Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:641;Page:11298] 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill 
Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed from 16 August. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Before the debate was interrupted on Thursday my colleague the Hon Judith Tizard on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction was reminding the House that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill does not require that general damages must be awarded. Indeed prior to the High Court judgment such damages had been awarded in only a minority of determinations—just 21 percent. Moreover when there has been an award the amounts have been modest averaging just $9450. The bill clarifies and confirms Parliament’s original intent. It restores to the adjudicators and the tribunal deciding these claims the ability to award general damages for mental anxiety or distress in the same way as do the courts. 
The Minister wishes to thank John Gray and other Leaky Homes Action Group members for their strong support for this amendment. Also thanks are due to the New Zealand Law Society for its active and expert guidance which has been of great value and to the Social Services Committee for the efficiency and focus with which it has dealt with this legislation within a very short time frame. 
The Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill amends the Building Act 2004 by extending the date by which territorial and regional authorities have to be accredited and registered as building consent authorities or by which they have to transfer their building consent functions to an accredited and registered building consent authority—for example a neighbouring council—to perform from 30 November 2007 to 30 June 2008. The legislation also allows more time for territorial authorities to transfer to regional councils the responsibility for issuing building consents for new dams built in their areas. A fail-safe provision allows for the extended deadline to be extended by regulation rather than legislation having to come back to the House in the unlikely event that an extension becomes necessary. 
The amendment to the Building Act 2004 establishes an accreditation and registration scheme for building consent authorities. The scheme will strengthen New Zealand’s building controls system. The aim is to ensure that building consent authorities have the resources and the systems in place to deliver high-quality building consents in a timely manner. Guidance and support is being provided to councils and the Government has provided a $3 million accreditation assistance package. Councils have a strong commitment to achieving accreditation by November or making alternative arrangements. Local Government New Zealand is also providing strong leadership to the sector on this issue. I am advised that so far 72 out of 73 territorial authorities have applied to become accredited and one the Palmerston North City Council has achieved accreditation. Nine regional councils are arranging to transfer their building consent functions to a registered building consent authority and the remaining three are preparing to apply for accreditation. 
Although the vast majority of local authorities are on target for meeting their original deadlines some councils particularly small rural councils with capacity or capability limitations may not complete accreditation or transfer their functions to a registered building consent authority on time. Making the leap to the higher standards that the Government has set for building consenting inspection and approval so as to protect prospective homeowners is proving to be a challenge for some. A few councils simply need more time to come up to speed and make the necessary changes. The Government is making no criticism of those councils; they are working hard to get across the line. Extending the date simply reflects that councils are committed and working hard towards achieving accreditation or transferring their building consent functions but that some are unlikely to be able to complete the process by November 2007. Allowing these councils an additional 7 months ensures the certainty continuity and confidence of building consent activities the building industry and people building and renovating. This is a prudent and common-sense action to take as is using an existing bill before the House to give effect to this action. I commend these bills to the House. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak this afternoon to the third readings of this legislation—the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill—again because this is the second time I have been prepared to deliver my third reading speech. This legislation certainly has been very interesting. For someone who is new in the House it has been extremely interesting. The way these bills have been put together is actually quite disgraceful. I will give the House a little bit of the history on how we got to where we are today with this legislation. 
In 2002 we started off with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act initially brought in to address the incidence of leaky homes. In 2006—only 4 years later—that legislation was then repealed and the Government brought in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. From what I understand both those bits of legislation were rushed through the House did not go through the process in a timely manner and were rushed through the submission process. Now 1 year later in 2007 the legislation before us is again being rushed through by the Government without it being drafted properly or having gone through the processes properly. This legislation is to remedy distress and mental anxiety something National had suggested should be addressed back in 2006. Obviously we were ignored because we are here exactly 1 year later discussing the matter yet again. 
But what concerns me most is the process in relation to this legislation—legislation that I have been involved with in the Social Services Committee. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill came before the Social Services Committee but we did not get submissions because yet again there was no time for these. The legislation was rushed through the select committee to get it to the stage it is at today. So we went through the first reading the select committee stage the second reading the Committee stage then to the third reading. And whoops! What happened at the third reading stage? It was found that we had got it wrong; that it was not quite right. So instead of going into the third reading the bill was referred back to the Committee of the whole House and this is where it gets really interesting. If we want to talk about writing good legislation then this legislation is not a good example; this is talking about rushing legislation through the House. 
