Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19952] 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I have to say this is a very very exciting day for me as Minister for Building and Construction to be doing the third reading of this legislation because it is the culmination of a huge amount of work by officials and teams of people working with local bodies banks and a whole lot of others to get to finally a package that could be agreed on and that would allow people to get out of the traps they had been caught in having found themselves in a leaky home and unable to do anything about it. I will traverse some of the history of how the leaky homes syndrome came about as I give this speech but today I will pay tribute to some of the people who were involved. I say to David McLellan and to Adrian Regnault and to a number of other people in the Department of Building and Housing a very big thank you for the long hard work—difficult work at times—of getting to a resolution. 
Just quickly I will go through some history because I often hear the history of this thing misquoted. First of all I often hear people say it was the National Government that put the Building Amendment Bill through in 1991. Well it would be worthwhile getting on record that that bill was introduced to this Parliament by the Hon Margaret Austin a Labour Minister in the Labour Government of 1990 and it passed through every one of its phases until the election of 1990 was completed and then the National Government with the total support of Labour finished the third reading. I will make it clear that National was supportive of the legislation but it was not the National Government that put up that bill and moved to deregulate the industry. 
The second big myth—and I must say I actually believed this myth myself—was that it was politicians who had moved to allow untreated timber in the mid-1990s which is one of the key ingredients of the problem. But actually no politician was involved in the decision to go to untreated timber. It was a decision made by a subcommittee of Standards New Zealand. The proposal was put up by a number of the timber companies saying they did not need to keep treating timber. Interestingly if members were interested in reading the document they would find that the whole debate at the time was about borer. It is really interesting that no one raised the question about rotting timber if it got wet. The question was whether we needed to keep treating timber because borer no longer really existed in New Zealand. The standards committee decided that untreated timber would become acceptable under the Building Act and the building code and not a single politician was involved in the decision. What speaks quite loudly that it was not the Government or Ministers of any flavour that was involved is that every time someone has tried to join the Crown in litigation and blame the Crown for this dreadful dreadful fiasco the courts have thrown it out and said there was no responsibility on the part of the Crown. 
I want to make this clear to everybody in the House because this is something I have looked at for a long time: there is no one thing to blame here. This was a systemic failure across the entire industry. This was designers this was builders this was materials this was construction methods this was consenting this was inspections this was homeowners not doing relevant maintenance—this was a systemic failure. Monolithic cladding was used with no cavities in the building design and actually non-treated timber was a recipe for a disaster. 
Well when we came to Government in 2008 we came in at the same time as the global financial crisis. I have to say it was a really difficult ask to go to the Minister of Finance who was struggling based on what was going on right around the world with an economy the worst we have seen and say to him: “I’ve got a new expenditure item that’s bigger than just about anything you’ve ever seen on your books.” I have to say that the Hon Bill English sat down looked at it and said “Wow” and worked through it. The Prime Minister got involved and finally this Government decided that something had to be done unlike the previous Labour Government which had for 9 years said this was not its problem and it was not going to offer up a solution. And they are the facts: Helen Clark said she thought it was media beat-up—I have the quotes. We decided something had to be done and we began a process of trying to negotiate. The local authorities wanted a settlement of one-third one-third and one-third; the superannuitants wanted to have no money borrowed and have it all paid for by the Government. Over time we gradually got to the package we have today. 
The package sees the Crown paying 25 percent of the cost of the work required. The local authority if there was one involved—and in some cases there was no local authority involved—will pay a 25 percent share. Then there is an underlying loan which we call a loss-sharing arrangement with the banks—between the banks and the Government—which will be made to the homeowner to pay for the repairs. This is money that will be paid on receipt of work done and that is vitally important. We will not hand out large chunks of money to people who own a leaky home who could then take the money and run and sell the leaky home on to someone else so that the problem has not been fixed at all. This money will be paid on the actual receipt of the work done to fix the leaky homes. 
I have to say I found Mr Twyford’s view on this a little bit puzzling. When Labour for 9 years said it was not the Government’s right to be involved and would not be Mr Twyford then chose to attack me last week for saying the package does not include apartments. You know Labour would not have included anybody even those in single dwellings yet somehow he said that the National Government’s package would not include apartments. Well he was wrong. This package does allow apartment owners to make an application for financial assistance. The only difference between those in apartments and a single dwelling is that apartment owners have to get the agreement of their bodies corporate. But that is the same for apartment owners even if they want to do just a general renovation. If owners want to paint an apartment block or put new tiles throughout the common areas they have to get their body corporate’s agreement. We changed the Unit Titles Act and made it that owners did not have to get 100 percent approval for changes because one of the worst aspects of unit titles in recent times was that in a 100-unit apartment block just one absentee landlord who was a stand-out from a collective decision and said he or she was not signing was all that was needed to stop the other 99 owners from making progress. So last June we passed the Unit Titles Act which means that a 75 percent majority is enough. I make it clear today to anybody out there listening that if they are in an apartment block the block is entitled to make an application but it has to be agreed across the block. That is quite sensible. It would be nuts if units 3 17 and 29 were fixed and made not leaky any more but all the other units that joined on to them and had common walls were not fixed. Everybody has to be signed up and if such apartment dwellers do sign up they have just as much right to apply for the package—25 percent from the Crown and 25 percent from the local authority—as anybody else. 
The presenter the other night on the television programme called  
A Rotten Shame  
said: “I don’t know whether Maurice Williamson has ever looked into the eyes of a leaky home owner.” Well does he ever know how to get something wrong! I have spent the last 2½ years looking into the eyes of hundreds if not thousands of people with leaky homes and I know that that is one of the most ghastly blights on the landscape of this nation. Someone could not help but feel for people who through no fault of their own—they have done nothing wrong—have ended up with their biggest asset in life rotting before their eyes and have no way out of it. People cannot have any compassion in them if they say “Well it’s not for us to be involved. We’ve been found by the courts not to have a responsibility here.” So the Crown is stumping up with a billion dollars. It will probably be more than that because 75 percent of these homes are in Auckland—with 4 percent in Christchurch 4 percent in Tauranga and 9 percent in Wellington; I think those are the numbers—so it is mainly an Auckland-type problem. But it could be as much as a $22 billion issue based on what PricewaterhouseCoopers has said. 
