Williamson Maurice: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williamson Maurice: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 07 July 2011. Volume:673;Page:19918. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I will take the next few minutes if I can to address just three of the Supplementary Order Papers that Phil Twyford has put on the Table and his typescript amendment. I fully believe he has put them forward in good faith and he deserves for us to give a proper response so I will take them in turn. 
Supplementary Order Paper 250 seeks to reduce the protection of some people by allowing them to be joined in litigation. It could mean that for example the Crown could be joined in litigation the council could be or even other contributing parties to the proceedings could be. I want to make it clear that I do not think that that is what this legislation is about. Councils first of all will not participate. They have made it quite clear that if they are going to put their 25 percent contribution into the fixing of a home they will not do that if it means they could either be brought into a litigation after that at any rate or be joined in a litigation at some stage later even by way of a circuitous route. So the scheme is not about apportioning responsibility and so on; it is about just trying to get houses fixed. If we were to accept Supplementary Order Paper 250 that would actually open up some of the litigation channels and I think that would be a problem. It is not just about the Crown and councils; it could impact on a number of building firms that have said to me that they are dubious about participation. And these are good builders whom we need to have involved. They are dubious about involvement but if we opened the process up to litigation and the chance of their being joined into the greater litigation field they just simply would not participate. This Supplementary Order Paper would change the focus of this bill to litigation rather than to fixing leaky homes and I do not want that to be the focus. 
The second amendment that Mr Twyford has tabled seeks to amend the definition of “qualifying claimant” to exclude property speculators. Although I laud the intent of that amendment the trouble is that it goes further. It could exclude people who knowingly purchased a leaky home even if they had bought it as something they were going to do up and live in. That is what—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes it would. That is what it would do. That is why the Government will not support the amendment. The aim of the scheme is to get as many leaky homes repaired as fast as we can. The scheme does not discriminate on the basis of who owns the home. It is intended to get the home repaired so that owners and renters can live in a safe environment. The amendment would prevent genuine homeowners who purchased intending to repair and live in a home from accessing the scheme. I will repeat that: they may be genuine homeowners when they see a leaky home and think to buy it do it up make the repairs and then live in it but in the way the amendment is worded genuine buyers would be prevented from doing that. So the Government will not support that one. I understand that the proposed change is grammatically incorrect at any rate so we would need to make an amendment to that amendment. 
Having said that let us move on to the third one. Supplementary Order Paper 252 seeks to provide that the Crown will guarantee repair loans taken out by bodies corporate. In my view—and I think the officials have given me this advice—the Supplementary Order Paper is actually not necessary. The Government could choose to provide this guarantee under the existing provisions because the existing provisions are general and do not specify the terms of any guarantee or indemnity under the provision. The reality is that some multi-unit dwellings will not be able to access this financial package—that is true. That might be the case even with this amendment but they will always have access to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal’s dispute resolution process which they have now. 
I think that probably an important point for anyone listening to this debate is that this entire package that the Government is putting out there—with the Government paying 25 percent the local authority paying 25 percent and the homeowner getting a loss-sharing arrangement with the bank for a loan for the remaining 50 percent—is a voluntary package. No one has to take it. It is an attempt to try to get some homes fixed and if people say they do not like it and do not want it or want to resort to litigation or stay with the Weathertight Homes Tribunal’s process then they will still have that right. 
Finally Mr Twyford’s last Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 253 proposes to remove the Crown’s immunity. The Crown is making a huge contribution to this package and does not have to. We did not have to bring this package to this House. In fact when other people have tried to join the Crown in litigation in the past they have never been successful because the courts have ruled that the Crown is not in any way liable. We could have taken the stance that it was not a Government liability and I know the Labour Government took that position rightly or wrongly for the 9 years it was in office. If we were to remove the immunity of the Crown not only would we be putting up what will be over $1 billion of payment in this package—possibly even more depending on the number of people who take it up—but also we could be exposing the Crown to huge litigation risk. The Crown’s immunity in the bill has been included because to date the Government has not been found liable in leaky home litigation and I think that that is the best way to keep it. Another benefit of the Crown’s immunity is that it will remove incentives for vexatious litigants trying to join the Crown. A lot of people could be vexatious and try to force the Government to be involved. 
I will now talk about the Department of Building and Housing assessors’ immunity because that is part of it as well. Department of Building and Housing assessors have always been immune from proceedings relating to their functions under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 which was passed by Labour. I understand why Labour did that and I think that is right. Assessors’ immunity is critical for delivering a weathertight homes resolution service and a financial assistance package. Those people who are doing their job and doing it well should not be doing it under the threat of not having any immunity. Assessors will not perform their role if there is a risk that they might be joined in litigation about leaky homes. Although I fully understand the rationale behind all four of Phil Twyford’s proposed amendments—in fact I sympathise with some of the rationale behind all four amendments—I say to members that it has been a very long journey to get here today. 
This process started off with trying to get agreement across local authorities and to tie this package down was one of the hardest pieces of work I have done in my 24 years in Parliament. To get not only local authorities on side but also the banks now on side with regard to their participation in the scheme has been a long slow arduous process. I have had the news media having a flick at me from time to time saying: “He has failed to get them on board.” or: “He has failed to achieve this.” Well I am happy to report that local authorities are signed up to this legislation as it stands. We would lose them immediately if we made the changes that were suggested here. The banks have now signed up to the package and they are ready to go. 
I look forward to getting the Committee of the whole House stage finished and a third reading of this bill through for constituents of a number of members of Parliament. I know that people like Darien Fenton and Lynne Pillay in west Auckland have a huge number of affected constituents as do the members from the North Shore Tauranga Wellington and Christchurch because that is where the vast majority of these places are located. Those members are looking forward to their constituents being able to walk in and get half of their repairs paid for straight away—25 percent by the Government 25 percent by the local authority—getting a bank loan for the other half and moving on to getting their places fixed. I am really delighted with this legislation.