What happened last week when we went back into Committee on the bill? What happened was that Supplementary Order Paper 133 was tabled. What was on that Supplementary Order Paper? It had on it amendments that included extending the time during which a territorial authority may act as a building consent authority. That is very interesting because that actually has nothing to do with leaky homes. So how come this measure got attached to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill of 2007 as a New Part 3? The measures on Supplementary Order Paper 133 were rushed through without going to the select committee and without going through the submission process. They were rushed through. 
Clause 18 in New Part 3 on Supplementary Order Paper 133 extends the period a territorial authority may act as a building consent authority. Why has this happened? The reason is that once again the Government had got it wrong. It put in the wrong date by which territorial authorities must put the building consent authority process in place so this amendment has been put through on the back of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill which has to do with distress and anxiety and nothing at all to do with leaky homes. Then what happened? We turned round and what did we find? We found Supplementary Order Paper 134. That is interesting is it not? What does that tell us? That Supplementary Order Paper splits off New Part 3. So the Trojan Horse amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 133 goes through attached to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill of 2007 then Supplementary Order Paper 134 splits it off. All of a sudden we have two bills one of which has not been to a select committee or through the submission process. It has just been sneaked through to fix yet again an error by this Government in its legislation. What did it create? It created the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill. That is very interesting is it not? 
Let me talk about that bill. I went back and had a look at what has gone through recently in relation to the building sector. The Building Bill was enacted in 2004 but oh no we had to improve that because once again that was legislation that had been rushed through. Then in 2007 the Building Amendment Bill was introduced to make the 2004 legislation more workable. Now also in 2007 we have the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill. Why could that not have gone into the Building Amendment Bill that was introduced just this year? 
We have to ask ourselves what sort of legislation we are writing here. I have to say that it is not very good legislation. It is actually disgraceful that we get away with writing this sort of legislation. What does the building industry think of this legislation? It would not know what to think because it is so confusing. It is confusing even for us when Supplementary Order Papers keep appearing and legislation keeps getting repealed and new legislation brought in to improve the workability of previous legislation. Why can the Government not just get it right the first time? What is so hard about writing good legislation? What is so hard about going through a process and having respect for that process? What happened in respect of this Supplementary Order Paper and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill was that those pieces of legislation went right outside the process. In fact this has not happened since 1995. Why has it happened all of a sudden? It is a matter of: “Whoops! We’re fixing another mistake in legislation that has let this country down again.” 
Why did we have this legislation to begin with? The reason is leaky homes. That is exactly why the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill came in to begin with. So we have this new legislation to fix something that is going wrong. How do people get leaky homes in New Zealand? They get them because there is moisture in their homes. That is what creates leaky homes. This can be for a number of reasons—for example it can be due to not putting battens between internal/external walls. But let me think; there is one more thing we are talking about here. Leaky homes are still being built under the current Government. How can that be? Shall we talk about copper piping because I am really good on copper piping at the moment. At the moment copper piping from Britain has about a 50-year warranty from Australia it has about a 50 or 60-year warranty and from China? Copper piping from China has no warranty. Cheap copper piping is going into new spec homes and that is being allowed to happen under this Government. We know that copper piping has been tested by the industry. Those tests found that it would last 7 years—and that is it. So under this Government leaky homes are still being built. 
What does this legislation do to help those homeowners? It does absolutely nothing at all. In fact what does the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill do to help those people who have leaky homes right now? It does absolutely nothing. All that people with leaky homes want is to have their homes fixed. It is not actually too hard to work out what we need to do. What is this Government doing to fix the homes of these people? It is doing absolutely nothing. It is a matter of: “I know let’s bring in another bit of legislation. Let’s rush it through. Let’s give them a remedy for distress and anxiety.” Does that fix people’s homes? No it does not. If this Government would just commit to fixing leaky homes these homeowners would not have distress or anxiety; they would have homes that are fixed. But in the last 8 years under this Government these homes have not been fixed. 
