Mahuta Nanaia: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19954] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. Labour members on the Local Government and Environment Committee participated in the select committee process heard submissions and raised a number of questions throughout the passage of the bill. Although we support the bill progressing we acknowledge that a number of issues have been left still unresolved. Let me comment on the huge challenge of responding to the work required by many of these homes that will need repairs. I have to say at the outset that we remain concerned that the Government is not doing enough to invest in the trade sector so that we will have enough people to do the work required in the building industry. Labour members have continued to promote greater investment in apprenticeships and trades training. We know there will be significant pressures in both Auckland and Christchurch and we remain concerned that the Government is not taking a comprehensive approach to ensure that in the construction industry and certainly in the building sector we have enough skilled people to meet the growing demand in the years to come. 
I will come back to the bill. As I said earlier in my opening remarks there are a number of issues we want to highlight because several types of affected homeowners will be excluded by this package. It does not provide any solution for example for owners who are not found eligible under the legislation owners whose homes are more than 10 years old owners who have already commenced their repairs owners whose homes were signed off by private certifiers instead of councils—those owners will not be eligible for the 25 percent council contribution—and owners who are unable to raise the remaining sum. That will include many who simply cannot afford to borrow their 50 percent contribution. In the current economic climate that is a significant burden and pressure on a wide number of families. Those people are also the ones who are often most vulnerable and disadvantaged in having the leaky homes problem. 
That said I know that the Minister specifically made comments on the issue of no Crown guarantee for bodies corporate and he offered a response in that area. Some of the concerns we raised at the select committee and continue to hold include the fact that apartment owners are unlikely to benefit from the package because bodies corporate are not able to borrow the repair funds and levy owners for loan repayments. That is largely because banks will not lend to bodies corporate as they are unable to give mortgages on common properties. Although some of the owners will have funds available and will be prepared to front up with those funds at the start of the project many owners may not be able to extend their mortgages. I understand from colleagues that there was a fair bit of discussion about that and it remains again a key concern. 
Another concern is that the bill does not require remediation work to restore homes to performance and durability compliance with the building code. For example councils that will have a say in setting the scope of the remediation might insist on targeted repairs that remediate the worst problems but do not necessarily bring the building up to code compliance. There are many buildings with severe weathertightness issues where the best option may be to bowl the building over and sell the land or rebuild and this package offers nothing to owners who are in that particular situation. 
We also think that speculators could take advantage of this legislation. It does not differentiate between owners of leaky homes who need help and speculators who are buying up leaky homes at very low prices. It is feared that a speculator who buys a property in the knowledge that it is a leaky home is eligible for assistance under this package. Is that fair? We have concerns about that and think not. I understand that the Minister for Building and Construction in previous remarks has said that he is not fussed who fixes the homes—whether it is the homeowner or the speculator. I am looking at him to either confirm or deny that. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You can’t stop that. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Minister says we cannot stop that. If that is the case if it is just about getting the houses fixed then we want to raise this issue. Given the limited funds available for this scheme and the fact that many affected homeowners are excluded from it it does not make sense to hand out taxpayer funds to speculators. The concern for us is that we want to stop the speculators while still not restricting those who may have unwittingly found themselves in trouble due to for example a lack of disclosure by the vendor or agent of the status of the property they were purchasing. 
I turn to the issue of the ban on third-party claims. Labour is concerned with the proposed restrictions on people who are not parties to the contribution agreement seeking to join the Crown a local authority or other contributing party into a claim and seeking contribution from them. It is a completely unjustified statutory removal of existing property rights and we believe there are two competing policy interests. The first one is the interest of the local authority and/or the contributing party in achieving finality through making an agreed contribution to the repair of a leaky home under the scheme. The second is the interest of people who are not a party to that agreement having their legal rights to seek contribution or indemnity removed and potentially leaving them carrying a disproportionate burden. The present bill recognises the first interest at the complete expense of the second and again we are saying that this does not make sense. 
I want to come back to the key point in terms of meeting the skills deficit because I think we cannot really discuss these issues without asking the how or being able to respond to the how. We are significantly concerned that the building industry in the current economic climate and with the current direction of the Government has lacked the vision to continue to invest in the trade sector. We will see the downfall of that lack of vision most significantly in meeting demand in both Auckland and Christchurch. We cannot stress enough that although this is a step towards addressing the issue of leaky homes the bigger challenge is to be able to meet the skills deficit we have in the country as well so that these homes can be fixed properly and the job can be done well. Our select committee members have I think made a valuable contribution to the working through of the number of issues I have briefly touched on in this debate but I know that in supporting this bill to go forward and identifying some of the key gaps we want to ensure that the House continues to be informed about meeting the significant needs amongst a lot of homeowners in this sector. Kia ora koutou.