Bradford Sue: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5076] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I am pleased to report to the House that the Green Party is right behind the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. We know that this issue affects the lives of a large number of New Zealanders. By one count around 15000 households have problems costing close to $1 billion to repair. We know too that the homes built in the laissez-faire years of the 1990s are the worst affected—coinciding with the deregulation of the building industry under the then National Government. The Hunn report in 2002 called what happened then a “major systemic breakdown across the entire building industry”. No one escapes blame—product designers and manufacturers developers builders architects central government the Building Industry Authority local authorities real estate agents and even some private owners. 
The explosive growth in building and development in the 1990s represented a great lost opportunity to upskill the industry and to prepare its workforce to build the future-proof homes we now need in the face of climate change and peak oil—well-insulated healthy energy-efficient homes. As just one example of this right now we need plenty of plumbers who are qualified and capable of installing tens of thousands of solar water heating units in homes and buildings around the country. But instead we have a huge shortage of anyone trained or qualified to carry out a job that will become more and more critical to our energy future and housing future over the next few years. 
Even worse as far as I know even now there is no national industry training plan in place to get the people we need skilled up and capable of carrying out not only solar water heating installation but a whole range of other tasks geared to maximising energy efficiency and reducing our dependence on oil and other unsustainable energy resources. Because of the lack of regulation and planning during the 1990s we are now 10 to 15 years behind the rest of the world. This leaky building problem is icing on the cake. 
The second problem we have beyond the simple fact the leaky building crisis happened is that the resolution services that were set up in 2002 to provide a so-called speedy flexible and cost-effective assessment and claims resolution procedure has not delivered. Right from the start significant problems began to emerge even with the first case in West Auckland where the Waitakere City Council was left to carry the can and pay more than $40000 damages to the owners of a Glendene home because the builders said they had no money. This pattern was repeated over and over again. The council obviously was not particularly happy with the result nor were the homeowners who were left with legal bills of $16000 and not enough money to fix their house. Further legal action dragged the case on even longer. 
Right from this unfortunate start things went from bad to worse. By June 2005 the  
New Zealand Herald  
reported a litany of delays the endless dodging of responsibility by both Government and local government bodies failed mediation some claimants settling for less than the cost of repairs and others ending up falling outside the 10-year time limit on claims. Of course while all that has been happening the people literally living with the problem have had to endure the personal and financial consequences of the original debacle. 
The Green Party is therefore pleased that the Government has seen fit to carry out a review of the resolution services and that it is now acting with reasonable speed in terms of parliamentary process to try to hasten solutions to the problems identified. We are pleased that the bill enlarges the definition of damage to include probable future damage resulting from the original problem rather than just what already exists. We welcome the fact that the bill gives an option for a more comprehensive assessor’s report thereby reducing the need to involve expensive expert witnesses and that it creates a new weathertight homes tribunal within the Ministry of Justice to enhance the independence and authority of the adjudication services. The Greens also appreciate the provision of a fast-track process for low-value claims the class action approach for multi-unit complexes and the promotion of a more investigative approach by the adjudicators which enhances their powers to be proactive during hearings. 
 We do however have just a couple of initial concerns with the legislation. In 2002 my colleague Sue Kedgley was recommending the scrapping of the 10-year liability period for claims. This continues to be our position. Any home identified as a leaky home should be eligible to use the service. Liability should cover houses and apartments built between 1991 and 2004. We also hold some concerns that claimants will be disadvantaged by the operation of confidentiality clauses during mediation. I imagine that the select committee will receive submissions reflecting these and I am sure other concerns. I look forward to being part of the committee process in terms of refining and improving this bill before it comes back to the House later this year. 
Just before I finish I would like to raise one other issue that I think a colleague from the Maori Party might also raise in a moment. I note with interest the speed with which the Government has picked up and taken action on this problem—a problem that mainly affects reasonably well-off people in cities like Auckland and Wellington. I am very conscious of the realities of housing for other people who live in places like Tai Rawhiti and Northland—where people live in papakainga housing in old Maori Affairs housing and in other places—where there is not the same sense of urgency. People are living in houses where the floors have rotted through under the kitchen and bathroom in garages and milking sheds or under dinghies. Some people are just sleeping out or living in overcrowded or hopelessly substandard accommodation of all sorts with no hope of any substantial or real help from the Government to fix their housing crisis. 
Their housing crisis has been there for sometimes over 100 years or longer. Their housing crisis continues for them every day and I think that in this Parliament not enough of us are speaking for those people. I would beg the Government to consider taking more action more rapidly and putting more priority on to the needs of all people in those districts and in other places such as South Auckland as well where people continue to live in accommodation that is beyond the imagination of most people in this House. 
However in conclusion I say that we are happy that this bill is going forward and what I have just said should not detract from the worth of this particular legislation. We have no hesitation in supporting this bill through rapid processes in the House.