What happens when people go to mediation or to a tribunal to get their homes fixed? I will tell members exactly what happens: nothing. They may get rewarded for damages or get their houses fixed but how often are those homeowners actually getting the money that is awarded to them? The answer is that it is not very often at all. So this Government has done nothing. This legislation is doing nothing to stop the leaky home situation or to give people some compensation to get their homes fixed. Currently it is estimated that there are 15000 people out there who have leaky homes. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: When were they built? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: They are being built right now under that Minister’s Government. They are being built right now in 2007. Shall we talk about copper piping? Under this Government copper piping is being put into spec homes right now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: They were being built by National in the 1990s with no supervision. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: The Labour Government is currently building leaky homes and the Minister cannot deny it. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Bollocks! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Sorry what was that? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Rubbish! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Before that? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Bollocks! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Ooh and we have many listeners caught in the Auckland traffic tonight going along at 1 kilometre an hour and listening to this Labour Government. And what did it come out with? What was that word again Mr Harry— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: When did those houses first fall down? Why won’t you tell us? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: No; and I am telling people that if they are building a home or buying a spec home they should be careful because under this Labour Government they might be getting a leaky home. 
Bob Clarkson 
: It had 8 years! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: It has had 8 years. How many people have received real compensation from this Government to fix their leaky home? I am not talking about $5000 or $10000 but about real compensation. Some homes need about $90000 to fix them. How many of those people under this Labour Government—[ 
Interruption 
] What is this legislation doing to fix leaky homes in New Zealand? Absolutely nothing will be done under this Government to fix those leaky homes. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. One would think in listening to the previous speaker Katrina Shanks that New Zealand did not have a problem with leaky homes. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: She has amnesia. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I will not comment on the state of her memory. I ought to say that listeners out there in Auckland who are gridlocked but who left their offices about 2 hours ago and want to get home before the 6 o’clock news will be amazed at the comments made by National speakers so far. 
During earlier debates on the weathertight homes legislation the House heard from speakers who opposed some of the processes adopted to give urgency to the process so that the legislation could be progressed to this stage. But those views expressed by some members seemed to be at odds with the stated policy of their party were it to become the Government and that policy is to cut Government spending. I refer specifically to the matter surrounding the motion to suspend Standing Order 261 for the purposes of allowing Supplementary Order Paper 133 to be included in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. I was amazed to hear the previous speaker ask what that Supplementary Order Paper did. Clearly it provides the opportunity for local bodies that have not yet been accredited to be given an extension of time in order for that to be done. As of today only one local body has that accreditation. 
We heard from Opposition members that the motion to suspend the Standing Order was at the core of what could be constitutional abuse that the motion should be applied only in a crisis and that New Zealanders were being denied the opportunity to express their views through the select committee process. Of course Opposition members also felt that they were being denied the opportunity to pour scorn on the bill during the different stages. Since the introduction of the Supplementary Order Paper I have not received any communication whatsoever from any constituents complaining about the process—not least from owners of leaky homes. 
Bob Clarkson 
: You must be deaf. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Well I do not know about that. I know for sure that I have not received any communication from anyone expressing concern about Supplementary Order Paper 133 or the suspension of Standing Order 261. 
I ask members opposite in respect of their party’s policy to cut Government spending costs whether they really think that the legislative process does not come at a cost. I would have thought they would welcome the motion. But they did not. As to the argument that the motion should have been moved only if there were a crisis I ask those members who may not think that this situation is a crisis to put themselves in the shoes of people who have had to endure the trials of owning a home then finding it subjected to the leaky home syndrome. I am willing to wager that those people are feeling that their circumstances are those of a crisis. 
We are talking about the suspension of one—and I mean one—of Parliament’s Standing Orders for the purpose of expediting and including the Supplementary Order Paper into this legislation. If people were being denied the opportunity of having a say on Supplementary Order Paper 133 which merely allows local authorities to have the available time to be accredited extended from 30 November 2007 to June 2008 then I certainly did not hear or receive any comments of concern from any member of the public or of an organisation wanting to make submissions on it. 
Having said that I want to come back to the legislation. It follows a recent High Court decision that the intent of Parliament for both the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act of 2002 and 2006 was lost by giving due recognition to adjudicators or the Weathertight Homes Tribunal to award general damages for mental distress and anxiety. I know that a couple living in the eastern beaches area of the electorate in which I reside were not able to get the full amount they believed they were entitled to because the court ruled against the adjudicator who dealt with their case. It has been said that this legislation may be too late for them. I am not quite sure whether there is a way to deal with their issue but in terms of other homeowners who are in a similar situation and have yet to have their cases adjudicated on I believe that the legislation will be of some assistance to them. 
