claims were lodged. So it is going backwards. My simple question to the Minister is how many claims does he think—with this bill passed this year—we will settle next year? 
Mark Blumsky 
: Can he tell us? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Could any member of the Government tell us? They say this bill will enable homeowners to get justice and to get justice more quickly. We believed them in 2002 and we have found that it was a fraud and the bill has been a failure. So I ask the Minister in the chair Clayton Cosgrove given that he settled only 180 claims last year how many he will settle with this new legislation next year. 
Mark Blumsky 
: More or less. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Can he give an estimate? A target? We know that 3000 claims are outstanding. Can the Minister give me any estimate? The silence is deafening. Every member of the Government has his or her head down. Why is that? Maybe Marian Hobbs will answer. I ask her how many settlements she thinks we might get next year. How many of these homeowners might get some justice next year? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I am reading about verbal violence. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member considers it is a joke. It is a very serious question. The Government presents a bill to the House slams that bill through under urgency and says that it will address the problem of leaky homes. It is a simple question. How many claims will the Government resolve next year? We know that claims are flowing in at a rate of about 400 or 500 per year. I say to the Minister at the very least that if he is to get on top of the problem we suggest that he settle as many claims as are newly lodged—or will 2007 be the same as 2006 2005 2004 2003 and 2002 in that we are going backwards and more claims are being lodged than are being resolved? 
I say to the Minister that by his not answering that question he is effectively saying to those leaky-home owners that this is just another spin job another fraud and another delay tactic in trying to avoid duck and halt those New Zealanders being able to get justice. I simply say to the Minister that if he is not prepared to test the mantle by actually giving a target to the new tribunal as to what it is to achieve he is failing. The Government can change Ministers—he is the seventh Minister to have the responsibility in this Government—change departments and change names but leaky-home owners need solutions and the Minister needs to set a target. 
I also want to hear from the Minister about this. He is proposing to shift responsibility over to the Minister of Justice. Does that mean Minister Clayton Cosgrove will still be responsible for it? That is a fair question. After May when the responsibility for the tribunal will transfer over will Clayton Cosgrove—the Minister who has told the House that this bill is the solution—be responsible or will we have just another chapter of “pass the hot potato”? 
Paula Bennett 
: They could get another Minister; that would be No. 8. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We could get Minister No. 8. I ask the Minister when the transfer— 
Darren Hughes 
: Almost as many deputy leaders as the National Party has had. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I know that member is going to have only 2 more years in the House before Nathan Guy takes him out. Can the member answer for me whether this bill will result in a new Minister being responsible for resolving this problem. 
Darren Hughes 
: We’ve got very good Ministers here. We can pick any one to do it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There we are. We are none the wiser. On the two key issues of how many resolutions we are going to get with this bill and which Minister will be responsible the Government is absolutely silent. The National Party simply says that leaky-home owners deserve better than this. This Government is continuing to fail them. This is a fraud of a Christmas present for those leaky-home owners. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I would like the Minister for Building and Construction Clayton Cosgrove to take a call. It is a very important question that National is putting forward. How many claims does the Minister think will be settled once the changes proposed in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill have gone through and are implemented next year? 
As we say the current legislation has not been working. That has been evident just in the numbers if we look at those. As we have previously stated only 7.6 percent of claims have been settled. Even if those claims that have been withdrawn are added the percentage is only 20 percent. So National members would be interested to hear the Minister say how these changes will increase the number of settlements and more important how those homes will be fixed. It is one thing to be making more settlements and hopefully making those settlements speedier but how is the Government going to follow through and ensure those leaky homes are fixed? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: They use the money from the settlement to employ someone to build the house. They use the money. It is simple economics. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: How is the Government going to guarantee that? How is it going to guarantee that that money is—and it is not at times—actually used for fixing the homes? I know that the Minister is hoping the land information memorandum notification will fix some of that but National members have huge concerns as to what it will actually do. One of the things that we tried to get through the Social Services Committee was the requirement to have a trail of evidence going through the land information memorandum report so that if it had to be notified there would be a trail of evidence that repairs had then been made. Some of that real dilemma is created by retrospectively forcing the disclosure of claims on to land information memorandum reports. What does that mean for those many homeowners who have made claims on the basis that claims would not be disclosed? Has consideration of that been taken? 