I am proud of a Government a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance who even in the toughest times economically have said that we cannot just let these people sit in a rotten home that is going nowhere. This package offers an absolute option. It is voluntary; it is not mandatory and nobody has to accept this package although I bet there will be a lot who do. If some people want to pursue the legal aspects and go through the litigation path they still can; it has not been closed off to them. But let me just tell them that I have seen so many cases of litigation when even if the claimants win they lose because their legal bills can often be more than the settlement they got. So I advise people to look at this carefully. I believe that this option that people can take from the Government is very fair and balanced. It is a very proud day for me to be in this House speaking on the financial assistance package for weathertight homes. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. Labour members on the Local Government and Environment Committee participated in the select committee process heard submissions and raised a number of questions throughout the passage of the bill. Although we support the bill progressing we acknowledge that a number of issues have been left still unresolved. Let me comment on the huge challenge of responding to the work required by many of these homes that will need repairs. I have to say at the outset that we remain concerned that the Government is not doing enough to invest in the trade sector so that we will have enough people to do the work required in the building industry. Labour members have continued to promote greater investment in apprenticeships and trades training. We know there will be significant pressures in both Auckland and Christchurch and we remain concerned that the Government is not taking a comprehensive approach to ensure that in the construction industry and certainly in the building sector we have enough skilled people to meet the growing demand in the years to come. 
I will come back to the bill. As I said earlier in my opening remarks there are a number of issues we want to highlight because several types of affected homeowners will be excluded by this package. It does not provide any solution for example for owners who are not found eligible under the legislation owners whose homes are more than 10 years old owners who have already commenced their repairs owners whose homes were signed off by private certifiers instead of councils—those owners will not be eligible for the 25 percent council contribution—and owners who are unable to raise the remaining sum. That will include many who simply cannot afford to borrow their 50 percent contribution. In the current economic climate that is a significant burden and pressure on a wide number of families. Those people are also the ones who are often most vulnerable and disadvantaged in having the leaky homes problem. 
That said I know that the Minister specifically made comments on the issue of no Crown guarantee for bodies corporate and he offered a response in that area. Some of the concerns we raised at the select committee and continue to hold include the fact that apartment owners are unlikely to benefit from the package because bodies corporate are not able to borrow the repair funds and levy owners for loan repayments. That is largely because banks will not lend to bodies corporate as they are unable to give mortgages on common properties. Although some of the owners will have funds available and will be prepared to front up with those funds at the start of the project many owners may not be able to extend their mortgages. I understand from colleagues that there was a fair bit of discussion about that and it remains again a key concern. 
Another concern is that the bill does not require remediation work to restore homes to performance and durability compliance with the building code. For example councils that will have a say in setting the scope of the remediation might insist on targeted repairs that remediate the worst problems but do not necessarily bring the building up to code compliance. There are many buildings with severe weathertightness issues where the best option may be to bowl the building over and sell the land or rebuild and this package offers nothing to owners who are in that particular situation. 
We also think that speculators could take advantage of this legislation. It does not differentiate between owners of leaky homes who need help and speculators who are buying up leaky homes at very low prices. It is feared that a speculator who buys a property in the knowledge that it is a leaky home is eligible for assistance under this package. Is that fair? We have concerns about that and think not. I understand that the Minister for Building and Construction in previous remarks has said that he is not fussed who fixes the homes—whether it is the homeowner or the speculator. I am looking at him to either confirm or deny that. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You can’t stop that. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Minister says we cannot stop that. If that is the case if it is just about getting the houses fixed then we want to raise this issue. Given the limited funds available for this scheme and the fact that many affected homeowners are excluded from it it does not make sense to hand out taxpayer funds to speculators. The concern for us is that we want to stop the speculators while still not restricting those who may have unwittingly found themselves in trouble due to for example a lack of disclosure by the vendor or agent of the status of the property they were purchasing. 
I turn to the issue of the ban on third-party claims. Labour is concerned with the proposed restrictions on people who are not parties to the contribution agreement seeking to join the Crown a local authority or other contributing party into a claim and seeking contribution from them. It is a completely unjustified statutory removal of existing property rights and we believe there are two competing policy interests. The first one is the interest of the local authority and/or the contributing party in achieving finality through making an agreed contribution to the repair of a leaky home under the scheme. The second is the interest of people who are not a party to that agreement having their legal rights to seek contribution or indemnity removed and potentially leaving them carrying a disproportionate burden. The present bill recognises the first interest at the complete expense of the second and again we are saying that this does not make sense. 
I want to come back to the key point in terms of meeting the skills deficit because I think we cannot really discuss these issues without asking the how or being able to respond to the how. We are significantly concerned that the building industry in the current economic climate and with the current direction of the Government has lacked the vision to continue to invest in the trade sector. We will see the downfall of that lack of vision most significantly in meeting demand in both Auckland and Christchurch. We cannot stress enough that although this is a step towards addressing the issue of leaky homes the bigger challenge is to be able to meet the skills deficit we have in the country as well so that these homes can be fixed properly and the job can be done well. Our select committee members have I think made a valuable contribution to the working through of the number of issues I have briefly touched on in this debate but I know that in supporting this bill to go forward and identifying some of the key gaps we want to ensure that the House continues to be informed about meeting the significant needs amongst a lot of homeowners in this sector. Kia ora koutou. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise to speak on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. I am amazed to hear comment from the Opposition about a skills deficit. For 2 years National has been in Government and we take responsibility for the great advances we have made over that time. But if there is a skills deficit which is what we are hearing from the Opposition one can assume only that it grew in the 9 years of the last Government. In fact Labour did little or nothing to address that appalling blight on the lives of thousands of New Zealanders. 
I am very appreciative of the Minister for Building and Construction outlining how the systemic failure in respect of leaky homes developed—and it was a systemic failure. It is interesting to hear that at no stage did a judge sheet home responsibility to a Crown entity. That in itself is very interesting. Designers builders consenting authorities material failures the monolithic cladding that we have heard about and owners not taking care of routine maintenance—all of these factors contributed to this problem which is blighting the lives of tens of thousands of hard-working New Zealanders. 
The Government has put together this financial assistance package to address the problem. We believe it is a fair solution. It spreads the costs as evenly as possible at 25 percent to Government 25 percent to the local authority and 50 percent to the homeowner. The package has strong support from local authorities. Nobody has to take up this option but it is an option that is available to owners to get their properties fixed swiftly after far too long. 