This legislation restores to those two entities—adjudicators and the tribunal—the ability to award general damages for mental anxiety or distress in the same way as the courts do. New Zealand First believes that this amendment will restore claimant confidence that their Weathertight Homes Tribunal claims can be resolved in a one-stop shop without the need to seek general damages through the courts. This legislation we believe will save litigants further costs. New Zealand First supports this aspect of the legislation particularly if the award for general damages will help homeowners to regain the position they were in prior to having to suffer the burden that the leaky home syndrome brought to them and their families. The search for resolution has taken such homeowners on a long journey and we believe that the legislation will help to shorten that journey particularly in terms of reaching a resolution. Measures aimed at improving the credibility of and speeding up the process—as long as they are fair and just—will always have the support of New Zealand First. 
This is remedies legislation not repairs legislation. Some of the debate that has been proffered to this House particularly from those who oppose the process of the legislation has been wrong. As I mentioned during earlier readings the legislation has the support of Mr John Gray of the Leaky Homes Action Group who praised the Government for its speedy reaction towards closing a loophole that might deprive victims of getting some recompense. 
New Zealand First supports this legislation as it allows for the award of general damages that will put a person back near the position that he or she was in before suffering any harm. Claimants value these awards as an acknowledgment of the stress they have suffered. New Zealand First believes this amendment is a requirement because the parent legislation itself following a couple of court cases showed that the intent of the original Act had been lost. We support the notion of allowing local bodies to have extended time to be able to become accredited and therefore issue the required documentation that will help to address this situation. In conclusion I make the point that New Zealand First supports this legislation. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the third reading of the bills arising from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill because we agree with the Government and other parties that the amendment is needed. 
Given the nature of the original bill and the fact that we had just finished dealing with a much larger bill on the same topic the select committee process was mercifully brief. The main input from an external body was from the New Zealand Law Society whose opinion had been formally sought because of the legally technical nature of the bill’s content. That august organisation the Law Society agreed with the Government—and I think most if not all of the parties in this House—that the amendment is desirable given the result of a High Court decision of 29 March this year which determined that general damages could not be awarded as compensation for mental anxiety or stress under the weathertight homes legislation. 
As someone who sat on the Social Services Committee when it looked at the earlier bill and heard and read submissions from so many people adversely affected by various forms of leaky building damage it was impossible not to agree with the Government and the Law Society that this court ruling although understandable from a legal perspective should be overturned by Parliament. It is unquestionable that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal should be able to award general damages for the huge mental distress and anxiety that leaky homes have caused so many people and that is what this amending legislation achieves. The Green Party therefore welcomes the unusual speed with which this legislation has completed its progress in the House and looks forward to the clarification it will bring to all involved. 
In finishing however I would like to make one final comment in support of what my colleague Hone Harawira from the Maori Party said in the House during earlier debate on the original bill. Although he acknowledged as the Green Party certainly does the reality of the enormous distress suffered by the owners of homes affected by weathertightness issues we also would like to see a lot more political and public awareness of the realities of housing stress still caused by substandard and inadequate housing in so many communities around Aotearoa New Zealand. A disproportionate number of those living in permanently inadequate unhealthy overcrowded and/or insanitary housing are tangata whenua. Many of them live in places like Tai Rawhiti and Northland. We would like to see the same sort of attention given to the ongoing problems of these New Zealanders—many of whose housing issues are just seen I think as too difficult to fix—as is given to those affected by the leaky homes crisis addressed by the legislation before us today. 
In regards to the second bill that has come out of the original bill—the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill—the Green Party also supports this because we appreciate the difficulties some local councils have had in meeting the deadline to become registered. Although we think it is a pity that a Supplementary Order Paper had to be introduced in an urgent manner to get the legislation through at the same time we recognise the reality of what the local territorial authorities are facing and we look forward to the day next year when all the authorities are registered. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tenatatou katoa. Over the last 3 months as the debate over this bill has progressed through the House the Maori Party has consistently raised the question of how anyone can ignore the realities of lower-grade housing for Maori when debating the enhancement of leaky homes claims for other New Zealanders. We have speculated when the day will be when the “Substandard Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill” will come before this House. We have talked about the range of housing-related bills before Parliament this term including data matching for Housing New Zealand Corporation clients and the first and second weathertight homes bills yet none of these bills has come close to addressing the kinds of issues that we have raised throughout the debate. 
