Turner Judy: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7169] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the second reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. It is a necessary amendment bill. In fact it is more than an amendment; it is a replacement for the original Act. 
United Future supports the bill but like others in this House we agree that it is not a cure-all for the matters related to leaky homes. We support the inclusion of relevant information on the LIM report as a positive step although I looked back over the notes I took during the submissions and saw an interesting suggestion made that the information should go on the certificate of title based on the fact that very few people actually get a LIM report. There are some ongoing challenges for those with multi-unit dwellings and this amendment recognises some of those difficulties and makes a start towards dealing with those concerns. 
Like others I want to thank the select committee; it was an enjoyable working process. I would like to thank the submitters and the officials who gave us advice. 
However the lesson does not go away with the passing of this amendment. The ongoing issues regarding housing design building methods and building materials remain. I still remember driving around a new housing division looking at new designs. I have a husband who is a very practical handyman and he was not as impressed with the new designs as I was. He had some real reservations about what might happen. It sounds as if a lot of people had those kinds of reservations and we are now bearing the consequences of some very poor thinking in that regard. 
In New Zealand homeownership has always been a bit of an excuse for low levels of saving towards retirement and that is why the leaky homes problem has been such a crisis for those people affected. I agree with Paula Bennett that it is important during this second reading not to trivialise the suffering of people with leaky homes. Their homes represent their hard work and their future security and for those people that has been crumbling before their eyes. 
The need to deal with future potential damage came up during this amendment bill. Of course these issues have to be balanced against the normal deterioration of natural products like timber in the life of a home. Forecasting is difficult but establishing damage is absolutely pivotal to the process and this bill seeks to better facilitate that process. 
One of the other issues that comes up in regard to that—and certainly several submitters mentioned this—is the need for better education for New Zealand homeowners about the maintenance of their property. Homes do not last forever but they certainly last a lot better with a regular coat of paint if that is the material the homeowner has chosen to use and with some basic practical maintenance being done to them. I think there is very little education and people often expect much greater longevity from a home than it is capable of delivering. 
The issue of making sure homes are properly fixed after the settlement is one that still concerns United Future members. We think that some ongoing work on this matter should be encouraged. Certainly the Wellington City Council and a number of the other city councils that made submissions had ongoing concerns about the fact that their housing stock in their towns particularly those that had claims made against them in some cases remained unfixed even after settlement. I think the slowness of the process up to date has contributed to that. It has meant that when people have received some compensation much of it has had to go towards other bills sustained during the process like legal costs and therefore homes have remained either partially or completely unfixed. There is possibly a need to look at the joint fund currently used by local government instead of individual insurance policies being used. There is concern about the fact that that fund is fast running out. 
At a later date we also need to reflect on some of the submissions from builders. They said they would like some additional clarity as to when an individual builder can be held to be negligent as there is still a lack of clarity around that. They also asked that builders be included earlier in the claims process than they currently are. Sometimes they do not even know that a claim has been taken out against a building they were responsible for building. They believe that if they were included they could firstly with their knowledge of the building throw some light on the damage occurring. They also said that if they were included at an earlier date many of them would want to jump in and get the problem fixed before it progressed and before there was further deterioration to the building. 
I think that a number of matters that came up at the Social Services Committee warrant some further consideration. However that being said I believe that this is a move forward in the right direction. It is not a big enough move but we will support it because of the good it will bring to the process. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill.