Clarkson Bob: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Clarkson Bob: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5080] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Honourable is the correct word! I feel a bit nude today—there are no TV cameras around and that is something I am used to and you guys are not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: When the member uses the word “you” he brings the Speaker into the debate. He must refer to “the members”. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I apologise. 
I am pleased to talk on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. This is too little too late and it is in the wrong direction. Mr Cosgrove set up a bad management system to deal with leaky homes in the first instance. The Government has wasted millions of dollars and achieved very few results. That is a fact. At this moment approximately 400 leaky home problems have been solved. This is a very slow process. The first 400 homes reported as “sorted out” have cost taxpayers approximately $80000 each for the regulatory board yet the average repair bill is only $72000. That is crazy. 
The system set up to deal with the problem of leaky homes is a mess. For example an order by the leaky homes committee can be given to a contractor to pay the homeowner a certain amount of dollars. This money is paid to the owner before the work is done. That is ridiculous. The owner can paint over the wet spots and sell the house with no repairs done. There are at least 45 cases in the last 400 resolutions. That is ridiculous. Those houses are now in for a second claim. Mr Cosgrove has a lot to answer for. What a stupid law that does not say that the money should be paid out when the repairs are completed! That is a normal business practice. I do not know who fouled that one up. 
I have travelled around New Zealand to see many leaky homes. As a builder myself they bring tears to my eyes. Why did this happen? We have a Minister who has made faulty laws and must have received bad advice for this to have been allowed to happen. If he made the decisions himself I ask why we have a public relations person who knows nothing about buildings and construction making up rules with no good advice. Why do we not have Ministers who are experienced in their roles making decisions? I suppose it is a common problem in the Labour Government. It lacks real people. For example we have a history teacher who is the finance Minister. We have a vet who is the health Minister. 
This Government needs to wake up. We have briefcase developers with shelf companies in the construction field building shoddy houses and not paying for any mishaps. I say to Mr Cosgrove that he should wake up and fix the situation. When National is the Government I will show you how to do it. I suggest you talk to real builders in the field and get some facts. Unfortunately as a public relations man you might not be able to understand the facts as they are laid on the table. You do not fix a problem— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already said to the member that every time he uses the expression “you” he is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to the Minister or another member as “the Minister” or “the member”—that is in the third person. I refer the member to Standing Order 103. He cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Righto we will try again. I talk from the heart you see; that is the problem. 
Unfortunately as a public relations man Mr Cosgrove might not be able to understand the facts if they were laid on the table. Mr Cosgrove cannot fix the problem by charging $250 for the standards information book dealing with NZS 3640. The book used to cost $20 and every builder or tradesman had one. Mr Cosgrove cannot fix the problem by wrapping everything in bureaucratic tape. Builders should be given guidelines and be allowed to make some decisions within those guidelines. If Mr Cosgrove wraps everything up in red tape and charges $250 for an instruction book the builder loses interest and does not have to think. Let them think let them be accountable and they will decide their own destiny and pay for the mistakes they make. 
We need a bill to show and mean business. Briefcase builders should pay; they should not hide from shoddy work. In my travels around the country I have seen some large complexes that are leaking because of bad workmanship. These complexes are not being fixed by the original briefcase builder. He has made his money and is hiding behind the company’s name. The sad situation is that I stood on the roof of one of these complexes—at the Mount actually—that is leaking badly and one of the owners pointed to a construction building site approximately 300 metres down the road where the same builder was building another building even though he had not repaired the original complex. The law is an ass. 
I say to Mr Cosgrove that he should please fix this bill for the sake of all New Zealanders. Homeowners are frustrated and some have had severe medical problems caused by the pressure of getting their houses their dreams and their finances sorted out. National will support this bill to the select committee and then we will fire some big guns to make sure it is done right. 
I make a few little suggestions to the uninformed. There is a camera available at the moment that can X-ray walls. I do not know whether members know this but if one points the camera at the wall the screen will show studs nails and water inside that wall. It is as simple as that. I have used this camera myself on a trial. It costs approximately $850 to do a full house inspection. They check the whole house for $850. This means we could test 4000 houses under claim at the moment for the small amount of $3.4 million—way under what it is costing at the moment. This final test could be completed on the houses which could save many second claims. There is no need to do invasive testing. That just wrecks the house and does not get to the truth. A camera can test the lot inside the walls. The camera can test all the work done and give a final pass if this work is completed properly. We need a better faster process. I consider that this camera is the answer. 
This bill will not speed things up because every claim will not be a final claim. I estimate we will still be dealing with these claims in more than 25 years’ time. Let us get the bill right. I want all claims to be final and this final report to be put on the land information memorandum. 
Darren Hughes 
: Why aren’t the members listening to him? 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Members should listen carefully. I do not want to be dealing with this bill in 2 years’ time— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this may not be the most gripping speech but it is a bit much for the member’s own caucus to be holding a caucus meeting right next to him when he is speaking. I mean give the man a chance. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: My colleagues have come down to the House because this is an important debate. Our member Bob Clarkson has some expertise in this area and you can see that they have come in to support him. That is what they are here for. The Minister said that this is a caucus. Our caucus is a very big caucus if I can remind the Minister and when they all get down here he will see how big it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to members that it is a longstanding convention in this House that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary to do so and then only so as not to disturb the proceedings of the House. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Thank you for your wise counsel Mr Speaker. I will just repeat that I want all claims to be final and the final report to be put on the land information memorandum. I do not want to be dealing with this bill in 2 years’ time when I am a Minister in the Government. [ 
Interruption 
] If members will just keep quiet they will hear the good bit. National supports this bill to select committee.