Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): In dealing with Part 2 I want to also return to the regulatory impact statement in respect of a number of matters. I just note—and the Committee and those listening at home should note—that the Opposition has raised a series of pretty serious questions in Part 1. There has not been one call from a Government speaker and there has not been one call from the Minister in the chair Michael Woodhouse who is not the portfolio holder but none the less has a plethora of venerable officials behind him. There has been not one call not one question answered and that speaks volumes.Either the Government or the Minister—and he could be because he is not the portfolio Minister—is not confident in answering those questions but you know you do have pieces of paper you do have eminent officials who could provide that. I am sure they are very willing to. In fact I suspect they have written down on pieces of paper what the answers are. But there has been not one response to any of the issues raised so one could be forgiven for thinking as we go through Part 2 and raise further questions that they will not be given houseroom by the Minister or the Government. That is how seriously they take this issue. Maybe they cannot answer the questions. But we will give it a go anyway.In referring to the executive summary in the regulatory impact statement one of the items that is cited is “Government provides assistance to owners to access bank finance for remaining agreed repair costs by way of loan guarantees to banks for loans made to owners eligible for the assistance and who can meet the bank’s lending criteria.” On the face of that—and my question flows from this—that is a good thing to do. I would argue that most of these homeowners could not of their own volition gain assistance from a bank given the equity in their home or the value of their home has been destroyed. The question is they are provided with some sort of loan assistance from the Government if they can meet the bank’s lending criteria.My question to the Minister is that you cannot have one without the other—it is a bit chicken-and-egg—so what sort of lending criteria are there? It says in the regulatory impact statement that the Government has liaised with the banks and has spoken with the financial institutions so what sort of special lending criteria might be put in place? Again banks will be interested in having and securing some sort of value over the asset or the residual asset so what in essence does that mean in practical terms? I commend the Government for promoting the notion that it is somehow going to stand—if we read this—as some guarantor or whatever but I would like some explanation as to how that should work.I also note in the regulatory impact statement that “Councils have identified the risk of being joined into litigation between the homeowner and other parties (e.g: developer builder architect) as a significant barrier to them agreeing to sign up to the scheme.”Have all local authorities signed up is the question. If they have not how many are exposed to litigation and therefore have been reluctant to sign up? This goes to the heart of Part 2 as we look at the criteria as certain applications continue on the basis of amended law as to whether affected claimants are deemed to be eligible in terms of claims. It goes right to the heart of it because if they cannot get their part of the assistance package up then this is meaningless to them. It does not work.I would be grateful for some sort of explanation as to what paragraph 10 third bullet point of the regulatory impact statement means in practical terms. What actually is the Government going to do? Is it going to stand guarantor for everyone? If it is I would have thought that with the Government being the biggest entity in New Zealand the banks’ lending criteria would be met absolutely. You cannot get any better security than a Government-backed guarantee. If the Government is going to do that then what is the projected cost? Again the regulatory impact statement does not make any reference to that. Is it an open-ended envelope for between 42000 and 89000—as per the advice we have—estimated claimants? What is the quantum? What is the exposure to the Crown? What is the fiscal risk? I think all these are particular issues that have not been addressed in any of the documents that lie on the Table or in the legislation I have seen.Again just to roll the dice and have another go having faith in the Government as sometimes we do I would be grateful for an explanation that pertains to all parts—the whole legislation—as to what paragraph 4 in the regulatory impact statement means: “Therefore there is uncertainty about the costs and benefits of the option(s).” That pertains right across the legislation to every clause and I think that is a key issue. There are specialist lawyers who will be looking at this very carefully and they will want to know what that means.The most cynical amongst us could simply say that the Government members given that they are not interested in taking any calls—no one on the Government side has responded to any of the issues that have been raised—are not confident. Maybe the new backbenchers are not—you cannot blame them too much—but surely the Minister backed by a department is confident. He is duty-bound to put on the record of the House in the Committee stage answers to some of these questions. The portfolio Minister I would have thought would want to take a high degree of interest in this and answer some of those questions. After all we know that Nick Smith is very good at bandying around slogans and slinging the proverbial when it comes to these issues in question time and at other times in this Chamber but when it actually comes to a surgical precise examination of his legislation the silence is deafening from the Government—completely deafening. Nick Smith may pay a price for that as he pushes this legislation through the House.So out of goodwill maybe the Minister might have another crack. I am looking at the officials and they look like they are itching to provide some answers. That would be great. They cannot do that.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member cannot refer to them.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. These answers can come only from the vacuum that is the Government and at the moment the silence is deafening. Every leaky home owner would appreciate some clarity tonight. Every leaky home owner I think would look with goodwill at this legislation—Part 1 Part 2 and the whole shebang—hoping that it will assist them.I just find it astounding that after all Nick Smith’s rhetoric over years when the rubber hits the road in the Committee stage there are no answers. Either that says this is just a lot of political horse puckey or a bit of propaganda and there is not really a commitment to solving it—this is just a bit of a patch-up job—or maybe we have raised some pretty genuine issues that cannot be answered. If officials are saying they are uncertain about the costs and benefits of a proposal that is a pretty heavy-duty statement for officials to make about legislation. Normally a Minister would leap to their feet and deal with that issue and extinguish it. Tonight we have had absolutely none of that—no explanation. Maybe we will get one; there are still 7 or 8 minutes to go before the final bell and I think it would actually pay the Government to stand by its own legislation and if Government members believe in it and believe it would work provide that certainty.