The other thing I would like the Minister to take a call on—and it is quite a serious question—is what happens if one has had a private assessor’s report done finds that there is a leak but decides to sell and not take a claim to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. There is nothing in the bill that requires an owner to declare the water entry or the damage in that case. The bill states that that must happen only if a claim has been taken. So where is the protection—if that is what it is really about—for the homebuyer if the seller has not taken a claim? I would be interested in hearing from the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who is furiously taking notes—I presume on what we are saying—so that he can address that. 
There are so many issues that go on. The simple case is that everyone here is saying that the bill does not go far enough. The Minister himself addressed that at times saying that it will hopefully make the process a bit speedier but acknowledging that it will not fix the problem. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and give people a bit of a heads-up on the changes he plans to make—if of course he is still in the job because we are up to Minister No. 7 looking after leaky homes in just 4 years. 
Hon Member 
: Eh? 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes we are up to Minister No. 7 in just 4 years. He could let us know what changes he may perhaps be thinking of making next year if he is still in that role—if we are not up to Minister No. 8—to address those very serious issues. Perhaps the Minister could stand up and be counted and make a real difference for those homeowners. Perhaps he could show them that he actually gives a damn by doing something worthwhile. Perhaps he could put a fund together and make it substantial so that people can see some difference. 
Perhaps he could offer an interest-free loan to give those people money so that they can fix the problem. Half the problem when they go to mediation is that they do not know how much it will cost to repair the building and do everything; they do not know that until the building starts to be pulled down. They go to mediation saying “We think it’s going to cost X amount of dollars.” and they may settle and get X amount of dollars but when the repairs are done they find the price is double that. 
 They again lose out. They are losing out in not getting legal costs they are losing out in not knowing how much the repairs will cost they are losing out because the banks are not lending them money to get the repairs done before they go to mediation and they are losing out because their homes lose value by the day. They are left holding something that is unfixable and they have a Government that is not taking the matter as seriously as it needs to. 
Perhaps the Minister will take a call about looking at having a building court with real expertise so that people have one place they can go to get the answers and get their cases heard in a truly efficient manner. Perhaps the Minister can tell those homeowners how he thinks this bill will help to solve their problems. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief call and firstly draw members’ attention to Supplementary Order Paper 83. The primary legislation we are debating today contained as I said in my previous address some minor drafting errors that the Supplementary Order Paper seeks to correct. Those minor errors arose in respect of the drafting and it is important to ensure that the recommendations of the Social Services Committee are integrated through the amendment bill into the new Act. 
The Supplementary Order Paper contains two parts. The first part relates to Part 1. It sets out amendments required to correct drafting errors and make other drafting improvements; makes an overview of procedural provisions in clause 7 more accurate; makes clearer the definitions criteria and provisions on representatives relating to claims in respect of multi-unit complexes; requires statutory declarations for claims under clause 20; ensures that clause 60 treats existing agreements and contracts in the same way as they are treated in the former Act; and removes remaining references to forms prescribed under the bill. None of those changes represent changes in policy from the amendment bill as introduced and considered by the committee. When we come to debate Part 2 I will outline the issues that relate to the Supplementary Order Paper. 
I will touch briefly on a couple of points. It is interesting that members of the Opposition raised—colourfully—all the problems and historical issues. I am the first to say that there were of course problems and historical issues. Dr Nick Smith himself always neglects to point out one of those issues and that was the abolition of trade training which happened in his time in Government when National abolished the Apprenticeship Act. 
There was a question in respect of ministerial responsibility. The Ministry of Justice will be responsible for the tribunal function only; the rest of the service remains the responsibility of the Minister for Building and Construction which is me. 
