Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7159] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill does contain some small and useful improvements in the process for settling leaky home claims but if members believe that this is the solution to this billion dollar - plus problem they are kidding themselves. I want to recite for this House the appalling record of the Government in dealing with this problem which is so adversely affecting the life and the biggest investment of thousands and thousands of New Zealanders. 
Let us first front up on the issue of just how much the Social Services Committee has changed the bill. Whereas the Minister introduced a bill of 42 clauses the select committee is proposing as stated in the commentary on the bill that it would be better to omit clauses 3 to 39. In fact the only clause proposed by the Minister to have survived select committee scrutiny is the title clause. That is failure by anybody’s standards but I am not surprised. If we recite back to the end of 2002 this Government in a knee-jerk reaction rushed through legislation passing the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act. That legislation never went to a select committee. It was before the House for only 2 weeks and here we are again 4 years later under urgency in Parliament ramming through legislation to fix this problem. I say to the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove: “You have learnt nothing.” We know that the first Act was a failure; his bill as much as admits that. So why would he a second time round under urgency attempt to try to come up with another solution and rush it through? 
Let us just look at the record of the Government’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. To date in the last 4 years there have been 3800 claims. Since Clayton Cosgrove has been the Minister 184 claims have been settled and there have been 437 new claims. I tell the Minister he is going backwards. Over twice as many new claims have been lodged since he has been the Minister compared with the claims that have been settled. But the real scandal is this: the average settlement has been just $68000 for the homeowner to try to fix the leaky home. For each of those settlements the Government has spent $96000 on bureaucracy on reports and on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. I say to members of this House that it would have been better to send a straight cheque of $96000 for each of the claimants than it would be to fund the bureaucracy and the failure of this particular agency. 
Then we have this ridiculous game of “pass the hot potato” within the Government. We have had seven Ministers in 7 years in respect of this problem of leaky homes. We had Mark Burton. He passed the problem to George Hawkins. George Hawkins passed the problem to Lianne Dalziel. Lianne Dalziel passed the problem to Margaret Wilson. Margaret Wilson passed the problem to John Tamihere. John Tamihere passed the problem to Chris Carter. And Chris Carter has now passed the problem to Clayton Cosgrove. 
 Can anybody in the Government and particularly the Prime Minister who is responsible for allocating portfolios tell me how it helps any of these desperate homeowners to have this problem passed from Minister to Minister? But the Government has not stopped even there. The problem has passed not only from Minister to Minister but from department to department. The problem started off as being the responsibility of the Department of Internal Affairs. Then the Government decided that no it should not be there that this problem should be with the Department of Building and Housing. Now the Minister is telling us that the Government is going to pass it on to the Ministry of Justice. Well I have to tell the Minister that homeowners have had a gutsful of this problem being passed from one to another without solutions and doing so again will not make any material difference. Then we have not surprisingly given Clayton’s previous job as a— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use the Minister’s full name. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —given Clayton Cosgrove’s previous job as a spin doctor the new answer that we are not going to call it a Weathertight Homes Resolution Service any more; it will be the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. Well now that will solve the problem will it not? Let us change the name. I tell the Minister that this is an organisation that has been in place for only 4 years and all he is doing is changing the name changing the Minister changing the department and not providing real solutions. 
I will quote for the House from Local Government New Zealand because in its submission it really does sum up the failure of this bill: “the Bill focuses on process and does not address the legal issues at the end of the claims process around getting the homes repaired. We strongly recommend that consideration be given to the most efficient use of the government’s investment in weathertightness issues to achieve the objective of actually getting the leaky homes fixed. We do not believe that the current proposals effectively achieve this fundamental objective.” Here we have New Zealand’s 85 local authorities saying that this bill fails because it will not get the homes fixed and in that respect they are absolutely right. 
Let us just highlight the latest figures from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. I remind the House that this is an agency that this Parliament and taxpayers have provided $17 million a year for. The question I ask is whether we have got $17 million worth of value. The figures have been released. Does the Minister know how many cases have been settled in the last month? We know that there are over 3000. In the last month nine answers have been provided. If one works out the $17 million a year that is about $1.5 million a month. So for $1.5 million the Minister has settled nine claims in the last month. That is over $150000 per case. It is even worse than the record of his predecessor Chris Carter when it was costing $100000 to settle each claim. That is the extent of the failure we have with this bill and with the service. 
All the submissions to the Social Services Committee whether from the Leaky Homes Action Group Local Government New Zealand the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand or the Certified Builders Association—I could go on and on—asked the Government about providing a mechanism that will get the houses fixed and we have had no answers from the Minister. National for instance is sympathetic to the leaky-home owners who actually think that legal costs should be able to be reasonably claimed. I have heard of cases that have been adjudicated with 18 lawyers in the room representing the developer representing the builder representing the architect representing all the building professionals representing the insurance companies and representing Local Government New Zealand. Government members expect with 18 lawyers in the adjudication hearing the homeowners to be able to win the argument all by themselves. Well they are in fairyland. They are on the wrong planet. They are not on the side of those Kiwi-battler New Zealanders who have these leaky homes and need genuine help to get fair and just solutions. 
I challenge any member of the Government to explain to this House how any average homeowner is meant to get justice out of a process when lined up against 18 lawyers who are well funded by local government and huge insurance companies. It is simply unrealistic and is not the way forward. We also think there is a real argument to be had around limitation. The reality is that a home is built for 50 years and to limit the time when the claims can be made is not going to see a fair solution to this. This bill is an indictment on the Government’s resolution service set up in the 2002 Act. It contains a few useful provisions. It is not an answer and sadly I can tell the Minister that the House will be debating further changes within a year or two because this bill does not provide the mechanism to fix the homes.