Shanks Katrina: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Shanks Katrina: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10965] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill which again is before the Committee. I believe I have already spoken on the commencement Part 1 and Part 2 but not on Part 3. This part appears to be totally new and—fancy that—it is. Yet again we are here talking on this bill. This part is something the select committee has not seen at all. It is something that appeared just yesterday. Being a new member I thought that after the Committee stage we would move to the third reading. So I was all ready to come here and make my third reading speech but no there is this new bit of paper and now we are having another Committee stage which I actually did not know one could do but obviously one can do it. 
When I looked at this Supplementary Order Paper I thought it was excellent because there was a Building Amendment Bill on my desk. I thought it must be relevant to that. But no it actually is not. Then I thought this Part 3 has to be relevant to something the select committee has already seen. But no it is not. I went back through the bills we have looked at. We looked at the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 which was repealed. Then there was the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. That was good; it fixed up the errors in the 2002 Act just 4 years later. But what we are debating in 2007 is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. So 1 year later yet again we are facing another bill. I thought: “That’s OK. It’s about weathertight homes. It must be one of those things the Government hasn’t quite got right. It rushes legislation through the select committee every time. There has been a knee-jerk reaction to situations out there and now it must have it right.” 
On my table at the select committee today was the Building Amendment Bill. When I looked at the policy statement I saw that it stated that the bill was “to improve the workability of the Building Act 2004”. The building industry must be getting really confused by now. This is the fifth bill since 2002 that has gone through. I was wondering how many Ministers have been in charge of this portfolio—[ 
Interruption 
]—not in charge! Have there been six seven or eight? That is five bills in 5 years. No wonder the building industry is really confused. 
So I thought I would look at Part 3. Obviously I had to read it. It has not been to the select committee we have not had any submissions on it we have not had any advice on how well it is written and we have not had the Law Commission give us its view on it so let me have a look at it. I think I am pretty good at law. I did law at university. 
What does Part 3 actually do? It converts the bill into an omnibus bill that amends not only the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 but also the Building Act 2004. I had one bill on my desk and that was the Building Amendment Bill to make the 2004 Act more workable but now we also have this Supplementary Order Paper which fixes the 2004 legislation as well. Why could they not have been combined? Oh I know why: because there was an error. The Government had believed that its deadlines could be met and they just could not be met. 
What are those deadlines? Let me tell members what the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 133 states: “Some extend the period during which a territorial authority may act as a building consent authority … even though the territorial authority has yet to be registered as a building consent authority. That period is extended so that it ends on or before 30 June 2008 …” whereas before the date was November 2007. Why is this extension needed? Why is legislation being rushed through again? 
Why is this provision part of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill? I must say that I actually do not get that. This bill and I have read it many times now and I have spoken to it many times in the House is actually about the compensation that one can get for distress and anxiety. This bill is actually about the leaky homes that have been built and are still being built in New Zealand. Is Part 3 relevant to the purpose of this bill? I do not think so.