I recall the words of Dover Samuels last year who confirmed that Housing New Zealand Corporation had assessed some 1527 families living in substandard housing in Northland. Mr Samuels estimated that about 80 percent of people living in substandard housing in Northland were in fact Maori and that even if 1000 houses were built tomorrow that would not solve the issues. The funny thing is that we know that there are probably enough houses for all the families in New Zealand if they were distributed according to need rather than according to wealth. Instead the rich live in spacious comfortable surroundings while in poor parts of the country people squeeze into small overcrowded and dilapidated homes. We have made these points and we will continue to raise them in the House and outside. 
We have described substandard houses as unsafe dwellings where people may rely on open flames for light heat or cooking. These houses lack basic services such as a freshwater supply and a sanitation system. The infrastructure in some of these areas has been badly neglected as is evidenced in poor sewage disposal and inadequate water and electricity supplies. We know of communities where the septic tanks are failing greatly increasing the risk of hepatitis A and other infectious diseases. These are life and death issues and we must never forget the challenge of overcrowded substandard and dangerous housing conditions. 
But we in the Maori Party in line with our belief in manaakitanga do also acknowledge the deficiencies and the traumatic impacts that have been suffered by the victims of leaky homes so we have consistently supported the passage of this bill through the House in order to ensure that these people are entitled to the general damages for mental distress and anxiety that they should expect. But a funny thing happened just 10 days ago. Immediately prior to the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill suddenly it was recommitted with the impact of Supplementary Order Paper 133. In effect the last-minute change brought about what can only be described as an abuse of privilege of parliamentary procedure. 
We started off this whole debacle back in 2002 when under urgency Labour rushed through legislation to set up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 which was eventually repealed. I take note of Minister Duynhoven’s comments before that these issues in fact happened during the regime of the National Government. Three years later the Government realised it had made a massive stuff-up so a whole new batch of rushed laws was sped through the House. If that was not bad enough another bandage had to be applied so a whole new series of laws is put before us and 10 days ago when one would think no more mistakes could be made the Minister realised that more last-minute emergency surgery had to happen in order to set things right. 
The request for the registration extension from 30 November 2007 to 30 June 2008 looks like a mere technicality from afar. The emergency amendment was dreamed up to extend the period for which a council may act as a building consent authority without registration. It was sold to the House as a mere courtesy to allow more time for councils to get their acts together and get registered by 30 June 2008. That may not be a big deal except that what Labour did was to override the Standing Orders so instead of going through the normal process of working through a Supplementary Order Paper Labour decided to surrender the Standing Orders and put forward a motion to suspend them. 
In the weekend as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released its damning report on New Zealand’s recent race relations policy I came across this quote from Martin Luther King which I thought the House would appreciate in the context of this bill. Martin Luther King said: “Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.” The “lie of inferiority” that this Government believes it can get away with is to push aside any process and to suspend procedures when it suits in order to create a particular type of truth—the Labour truth. Labour pushed through the Electoral Integrity Act in which it validated the invalid and made legal the illegal. In this bill Labour has reduced the time that is available for the perusal of the fine print at select committee. Labour says that giving kids a slave rate of 80 percent of the normal rate—80c to every dollar—that an adult earns is actually a triumph for Labour because it can announce a pay rise 3 months later. 
The Standing Orders of Parliament are here to do just that—to create order. The Standing Orders provide a system of checks and balances that honour the investing of legislative power in Parliament. These are the principles and standards that apply. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tenatatou. The Maori Party wants to finish by saying that we will not block the rights of New Zealanders who will benefit from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. We think that it is very important that this legislation is put in place to ensure that people are able to get the remedies that they deserve. Kia ora. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This legislation the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill is about rotting homes but it is also as much about the rotten Government and the awful way in which it has dealt with building laws. We have both the problem with the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and that legislation and we are also fixing up the difficulties with the Building Act 2004. 
The first point I will make is that this legislation is a complete contradiction of what Labour has said to builders. The swansong of the Minister for Building and Construction Clayton Cosgrove has been “Do it once do it right.” Well it is a pity that the Minister has not applied that to the Government’s own building laws. With the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act we had the Government’s first attempt to fix the issue of leaky homes in 2002; that was a mess. The Government came along again with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 after Clayton Cosgrove had said that the Government had to amend the legislation and he asked us to trust him that it had got it right that time; it had not. Now we have this third attempt at trying to get the legislation around fixing leaking rotting homes correct. This legislation is literally the fix-up for the botch-up for the fix-up for the original fix-up. 
