Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19368] 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service providing speedy and fair procedures for assessment and resolution of claims for leaky home owners? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The rate at which assessments and resolutions are being achieved is improving. The service has been most flexible and its cost to homeowners is very low. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that after 2½ years only 10 percent of the 2714 claims to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service have been resolved; that claims are being lodged at 10 times the rate that they are being received; and that even if a single further claim is not lodged it will take 20 years to deal with the backlog; if so does he believe that this lives up to Labour’s promise of a speedy and quick resolution process? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I most certainly believe that the decision of the Government is helping homeowners who would normally have to fight these matters through the courts which would take even more time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What use is the resolution service to Tony and Lara Cox of Whangarei whose leaky home was built after he was advised of the problem but when he did nothing; whose heavily mortgaged home is recommended for demolition meaning that they are bankrupt; and who cannot seek remedy from the resolution service because both the builder and the certifier are liquidated; and what exactly does the Minister think that this family should do? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: This matter is still before the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it’s not. They can’t do anything. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is still there and the assessed estimate of the cost of repairs is $34000 plus GST. Mr and Mrs Cox say that it is $160000 and they have raised the issue of demolition themselves. There is still the opportunity for them to take this further. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Are the proceedings of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service being deliberately frustrated by the Building Industry Authority’s failure to participate in mediation because firstly it is responsible for auditing the territorial and regional authorities’ inspection process and secondly it holds bond money on behalf of private certifiers for a run on insurance; if so what will the Minister and this Government do to make the Building Industry Authority accept its responsibility and provide a speedy process to help people who are in dire need due to rotting homes? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Matters concerning the Building Industry Authority should be addressed to the Minister for Building Issues not me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why is the Government refusing to participate in any mediation with owners of leaky homes and is instead spending $6 million on lawyers fighting such claims of liability while at the same time it is encouraging builders certifiers and councils to participate in the resolution service process and is this not a case of the Government saying one thing but doing the exact opposite? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No that member is confused. Building issues concerning the Building Industry Authority should be addressed to the Minister for Building Issues. That is absolutely correct and if the member does not understand it he should get up to date. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Surely you cannot accept that argument from the Minister. He is the Minister of Internal Affairs. This matter does come under his purview. He is also as far as we know still a Cabinet Minister and he should be able to answer on behalf of the Government in these matters. After all the Government regularly flicks questions about the police to other Ministers because they seem to know more about it than he does. He must know something to justify his place in Cabinet. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The question was originally addressed to the Minister for Building Issues. It was transferred to this Minister because he is the Minister with responsibility for the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That service will pass to the Minister for Building Issues in August but the Building Industry Authority is already the responsibility of the Minister for Building Issues. I think that the House has to accept that situation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This highlights the exact problem. I submitted my question to the Minister for Building Issues. The Government chose to refer it to the Minister of Internal Affairs. I then asked the question of the Minister of Internal Affairs and I was told that I had directed it to the wrong Minister. The Government needs to have some accountability. It is saying one thing to councils builders and certifiers yet it is spending $6 million fighting legally. I think that the people of New Zealand and I are entitled to an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that the original question was correctly addressed. It was the supplementary questions that then changed the focus and the ministerial responsibility changed accordingly. Therein lay the issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My question referred to the process of the resolution service which is the responsibility until August of the Minister of Internal Affairs. My question asked why the Government—and I did not say the Building Industry Authority or the Department of Building and Housing—is refusing to participate in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. For that to be ruled out of order and not within the purview of responsibility of the Minister I think is incorrect. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point of order. 
Brent Catchpole 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This Minister also dodged my question by referring to the Building Industry Authority as being none of his business—whereas the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was his business and certainly at the time the Building Industry Authority was his business. He was the Minister at the time and therefore he should answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened to the member’s question carefully. The member did refer to the Building Industry Authority which is not the responsibility of this Minister. He addressed the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Having ruled my question out of order can you give me a reassurance that if I lodge that exact supplementary question to the Minister for Building Issues I will get an answer and not this stupid game of passing the buck between Ministers? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I suggest that the member set down another question. 
Brent Catchpole 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to clarify that I was referring to the process of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service which was part of the original question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member should perhaps refer to his notes. The great bulk of his question was about the actions of the Building Industry Authority which is not the responsibility of this Minister. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand the problem you are in. The Minister can answer in the way he did but you have left the impression that the question itself was out of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that was incorrect. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: —and with the greatest respect it is not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No—I agree with that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: This Minister is actually in charge of the process. It was perfectly open to the Minister to say that he regrets that the Government is not participating or that he supports the fact that the Government is not. But in fact he has invited the Opposition to use up more questions by putting in a question to another Minister. All I am saying is that it is open to Dr Nick Smith to put that question in exactly the same way for the Government to then refer it to Mr Hawkins for Mr Hawkins to again in effect say: “Well we’ve got a Minister for Building Issues—put it to him.” and we might never find out why the Government is recommending that everybody else participate in this process but will not itself participate. I myself am now curious to know what that reason is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. He is correct that the question was not out of order. 
Peter Brown 
: I do not want to drag on this issue any longer than need be but I point out that this is a very important issue in the minds of many New Zealanders. So I seek leave for my colleagues Brent Catchpole and the Hon Nick Smith to have their questions addressed by the Minister for Building Issues this very afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for those questions to be addressed by the Minister for Building Issues. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the report from the building assessor stating that Mr and Mrs Cox’s home is so unfit that it should be demolished. 
Document not tabled.