Sio William: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8901. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I think it is fair to say that there is genuine interest on our part to ensure that this bill passes but to also ensure that we support the Government in making sure that we correct the injustice that arose from an incorrect application of case law prior to the court case. So in terms of Part 2 of the bill—most of the significant content was in Part 1—clause 7 attempts to clear up the confusion caused by the 2001 Gazette notice and the response to the Supreme Court decision.I did not have the privilege that the Government members had of sitting in on the select committee process. I note though that there were significant submitters who all raised similar concerns which I think my colleague Phil Twyford has attempted to articulate and at the outset I say that we want to make sure that this is right. It has taken us a long time to get it here so let us make sure that we do get it right. Grimshaw and Co. is a specialist litigation and dispute resolution firm that represents over 5000 clients in leaky building disputes. It raised that the Government has estimated that there will be about an extra 70 families with homes that will be deemed eligible as a consequence of the Osborne court case and the passing of this bill. Given that as of 31 January 2005 there were 1147 claims representing 3528 homes that had been assessed as qualifying for the Government contribution of 25 percent it suggested “it will not be a large cost for the Government to also assist some of these 70 families who were wrongly deemed ineligible and then fixed their homes.” But with this legislation those people would now be eligible.I know that the Minister in the chair Dr Nick Smith has a Supplementary Order Paper in place but I am not sure whether that covers what this organisation has raised in its submission. You see it again says that if the bill passes as it is it would allow certain owners who were deemed ineligible based on the case law prior to Osborne to now be deemed eligible. However if the bill is passed in its current form some of those owners will not be able to obtain financial assistance under the financial assistance package specified under this bill. So specifically owners who repaired their houses after their claim was deemed ineligible cannot now obtain financial assistance and the draft law does not appear to allow owners in that position to apply for the financial assistance package even if they would have met the contribution criteria at the time that their claim was deemed ineligible.I also want to draw to the Minister’s attention that similarly the submission made by the office of the Mayor of Auckland also raises the issue that the 2001 Gazette notice clearly distinguishes between the Crown contribution criteria and the participating territorial authority contribution criteria and that distinction is not reflected in part of this bill. So in the bill as currently drafted there is potential for confusion as to the extent to which the distinction applies. The submission said: “The Bill as currently drafted also does not clearly reflect one of the integral reasons why territorial authorities agree to become [participating territorial authorities] being that a claimant who has commenced proceedings naming a [participating territorial authority] cannot receive a financial contribution unless that territorial authority agrees.”The Auckland Council also said in its submission that “The proposed definition of ‘qualifying claimant’ also introduces some uncertainty as to whether a claimant who does not meet the relevant contribution criteria might nonetheless be a ‘qualifying claimant’ if the chief executive determines that the claimant is taking all reasonable steps to meet those criteria.” It said: “The effect of the proposed new subpart 9 is that any dwellinghouse which had a code compliance certificate … issued within the 10 years prior to the application for an Assessor’s report will have a claim which is deemed eligible. Conversely a claimant for a dwellinghouse for which no [code compliance certificate] was issued but building work continued within the ten years will not have an eligible claim despite the fact that the [court] decision … would include such a claimant (albeit that those circumstances would be rare).”So again I think for our part we want to get this right we want to pass it and we want to support it but given the time it has taken to get us to where we are today I think it is important that you are able to just assure the Committee about the concerns raised by submitters. There is one here by the New Zealand Law Society. Again it says “The Bill aims to widen the definition of ‘qualifying claimant’ … to include claimants who are actively progressing claims so that these persons are not prevented from having recourse to the … provisions in the Act. However if the Bill is passed without amendment there is a subset of owners who had previously been ineligible and will become eligible but will still not qualify for assistance under the [finance assistance programme] scheme.” Again that issue is emphasised in the Law Society’s submission.The other point I want to say is that in the last debate with reference to this bill a Cabinet member—and I am not quite sure now whether it was you Minister or somebody else—was reported to have said that you would be keen to free up the building industry and I would ask the Minister whether he was prepared to just clarify that decision to the Committee. The Minister may recall that we are in this leaky house situation as a result of a previous Government—and I understand that the Hon Maurice Williamson claimed ownership to being part of that Government—that freed up the industry and really set it aside at arm’s length from the territorial authority.My concern is that here we are attempting to fix the problem that arose from the freeing up of the building industry and instead of us looking at ways of strengthening compliance I am hearing that there is a possibility that this Government has set itself on another course where we could end up in the House attempting to find the money to support another leaky home syndrome. So again I would ask the Minister whether he would not mind just clarifying to the Committee whether it was him who was responsible for the media reports claiming that that is the direction we could be heading for. I appreciate any comments the Minister might be able to make.