We have heard that the estimated cost to the Government is possibly in excess of $1 billion but we believe it is money well spent on a problem that thousands of New Zealanders have had to endure for far too long. This Government is about getting results and addressing something that is equivalent to a natural disaster in this country. This package will deliver thousands of New Zealanders from a debilitating uncertain blight on their lives. I commend the bill to the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I come late to this debate but it is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. I will make a contribution in respect of the conclusion of the work that has been done by the Minister for Building and Construction and the Local Government and Environment Committee. Labour supports the bill and we support the Government’s efforts to find a resolution to what has been a very sorry tale and a long tale for a long long time. It is a systemic failure as the Minister said and a disaster in the building industry and in many people’s lives. 
The leaky home crisis which emerged in the 1990s is an ongoing construction and legal crisis in New Zealand in which many thousands of newly constructed houses and apartment buildings built in the 1990s and early 2000s suffered from severe weathertightness problems. The total cost of the leaky home crisis is estimated at around $11.5 billion with a reported estimate of between 22000 and 89000 homes affected and only a minority of around 3500 repaired to date. 
Behind those eye-watering statistics are many ruined lives. I believe the Minister when he says he has had to look people in the eye. He described the other day in the Committee stage the difficult meetings he had had to attend where people were crying. We have all met those people; we have all had them come into our offices. People have lost their homes and their livelihoods because of this crisis and sadly as we have expressed throughout the debate many will not be covered by this scheme. 
Buying or building a house is part of the Kiwi dream. I can only imagine the joy of moving into a new home that people have built from scratch or taken over soon turning into despair as the leaks appear the building rots the house starts to stink and damaging fungi begins to creep through the house and damage the family’s health. Imagine what it is like not knowing where to turn or whom to hold responsible especially when the builder or numerous contractors or subcontractors have disappeared when the council takes no responsibility or when liquidations occur. 
We have a slightly less political view of what happened—well I certainly do. I will not talk about who was responsible but there is no doubt that this crisis began in the early 1990s when the system of construction changed dramatically. It was the building code 1991 that re-regulated construction by setting performance criteria to be achieved rather than prescribing the precise manner in which buildings were to be constructed. For instance builders were told only that the structure must last 50 years the cladding must last 15 years and the walls and roofs must be impermeable to water. 
Other factors that led to leaky home problems involved many developers builders and architects who knowingly or carelessly constructed buildings with numerous faults and shortcuts. These changes coincided with our passion for new architectural design based on the Mediterranean-style flat roof. Perhaps too many people had been visiting Italy during that time; that design is traditionally for a dry climate. I can understand the attraction to those kinds of buildings; I find them very attractive and appealing as well although now I am very suspicious of them. They have low-angle mono-pitch roofs and no eaves. 
Numerous local authorities failed in their inspection duties and we have heard the stories of those failures. Local authorities now share significant financial responsibilities along with the builders who in many cases have simply disappeared or removed themselves from liability and the owners. Court cases generally assign around one-third of the financial responsibility to local authorities. 
In 1998 the New Zealand standard for timber treatment was changed—and I am not saying any politicians were involved I say to the Minister—to allow untreated timber to be used for wall framing. As that timber gets wet it starts to rot. Due to increased insulation being used over that time any moisture that came into contact with the timber was slower to evaporate. Additionally some house designers used the opportunities to cut back water-protecting features such as eaves. 
Another related problem was the collapse of the apprenticeship system and the operation of some unqualified builders. Cowboys entered the market—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am speaking to the bill. I am rehearsing the history of this issue as indeed the Minister did. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is right in saying that but for 5 minutes the member has been talking about things other than those that are in the bill. A third reading debate is about what has been reported back from the Committee. With the remaining time I ask the member to concentrate on what is in the bill not on other peripheral things. The member is entitled to touch on them in response to what the Minister said but we would like to hear something about what is in the bill. This is a third reading debate. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I do want to mention if I may one of the problems that I think will continue and that is the growth in contracting sub-contracting and sub-subcontracting which we still have in the market today. 
The total cost of leaky home problems has been estimated by PricewaterhouseCoopers at around $11.5 billion. We are talking about up to 89000 homes that need some repair. Those are huge eye-watering numbers. Only 23000 homes were recently estimated to be covered under the financial assistance package outlined in the bill. I know I have to talk about the bill but I think it is important that I put on the record that Labour did take action during the 2000s because other members have said that we did nothing. I think it is very important that we put on the record that we did take a lot of action including setting up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service to assist leaky home victims. 
The history of this bill is that when the National Government came into power it offered to fix the problem. It offered a package in November 2009 with 69 percent of the costs being borne by the owners 26 percent by the councils and only 10 percent by the Government. That package would have also forced homeowners to sign away their rights to sue for more. The package was widely rejected. There was a lot of criticism of the package and several mayors noticed that by paying only 10 percent then receiving 12.5 percent back in GST the Government would make money from the crisis. So in February 2010 building experts said that the Government had seriously underestimated the true scale and cost of the problem and advice from officials stated that 89000 homes would fail the test at a cost of almost $23 million. At the time Maurice Williamson warned and has continued to warn that the issue was so ginormous that even a Government with Budget surpluses would struggle to compensate leaky home owners. 
On 17 May 2010 the Government came to an agreement with local authorities and others which forms the basis of this bill. Local authorities and the Government will contribute 25 percent of agreed repair costs and affected homeowners will fund the remaining 50 percent backed by a Government loan guarantee. The Government anticipates that its share of the package will cost around a billion dollars over the next 5 years. Maurice Williamson said that it is bigger than Christchurch when we look at the numbers. He said the numbers are eye-watering; we agree with him. 
One of the concerns we have expressed during the debate on this bill is the 10-year limit. Again the Minister has said that is tough—it is tough—and we agree with that. Some building experts believe many cases have yet to be found out and they will come to the fore in coming years as building rot becomes more advanced. 
We have also expressed our concern as did my colleague Nanaia Mahuta that the lack of skills could derail this very very important bill passing today which will give hope to people. We are facing a severely depleted workforce. The forecasts for the reconstruction work in Christchurch and the leaky homes are enormous—they are in the billions of dollars not in the millions—and the work is over and above the normal demand for new houses. This was discussed in the Committee of the whole House and it was discussed in the select committee. There does not seem to be a resolution coming through in this bill and I am worried that the homeowners who want to start building projects and fixing their leaky homes will face delays and increases in cost. 
