Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:641;Page:11302] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. One would think in listening to the previous speaker Katrina Shanks that New Zealand did not have a problem with leaky homes. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: She has amnesia. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I will not comment on the state of her memory. I ought to say that listeners out there in Auckland who are gridlocked but who left their offices about 2 hours ago and want to get home before the 6 o’clock news will be amazed at the comments made by National speakers so far. 
During earlier debates on the weathertight homes legislation the House heard from speakers who opposed some of the processes adopted to give urgency to the process so that the legislation could be progressed to this stage. But those views expressed by some members seemed to be at odds with the stated policy of their party were it to become the Government and that policy is to cut Government spending. I refer specifically to the matter surrounding the motion to suspend Standing Order 261 for the purposes of allowing Supplementary Order Paper 133 to be included in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. I was amazed to hear the previous speaker ask what that Supplementary Order Paper did. Clearly it provides the opportunity for local bodies that have not yet been accredited to be given an extension of time in order for that to be done. As of today only one local body has that accreditation. 
We heard from Opposition members that the motion to suspend the Standing Order was at the core of what could be constitutional abuse that the motion should be applied only in a crisis and that New Zealanders were being denied the opportunity to express their views through the select committee process. Of course Opposition members also felt that they were being denied the opportunity to pour scorn on the bill during the different stages. Since the introduction of the Supplementary Order Paper I have not received any communication whatsoever from any constituents complaining about the process—not least from owners of leaky homes. 
Bob Clarkson 
: You must be deaf. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Well I do not know about that. I know for sure that I have not received any communication from anyone expressing concern about Supplementary Order Paper 133 or the suspension of Standing Order 261. 
I ask members opposite in respect of their party’s policy to cut Government spending costs whether they really think that the legislative process does not come at a cost. I would have thought they would welcome the motion. But they did not. As to the argument that the motion should have been moved only if there were a crisis I ask those members who may not think that this situation is a crisis to put themselves in the shoes of people who have had to endure the trials of owning a home then finding it subjected to the leaky home syndrome. I am willing to wager that those people are feeling that their circumstances are those of a crisis. 
We are talking about the suspension of one—and I mean one—of Parliament’s Standing Orders for the purpose of expediting and including the Supplementary Order Paper into this legislation. If people were being denied the opportunity of having a say on Supplementary Order Paper 133 which merely allows local authorities to have the available time to be accredited extended from 30 November 2007 to June 2008 then I certainly did not hear or receive any comments of concern from any member of the public or of an organisation wanting to make submissions on it. 
Having said that I want to come back to the legislation. It follows a recent High Court decision that the intent of Parliament for both the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act of 2002 and 2006 was lost by giving due recognition to adjudicators or the Weathertight Homes Tribunal to award general damages for mental distress and anxiety. I know that a couple living in the eastern beaches area of the electorate in which I reside were not able to get the full amount they believed they were entitled to because the court ruled against the adjudicator who dealt with their case. It has been said that this legislation may be too late for them. I am not quite sure whether there is a way to deal with their issue but in terms of other homeowners who are in a similar situation and have yet to have their cases adjudicated on I believe that the legislation will be of some assistance to them. 
This legislation restores to those two entities—adjudicators and the tribunal—the ability to award general damages for mental anxiety or distress in the same way as the courts do. New Zealand First believes that this amendment will restore claimant confidence that their Weathertight Homes Tribunal claims can be resolved in a one-stop shop without the need to seek general damages through the courts. This legislation we believe will save litigants further costs. New Zealand First supports this aspect of the legislation particularly if the award for general damages will help homeowners to regain the position they were in prior to having to suffer the burden that the leaky home syndrome brought to them and their families. The search for resolution has taken such homeowners on a long journey and we believe that the legislation will help to shorten that journey particularly in terms of reaching a resolution. Measures aimed at improving the credibility of and speeding up the process—as long as they are fair and just—will always have the support of New Zealand First. 
This is remedies legislation not repairs legislation. Some of the debate that has been proffered to this House particularly from those who oppose the process of the legislation has been wrong. As I mentioned during earlier readings the legislation has the support of Mr John Gray of the Leaky Homes Action Group who praised the Government for its speedy reaction towards closing a loophole that might deprive victims of getting some recompense. 
New Zealand First supports this legislation as it allows for the award of general damages that will put a person back near the position that he or she was in before suffering any harm. Claimants value these awards as an acknowledgment of the stress they have suffered. New Zealand First believes this amendment is a requirement because the parent legislation itself following a couple of court cases showed that the intent of the original Act had been lost. We support the notion of allowing local bodies to have extended time to be able to become accredited and therefore issue the required documentation that will help to address this situation. In conclusion I make the point that New Zealand First supports this legislation.