Barker Rick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Barker Rick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18667] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill and say that the Opposition will support this bill. Yes the bill has been a long time coming but although the previous speaker Nicky Wagner said that she wants to see the blame game over one figures that within this legislation and all the issues around it the blame game has been played significantly by all parties. 
One cannot underestimate the stress of homeowners who have built new homes and then see their homes leaking sweating and rotting around them. We must remember that a home generally is a person’s No. 1 major investment. It is not just an investment; it is a place where people live. It is an expression of people themselves. They put a lot of time and effort into decorating it doing the grounds and so on—it is where they live. To see their homes falling apart around them is very very distressing for them. 
There is no doubt that a number of factors have led to this situation. People have pointed to the deregulation of the industry and I hope this House takes on board the consequences of having a totally deregulated industry. Lessons are to be learnt from this industry for a number of other industries that we deregulate. The fact is that we have an element of our society today that constantly carps in favour of deregulation and against regulation. They oppose regulation at every step of the way. But let this be a lesson to the deregulators: where there is insufficient regulation the public are at risk. If people want to live in a completely deregulated society with all the benefits that flow from having no regulations then let them go and live in Mogadishu. They will be afraid of the water the food and the street violence and there will be nothing there that is fit for the purpose for which it is being sold—unless it is some antique military arms. 
We live in a civil society and the purpose of a civil society is to protect ordinary citizens from the predations and incompetency of other people. We want a regulated industry. That means that when people undertake the tasks of design building and construction they are skilled and fit for the purpose. This has been a failure on the part of many homeowners who built during the period of leaky homes. 
We come to the issue of where we will apportion the problems. Councils for their part said they had no responsibility in the early stages because they felt they were the victims of legislation to be passed by central government. They were simply following the deregulated environment of central government and the problem lay with central government. Central government on the other hand said no it was the responsibility of local councils because local councils had approved the homes being put up. Others pointed at the builders; others pointed at the designers of the buildings the architects; others pointed to those who provided the monolithic claddings and the seals and so on that went with it. We had everybody pointing fingers at everybody but in the middle of all of this the homeowners were left with stinking rotting homes. That was well articulated by Sue Kedgley. I felt a seizure of catarrh and pneumonia coming on as she adequately described all the health problems. 
Phil Twyford 
:  
Stachybotrys 
! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: She likes that phrase:  
Stachybotrys 
 and all the other “greebs” and germs that go with it. No one has described it better than she. She is right: it is a health problem a physical health problem. But I would add to the point that Sue Kedgley made that it is also a mental health problem. People have been incredibly stressed about this issue for a long time. When families are under stress of this nature it adversely affects the whole family unit. 
The families of the people who own these homes look to this Parliament for a solution. It could be possible for me to point out all of the failures of this legislation. There are some; it is not perfect. Very seldom do we pass legislation in this House that is perfect and this is one of those pieces of legislation. It has its imperfections but it has its strengths. The strength is that we will get the elements of the source of the essential problem. It will be central government local authorities and some liability will be placed on the homeowner. All three parties will have to come to grips with this and will have to pay their share. There have been some estimates of what it will cost and the cost runs into billions. I think that is probably a very conservative estimate of the cost. 
There will be another problem for the Government which is how we undertake the fixing of these homes. I say to the Minister for Building and Construction and the members of the National Government who are responsible for training that the estimates are of 20000-plus homes in Auckland alone. The Salvation Army in Auckland identified that Auckland is short by some 6000-odd houses that need to be built. We have the rebuilding of Christchurch to undertake. In the next decade New Zealand will undertake more building and construction than it has in many many a decade—probably in our history. There will be a massive amount of construction. The worry will be where we will find the skills and the tradespeople to undertake this work. At this stage I do not see a coherent plan from the National Government for how we will undertake this work. At present we should have many hundreds of young people who are currently out of work undertaking trade training in a mass way similar to the sort of trade training New Zealand undertook at the end of the Second World War when men came home from the war and New Zealand underwent a major reconstruction boom. 
Jo Goodhew 
: We’ve announced it today. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member across the House chirps that they have announced it today. I read the announcement and I have to say to the member that although it is an announcement I think the size of it is timid in comparison with the size of the problem. 
We have 20000 homes in Auckland alone to be fixed. Auckland needs more homes; it needs in the order of 6000 to 10000 homes. That is 30000 homes in Auckland. Then we have large sections of Christchurch to rebuild. I would like to think the Government will deal with this problem in a very strong firm and crisp manner. I do not see that in the release the Government put out today. Yes it is a start; it acknowledges the problem; it takes its hat off and says we have an issue to deal with but it does not grab the problem by the throat wrestle it to the ground and fix it. That is what we expect: strong leadership from the Government. It talks about leadership but it has not delivered on it in this case. However I will go back to the bill. I have been sidelined by interjections from the Government. 
The issue here is about fixing leaky homes—making a plan. I say to the Hon Maurice Williamson that any plan is better than no plan. The Minister has come up with a plan and all of the elements are there. I think many of the homeowners who currently suffer from leaky home syndrome will feel that they have a pathway forward. It might not be the perfect path but at least it is a path. It is an acknowledgment by the Government that central government has a role in this and will support them. It also acknowledges the role of local government and local government will also support homeowners. This should be of some comfort to many homeowners. It will of course wipe thousands and thousands of dollars off the balance sheet of many homeowners and they will be poorer for decades to come. It will take many homeowners a long long time to recover from this. It will make many of them very timid about building a new home in the future. They will be very cautious and rightly so. 
Labour supports this legislation. It will help to address the issues affecting many homeowners. Many issues remain unresolved and Labour will raise a number of issues during the Committee of the whole House. It will put forward amendments which we hope the Hon Maurice Williamson who has taken the lead on this will entertain very carefully and discuss with Labour as we go through the Committee of the whole House in order to improve this legislation. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I’m happy to do that. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Labour Opposition welcomes that as a very positive acknowledgment that there needs to be some improvements in this legislation. The collective wisdom of this House should be able to bring to the House very good improved legislation. 
Labour will support this legislation but it needs to be acknowledged that there are other issues on the periphery that are of concern. Those issues are the capacity and skills in the industry to undertake this massive repair work on thousands and thousands of homes across New Zealand the under-build of homes in Auckland and the rebuild of Christchurch. This is a substantial undertaking. The Government needs to take it seriously and really put in place some solid enduring policies that will give the industry the skills and tradespeople necessary to undertake this substantial amount of work.