In respect of United Future’s point about the land information memorandums the member raised the issue about perhaps placing the information on the certificate of title. The certificate of title is about the property itself rather than the building. When a notice is put on the land information memorandum that is reported and that is the definitive document. We as a department will also be providing a heap of consumer information to folks who are looking to purchase properties. We found that many people—probably most of the members in this Chamber—would check the land information memorandum or instruct their lawyers to do so when they went to purchase a property but the evidence is that many New Zealanders under pressure to buy and secure a property in some cases do not actually instruct their lawyers correctly and do not look at documents in respect of the land information memorandum. 
Paula Bennett 
: How many are going to be settled? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a very interesting point as to how many will be settled. It depends on a number of things. We have a natural justice issue and it is that under the present law and once this legislation is enacted claimants will have the choice as to whether they proceed under their current scheme of arrangement—if they are in the system under the current law—or whether they jump the fence adjust their claim and move forward under the new scheme of arrangement. That is up to the claimants; it is not for members to pontificate as to what the claimants’ legal rights and responsibilities are. 
I also make this point. I note from all the Opposition’s pontificating including that of Dr Smith and Paula Bennett that they are taking free kicks then accusing the Government of being cynical because we propose a bill to fix the problem. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’ll fail. You failed once and you’re failing again. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say to that member and to members of the Opposition that throughout the course of the issue I have not politicised it. When I met with John Gray an eminent New Zealander who will go down in history as a person who does not take a dollar for his services and represents thousands of people who are in strife I made a commitment to him and others that I would not politicise this issue. Yet here we have a stark difference. The Government has a large bill on the table. There are our policies there are our solutions and there are our proposals. Unlike Dr Smith none of us can see into the never-never land. For every speech that Opposition members stood up today to make—Dr Smith Ms Bennett and others in the Opposition—not one solution did they put forward. They threw mud at us they talked about setting up a fund but they did not say the fund was their policy. They talked about interest-free loans. Of course my colleague Chris Carter is putting together now a loans scheme at market rates. It is another solution that we are proposing and it will be announced prior to the implementation of this bill. 
So there was a lot of mud thrown a lot of invective a lot of venality a lot of mean-spiritedness and a lot of hot air—cynical hot air—as those people got up but there was not one policy. If they were genuine about helping those in crisis they would get up and say: “We may disagree with parts of this bill but here are the solutions we think you should implement to make it better.” Not one solution was offered; it was just the usual National Party hot air. As the members of the Leaky Homes Action Group listen here today they will judge the debate for what it is. 
I am reminded of the words of John Gray in an interview on 9 May 2006—the day I announced the proposals I think. The reporter said: “Some say Nick Smith’s leaked lifeline is pure politicking.” The reporter was referring to Dr Smith trying to ramp it up and make political capital out of the announcement instead of actually being critical of it as he is entitled to be and providing analysis. Here is what John Gray said: “Yes it’s a shame that he’s”—that is Dr Nick Smith—“chosen to politicise the whole process because the review outcomes are very positive for leaky-home owners and we are looking forward to the Minister making the announcement in due course.” I gave a commitment to Mr Gray that I would try to help and I intend to do that and this Government has done it and will do it in respect of this bill. 
But it stands as a stark contrast when we as a Government propose a bill and propose our policies and ideas and what do we get from the hollowed-out members on the other side of the Chamber? Zip—apart from a hyperactive member who stands up waves around bits of paper turns red in the face as the antennae and hair stand on the top of his head and gets worked up. Where was his solution where was his policy and why did he kill off trade training which has a direct correlation to this issue because if one deregulates an industry and provides no minimum standards and one is not prepared to train professionals to do the job then that is a recipe for the disaster that a large number of New Zealanders are now feeling impacted upon them? 
Those are our solutions. I stand by them and I believe they will assist those people who need help the most. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Repeal consequential amendments and transitional provisions 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.