Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Does he stand by his answers in the House in February and March this year that taxpayers are getting value for money from the Government’s initiatives to fix the leaky homes problem and that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service is working well? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Yes but as always there is room for improvement. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister contradict these earlier statements at last week’s Social Services Committee by admitting there were serious problems with the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and saying “I wonder whether they should all just go straight to the High Court.”; and does he now accept that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal has been an expensive flop? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Not surprisingly the member has taken out of context what was a very lucid dissertation on my part. The observation was made by the chair of that very committee that perhaps too many lawyers are involved; I presume that those are the ones acting on the instructions of local government who want to drive the complainants into the High Court. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister simply explain then being so illicit as to— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Lucid! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister simply explain to the House what he meant by the statement “I wonder whether they should just go to the High Court.”? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Unfortunately my expertise does not stretch as far as that of the member on matters to do with the High Court. I will however point out that there is a trend: too many parties in particular those associated with local government are using lawyers in what should be a non-litigious process and they are making life difficult for the complainants. Those who do not use lawyers are enjoying expeditious consideration. I say to Mr Ryall who is hopping around like a bunny from burrow to burrow to keep quiet. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What moral authority does the Government have for damning councils builders and developers for employing expensive QCs to minimise its liabilities over leaky homes when this is exactly what the Government has done in spending over $5 million on QCs in denying any liability? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The lawyers currently representing local government and others are not employed by the Crown. The process that has been developed was developed as a mediation service with arbitrators being able to make binding calls. We expect parties to come with the spirit of reconciliation not ongoing adversarialism. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister justify the $110 million spent on weathertight homes resolution over the last 6 years when only 18 percent of claims have been resolved amounting to a cost of $110000 on the bureaucracy of processing each claim when the average settlement is only $70000; and would it not be far better to spend this taxpayer contribution on actually fixing the houses? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There are opportunities for homeowners to seek loans; there are opportunities for homeowners to use this service or to go in a different direction. There have been 6313 properties under consideration and a number of them remain in the process of being repaired. A number of homeowners have elected to go elsewhere. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has the Minister seen the estimates from Local Government New Zealand that $800 million is to be spent on litigation over leaky homes and the report by Otago University that states that over $474 million will be spent on health costs associated with leaky homes as well as causing an additional suicide each year and are these facts not sufficient for the Government to accept that a fresh approach that focuses on getting the houses fixed is required? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Let us recall the Don Hunn report: this problem is reflective of a systemic failure originating at a time when there were no rules and regulations adequately monitored or kept in check. Dr Smith is well aware of that; after all the party that he belongs to held sway unfortunately for that period of time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where is the consistency in the Government’s position when it has said over and over again that the problem of leaky homes is the fault of the previous Government and the 1991 Building Act—despite Labour having voting for it and George Hawkins saying that it was all Labour’s work—and the Government is also saying now that it was all the fault of councils and that the Government has no liability; where is the consistency? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I would direct the member’s attention towards the Sacramento decision and other High Court jurisprudence that states clearly that the parties facing liability are local government and a variety of other providers not the Crown. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it not a sign that this Government is tired and past it when after 6 years seven Ministers four legislative attempts and $110 million less than one-fifth of leaky home claims have been resolved under the resolution service when the Minister admits that claimants would be better off to go directly to the High Court and when the Government has no idea how to move forward and get the homes fixed? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I repeat yet again: where highly priced lawyers are used by local government to make the lives of these homeowners unnecessarily miserable then the homeowners are very unwise to expect to find an open cheque at central government that no doubt has been promised to them by that member. 
Sue Moroney 
: What progress has been made with resolving disputes and getting homes repaired under the scheme brought in by Labour to fix up a mess that happened under another Government? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Over half of all claims have now been resolved or closed. They are being settled within 17 weeks compared with 12 months under earlier administrations and 75 percent are settling at mediation which allows the parties to be in control. That shows that the Government’s intention of streamlining improving is working despite the best efforts of rapacious law firms. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Contrary to the Minister’s claims of 50 percent of cases being resolved I seek leave to table the Weathertight Homes Tribunal’s own statistics through to May 2008 showing that only 18 percent of— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.