However this bill makes a good contribution to giving relief to the thousands of people affected by this awful crisis. I believe the Minister when he says that this has been one of the most difficult jobs he has ever had to do and without wanting to impinge on his reputation I want to say I think he has done a very good job. That is why Labour is supporting this bill. Sadly many people will miss out and I think this will continue to be a problem. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I noticed a subheading in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that stated: “Allowing the mining industry to self-regulate was an unfathomable mistake” and I think exactly the same thing could be said for the leaky homes fiasco. Allowing the building industry to effectively self-regulate has turned out to be an unfathomable mistake and one that has created as many have pointed out the biggest man-made disaster in our history. 
The Minister for Building and Construction said in his speech that there was not any one cause of this fiasco. Actually there is one underlying fundamental cause: the passage in 1991 of the Building Act which deregulated the building industry and was passed unanimously by Labour and National in this House. That legislation wiped out most of the previous protections in relation to building new homes and dwellings. It allowed builders to enter and exit the building industry without any real liability any accountability or any costs it removed requirements in relation to skill levels and training it loosened council inspection procedures it allowed private sector building certifiers to compete with local council inspectors for work and issuing building consents and of course it deregulated standards which allowed Standards New Zealand to allow the use of untreated timber and monolithic cladding. 
Under the new era of deregulation that was ushered through Parliament by both National and Labour who were wildly enthusiastic about deregulation and what it would do for the building industry effectively anyone could develop or build a home. They could build a house then wander off to the Gold Coast in Australia as so many did. We got a whole lot of cowboy developers who did not give a damn about anything except trying to cut costs building as cheaply as possible and getting as much profit as they possibly could with no responsibility. And of course we got a whole lot of builders who were not trained as builders. So it is a saga of greed as well as of deregulation. 
Basically as I said everyone who was in the House in 1991 has argued that they were swept up by the ideology of deregulation at the time. I looked back at some of the arguments in this House at the time. Apparently the new Building Act would reduce building costs increase competition in the building sector save money and boost the building industry. Instead of these wonderful promises that both sides of the House assured us would happen it has actually undermined confidence in the entire building sector. It has resulted in families all over New Zealand living in mouldy damp unhealthy and rotten homes. The Minister himself acknowledged that the dreadful mould that many are exposed to  
Stachybotrys 
 can actually kill people and probably is killing people even as we speak. It has resulted in endless misery and a $22 billion bill for taxpayers all because Parliament decided to deregulate the building industry and leave it to the marketplace. 
Let us be quite clear: if there is an underlying reason for this it is because Parliament created the problem by passing flawed legislation that deregulated the entire industry. Therefore by that standard it is Parliament’s responsibility to resolve it. We should be held accountable not the innocent homeowners who are stuck in cold rotting damp and insanitary homes. They did not create the problem although their lives have been blighted and in many cases ruined because they made a fateful decision to buy a home in good faith that is now leaking like a sieve. They are the innocent parties in this and we should remember that. This problem was created— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just remind the member that as I mentioned to the previous speaker third reading speeches are about the contents of the bill as reported back from the Committee. Your speech is a first reading speech. Although it is fine to bring up the points that have led to where we are spending 5 minutes on nothing related to what was reported back from the Committee is not permissible. There are a number of Speakers’ rulings on this issue. With the remaining time I ask the member to now concentrate on the purposes and contents of the bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: But Mr Deputy Speaker I believe and I have said before— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings. [ 
Interruption 
]—Order! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I was not even challenging your ruling. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. I am just mentioning to the member that if you look at Speakers’ rulings 117/2 and 117/3 you will see it is very clear. I am asking the member in the time remaining to actually concentrate on what is in the bill. This is a third reading speech. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: If we do not learn from history we will recreate it. That is why it is so important to do what the Minister did. The Minister spent a significant amount of his speech giving his version of what he believes created the problem and he was not called to order by the Speaker. It is also the reason— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a direct challenge to my ruling. I have been very fair in allowing all speakers an opportunity to go back to how we came to be in this position. I have given fair leeway in that respect. I am saying to the member now as I did to the previous speaker to in the time remaining just concentrate on the contents of the bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: What I was saying was that many submitters on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill argued that if Parliament had created the problem then surely Parliament must be accountable and liable for the problem. We acknowledge the Minister and the efforts he has made to solve this intractable problem; nevertheless we are concerned that although this legislation will protect the Crown which created the problem from liability and will limit councils’ liability it will not protect or benefit many innocent homeowners who are excluded from the provisions of this bill because they fall outside the 10-year time line. Nor will it protect many people in multi-unit dwellings. 
In our view it is unfair and unjust that people who are outside an arbitrary 10-year time frame will through no fault of their own miss out on the financial package or the provisions of this bill if their house was built in the 1990s. They will miss out completely. By some estimates as many as 15000 to 20000 homes were built before the 10-year time frame and will fall outside the time limits in this bill. We believe that that is unfair and arbitrary. We continue to argue that the provision should be open to homeowners whose homes were built in the 1990s in particular. 
We strongly supported amendments that would have allowed the provisions of the bill to apply to apartment owners and multi-dwelling owners who are effectively excluded from the package because of the difficulty of getting 75 percent of owners in a body corporate to agree to a package and because of the difficulty of getting banks to lend to bodies corporate. About 90 percent of apartment and multi-unit legal claims are stalled because owners cannot afford to pay legal and other fees and experts point out that actually it is the apartments—the multi-unit dwellings—that are most at risk of weathertightness problems and are most likely to suffer. They make up 25 percent of dwellings affected by weathertightness problems. So an estimated 15000 to 20000 are missing out because of the time frame and all these others—up to 25 percent of dwellings affected by weathertightness problems—are also missing out on this package. 
We predict that if we do not deal with those people we may be back in this House some years on dealing with this unresolved problem. Although we think this legislation is a positive step forward we need to remember that as others have said the experts are predicting that up to 80 percent or even 100 percent of houses built with monolithic cladding and untreated timber will fail irrespective of their design. Many people argue that contrary to official assurances there are still houses that were built after the reforms to the building code that leak like a sieve despite that fact that builders are using treated timber. There are still builders out there who are not registered builders developers who do not give a damn and owners who are trying to cut costs and build as cheaply as they can. We still have the huge health problems of  
Stachybotrys 
 of people living in damp leaky homes with these tiny spores that when inhaled cause huge breathing problems—asthma and other serious respiratory problems. From a health perspective alone we should be doing everything we can to fix the homes; otherwise we will be paying for the situation through our health bill. 
