Sio William: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6827. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): After that intervention I feel that we need to stand for a moment of silence. I am very pleased to have heard the Minister declare his acceptance of the amendments to this particular bill as recommended by the select committee. Also I am happy to convey to the Minister that the Labour Party will be supporting this bill at its second reading. Considering that the committee received only three submissions on the bill and heard only one I think that the committee worked really really well in terms of attempting to ensure the clarity of the bill and that any issues related to those who have the right to make claims in respect of their damaged buildings or homes are being addressed. As the Minister rightly said it gives about 70 claimants the opportunity to be able to receive support through the financial package that has been prepared provided they are able to meet the 50 percent mark.I want to say though recognising the Minister’s ability to take advice from the committee and recognising also that the committee genuinely worked to try to find appropriate recommendations I think we also need to recognise that this came about as a result of John and Helen Osborne who won their legal battle in the Supreme Court last year arguing that the 10-year limitation on leaky building claims should start from the time that the property is issued with a code of compliance by the council and not from the date that the construction is complete. We need to recognise and acknowledge their contribution to this because I think that if they had not done it not only the Government but all of us parliamentarians would have just forged through without due consideration of the impact on the lives of those people whose homes have been affected because of the leaky syndrome.I think that we have got to recognise also that many of these people have just gone through such dreadful and stressful situations. I think that these people had no other choice but to come to the Government failing to receive any support from their local governments who are also facing financial difficulties. If it were not for the efforts of John and Helen Osbourne I do not think that we as a Parliament would have been able to look genuinely at trying to address this particular matter. So I acknowledge those people in particular.I want to say that I thought it was important in the recommendations that the select committee made that it looked at the three specific aims of the billfirst and then made the various recommendations which I am pleased to hear the Minister acceptsfully. The committee recommended inserting via clause 5 new section 125BA into the principal Act which groups together all related matters into one section and it said that this definition would make it clear that a claimant must meet the contribution criteria in either clause 1 of the 2011 Gazettenotice or in any other notice issued by the chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.There is another matter that I just want to highlight and it is that there was some wording to the effect of—I think it said—“all reasonable effort.” I think the committee found that you could not rely on some sort of definition that would be made by the local council etc. and that we had to be quite fair on people and take into consideration all the efforts that they were making to try to achieve an amicable outcome in respect of their claim. There was something that the select committee considered and that was: “We note a suggestion by the Regulations Review Committee that the full content of the Gazette notice contribution criteria be inserted into the Act. However we note that the criteria are the result of PTA negotiations and for future flexibility we consider it unnecessary for them to be included in the Act in full.”Those are really the only comments that I would like to make on this particular bill. The reality is—and I am not trying to be political in this regard—that we need to take note of how the leaky situation occurred. It goes back to 1994 when the National Government of the day decided to open up the market in order to free up the situation and to allow the market to dictate what happens to the building of new homes. The point that I would like to highlight by airing this is simply that this is an example of where the market has failed our communities. So I think that those opponents of the market place need to take note that when the then National Government opened up the building criteria in this regard it actually took away the role of local government in ensuring that the quality and nature of building materials are of such a state as to ensure that this kind of incident does not occur.I know that in the 1990s the Government of that particular time felt that the market was wonderful and that the market was the answer to everything.Hon David Parker: Who was the Minister? Mr Williamson.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: That is right. I think it was Mr Maurice Williamson. To his credit though he identified that it was he and his Government—and that has been reported publicly—that were responsible although he—Hon David Parker: They haven’t fixed it.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: That is right. So I think the House needs to take note of the mistakes of the past if it genuinely wants to move forward. The House needs to I think as a result of this example recognise that the market does not provide the answer to all things. I think that when New Zealand was a mixed economy it was a country that was thriving. It was a country that was able to have jobs for all and higher incomes and where the unions played a significant role and clearly that is different from the situation we have now under this National Government. I just thought that I would highlight that but as I said we are not trying to be political here. We are just simply trying to ask this Government to take heed of the past mistakes as we move forward. As I said the Labour Party will support this bill in its second reading. Thank you very much.