Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10654. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I will take just a short call because that speech from Nick Smith has been registered in this Committee by that member. He has only one speech and that is to moan carp and complain. Nowhere in that speech did he tell members what he would have done. He got close to saying that he might write a cheque but he will not say that given the other election promises that he is about to embark on.  
What this bill does and I am sad that the member does not have an understanding of it is to reconfirm a clause that was placed in the new legislation that was transplanted across and that was tested and upheld by two District Court decisions. Normally when one writes a clause it is unlikely that one has any sort of anticipatory caution when that clause has been tested by a court not only once but twice. It was reconfirmed tested and upheld and it was transplanted therefore into the new legislation.  
Unless the member is clairvoyant—we know that he has some issues but I do not know whether he is a clairvoyant—he would not have known that after the provision had been tested by two District Court decisions found and confirmed to be correct and transplanted into the new legislation a High Court judge’s decision would overturn Parliament’s intent even though the law had been tested by two District Court judges and upheld. Maybe the member can see into the future; the rest of us cannot. It was out of the blue.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So was the High Court wrong? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes the High Court was wrong. That is why we are here today. Maybe the member needs to take note read the Standing Orders and find out why we are here. We are here to correct what the High Court did indeed get wrong. The High Court did not reflect Parliament’s intention as confirmed by two District Court decisions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Your law was wrong. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well that is not what the District Court said—twice. But of course the member has a selective memory. I have a bit of a psychological hold over that member. No I am wrong; actually I have not. The whole House has a bit of a psychological hold over that member. The point is this— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take some offence at the remarks from the Minister in the chair. In my speech yes I did give the Government a hard time about this issue but I could make all sorts of personally derogatory comments too. I think the sorts of comments that Mr Cosgrove has made are outside the bounds and I take offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I was considering them to be personal reflections and the member will desist. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. As I have said to the member the reason we are here is to correct what the High Court judge did what the High Court did which was contrary to Parliament’s intent. I say again for the member and I will use small words that that intent in that clause was tested by two District Court judges in two cases and it was upheld. [ 
Interruption 
] And the “tweeties” at the back there would do well to learn by this.  
I would also point out that it is interesting that one of the victims the member talks about is a guy called John Gray. John Gray is head of the Leaky Homes Action Group which represents claimants every day for no cash and no salary—unlike that mob over there. What did John Gray say about this correction? He acknowledged that it could not have been anticipated. Unlike the member for Nelson he does not have a crystal ball. He supports this move because Parliament has moved swiftly to reconfirm what Parliament’s intention in both pieces of legislation was and is—that is to provide for general damages particularly for mental anxiety. So this is actually about assisting people. 
I say to the member that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—and I am on record as saying this—was yes a rush; yes a call to arms to try to assist people. I have said on record and publicly many times that when we move to try to assist people swiftly sometimes we miss things. The service though it resolved cases did not perform in the way we wanted. So we reviewed it we revamped it and now it is about 2 months old and it is resolving cases.  
I cite the case publicly because I have permission to do so of the Rev. David Moore of Christchurch. I cannot say because I do not know what he got in his resolution claim—it is confidential. But I know that in that claim he represented himself he did not require lawyers and he told me that he got swift justice under the new service and 100 percent of what he wanted.  
So I say to the Committee tonight that we can as Dr Smith has done play politics. Tonight we can as Dr Smith has choose to put the boot in but we cannot as Dr Smith does not propose another solution to the problem. We have our solution out there. Yep we have revamped the system I tell Dr Smith. Yep he was right—the first one was not as good as it could have been. That is why we have revamped it that is why we listened to every submitter whom we came across and that is why we have spent a lot of time with people like John Gray from the Leaky Homes Action Group. He is a person I hold in high esteem—more so than that member—because John Gray has no axe to grind and he does not get paid for his services. John Gray won his case under the old system under his own steam. In addition to doing his job and being with his family he spends every day representing and assisting claimants and I might say assisting the department and giving advice— as he did when we revamped the second bill and now as we correct a court decision that did not reflect Parliament’s intent.  
We have a choice here tonight. We can as the member says expedite this bill or we can hear other proposals. The member could rise and tell us exactly what he would do and what his proposal is. If my proposal is wrong I would love to hear his. If my proposal is not cutting the mustard I would love to hear his. The only thing that has come out of the mouth of that National member Dr Nick Smith is the boot going in and politics. And Bob Clarkson has said—I believe that he said this to the select committee—that we should write a big cheque. Well that would of course be the easiest thing for Parliament to do; let us be plain about it. But if we wrote a big cheque as National wants us to do every builder who ripped somebody off every designer who ripped somebody off every architect who ripped somebody off and every council that did not cut the mustard and inspect buildings correctly—all the people who did the wrong—would be let off the hook by the taxpayer who was not responsible. Or we can provide an alternative resolution service for those who cannot go to court and cannot afford it. We can provide an alternative resolution service let those claims be examined and drill in to the liable parties and get the money from them. But if tonight it is National’s policy to write a big cheque let all the dodgy builders and all the cowboy developers off the hook and have the general taxpayer pay for the lot then I would be grateful if Dr Smith and his colleagues would place that on the record. I would like to go out and tell communities that that is what their policy is.  
In conclusion I say that this bill simply reconfirms Parliament’s intent in the previous legislation as tested and upheld by two District Court decisions. Two District Court decisions said that the provision was valid and that the intent was right—that general damages can be allowed and awarded. But then out of the blue a High Court judge made a judgment. Well I am afraid that this is the highest court in the land—it is called Parliament—and Parliament’s intent was not reflected by that judgment. John Gray agrees with that the victims who have written to me agree with that and tonight we have a change to correct that situation and to allow those claims to proceed.