The contradiction is that this legislation is exactly what should have been done 5 years ago. The tragedy is this. Five years after the inquiry into leaky homes only 16 percent of claims have been resolved $85 million has been spent on the bureaucracy of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and we have had eight Ministers from this Government responsible for the issue—it has been passed around like a hot potato. That $85 million amounts to $110000 per home—not to fix it but to pay for the bureaucracy of the process when the average settlement is only $70000! The tragedy of this legislative mess is that the dodgy developers and builders have had 5 years to wind up their companies to disappear into the woodwork and to leave the poor old homeowner without anywhere to go. Furthermore the legislation is now resting on the shoulders of councils and ratepayers. The irony is that the Government is having an inquiry into why rates have gone up! The Government need only have a damned good look in the mirror. One of the things that has contributed to that rate rise has been the botch-up that the Government has made of dealing with the issue of leaky homes. 
But this legislation goes further. At a very late stage through an abysmal process where the Government broke the rules of the House and suspended the Standing Orders it introduced changes to the Building Act. Let me just go through the scale of the mess that this Government has made with that 2004 Building Act. Back in my office over the dinner break I went through some of the speeches that were made before that legislation was passed in 2004. I read the contribution from Lindsay Tisch who said that we should oppose the bill because it was a gross overreaction and would add hugely to the compliance costs of the building industry. That member could not have been closer to the truth. We had assurances from the Minister that there would be no increase in compliance costs. Well let us look at the record and see what has happened. 
Last week we heard the submission from the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand to the Commerce Committee. The federation said to the committee that there has been a 900 percent increase in fees and Government levies since the passage of the Building Act. I had to go back to the original submission because I thought that a 900 percent increase was extraordinary. If one looks through the submission from the federation one gets a picture of why New Zealand has a home affordability crisis. We have it because this dumb Government passed a Building Act that has added hugely to the costs and the bureaucracy of building a home in New Zealand. The submission states this: “It takes longer to sort out consent issues now in New Zealand than it takes to build the house.” Is that not ridiculous? Can members opposite think for a moment about how nutty things have become in our country when it takes longer to deal with the paperwork of building a house than it takes actually to build it? 
Take this comment from the Wellington City Council in this very city for example. It said this: “A typical house plan four years ago was three A3 plans and 9 pages. Under the new Building Act we now require 12 A3 plans”—that is a fourfold increase—“and up to 300 pages of supporting documentation.” That is a tenfold increase! How can this Government say with a straight face that it is concerned about issues of home affordability when its track record is that bad? Let me give some other figures. The median price of a section today is more than the average cost of buying a house was when Labour came into Government. The Government is destroying the dreams of ordinary New Zealanders to buy their own homes. We see for instance in the last census period that every year homeownership has dropped by 1 percent. During the period of 2001 to 2006 when Labour was in Government homeownership in New Zealand dropped by a startling 5 percent. For the record for the preceding 5 years under a National Government homeownership figures in New Zealand were stable. You see the Government’s economic policies have meant that interest rates have gone up from 6.7 percent when Labour came into Government to 10.4 percent now. We have seen the average price of a home go up from $172000 when Labour came into Government to an average now of $340000. Is it any little wonder that we have a home affordability crisis with the policies that are being pursued by this Government? 
Then we come to the very minor tinkering in this legislation. Will the legislation fix the 900 percent increase in Government and council levies on building a house? Of course it will not. Will it fix the fact that it now takes longer to get consent to build a house than it takes to actually build it? Not on your life! Will it fix the problem of the tenfold increase in the amount of paperwork that is required to build a house? Of course it will not. So I say to members opposite that they cannot talk about home affordability when they have put in place dumb legislation relating to New Zealand’s building laws. It is absolutely urgent that there is a review of that legislation that we strengthen the commercial disciplines so that builders and developers are held accountable for their building and construction but that we do not impose the massive amount of red tape and bureaucracy that has been imposed by this Government. 
