Logie Jan: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6833. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill which the Green Party is of course supporting. We supported the original legislation in 2006 and then we supported the next round of amendments in 2010 so of course we are going to be supporting this third round of amendments in 2015 to fix up a problem that was initiated by I believe a National Party Government in 1994. Although we do not believe that any of the actual legislation from 2006 onwards has actually done justice to the problem or taken responsibility for the fault anything to make things better for these families is worth supporting which is why we have continued to stand in this House and support the bills that are at best in some ways a token effort.So this latest amendment bill is at the heart of it going to provide the ability for 70 claimants to receive support through the Financial Assistance Package providing still that they can come up with the 50 percent of the cost of the rebuild of their houses. It is really as has been stated by other speakers earlier a very small and technical bill. There were only three submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this though there were amendments and it has been great to hear from those members who were on the committee about how constructive the process was and to see Parliament working effectively to iron out some of the amendments needed.I would note too that this bill has in part been prompted by a court case that happened last year when the Osbornes won in the Supreme Court against Auckland Council. It is very nice to have the opportunity in this House when a court has found that there was an injustice or a lack of clarity to come back and clarify that legislation in accordance with what the court found—as opposed to the family carers legislation that we had under urgency at last term’s Budget where this Government chose to override the findings of the court and as opposed to what we are currently going through in the Social Services Committee where the Government is again trying to cover its butt basically through legislation overriding the finding of the court that this Government had not taken responsibility for its misinterpretation of the policy. It is a rare moment which I am going to revel in—that the Government is taking a moment to accord the legislation properly with the interpretation of the courts and the needs of the community.But the core of this bill along with the 70 claimants being able to receive support relates I think to the provision that will expand the definition of “qualifying claimant” to include those who prior to the cut-off date of July next year were engaged or will be engaged actively in working towards meeting the eligibility criteria. That is clearly an important thing to do. I do think it is worth restating in the House some of the things that people need to do to meet those criteria so that we acknowledge that it is not an easy thing. People need to obtain an assessor’s report; arrange funding which is that 50 percent of the rebuild costs; sign a homeowner’s agreement; commission a repair plan; obtain a building consent; obtain quotes—and all of this needs to be in place before that payment plan can be signed off. This is not an easy thing to do.A friend of mine has been in that invidious situation of having bought a leaky home. Just from a place of significant distance I have seen the massive stress on her and her family. Their savings all of their life had gone towards buying this house that they found they could no longer live in and that was actually a physical threat of collapsing on top of them and their children. They ended up having to move towns to find new jobs to be able to—to have to—start renting while still paying off this house in the hope of repairing it. I have seen the extraordinary stress of that and the injustice of it. Even the fact that they have to come up with 50 percent of the repair cost when it was not their fault when they had been told that this house was safe does seem to me really unjust. But that is the best that this House could come up with at previous times and that was agreed to. As we have said of course it is better than nothing.The point has been made earlier but I am going to reinforce it that this leaky home crisis is a salutary lesson on the importance of regulation and the dangers of leaving our critical infrastructure which is our houses up to the market. I do note too that in Auckland at the moment in terms of the building consent process 40 percent of the houses being built now are failing those building consents. We have an ongoing process. Part of the problem that caused the leaky homes was the loss of the apprenticeship schemes and the loss of the skills in our building industry. That was part of the problem and we have not fixed that problem. We are seeing that right now in Auckland in the 40 percent of houses that are not able to meet the required level of quality to get their building consent.This is an ongoing problem that this House desperately needs to put our attention to—not on a patch-up basis not on a piecemeal basis but from a very considered place of considering our housing as core infrastructure that affects the health of our community that affects the basic economic flow of our communities and that affects the well-being of all of us. It is essential that we take this seriously. The estimated cost of this leaky home crisis—the consensus that was agreed on on it even though there were differing views—was $11.3 billion and 42000 affected houses. From leaving things to the market this is the cost. And only a tiny percentage 10 to 25 percent of that cost is being borne by the people who caused the problem: by the Government. Other outside estimates have actually estimated that the cost of the leaky building crisis is $23 billion and 89000 houses affected. This is not a minor issue.Although the bill that is in front of us is a small technical bill to support 70 families before the expiry date hits next year the underlying issues and the cost to our economy and our families are ongoing. We need a much more considered response and particularly one focused on prevention in the future. I remain unconvinced we have those measures in place at the moment but the Green Party will support this bill and give our best to those 70 families. We hope that you can come up with that 50 percent of the cost of the rebuild of your house. Thank you.