We think that the package as far as it goes is a good package. Previously we have said that we give credit where it is due. We have congratulated the Minister on what he has done but we think it is a mistake to leave out all of those people who are innocent parties who bought homes in good faith in the 1990s who are in multi-dwelling units and apartments and who cannot afford the 50 percent loan. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to support the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. This bill has been a long time coming. The leaky homes problem emerged in the mid-1990s and continued until about 2005. It was at that time that the Labour Government refused to acknowledge the enormity and the severity of the problem and it also refused any Government compensation. In fact the Labour Prime Minister called it a media beat-up. The Labour Government’s solution was to establish the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service which set up a process that was so time-consuming and so expensive that the costs of determining liability were often substantially more than the costs of repairs. Millions of dollars were spent on disputes rather than on fixing anything. The estimated number of leaky homes in New Zealand could be up to 42000 and the cost of repairing those homes is enormous. To get that into perspective the cost of leaky homes could prove to be more than the cost of the Christchurch earthquakes. 
When National came into Government in 2008 we made a commitment to dealing with this issue and to delivering a pragmatic cost-effective solution that would mean funding would be spent on repairs rather than on lawyers and disputes. New Zealanders need to be able to repair and restore their homes and this bill provides a method of funding that will allow homeowners and families to get on with their lives. The Hon Maurice Williamson has worked long and hard to piece together this economic package. It means that generally speaking local government has agreed to pay 25 percent central government will contribute 25 percent and householders will pay 50 percent but the Government will guarantee homeowner loans so that obtaining finance will not be a problem. 
The Government’s financial package is expected to cost over a billion dollars over 5 years but we believe that it will be money well spent. Leaky homes have caused misery to thousands of families and many have had to live with this problem for years. Today is a new beginning and this bill will give relief to thousands of victims of leaky homes. It might not be the perfect answer and it might not fit everybody but at least now everyone who has a leaky home has a solution and they can choose to take it. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. I agree that the Minister for Building and Construction has every reason to express satisfaction because he happens to be the Minister who has heard from everybody who has been suffering through this issue and he is the one who has brought a solution to this Parliament. The solution has currency and has been developed into this bill which has nearly gone through all its stages. So yes it is a time to acknowledge that that advocacy has been successful and everybody in this House has been a part of that. 
However it is not a time for recrimination of the type we have just heard. I was intimately involved in the development of this issue right throughout the period—through my own family and through many of my friends—and I know that solutions were being designed as people became more familiar with the problem. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was a solution that was probably best practice at the time in the view of those who had experience. To say that the last Government did nothing is looking for recrimination for no good reason and I think one must push back on that. Public opinion was at a particular place and the science was at a particular place and we have now understood more about it. So I thank Minister Williamson for acknowledging that and I acknowledge his contribution to this issue. 
I will talk about the specific provisions in the bill and what I am about to say leads into that but also it is time to reflect on the kind of failure that occurred and resulted in this problem. Minister Williamson has described it as multiple failures truly systemic. Yes it was so but also it was a failure of the private sector in many many ways. The private sector was allowed to run amok in the development industry devoid of the standards one expects in order for good buildings to be built. When the issue of building standards was brought together with the issue of untreated timber and things like that we realised that the issue we needed to address was that of unethical practice. Designs were faulty—and no good architect would say they were good designs—but they were cheap which is why they were adopted. There was no reason for the building materials to be abused in the way that they were. I was incredulous to see the workmanship that created this problem—and I know something about building having built houses myself. The normal guarantees that would be given were not there and indeed the assurances one gets in terms of inspection were not there. Those who inspected those buildings were from the private sector many of them contracted by local authorities. 
So here we are. This is a massive bail-out of a failure of the private sector and I want to acknowledge that. We trusted the sector to fix the problem and it did not. There are so many examples. I have seen top plates of curved buildings being made out of particle board plastered over railings drilled through them and simply sealed up. They became leaky buildings. That was a failure of design. If those buildings had been made with the same materials but with good workmanship good design and good inspection then this failure would not have happened but it did. The Minister is right that leaky buildings are as a result of systemic failure. 
The damage that leaky buildings did to many individuals and families is incredible. I entirely believe the Minister when he says that he has looked into the eyes of people from affected families and he has seen the enormous damage that has been done. I have looked into the eyes of my own children and I have seen the enormous damage that has been done to them. Luckily they had a parent who could sign a cheque to fix it up. The provisions of this bill do not take that damage away and we ought to acknowledge that. I know of some elderly people who sold the last pieces of their property and bought an apartment that would enable them to manage their expenses but it became leaky. They had nowhere to go. They are still there and this bill does not assist them. The bill is a good attempt to address the problem but it still leaves enormous problems unaddressed. I do not say that as a criticism of the Minister. I appreciate that there are limitations but it is a problem for this Parliament and for this Government. 
There is something difficult about understanding that one qualifies to make a claim only if one’s building is 10 years old. People whose buildings are 10 years and 1 month old do not qualify yet they are in exactly the same situation as the person whose building is 9 years and 11 months old. It is exactly the same situation. The personal hurt the impossibility of fixing it and the assistance from elsewhere are exactly the same yet the family whose building is more than 10 years old will not be assisted. There are many families in that area. I say to Mr Williamson that the problem has not gone away for a sizable part of our population. What is to happen to those people? Who will stand alongside them? I still think that solutions need to be developed for this group. Perhaps 25:25:50 is a generous offer for those who qualify and it could have been stretched a little bit further but I am sure the designers and the Local Government and Environment Committee looked at that. However it does create a problem and the provisions of this bill do not address it. 
There are others who do not qualify. I have talked only about those whose buildings are more than 10 years old. But there are those who have already commenced repairs and those whose buildings were approved by private certifiers. That is pretty hard because a private certifier was contracted to do a professional job. They did not do that and simply because of that fact the family the individual or the elderly couple in retirement now do not qualify for this assistance. So there is something unfair about these solutions as well. 