 I say to members opposite that home affordability will be one of the key issues at the next election. Even the slightest look at what this Government has done to the Building Act will see that change of that legislation is absolutely essential if we are going to allow ordinary New Zealanders to have that dream of owning their own home. National says that Labour has failed New Zealand in the way in which it has dealt with leaky homes. It has failed New Zealand with the huge increase in compliance costs that is reducing homeownership in New Zealand. 
We say that these bills are just another sad botch-up from a Government that does not understand the building and construction industry and because of that complete lack of understanding of how we are going to get maximum quality at least cost it is destroying the dreams of New Zealanders to own a home. How many more bills will we get from this Government on the issues of leaky homes and building before it gets them right? I tell the Government to go back to the drawing board—this legislation will not fix the problem. The Government has failed. It is not just the houses that are rotten but also this Government. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 In regard to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill—what a flipping mouthful—I say that we are going to change this legislation to allow claims for mental distress. I find this strange. To fix the mental stress we just have to fix the leaky houses. It is as simple as that. People will get over their stress problems straight after their houses have been fixed. Unfortunately that is how it is. We need to back this legislation because some people will be awarded extra funds to cover their stress and they might get paid. I agree that this could happen. 
I ask who will pay these extra funds. In most cases builders have gone broke and they do not pay out in full. In some cases the owners have been left high and dry. They will not get paid out on the house repairs let alone on the mental stress. I suggest we change this amending legislation. I think it should say to vote to get rid of the Minister. He knows nothing about building houses and that is a fact. The guy knows nothing about building houses. He does not know how to fix this major leaky home problem. This is tearing the hearts out of the people of New Zealand. 
I will just jump in here. Today I saw 40 apartments and one house in Auckland and it is just shocking. These people are torn to pieces. They have no money to fix their homes. We should take advantage of all these amendments and vote on whether this Government should be thrown out. On second thoughts I will withdraw the second part. The people of New Zealand have already decided what they are going to do. We are ahead in the polls of course. Labour is like the setting sun. The lights are going out on this party. 
Would the Minister please get real get a decent policy and get it sorted out. Please think of the people involved and how they are being ripped off. The people of New Zealand who have leaky homes just want their houses fixed; it is as simple as that. They should not have to wait for years to have their homes made waterproof. The Minister keeps saying that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal is a good system. He quoted one person in a select committee one day who had had success with the tribunal. He said that this person had sorted out the whole problem himself. He used no lawyers nobody else just himself. He handled the complete Weathertight Homes Tribunal hearing himself without a lawyer and had won the case. I wonder whether that owner was paid out in full. If he was not paid out in full he will now be very mentally stressed. If this new amendment was in place he could have claimed for mental stress. But the funny thing is that he would not get any more money because the builders have mostly gone broke and will not pay out any more money. It is a waste of time. He would end up with a bigger bill from lawyers who would be chasing this extra money. 
Please tell me how this amendment to allow claims for mental stress will help a person who wins a claim at the Weathertight Homes Tribunal hearing when there is no money to pay that person. I will repeat myself. The builder has closed the company down and there is trouble getting money from the defunct company. The Minister is breaking the hearts of many New Zealanders. I suggest that the Minister should concentrate on getting leaky homes fixed. He should stop playing around with different amendments to the legislation and deal with the problem. We have leaky homes. The owners of these houses trusted their builders and trusted the inspectors who signed the compliance certificates. They have no money to repair these houses. I ask the Minister to think outside the square and deal with this problem. Labour will not find the answer; National will. 
To finish I say that claiming for mental distress and winning the claim but not getting paid out in full will not help. These people will end up with a bigger lawyers’ account as I said earlier. I would like to mention something that the MP for New Zealand First said before. He was talking about the Hartley deal in Auckland. This is a funny case. In actual fact the claim was for $270000 and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal through its system got them $90000. The system completely broke down. The Hartleys took their case to the High Court and they got another $90000 which is a total of $180000. You see I can count. But they are still out of pocket. I happen to know that the builder who built that house has offered them a full and final settlement of $46000. If that case had been up now and they had gone for mental distress where was the money going to come from? The builder has no more money. It is almost a waste of time. We have leaky homes that need fixing and we have people who have no money to finalise their affairs. I say again let us find a way to fix these houses. 
