Mark Ron: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2066. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. I have got to say from the outset that although it is nice to have a nice warm fuzzy feeling in the House about the Government coming forward with a wonderful piece of legislation to deal with a problem that has persisted over how many decades now and everybody in the House including New Zealand First saying to the Government: “Look this bill makes a lot of sense and we need to tidy up the loose edges.”—I was not here in 2011 when the last piece of legislation went through. But what stands out to me and I take it from the previous speaker’s speech is that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.I think it is very timely right now while the bill is on the floor of the House to remind people how we got there because it has been due to those decisions that were taken back in 1991 when a Government focused on deregulation. And the funny old thing is that I still hear every day how deregulation is such a wonderful thing. Self-regulation is another term that is often thrown at the House and we are told consistently and persistently particularly by one party that responsible people in the relevant industries out there regulate themselves in the best interests of their fellow New Zealanders. We are told that they regulate themselves appropriately because they want to protect their professional standards and they certainly do not want to be labelled as people who provide tardy or shoddy workmanship.But 1991 was an era that we forget and ignore at our peril. Here we are—1991 was the year when the Building Act was changed and it came into effect in 1994. Homes that were built between—what was it—about 1994 and 2004 are the homes that we are still here in 2015 attempting by this legislation to put right and to fix.Again it stands out even to the dimmest wit on the planet that here we have a piece of legislation that went through in 1991 and it cost the nation an absolute fortune just to get the legislation through. It was highly controversial under what could be described only as the most right-wing National Government that ever walked the planet—or maybe this one is heading that way too now; I do not know—and it was subsequently proven to be flawed and faulty legislation. What is the bill? Well we have heard today: $11.2 billion it has cost.Let me put it to you this way. I know a number of families and I have a lot of friends mainly in the cities who bought houses unsuspectingly not knowing that they were leaky homes. It is not hard to find people who have been driven to take—well some in fact took their lives because of the trauma that they were put through. I have got to send a message from New Zealand First to the Government: let this be the last piece of legislation that comes to this House to deal with the leaky home syndrome. Let this be the last time that this House—and please take advantage of the goodwill that exists right across the floor of this House to get this right and do the right thing by those New Zealanders who actually got shafted. They were shafted by shoddy National Government thinking in 1991. I want to say that again because I am starting to see the same syndrome on the Government benches today. It is almost like that famous Cullen line: “We won. You lost. Eat that!” for ever. Better start listening people—better start listening.To have New Zealanders having to redress this issue and have Parliament having to revisit this issue time and time again—you know is it going to come back to the House in another 4 years’ time? Are we going to make mistakes along the way? I just hope and I am confident that the Local Government and Environment Committee—there is a pretty good team in there. I am confident and I am hopeful—I am hopeful—that we will work together.The issues that stand out to me that I do worry about are around the issue of “qualifying claimant”. We have got a member of our family who is still trying to resolve issues with a leaky apartment that they live in which is part of a body corporate arrangement. Why does that problem still persist today in 2015? Because we do not seem to get it right in Parliament do we? And no matter how many times we come back to the House no matter how fine the speeches may be and no matter how much support is offered by the Opposition parties of the day to the Government of the day. And it is interesting that each time—well the last two times it has been National Governments in here.Let us just do this right. New Zealand First is putting it on the line here: we will work constructively with the committee; we will work constructively with the Government. I will be talking at length with Local Government New Zealand to get a better understanding as to how the councils are dealing with these issues. We understand the complexities and the legalities that so torment everybody including councils. We understand that the people who are being double hit on all of this are those taxpayers who are also ratepayers who are getting hit as they fund the financial assistance package with 25 percent from either direction. From our perspective in New Zealand First it has been a pretty sordid and sorry affair and one that blights New Zealand’s reputation.So there are two things I will leave the Government with to think about: let this piece of legislation and let this issue be for ever a reminder to this Government and to National Party people who think this way that deregulation is not the be-all and end-all and that deregulation does not protect innocent New Zealanders who actually trust in builders and trust in architects to deliver them quality advice. When you offer up opportunities to let loose the cowboys and the architects who want to experiment and when you create a situation in legislation that leaves local government inspectors in a difficult position where they are not really quite sure what their position is then everybody pays.This has been a sordid and sorry affair and I for one hope that this is the last time we have legislation on this matter. I would actually like to see coming out of this an indication as to how many leaky houses are still left out there. I know from my time in local government that there is great fear amongst ratepayers particularly with the emerging amalgamation that there is a second tranche of leaky homes that are still out there to be dealt with. We are hearing consistently in the Wairarapa about getting amalgamated into a super-city Wairarapa ratepayers do not have any leaky homes in their territorial authorities actually. Carterton had two—two—and that was it. They are good builders over there good architects good people. No rip-offs no cowboys. But we have paid for the restoration and the refit of those houses. For ratepayers in the Wairarapa now to be told that they may end up having to pay a share of what 1000 1500 or 2000 extra houses—that is something they worry about. That would be on top of whatever contributions they might have to make in a super-city model to the earthquake strengthening of what 740 buildings in the Wellington basin?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am just going to encourage the member to come back to the bill now.RON MARK: I will come back to this bill but those are the issues that test us over in the Wairarapa. Those are the issues that councils are talking about. I look forward to working constructively with the committee to see whether we can deal with this matter once and for all.