Mark Ron: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6835. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well once again here we are at speaking slot No. 7. I am reminded often Mr Assistant Speaker how you do remind us particularly at the Committee stage how we should try to introduce new material and not be repetitive. It is always hard in the second reading speech when you really want to encapsulate in your speech the purpose clause the aim of the bill and what happened and transpired in the select committee and make a valued contribution. But it has all pretty much been said so I will try to touch on a couple of things.The first thing I want to say is that it is really quite astonishing for me—working in the Local Government and Environment Committee we have a very collegial committee that gets on very well and we are able to progress legislation through that committee in a very collegial manner. As can be seen in this piece of legislation to have the Minister stand up and say he accepts 100 percent of the recommendations made by the select committee is a tribute in itself to the way in which the committee goes about doing its work. I guess I can only say that there are a couple of people from the National Party side of that select committee who probably if they were on the front benches of the Government today behaving and working in the way in which they do in the select committee there might be a far better relationship between the National Party and the New Zealand First Party. We would probably get on a whole lot better and would see less of the rubbish that we are seeing recently in the House from some of the front-bench members.So I am looking forward to Scott Simpson becoming a Minister and replacing Mr Joyce—no he will replace Mr Brownlee. And I am looking forward to Todd Muller moving through and taking over from Mr Joyce who probably does need to be moved on and put out to pasture. So I want to thank the National select committee members for the way in which they have worked on this legislation and the whole of the committee—the Labour team as well—because it really does make life pretty simple.What can we say about this legislation that has not already been said? I do want to put on the record that sometimes when we are moving legislation through the House—and this piece of legislation is probably a good example of it because it is technical it is small it is brief and it was easily managed—we do sometimes forget where this all came from. The points were raised by the Labour members here today about what was an idealistic drive towards deregulation which I have to say started in the era of the Labour Government in the 1980s when deregulation by Roger Douglas and all his acolytes—Phil Goff I think was an Associate Minister of Finance around those times; there was the mantra for deregulation. He actually wrote to me when I was in the Middle East explaining to me why I had to pay tax as a contract officer in Oman employed by the Sultan of Oman—a letter that I still have actually.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think we might come back to the bill.RON MARK: We talk about the drive towards deregulation—that actually created the problems that are still being addressed. It is that drive that put enormous stress on families; we heard the stories about marriage break-ups suicides and bankruptcies. It is easy to forget that sort of thing at this point in time in the debate.I want to put on the record again that New Zealand First is very aware of the trauma that was inflicted upon families who unsuspectingly bought these homes. Then to have ratepayers who had nothing to do with this problem at all being forced to pay for the remedial work on these homes—25 percent from local government. Interestingly Carterton had one leaky home—one leaky home. This from a district council that is able to put through consents in 4 days—not like Auckland. What are you talking—4 years four millenniums four generations? We do not know. In Carterton consents are through in 4 days—4 days—and only one leaky home. It is interesting that in certain parts of the country builders would not build houses in the way in which they were being built in Christchurch in Auckland and in Wellington.But here we are thanks to the bravery of a couple who went to the Supreme Court and forced the Government’s hand by winning their case in that court and the Minister at the time Nick Smith picking up the legislation realising that something had to be done for these 70 people—hence the legislation he brought to the House. But it is interesting is it not the comments that were repeated here in the House by the Labour Party about Nick Smith’s response to the Labour Government of the day when this issue was being worked through and the Government was struggling with how to compensate these people for the silly decisions of a former Government. Mr Smith as we have quite rightly been reminded told the Government to just write the cheque.This is the same Mr Smith who ended up being sued by Osmose New Zealand for comments that he made as a member of Parliament about TimberSaver. It is all a matter of record and you can read it on Stuff. But it is interesting that we have the Minister finally who was concerned obviously about the preservative techniques and wanted to sheet home the blame for the leaky homes I guess. I am not sure. But as a member of Parliament he made a comment about a company that defamed it and resulted in the company taking him to court. Of course the taxpayer ended up subsequently providing some funds towards the defence.It was all back to leaky homes though—all back to leaky homes. The impact was not just small and focused on a few homes in New Zealand. As we have heard from the Greens it affected tens of thousands of homeowners and ironically in a strange way it personally affected the Minister who brought this bill to the House as he fought the case and spent around I do not know how much—hundreds of thousands of dollars on defending himself in the court and eventually settling out of court. A long sordid story—Hon David Parker: The Government funded that. The Government funded his legal costs.RON MARK: Yes Parliamentary Service paid $209000 towards Nick Smith’s defence. It was taxpayers’ money. It is really interesting. A horrible set of decisions made right at the outset around deregulation—[Interruption] That member—I cannot remember his name but he is clearly a deregulation fan. He is chipping at me. A horrible set of decisions on deregulation made by a Government led to—what are we talking now? Is it 15 20 years? Twenty years—deaths suicides bankruptcies marriage break-ups a member of Parliament probably inadvertently saying the wrong thing and ending up getting sued a couple of hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers’ money and a law suit brought by a couple against the Government in order to get treated fairly.And here we are today finally hopefully passing the last piece of legislation that will see in some way some of the wrongs being redressed. Seventy people who were not eligible up until this point in time are now made eligible and are now able to get funding assistance. Hopefully—hopefully—this is the closing of what is a terrible chapter in New Zealand’s history on an experiment in deregulation driven myopically by free-marketeers who believe that the market will fix everything. Oh how wrong we are.