We all make bad decisions at some time in our lives. Labour members make a bad habit of blaming National for this but they have had 8 years in which to sort out this damn problem. I say that it takes a good person to rectify a bad decision if they blame us. The point is that those members are not making that decision. They have had 8 years in which to deal with this problem and they still have not dealt with it. The Government has failed and failed just like the amendments have. Thank you very much. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I do not know who wrote that last speech but it is a bit disappointing that he or she did not have someone better to read it. I repeat a quote made in the  
Independent 
 and in recent newspapers. They quoted Cicero: “Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child.” That applies to the lack of weathertight buildings and the problem of leaky buildings. 
I chaired the inquiry into the weathertightness of buildings and I am sorry that Mr Clarkson seems to have forgotten the cause of the problem or should I say the multiple causes of the problem. We learnt that the main reason was deregulation. Who was responsible for deregulation of the building industry I ask Dr Nick Smith? Who was responsible? We all know who it was. We all know that at the time George Chapman a well-known person— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The member asked me a question so I shall seek leave. I seek leave to table the speech made by George Hawkins Labour MP who said that National had no right to claim any credit— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave for that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
DIANNE YATES 
: At that particular time George Chapman was chair of the then Building Industry Authority. We know because the inquiry went into a great deal of detail about problems with developers problems with private certifiers and their insurance about the lack of apprenticeships and training in the building industry and about the lack of registered builders. In this bill we still have difficulty in catching up and getting trained people to build houses of quality. 
I have been into houses that were built in this time and it has been disgusting to see what has happened. I have seen the rot I have seen the lack of timber quality; so has Clayton Cosgrove. Thank goodness Clayton Cosgrove is dealing with this problem. 
The previous speaker said that we need a good person in charge and Clayton is the person who is dealing with the problem which was caused over a period of time. It is all very well for members opposite to laugh but if they had built a house and put their life-savings into it and then seen their house rot in front of them because of deregulation because of faults in the past they would know it is not only heartbreaking but it ruins a family it ruins those lives and they have a complete lack of money a complete lack of fortune and the lack of a home. Many people are still seeking redress and this bill is a way of dealing with it. 
I thank the Minister for the good work that has been done and I warn members opposite that if they ever get into Government again they should not ever deregulate the building industry again and bring about the problems that National caused in the 1990s. It has been devastating for New Zealand families— 
Bob Clarkson 
: You had 8 years to fix it! 
DIANNE YATES 
: I say to Mr Clarkson that he has had his chance to speak. It is my turn now. He had his 10 minutes. If he did not use them that is his problem. 
But as we have said to not know what has been transacted in former times and to not know the history of this problem is to always be a child. It is important that the problem is dealt with and it is important that people get quality houses. If we look at what is happening overseas even in Sydney the requirements that people have for building mean that we must build decent houses that will last a family more than just 10 years before the timber rots and they find that their house is no longer of a standard and will not last for the next generation. 
There is no excuse for not building a decent house the same as there is no excuse for not building a decent bridge—as any engineer will know. If the Romans could build bridges that are still around today we can certainly build decent houses that do not leak but are weathertight. It is not just a matter of design it is a matter of multiple causes and this bill is dealing with that issue and with how we try to help the people who have been landed with problems that are not of their own making. People expect to know when they get a consent when they have a builder and when they have an architect that the work of those people is up to standard and that they are getting a decent house. We do not expect the ordinary person who is buying a house to have a full knowledge about building to know all the requirements or to know about timber but they can expect to get a decent house—a house that will last them and their family and their family after them. 
Bob Clarkson 
: You are still there! 
DIANNE YATES 
: It is all very well to snigger and laugh but if it happened to one of those members opposite and their family they would be absolutely devastated. Any legislation we can bring to this House that will improve the lot of these people I totally welcome. 
I thank Minister Clayton Cosgrove for the work he has done on this and the decisive action he has taken. Yes it has taken more than one go because the problems were multiple and the problems that were created for individual people were extremely difficult to deal with. Once a problem is there even like rotten timber it is very hard to replace. It is very hard to rebuild a house. As we know there are a whole range of issues around this to deal with such as insurance and compliance. People would rather pay upfront at the beginning than be faced more than 10 years down the track with a house that is falling around about their ears having paid out a huge amount of money for a pup. 
So I thank the Minister for dealing with this issue and I am sorry that the National people on the other side are not taking a more constructive view of a way to give people a decent place to live in and of ensuring that they get value for money and that there is full legal redress for them. 
Bills read a third time.