The bill is like the proverbial curate’s egg: it is good in parts. It is good as far as it goes and it is still a credit to the designers who have brought it this far. But it leaves a problem unanswered and that problem at some point will have to be answered by the Government or local authorities. 
I want to make one or two other points. I was very happy during the Committee stage to get the Minister’s assurance about the assessment process. When a building is assessed and an agreement is reached as to how much will be paid the building is opened up. When it is opened up as sure as night follows day that assessment has been found to be inaccurate. I have been really worried because I have seen with my own eyes the damage that has been done. The Minister assures me—and it is on the record of Parliament if lawyers ever need to go back to this—that owners who have received inaccurate assessments can go back to the assessor to have the building reassessed after the cladding has been taken off and another arrangement can been made about how much money is made available. I thank the Minister for clarifying that as I was quite concerned that it would be a problem. 
I still believe—and I disagree with the Minister on this point—that there is something inherently unfair about this bill and it is in relation to those who have purchased leaky buildings at bargain basement prices at sizable discounts. The people who originally owned the building have missed out. They have got out of it and somebody else has purchased it. Most of those purchasers are not young private couples; they are developers and speculators. They now have the ability to receive State funding for up to half the cost of repair and they can then harvest the capital gains that this would give them—and those gains would be enormous. I would rather that that money was utilised for the kinds of cases I have talked about—for those people who have no other means of fixing up this problem. The Minister has not been convincing on this point but it is a problem and I hope that at least priority will be given to those who are genuine homeowners who still own and live in their homes. Thank you. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am very conscious of previous speaker Dr Prasad’s family involvement which he expressed during the second reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. Far be it from me in any way at all to try to dilute the reality of that situation for anybody who has been involved but I would like to reassure the member on some of the points raised by him. Although I appreciate that not everybody can be at a select committee I think he would have been comforted by the degree of thoroughness that the Local Government and Environment Committee process ensured was given to these things. I mean that quite sincerely because the stories that came before us were oftentimes heart-rending. 
I will address two of the points the member made and I am sorry that the member’s representatives on the committee did not explain this when they were explaining the bill to his caucus. The 10-year feature is because prior to 2004 things were done to start to stop the leaky home syndrome. The Building Act 2004 made sure that the leaky homes problem would not arise again. Building techniques were developed supplies became better and the accreditation of building consent authorities was concentrated. So the select committee was assured that it is reasonable to expect that claims coming forward now would have occurred well within the 10-year period. It was on that basis that we accepted that there has to be some sort of defined point. 
The other thing is that there is a no-blame basis for this legislation—a little like ACC. It is not designed to comfort—and I do not make the remark flippantly—homeowners or initial owners of leaky homes; it is designed to address the problem. In this case the building is the feature not the owner. It is the building that has to be corrected. From that point of view there is a no-blame basis. I understand that there has been very good sign up from local government and territorial authorities—not because it is cheap or an easy way out but simply because it gives certainty. This is where I think the Minister for Building and Construction’s bill and his work have been so praiseworthy in terms of getting this put right. It does not do anyone a favour but it certainly gets the work done. 
Just to address one of the points that was raised about past practice I must say that I concur with the previous speaker from the other side of the House that now is not the time to be allocating blame. Indeed this bill does not. Nothing about it allocates blame. But it is a case of bye-bye to the cowboys. The Minister who is not known for his love of intense regulation—he has not been previously known for it—has reintroduced regulation and has reregulated builders and shortly the licensed building practitioner scheme will come into effect in March next year. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes this Minister did it—mandatory H1.3 timber treatment is required. This Minister has reregulated. 
I know we have done a lot of work on the building amendment bills Nos 1 2 and 3 and I think No. 4 is coming up shortly. A lot of work has been done and it is most reassuring. All in all this is a most worthwhile bill. I am very proud to be involved in its processing. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Kia ora tatou katoa i tenei ahiahi i a tatou e wananga nei i tenei o nga pire Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill 
.  
He wa poto noa iho ki a au engari i a au e tu nei ka hoki nga mahara ki nga mate nei kua pa mai ki a au ki roto i a Te Arawa. Ko tera o nga papa a Theo Tait tae ra ano ki te mokopuna a Te Ariki Morehu e takoto mai ra ki runga i tona marae. Kore tae te aukati te ahuatanga o-mate kua tae mai ki runga i a au o Te Arawa ka mutu te motu. E kui ma e tama ma e koro ma e hine ma i te po moe mai moe mai ra.  
Ka huri atu ra ki tenei o nga kaupapa korero i tenei ra. Kai te tautoko te Pati Maori i tenei huarahi ki te manaaki ki te tautoko i te hunga kua rongo nei i te ngau o nga whare tuturu nei. I te orite to matou tu mo te Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill 
ara mo te matamua tonu o tenei ture i te tau 2006 me etahi atu o nga ture mai i taua wa. Kei te tautoko matou i te whakaaro kia noho te Kawanatanga hei tuara ki nga whare putea kia whakamama i te ahuatanga ki runga i aua whare putea kia rere pai te moni te putea ranei ki nga whanau ki te whakatikatika i nga whare. He huarahi pai tenei i tona tuturutanga ki te whakatau i nga kereme hei whakatika i tenei take ara nga whare tuturu nga whare pirau nei.  
He pai tonu enei ahuatanga katoa engari i a tatau e korero nei mo nga whare tuturu nga whare pirau nei me whai ano hoki tatou ki te korero mo te whanuitanga o tenei mea o te ora o roto i te whare. Ki a au nei he hononga tonu i waenganui i te hauora o te ahuatanga o te whare o te ora o te tangata. Kai reira tera whanaungatanga i waenganui i nga mea e toru e korerohia ake nei. Ki taku mohio kei Counties Manukau kei te Tonga o Tamaki kei Tamaki tonu kei Te Tai Tokerau kei Te Awakairangi etahi kaupapa i raro i te maru nei o te Healthy Housing 
ara ko te whakakotahitanga o nga take hauora ki nga take a-whare. Nei au e patai nei he aha te take kare i te pera i roto i toku ake rohe poti o Te Waiariki i te mea kai reira tonu kai te wa kainga nga whare tuturu nga whare pirau nga whare makariri nga whare maku nga whare puwhawha nei. Mena ka pera te ahua ara noa atu nga painga ki te hauora o te tangata. No reira ko te tumanako i a tatou e korero nei mo te pire nei 
tera pea ka whai wahi tatou ki te whakatau i te whakaaro ae ka pai te whare ka ora ano hoki te tangata.  
