Jones Dail: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21337] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First regards this issue of weathertight homes so seriously that out of the four calls we are entitled to in this debate of 3 hours we are taking two on this issue. This is the most important issue facing Auckland at the moment and other areas as well. In my view it is more important to Auckland than the transport situation which has greatly improved in recent times. This is a terribly terribly serious situation. Of course we have just heard from a United Future member who said that he does not agree with the Government on this particular issue but he will vote with the Government when it comes to a vote because his party is supporting the Government in supply. So there is a bit of a double standard taking place there for United Future. 
This issue has now reached a situation whereby a court case in Auckland today is so complicated that there are be two plaintiffs and 27 defendants or third parties in the one set of proceedings and that is excluding the local authority. There can be 29 parties in one proceeding and that is an utter disgrace. It is as if families are living in devastation akin to a tsunami. Now if a tsunami had been declared in Auckland this Government would have stepped in and done something. But this Government is failing to do anything at all. It is all very well setting up a committee but that is not what really matters. This problem goes back to the early 1990s when Carter Holt Harvey conned the Building Industry Authority into approving non-boric treated timber generally for timber framing in particular for exterior framing and bottom plates. The authority should have known that inevitably defective or inadequate workmanship would allow moisture through monolithic cladding and cause rot. 
I disagree entirely with the United Future member. If there is a bad set of specifications and a bad set of materials no good workman can fix the problem because it is intrinsically defective. That is the problem United Future and this Government cannot understand. The National Government was warned of the problem. The Labour Government was warned of the problem. Indeed George Hawkins was written to about the problem but as usual he took no responsibility. He did not even bother to read the letter which indicated there would be a problem. 
Now we have these extensive lengthy court proceedings that will go on forever. The time surely has come when we as members of Parliament must accept responsibility and I make that point in particular to Russell Fairbrother and the Minister who tried to make an effort in his speech. New Zealand First says we all have to accept responsibility. I was not here in 1991 or whenever but even those who were here surely must accept responsibility. We must all accept responsibility. We cannot have a situation where Prendos says it is about $10 billion to fix and someone else says it is about $5 billion. The people concerned are living a nightmare day and night and have been for years and years. 
Section 91 of the Building Act which covers the Building Industry Authority makes it clear that it was the Building Industry Authority’s problem. Who is behind the Building Industry Authority? Inevitably it is this Parliament. New Zealand First made the point in this House in 2002 that everyone must get a proper report and get a clear assessment of the loss and the damage—which must be known by now—and that the Government must consider footing the bill. But the problem will never be finalised because of course the problem can occur in cases that we do not even know about today. Really this Parliament has to say that it is the Building Industry Authority’s problem that Parliament is behind the authority and we must accept that. 
Lawyers are confidently predicting that at least in relation to the untreated timber issue the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court will hold that the Building Act did impose a duty of care and negligence in respect of the approval of non-boric treated timber and that ultimately the courts will hold the Building Industry Authority negligent and in breach of that duty of care. That is going to happen in the Supreme Court one day. I say to the Government why wait for 5 or 10 years? Why put up money for lawyers to keep defending these proceedings and delaying the whole thing? This debate today is about the $6 million this Government has put up to defend all these cases. That is all we are debating today. Six million bucks is being paid to Government lawyers but of course what about the lawyers for the other side? As I say in this case 29 parties are involved excluding the local authorities. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Fairbrother can laugh and joke about it. It is a big issue in Auckland; it may not be an issue in Napier. This is a big issue for Aucklanders and New Zealand First says that Parliament has to accept that it is an issue and that we have to front the costs.