Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:7173] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief call and firstly draw members’ attention to Supplementary Order Paper 83. The primary legislation we are debating today contained as I said in my previous address some minor drafting errors that the Supplementary Order Paper seeks to correct. Those minor errors arose in respect of the drafting and it is important to ensure that the recommendations of the Social Services Committee are integrated through the amendment bill into the new Act. 
The Supplementary Order Paper contains two parts. The first part relates to Part 1. It sets out amendments required to correct drafting errors and make other drafting improvements; makes an overview of procedural provisions in clause 7 more accurate; makes clearer the definitions criteria and provisions on representatives relating to claims in respect of multi-unit complexes; requires statutory declarations for claims under clause 20; ensures that clause 60 treats existing agreements and contracts in the same way as they are treated in the former Act; and removes remaining references to forms prescribed under the bill. None of those changes represent changes in policy from the amendment bill as introduced and considered by the committee. When we come to debate Part 2 I will outline the issues that relate to the Supplementary Order Paper. 
I will touch briefly on a couple of points. It is interesting that members of the Opposition raised—colourfully—all the problems and historical issues. I am the first to say that there were of course problems and historical issues. Dr Nick Smith himself always neglects to point out one of those issues and that was the abolition of trade training which happened in his time in Government when National abolished the Apprenticeship Act. 
There was a question in respect of ministerial responsibility. The Ministry of Justice will be responsible for the tribunal function only; the rest of the service remains the responsibility of the Minister for Building and Construction which is me. 
In respect of United Future’s point about the land information memorandums the member raised the issue about perhaps placing the information on the certificate of title. The certificate of title is about the property itself rather than the building. When a notice is put on the land information memorandum that is reported and that is the definitive document. We as a department will also be providing a heap of consumer information to folks who are looking to purchase properties. We found that many people—probably most of the members in this Chamber—would check the land information memorandum or instruct their lawyers to do so when they went to purchase a property but the evidence is that many New Zealanders under pressure to buy and secure a property in some cases do not actually instruct their lawyers correctly and do not look at documents in respect of the land information memorandum. 
Paula Bennett 
: How many are going to be settled? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a very interesting point as to how many will be settled. It depends on a number of things. We have a natural justice issue and it is that under the present law and once this legislation is enacted claimants will have the choice as to whether they proceed under their current scheme of arrangement—if they are in the system under the current law—or whether they jump the fence adjust their claim and move forward under the new scheme of arrangement. That is up to the claimants; it is not for members to pontificate as to what the claimants’ legal rights and responsibilities are. 
I also make this point. I note from all the Opposition’s pontificating including that of Dr Smith and Paula Bennett that they are taking free kicks then accusing the Government of being cynical because we propose a bill to fix the problem. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’ll fail. You failed once and you’re failing again. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say to that member and to members of the Opposition that throughout the course of the issue I have not politicised it. When I met with John Gray an eminent New Zealander who will go down in history as a person who does not take a dollar for his services and represents thousands of people who are in strife I made a commitment to him and others that I would not politicise this issue. Yet here we have a stark difference. The Government has a large bill on the table. There are our policies there are our solutions and there are our proposals. Unlike Dr Smith none of us can see into the never-never land. For every speech that Opposition members stood up today to make—Dr Smith Ms Bennett and others in the Opposition—not one solution did they put forward. They threw mud at us they talked about setting up a fund but they did not say the fund was their policy. They talked about interest-free loans. Of course my colleague Chris Carter is putting together now a loans scheme at market rates. It is another solution that we are proposing and it will be announced prior to the implementation of this bill. 
So there was a lot of mud thrown a lot of invective a lot of venality a lot of mean-spiritedness and a lot of hot air—cynical hot air—as those people got up but there was not one policy. If they were genuine about helping those in crisis they would get up and say: “We may disagree with parts of this bill but here are the solutions we think you should implement to make it better.” Not one solution was offered; it was just the usual National Party hot air. As the members of the Leaky Homes Action Group listen here today they will judge the debate for what it is. 
I am reminded of the words of John Gray in an interview on 9 May 2006—the day I announced the proposals I think. The reporter said: “Some say Nick Smith’s leaked lifeline is pure politicking.” The reporter was referring to Dr Smith trying to ramp it up and make political capital out of the announcement instead of actually being critical of it as he is entitled to be and providing analysis. Here is what John Gray said: “Yes it’s a shame that he’s”—that is Dr Nick Smith—“chosen to politicise the whole process because the review outcomes are very positive for leaky-home owners and we are looking forward to the Minister making the announcement in due course.” I gave a commitment to Mr Gray that I would try to help and I intend to do that and this Government has done it and will do it in respect of this bill. 
But it stands as a stark contrast when we as a Government propose a bill and propose our policies and ideas and what do we get from the hollowed-out members on the other side of the Chamber? Zip—apart from a hyperactive member who stands up waves around bits of paper turns red in the face as the antennae and hair stand on the top of his head and gets worked up. Where was his solution where was his policy and why did he kill off trade training which has a direct correlation to this issue because if one deregulates an industry and provides no minimum standards and one is not prepared to train professionals to do the job then that is a recipe for the disaster that a large number of New Zealanders are now feeling impacted upon them? 
Those are our solutions. I stand by them and I believe they will assist those people who need help the most. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.