Kai te tautoko te Pati Maori i te awhina a-putea mo nga whare tuturu engari me titiro ano ki te awhina a-putea i nga whanau ki te arai i te makariri ki te whakapaipai ake i te hanga o nga whare ki te whakanui pea i nga ruma o te whare kia kore te whanau e noho kopa kia taea ai e ratou te whakatikatika nga pirau me era atu momo raruraru o nga whare. Me penei tatou ka tika. Ki te ata titiro tatou ki te mauiui a-rumatiki nei ka mohio mai tatou ara no tona hononga ki te ahuatanga o nga whare. Kua kaha ngau mai taua mauiui ki a ngai Maori me nga whanaunga o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. Ka pa mamae tera mate tera mauiui ki te tangata na te kino o nga whare na te kopa o te noho o nga whanau no reira ara noa atu nga painga ka puta i tenei kaupapa o te Healthy Housing project. 
E ki ana te korero “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata”. Mena e pono ana tera ahuatanga ki a tatou me whai atu i tenei huarahi ki tona mutunga mai. Koinei au e whakaara ake nei i tenei o nga whakaaro.  
Na kia hoki mai ki te pire nei me ona toronga. Kei te tautoko te Pati Maori i te Housing Innovation Fund 
kai te tautoko ano hoki i te Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme 
hei mea whakamahana i te motu. Ara no ona painga. No reira mena ka pera kai te tautoko matou i tenei pire i tona mutunga mai. A kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Greetings to us all this afternoon as we debate this bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. I have only a brief call but as I stand here my thoughts go to specific deaths affecting me in the Te Arawa region: those of the fatherly figure Theo Tait and of Te Ariki Morehu’s grandchild who is lying in state on his marae. Circumstances relating to the deaths can never be avoided for me Te Arawa and indeed the nation. Oh elderly womenfolk young sons elderly menfolk young daughters in the void rest there rest there.  
I turn now to address this bill today. The Maori Party supports this way of taking care of and embracing the people affected by these leaky homes. Our stance on this one is similar to that on its predecessor the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill passed into law in 2006 and on other legislation since then. We support the proposal that the Government act as a guarantor to financial institutions to ease the pressure on these money institutions so that money becomes accessible to families to repair houses. In its simplest form this is a good way to resolve the claims that will fix this issue relating to these leaky and decayed homes.  
All these situations are well and good but while we are talking about these leaky and decayed homes we should be talking broadly about healthy housing. To me there is a connection between the healthy state of the house and the person’s health. There is an association between the three things being discussed here. I understand there are Healthy Housing projects operating in Counties Manukau South Auckland Auckland itself Northland and the Hutt Valley under the mantle of Healthy Housing in regard to an association between health and housing matters. Here I am asking why those projects are not operating in my electorate of Waiariki because the situation exists back home there as well. There are leaky homes decayed homes cold homes damp homes and dilapidated ones present. If that is the case there is much benefit to be gained in terms of a person’s health. Hopefully as we talk about this bill we will find time to consider the thought that yes if the house is fine the person is healthy as well. 
The Maori Party supports a financial assistance package for leaky homes but we must find a similar package for families to block out the cold to make improvements to houses to increase the size of living spaces so the family is not cramped and to carry out repairs to decayed areas and other basic problems of houses. We have to do this; that is for sure. If we examine the disease of rheumatic fever we will then understand its connection to housing conditions. That illness has impacted greatly on Maori people and their Pacific Island relatives. It is linked to poorer housing conditions and overcrowding. There are enormous benefits in the Healthy Housing project. The aphorism states “What is the greatest thing in the world? It is mankind it is mankind”. That is why I bring it up here.  
In coming back to this bill and its connections I say the Maori Party supports the Housing Innovation Fund and the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme as a means of giving warmth to the nation. It has many benefits. In order that this legislation is implemented we will support this bill right to its conclusion. Greetings to us. 
] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the recognition Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson and for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. First I reiterate what my colleagues have already said: Labour supports this bill. I congratulate the Minister for Building and Construction on steering this bill through the House. Like a large number of bills that have gone through this House it offers good points but it is not perfect. That is not surprising; I have not seen anything yet crafted that can be considered by all parties to be perfect. But let us look at the world not through a glass half empty; let us look at the world through a glass half full. I pick up on the points made by my colleague Rajen Prasad and I re-echo them: there are many many people in New Zealand who are incredibly distressed at the state of their buildings. They are incredibly distressed that they have been let down by as they see it the authorities the builders and the architects. There has been an enormous amount of blame game played. We heard some of it this afternoon in the House. The Green Party member Sue Kedgley pointed the finger at all and sundry other than the Greens as to who was responsible. Well the Greens can of course do that but some people have to take some responsibility and get things done. This bill gives some certainty as to the way forward but there is still a lot of uncertainty. 
The first point I will raise in the third reading is the size of the problem. As I understand it there is $11 billion worth of houses involved—$11 billion is a large figure. It is an enormous figure. When we put that figure beside the cost of the reconstruction of Christchurch we are effectively doing the job of rebuilding Christchurch twice over. This is a huge amount of money it involves a huge number of homes and it represents in many ways a loss—because if it is a cost it is a loss. We are looking at a loss of $11 billion in Christchurch a loss of $11 billion in leaky homes and a loss of multiple hundreds of millions of dollars in finance companies that have gone broke. New Zealand has suffered a significant hit in a short period of time with leaky homes Christchurch and the financial crisis but we have to dig ourselves out of the hole. This bill represents in part a way forward. 
As my colleagues have said there are some issues around for example who is eligible for the assistance package. There will always be issues at the margin. The member Chris Auchinvole explained why the 10-year limit was there. I have to say to the member that the moment we draw a line some people are in and some people are out. That means that some people will be out and they will feel aggrieved. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They’ll miss by just that much. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Hon Minister Maurice Williamson holds up his fingers a little bit apart. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I’m just saying that some people can miss by just that much though. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: They can miss by just that much. Yes by just a small amount. So there will be some people who miss. Again looking at the glass half full this package will address the bulk of the problems for the bulk of the people. But this legislation will have people who will be outside of it. 
