Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7168] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we will certainly support this bill notwithstanding some of the comments that have been made by people who sound as though they are actually opposing the bill and yet whose friends—and even the member Paula Bennett herself—will certainly become beneficiaries under this legislation. 
There are a number of reasons why we support this bill. Firstly we heard from a previous speaker that there were 3800 claims and that 134 have been settled but that another 437 new claims have been made. I suggest to this House that it is important to have appropriate legislation that will address that particular issue. We in New Zealand First believe that this legislation will do that. Secondly this legislation is not about providing obstacles to homeowners but rather about drilling to those who are responsible for this issue. That may include builders developers and even architects. Thirdly this bill is not about poor workmanship but more essentially about addressing the use of poor material. We need to make sure that similar material is not used in future. 
I also make the point that this bill is not about race as some earlier comments in this House might have suggested. In fact if Maori are affected by the leaky homes syndrome then they have equal access to Pakeha to what this legislation will provide. 
Although New Zealand First was not represented on the Social Services Committee we want to acknowledge the fine work the committee has done. It saw that the original bill needed a replacement as its report back has recommended. Clauses 3 to 39 will be replaced by new clauses to include all the elements of the bill and everything that is in the principal Act. New Zealand First as I said did not have a member on the select committee but after having read its report we feel confident in supporting the passage of the bill though this House. We are confident that this bill fulfils its aims which are to improve the experiences of those unfortunate enough to own a leaky home and who are seeking redress and resolution through the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. The system now allows for a smoother and more transparent system than that previously in operation. I think that the comments made by a previous speaker certainly validate what I have said about that. 
The bill addresses a number of issues and I want to comment on one or two of them particularly in terms of the land information memorandum notifications. The Chief Executive of the Department of Housing and Building and the tribunal will be required to advise territorial authorities of all leaky home claims. It is important that any purchaser of such a home is made aware of this particular issue regarding the land information memorandum notification. Failure to do that will certainly do an injustice to people who are contemplating the purchase of such homes. Of course there will be no delayed notifications and the information must be placed on the property’s land information memorandum. 
We heard comment in relation to multi-unit claims. While I can sympathise with some of the comments made about the difficulty of getting a minimum of 80 percent approval of a particular issue I say that what the bill has put in place is much better than what was previously there. The important thing is to ensure transparency accessibility speed and simplicity for those who need to use this service remembering at all times that those people are victims of a system in which this fiasco was allowed to happen. 
Comment was made about whether it should be the tribunal system or the court system that is used and about the fact that some homeowners may not be able to afford legal representation. At the end of the day it is the choice of the individual homeowner to decide whether he or she wants to take a claim to the tribunal or to the High Court. I suggest that those who take it to the High Court will certainly have legal representation. 
There are many lessons to be learnt from the leaky homes saga not the least of which is that we should remember when deregulating and privatising that the regulations were put there for a purpose. It was never in anybody’s interest save for the sharks in the industry to relax the regulations in relation to the building and construction industry. I trust that this sorry episode in our history is now put to rest permanently. 
The commencement dates as outlined in the bill are certainly relevant in terms of the comments that have been made in the report. It is important that the effects of this legislation are put into action immediately. I think the suggested start date for the tribunal is 1 May 2007. Although we would have liked the date to be much earlier than that the actual process of getting legislation into the system will require that sort of time frame. 
I also noticed with regard to the building tribunal some submitters suggested we should adopt the approach currently being used in Britain. This bill is intended to establish a specialist tribunal that will develop expertise in leaky building cases so that it can provide relatively timely and low-cost resolution of such disputes. 
Paula Bennett 
: They haven’t got the expertise. 
PITA PARAONE 
: It will have. I am sure that as an affected homeowner the member would claim to have some expertise on the problem. We are seeking expertise on how to solve the problem. 
As to the 10-year limitation period for submitting claims I say we have to draw the line at some time. I am not sure whether the 10-year period is the appropriate one but we have to set a time frame or otherwise it may be like Waitangi Tribunal claims. So we have to put in a time frame to be consistent with that. 
New Zealand First members have one or two issues we would like to raise during the Committee stage but suffice it to say that we will support this bill.