Clarkson Bob: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Clarkson Bob: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9045] 
11.  
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Are the Government’s policies for fixing leaky homes working quickly and fairly? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Yes I believe they are. People can pursue liable parties—those who designed built inspected and signed off these leaky homes—through either the court system or the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Service has been revamped and the doors opened just over a month ago. The changes have streamlined the resolution process and established a new independent tribunal with members controlling proceedings and adopting a more investigative approach through compulsory pre-hearing conferences and time-limited mediation. The old service was being gamed by lawyers and experts; the changes will cut the opportunity for lawyers and experts to game the system. Finally I will quote from the head of the Leaky Homes Action Group John Gray in reaction to the new Weathertight Homes Resolution Service system. He said these changes are “more good news for leaky home owners” and “just part of a suite of changes which will continue to be rolled out”. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Is the Minister aware of the case concerning Mrs Colin Dicks who won a case against the Waitakere City Council for $251000; and in his opinion did she get a fair deal? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will correct the member. I think the lady’s name was Colleen not Colin. I am aware of the judgment and settlement that Mrs Dicks received. I am also aware that Mrs Dicks’ legal costs are currently the subject of negotiation between the parties. As such I would not want myself or any other member in this House to make comments that would prejudice her position. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Is the Minister aware that Mrs Dicks’ lawyers’ and consultants’ fees for the case total $281000 meaning that after 3 years of struggle to get her house fixed she is $30000 out of pocket and still has a leaky home that she cannot live in? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes I am aware of that— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that we are having questions and answers in silence. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —and the member will also be aware that Mrs Dicks pursued her case through the courts with a lawyer not with the Government-revamped or former Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. I would be concerned if Mrs Dicks had not been made fully aware by her lawyer and legal experts of the costs she was going to face. If the member is saying that perhaps a giant bill has now been dropped on her by her lawyer then the question is whether that bill was over the top and whether the lawyer exploited Mrs Dicks at her most vulnerable. The remedy in that respect—for a lawyer in the courts system—is to pursue a review of the bill through the Law Society. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister know how many leaky homes have been patched up and then onsold to unsuspecting buyers; and does he acknowledge the serious concerns of Kiwi home owners regarding the lack of accountability on this issue shown by builders and councils? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: To the latter point yes. That is why the Government under the new Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act requires in any case placed before the service a note to be placed on the land information memorandum so that consumers know what they are getting in cases where somebody on-sells without repair or concluding the case. Indeed I say to the member that I am very aware of the angst in the community from those victims who were dealt to by shonky designers shonky builders and often shonky building inspectors. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Does it not show that there is no justice under this Government for leaky home owners when Mrs Dicks is held up as being a successful test case but ends up being $30000 out of pocket and with no house fixed and the only winners are consultants and lawyers? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have the utmost respect for Mrs Dicks. Her case shows that she received a judgment in the court not in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. In putting in place a revamped Weathertight Homes Resolution Service we have given consumers the choice to go to that service or to go through the courts. The reason we revamped the service was to stop the very gaming by lawyers and legal experts that may have been exhibited and put upon Mrs Dicks by her lawyer in that particular case through the courts. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Does the Minister recall that in 2002 his Government told leaky home owners that its policy would provide speedy cost-effective and just resolutions to their claims yet after 5 years only 10 percent of the claims have been resolved millions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers and lawyers and consultants are having a field day at homeowners’ expense? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do recall that and that is why last year the Government revamped the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. It did not permit legal costs to be claimed because gaming by lawyers and others was holding up claims in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. But I say again to the member that this case was before the courts. I also recall a National Government doing two things: deregulating the building industry in the 1990s so there were no rules and abolishing the Apprenticeship Act so we would not retain or train young people to become true building professionals—and that member should remember that. 
Bob Clarkson 
: The Minister tended to criticise Mrs Dicks but how can he criticise her for going to the High Court rather than the Government’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service when she went to the service initially but was told she would have to wait 3 years for a hearing? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I want to make it very clear to this House that in no way did I or will I ever criticise Mrs Dicks. She is the victim in this. I have been on record as criticising the dodgy builder and the dodgy building inspector who signed off Mrs Dick’s house as being weathertight when there was a big thing called the sun coming through the roof because a big chunk of the roof was missing—and that member with his history and his party were party to that ultimately with their so-called deregulation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is out of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just realised that we should mention these things at the first opportunity. In replying to Mr Clarkson the Hon Clayton Cosgrove misled the House with two of his answers. Firstly in respect of his answer about deregulation of the building industry I say that it is not the case. Secondly in respect of the ending of the apprenticeship scheme I say that that also is not the case. What is our remedy? It perhaps could be that we write to you and go through the process of determining whether this is a breach of privilege etc. It would be simpler if the Minister just apologised for misleading the House in the way he did. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Firstly in 1991 the Building Act was passed which substantially deregulated the building industry and led to subsequent problems. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order! 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Secondly the National Government repealed the Apprenticeship Act. That is a fact of life. Mr Birch repealed the Apprenticeship Act which led to a subsequent massive decline in the number of apprentices. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not a point of order anyway because it is a debatable matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
:. Would the member please be seated. That is the point and that was obviously the response. It is a debating matter. There is a general debate coming up in a moment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the speech made by George Hawkins in which he said that National had no right to claim credit for deregulating the building industry because the work was all done by the Labour Government prior to that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection. I just remind members that we will hear the next question and its answer in silence.