This legislation also has other issues in how to deal with multiple-ownership properties. There is a threshold of 75 percent that has to be met. What happens if we get 72 or 73 percent? Then the majority are held at the whim of the minority. That is not seen as democratic by most accounts but that is what we will have with this legislation. That does not seem to be a pathway forward to reconcile the differences between the majority say 66 percent which is two-thirds and the other third. It is another issue that we might have to come back to as well. 
The bill will rely in its implementation on the cooperation of local authorities and banks. The Minister has been very good in explaining what the legislation does but we have not heard a lot yet about the attitude of banks. Banks have talked about goodwill constructive engagement and so on but that does not amount to a guarantee or an undertaking. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They’ve signed up to it Rick. They’ve signed. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Minister says that the banks have all signed up. That is a very good thing and I am pleased to hear it. 
The other problem I come back to with this bill is that the legislation is all right in having a way but we have to have the means to carry it out. The means for carrying it out is having a skilled workforce to undertake the work. There is very little point in having the legislation and the technical pathway forward if we do not have the means to implement the work. Another way of looking at it is that we have the plan and we have the strategy but we do not have the tactical resources. One of the National speakers made light of that fact and said that if there was a problem then it had to be the fault of the previous Labour Government. In my opinion that is not a good enough answer. It is not good enough because it is wrong. It is not good enough because pointing the finger and blaming others is not a responsible attitude to this legislation. I re-echo the point made by Chris Auchinvole that this bill is not about apportioning blame and that is a very worthy point. But we have to come back to the question of whether we have the technical resources to do this work. It seems to me that if we are going to struggle to get the resources to rebuild Christchurch we will struggle to get the resources to rebuild Christchurch twice over. That is what this bill represents. We will need a large number of qualified builders carpenters roofers plasterers plumbers and electricians—you name it. These people will have to be available to undertake this work and any scan of the horizon from this vantage point today tells me that there are insufficient skills for this work. 
Although this just leaves the enactment of the legislation the Government now has a responsibility to do something more constructive about upskilling and training young people into the building trades than what it has been doing. The current rate of training and of upskilling of young people is lower than it was 5 years ago. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Dismal. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is lower and it is showing no signs of picking up. The Government can point to the fact that it has increased funding and that is true but when people point to the increase in funding which is true they do not point out that in fact the increase is measured off a base that is lower than it was previously. So the Government’s increase in funding for skills and training in the building industry leaves it short—well short—of what it used to be. If it is well short of what it used to be and we were struggling to cope then how will we cope when we have two major building projects to be undertaken? We have the rebuild of Christchurch and the repair of leaky homes. The work will be done over a similar and concurrent period because once this legislation is passed we will see an increase in activity of getting those leaky homes fixed. 
We must do that work for all the reasons outlined by Sue Kedgley. I feel ill and queasy when she talks about all the diseases in those homes. She makes it seem like I should have a facemask on to protect myself. I shudder at her description of the conditions those people are living in. She is very good at it and she is quite right to say that it is a threat not only to their physical health but also to their mental health. It must be incredibly distressing to them every day to watch their most significant investment rot and cave in around them. 
It is good that this legislation is being passed. It is good that we are getting to the final stage of it. It offers a pathway forward. It is not complete and that is accepted. It is also accepted that in all probability we will have to come back to the House and do some more work on the legislation in the future. But that is not a debate we want to have now. The fact is that the glass is half full. Something constructive is being done but underpinning this legislation there is still a fundamental weakness—that is the very means by which we can give effect to this legislation to fix these homes that these people desperately need. To fix the homes we need more than just legislation we need more than just the banks signing up the money we need the people wearing the shorts and builders’ tool belts and with hammers and nails out there doing the job. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Show us that again. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Minister missed it. We need them doing the job. These are people who turn up every day at 7 o’clock in the morning and work hard. They are great people they do a great job but we need many many more of them. I think this is the fundamental weakness in the legislation. I would like to hear in the future a better plan from the Government not the one it has reiterated but a better plan as to how it will upskill the industry and provide us with the skilled tradespeople necessary to construct and rebuild the houses in Christchurch and repair the leaky homes. Labour will support this legislation but much more needs to be done. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of this third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that will give some people some certainty and these are very vulnerable people. I am sure that every one of us in the House will have faced one or many more of them over the years. It is very important that the Government steps up with an assistance package that helps people not only rebuild their homes but more important rebuild their lives. This bill is another example of the Government getting on and getting the job done. That is what people want; they want some certainty. 
Others speakers in the House today have referred to leaky homes as a disaster and it is fair to say that the issue is a disaster of significant proportions. In the fullness of time this may end up to be larger or smaller than the Canterbury earthquake but it is a disaster none the less. I am pleased that the speaker before me Rick Barker chose to take an optimistic view in terms of apportioning blame. It is one looking forward to the future and looking at this financial assistance package as a good solution where the Government shares responsibility for the cost with local government—the Government being responsible for 25 percent of the cost and local government for 25 percent of the cost. That is a fair and equitable solution in terms of how we are able to go forward and to make sure that people are able to rebuild their homes. 
I want to touch just for a moment on the human cost of this. Often in this debate we have talked about the financial cost and whether it is $1 billion or $11 billion but more important for me is the human cost which we are unable to measure entirely ever. That is why in terms of the contribution of this bill it provides people whether an individual or a family with the certainty to get on to move forwards and to rebuild. Yes there is a time frame and other speakers before me have talked about the fact that the drawing of a line will have an impact on some people but in the hearing of the Local Government and Environment Committee it was clear given the submissions that came in there was general support for the bill. People accepted that this bill was a fair and equitable solution to a fairly devastating issue. 
It was really good to see the strong support from local authorities. As the Minister for Building and Construction said we have also had the signalling of support and agreement by the banks. They are an important part of this puzzle so that people who wish to borrow to complete their repairs and maintenance are able to do that. Getting the banks on board was an important part of the solution and I know that the Minister has done an enormous amount of work to make sure that this is a package they could buy into. So I congratulate the Minister on doing that. 
I say in closing that each one of us has heard the stories of the agony for homeowners and of how much litigation and legal wrangling has gone on for them in trying to solve this problem of leaky homes so it is really great to see that this bill is focused on fixing and rebuilding homes rather than lengthy litigation and legal wrangling. That is why I am proud to support this bill. 
Bill read a third time.