Heatley Phil: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5072] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 We have heard from Nick Smith that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service has been a failure and that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill is too little too late. He bases that on the fact that to date only 10 percent of all claims have been resolved. Ministers at a Cabinet meeting sit round the table discussing Taito Phillip Field’s backhanders for 2 hours and all those other issues and when they have a spare few minutes at the end of the meeting they talk about the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. They say—and their own Cabinet papers before them state—that 15000 people many of them young families with their first homes are directly affected by weathertightness problems and that it will take 75 years to resolve these issues through the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. They are hopeful it will happen some time before 2021—some 15 years from now—but we know that their papers tell them there are 15000 outstanding claims. Fifteen thousand young families and older families are affected and at the current rate it will take 75 years to resolve. That is absolutely appalling. 
The Minister is into the blame game. Can I give him just one solution that would be useful for him to put on the table. The Construction Industry Council came before the select committee a few months ago. One would expect the Construction Industry Council which is in touch with all construction engineers builders and so forth throughout this country to have something to offer over this problem. The council told us that as many as half of the building standards in New Zealand are more than a decade old and some are hopelessly out of date and in need of review. 
In fact the council said it knows that today there are 60 building standards that are out of date and it could list them. If the Minister rang the council and asked which of the 60 building standards at the moment are hopelessly out of date and in need of review it could list them just like that. The council could just email the list to the Minister and say: “These building standards are hopelessly out of date and in need of review.” The council has said that of the 600 building standards currently in use in New Zealand at least half are more than a decade old and need to be looked at. Of the 600 building standards half need to be looked at and the council knows of 60 that are desperately in need of review. 
The council was so determined about the need to review these building standards that do members know what it said? That its members—construction companies and builders right throughout the country—are prepared to pay an extra levy. The council said that its members are so enthusiastic about getting these standards reviewed—such as how to put in a window properly what timbers to use in what situations all that type of thing—that they themselves would pay an extra levy to get the work done. “We’ll pay for it.” they said. “It’s that essential to construction in this country and we’re doing the building so we’ll pay for it through an extra levy. Bill us we’ll hand over the cheque in order to get this work done.” Yet still nothing has happened. Whether it is the range of materials used in building the way that technology in building has changed whether there are appropriate fire and earthquake safety provisions—all those things are in need of review. They told us at the select committee: “We’re happy to pay for it. Increase our levy let’s get the work done and it will make a real difference.” 
But what are the departments that cover building and housing doing? What is the Minister doing? Well they are turning a blind eye. The builders and the construction engineers are saying: “Listen we’ll pay for it. Send us the bill.” But they still will not do it. Minister Cullen does not even have to increase taxes across the country to get this work done and they still will not do it. A responsible Minister would want to be reassured that new technology new techniques and new designs in building are being covered adequately by current standards. That is what one would think. But no that is not the case. 
Members might want to know—and I know the Assistant Speaker is keen to know this fact—that Australia reviews its building standards every 7 years. That is right. Every 7 years Australia reviews its building standards. The Assistant Speaker wants to know that “Sam the Eagle” is interested in that fact and the Minister should be as well. In Australia building standards are reviewed every 7 years as a matter of course. In this country we have discovered that of 600 building standards over half of them are over a decade old and have not been reviewed and 60 are hopelessly out of date. 
This is just one opportunity for this Minister to do something that would make an obvious difference. He should investigate the standards that are hopelessly out of date and there are 60 of them—the construction industry will email them to the Minister—bring them up to date and do a review of 300 standards because half of the 600 are hopelessly out of date we understand or have not been reviewed for over a decade. He should have a look through them as well. He should trawl through them see what updated technology has come to pass in the last decade what new materials have become available in the last decade and what builders and construction engineers are saying about those standards. I say to the Minister that to do that one thing will make a difference. 
I want to tell members what happens in my electorate office in Whangarei when a young family comes to me in tears because they have a rotting home. They say to me: “We’ve heard of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. We’re thinking of going along there because we understand it’s cheap to get into that system and that our rotting home our building issues will be resolved.” I shake my head and say “No.” I pull out my bottom drawer—and I can tell members that that bottom drawer has been open more and more recently—and I give them the examples. The first is the waiting time to get something resolved. It takes 2 3 or 4 years. Second is the cost of lawyers mediation consultants’ reports more consultants’ reports to confirm what the previous consultants have said and more consultants’ reports to confirm what the lawyers have said about the consultants’ reports. I tell those people about the headache of paying for lawyers consultants and the mediation service. 
Do members know what I say to them? I say “Don’t do it.” There is no certainty in it it will cost them a fortune and because there is no resolution in the end they will pay for those consultants’ reports and lawyers and they cannot recover costs. My advice to them is to go to court. I tell them to forget the resolution service and to go to court. At least through the court process they will get certainty and they will have a decision within 6 months—and if they go to the court they can claim back damages legal costs and the cost of consultants. With this Minister’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service people do not get any of the things they would get in a court. They do not get certainty they do not receive costs and they certainly cannot claim back the expenses of lawyers and consultants.