Shanks Katrina: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shanks Katrina: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10660. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the title of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. A recent High Court decision means that neither the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 nor the 2006 Act permits adjudicators or the Weathertight Homes Tribunal to award damages for mental stress and anxiety. The amendments are to give the adjudicators and tribunal the same ability as the courts to make awards for general damages for relevant mental distress. Earlier on I covered Part 1 and I would now like to touch on Part 2 which was not touched on and which talks about amendments to the principal Act.  
Basically Part 2 covers the definition of “damages” which means “any form of monetary compensation”. The definition “mental distress” is an adjustment for emotional or mental anxiety or for distress or stress. I stated earlier that the “mental distress” definition would not be necessary if the leaky homes situation simply was fixed in a timely manner. But this bill fails to address that matter. The issue is more than simple: we should not allow homes to be built in such a way that they become leaky homes. We understand about putting battens between walls and about putting sills underneath window fixtures so we should not get leaky homes—it is as simple as that. But no we are building leaky homes and are continuing to build them which is the scary thing.  
If we look at copper piping we see we are bringing in copper piping from Australia which is certified for 50 years. We are bringing in copper piping from England which is certified for 50 years. But we are also bringing in copper piping from Asia which is not certified at all. More and more spec homes have Asian copper piping. Builders are expecting that copper piping to last for approximately 7 years. So all the piping that is going into those homes will eventually cause leaky homes. I would not want to flush my toilet and have the water go up through the tap in my kitchen. That is for sure! So leaky homes are still being built. If we just stopped creating them we would not have leaky homes. If we just solved the issue of leaky homes to begin with instead of dragging it out and with nobody taking responsibility for building them then— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When did it start to happen? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: 1987. It should be noted that in the definition “relevant mental distress” the reference to “claimant” is changed to “claim”. That change widens the definition from the claimant to anybody who may have incurred mental distress from having a leaky home. That is quite fundamental because not only can the homeowner claim now but it is much wider. It could be a relative a neighbour or a builder who has received mental stress from just being related to or near the person who has the leaky home.  
Part 2 also includes new section 50 in clause 10 dealing with the remedies that may be claimed. They include general damages. The remedies should cover all fixing of the leaky home needed to make it a liveable weathertight home and damages for mental stress. We all know that is relevant only if the homeowner receives the compensation and in many cases as Ministers have already stated the homeowner does not always receive that compensation even though it has been awarded. So the Act in effect is not even helping those homeowners to fix their home and get a resolution.  
It must be noted the New Zealand Law Society has been extremely helpful in its submission on the bill ensuring that the legislation is kept simple and easy for the layperson to understand. It must also be noted that the Law Society was the only organisation called upon to comment on this bill—not that it commented on the title.  
If we are to talk about the title that could take all night. In effect the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill could be the “Remedies Only if You Get Compensation Bill” because homeowners are not getting any remedies. Who is paying the money? Lots of these homeowners are not getting remedies. Should we remove the word “(Remedies)” from the title should we say “Leaky Homes Continuing Bill or should the title be “Remedies but Only if the Person has the Money to Pay for Them” meaning that the money has not been put through a trust or company or hidden? What should we call the bill? Should it be the “Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Remedies (Sometimes) Amendment Bill”? Maybe we should call it that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I just remind members that this is a debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 which deal with the title commencement and an amendment to the principal Act. In addition this can be a wide-ranging debate summarising everything that has been discussed this evening.