Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I can say from the outset that the Labour Party will be supporting this bill. As a former Minister for Building and Construction I am one who I think has been followed by a litany of them—from both sides of the House to be fair. There is a political graveyard of building and construction Ministers from both sides of the House who to be fair to them all in their various ways have attempted to try to address this absolutely tragic issue that has been around—Chris Bishop: Oh that’s very kind.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Pardon? Sorry? It has been around since 1994 and I think that to all of us who were members of Parliament through that period—Mr Bishop in his few months in the House may have dealt with the odd constituent who has had pretty tragic circumstances around this—this was a systemic failure right across the board.In dealing with Part 1 particularly new section 125BB “Eligibility for financial assistance measures” in clause 5 I want to just ask the Minister in the chair Michael Woodhouse a number of questions. The first is that the then Minister Maurice Williamson when this package was first announced trumpeted it as a billion-dollar package—a billion-dollar package—on the back of I remember the taunts from the then Opposition spokesperson Nick Smith who when I was Minister was famous for every time I would get up to answer questions on the issue interjecting “Just write them a cheque.” That was his solution: “Just write them a cheque.” Then again as Nick Smith is wont to do when he comes into Government suddenly the scales fall from the eyes and his position changes like changing socks. So I could say to Dr Smith in Government why do you not just write them a cheque as you said you would? However the Government determined under Maurice Williamson that in terms of the package it would be a billion-dollar package.I am advised Minister Woodhouse that over the past 4 years the projections were that 16000 victims of this would take up this package; I am advised that 86 have. My question is although this package is well intentioned—and we all want a solution to this problem and we all want these issues resolved for folk and we have all had a crack over the years at trying to do it—the issue still remains as to why the uptake of this has been so low. Is it because as I think is generally the case people believe that they have a better chance of a swifter and more equitable resolution via the court system where yes they would have to put up their own money but they may well get a better deal than a 50 percent impost on themselves—matched of course by a 25 percent contribution from the local authority and a 25 percent contribution from Government.But it was trumpeted as a billion-dollar package. It was estimated there would be 16000 I believe out of the estimate of around 42000 cases at a cost of anywhere between—the estimates were in 2009 $11.3 billion. Other estimates more than double the number of claimants from 42000 to 89000 and estimate the costs could be around $23 billion. Again I recall in Government the taunts from Dr Smith as he demanded quantification of the figures and the truth is that none of us knew. And as he has subsequently I think admitted in Government none of us know. This is sort of an open-ended envelope. We do not know how far these difficulties go. The only thing we do know for certain is that there was a systemic failure right through the value chain from the trades to designers to the local authorities the drive-by inspections etc. and this problem exists.So I would like to know firstly does he have any updated projections on numbers of potential claims and also what the latest costings would be? And if he could give us—you know given new section 125BB in clause 5 and the previous provision with the eligibility criteria in it—some explanation as to why only 86 claimants have taken up the package as opposed to the estimated 16000 and if there are any newer projections or more updated projections what they are likely to be?As I say we do support this. We genuinely hope it will work—we genuinely do. But the figures of those who are opting for it the proof of the pudding is if it is working—I had a go with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service; some people opted for that. Others in truth again saw the courts as a better remedy. This Government has had a crack at it but again the figures tend to bear out that people are opting for the court system which begs the question: is there a better way in terms of perhaps facilitating or assisting with court action? A 50 percent impost on people depending on the size of their building is a massive impost in many cases. It is a huge amount. And I note from some of the reports that are appended to this bill that the Government has said that it will assist in assisting weathertight homes folk in their liaison with banks in terms of trying to get financial assistance of their own accord.I would ask the Minister—that is all well and good and I think very well-intentioned but it would be helpful to know what that means in practical terms. I would doubt given the language that there is much the Government could do unless it has struck a deal with the banks—and if it has that would be great—in terms of encouraging the banks to lend to many of these folk. For many of these folk of course their capital investment has been gutted and destroyed. Their land is still there but the value in their home has deteriorated because of the position it is in and I know of many people whom banks simply will not look at to provide any finance at all and then they are in a cleft stick. If they cannot come up with their share they do not get the local authority’s share they do not get the Government’s share and they are back to square one. Many of those folk also cannot afford to get to court. I do not believe they get legal aid because it is a civil matter to take these measures to court.So there are some of the questions I think it would be helpful not just for Opposition members and our learning as we go through this but also to get on the record of the House—because these debates of course are cited in courts—to give people some certainty. I am glad the Government has moved on from the simplistic sloganeering of “Just write a cheque.” because it was a pretty macabre response then and it remains a pretty macabre response now to people who are in grave difficulty around the country. At its simplest people’s biggest asset generally other than their family of course—their biggest monetary asset is their home. They plough over 20 or 30 years all their resources into it—Phil Twyford: 50 now.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —or 50 years in many cases and many of these folk were let down.I say this to the Government—and I said this when I was in Government to be fair—the key responsibility lies in my view in the tradespeople designers or whoever. The building inspectors who—many of them specialised in what they call drive-by inspections because a former building inspector told me that when I was Minister. The actual responsibility lies ultimately and realistically with those folk many of whom have gone broke and done a runner. Equally I have got to say though the National Government should remind itself of its conduct in the 1990s when of course Dr Lockwood Smith then led the charge—in I think 1995—in deregulating the whole building industry. I said a couple of nights ago that God help me I could have strapped on a tool belt and called myself a builder and I could not build a doghouse let alone any other dwelling. People were just entering the trade without any quality control not standing by their work and doing extremely shonky work and many of those people could not be pursued because they went broke.So I say as we address Part 1 that those are the questions we would like the Minister to address if he can and I think it would be helpful across the board as we progress through this.