Robertson Grant: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson Grant: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13577] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is true that I was sitting in my office wading through various piles of paper—which is a great thing to be doing during the urgency period—when I saw that the Limitation Bill was being debated and thought that I needed to be in the Chamber. As my colleague Lynne Pillay said it is unusual for us on the Labour benches to see a Government bill and say that it is practical and common sense. It was probably a bill from the previous Labour Government that was inherited by National but in this case we have to give credit where credit is due and say that this bill has come through with the Minister in charge Chris Finlayson leading the way and breaking new ground in this Chamber. That is what the Minister is doing with the Limitation Bill. 
I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage and I draw further attention to David Parker’s amendment. It is important that in a common-sense bill like this one we look for consistency. If we provide something like the longstop period and if we say it is important and useful then we should try to apply it consistently. The problem with this bill as I understood it while I sat up in my office listening intently to the speeches—particularly those by David Parker Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern—arises when it comes to the Building Act and for the very people whom the National Party has come to Parliament to represent. Perhaps those people are leaky building owners and I ask why they should not get the ability to have a 15-year longstop period in a case that involves the Building Act. That is precisely what David Parker’s amendment is designed to do: to extend the period from 10 years to 15 years. 
I think that we all know particularly those of us in metropolitan areas and have dealt with people who have had leaky buildings and leaky homes. There is no overestimating the seriousness of that problem for those people. The effects of leaky buildings take a period of time to become obvious. In my electorate of Wellington Central there has not been an end to the claims. More and more people have become interested in the issue. Building products that were used in the 1990s are becoming less and less durable and people are concerning themselves about this problem. The Limitation Bill has the opportunity to help address some of those issues and it is important to look at what the Justice and Electoral Committee said in its report to Parliament about this issue. It stated that there were divergent views about the question of the longstop period. That is significant in a bill as important as the Limitation Bill which perhaps for some people is a technical bill but which for many people has a very very practical provision for them if they have an issue under the Building Act. 
In three separate reports on the issue of the longstop period—in 1988 2000 and 2007—the Law Commission changed its mind about whether the longstop period should be 10 or 15 years. In 2007 the Law Commission concluded that a 15-year longstop period struck the appropriate balance between justice for claimants and certainty for defendants. It is a difficult balance to strike ensuring that people have the ability to have their say and have some kind of redress for what has occurred to them but not extending that opportunity out for ever and a day making providers feel like they have a liability for their whole lifetimes. 
David Parker has put forward an amendment and I think it is well worth reading out. It would insert a new clause 60 after clause 59 which is a good thing—making sure it is sequential is important. Clause 60 would read: “Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act or the Building Act 2004 the longstop period under the Building Act 2004 is hereby amended to 15 years so as to align with the general longstop period provided under this Act.” That is it in essence in a nutshell to make sure that we actually get some consistency and some ability for those people who have been affected by issues relating to the Building Act to know that they have that longstop period of 15 years. 
So I really do ask the National members to take a call and explain to us why they do not believe there should be this kind of consistency. I know that the Minister is a person who takes his responsibilities seriously on issues such as these. The Limitation Bill is one that he would have pored over for hours and hours in his office going through each clause word by word to make sure that it is precise and accurate. 
Chris Hipkins 
: He’s the New Zealand legal system’s greatest mind. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right and we are trying to make sure that this bill is improved to the extent that it can be. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry I could not quite hear Clark Kent. 
Simon Bridges 
: Lynne Pillay did a lot of the detailed work as well. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right she did and to give credit where credit is due so did the whole of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I have had the privilege of sitting briefly on the Justice and Electoral Committee from time to time. I am a great admirer of the chair Chester Borrows. He does an excellent job on that committee. 
Hekia Parata 
: Aren’t we all aren’t we all. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: We are and I think it bears saying again and again that this has been a good process. This is a bill that does a lot of common-sense things and here is an opportunity for one more common-sense approach that the Minister could take. It would be good if he could take a call and explain to us here in the Committee whether the National Party will be supporting David Parker’s amendment. It is the opportunity to get a 15-year limit across the board. The Law Commission itself was wavering and here is a chance for Parliament to give a clear direction. Our job is to give people a clear direction not to set up inconsistency within law but to make sure that people who want to make claims under the Building Act know that the longstop period applies to all of them. 
I will not delay the Committee much further on this bill. I see that a number of its clauses deal with laws in respect of which people need to make claims over a period of time. We have already had some discussion about things like gradual process and the role of the Accident Compensation Corporation within that. I am sure that my colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee would have ensured that all of those provisions are useful accurate and helpful for the people who will be seeking redress under the accident compensation scheme. The longstop period is an important part of this bill and it is one in relation to which the Labour Party has seen fit to put forward an amendment. My colleague David Parker who is a lawyer in his own right takes these matters very seriously and he has put it up. 
I really do call on the National members to make sure that they give serious consideration to this amendment. Sometimes amendments come into this Chamber that I know Government members see as perhaps time fillers or as amendments that we are not serious about but in this case that is not so. We are deadly serious about the fact that we think this will be good for New Zealand and good for the people who use the Building Act. It is timely that when we are in urgency that the Government says that this bill is important for it to pass. The Limitation Bill is one of the bills that it urgently wants to pass and we say good on the Government for wanting to pass a common-sense bill urgently but we ask it to look at the amendment in the name of David Parker to insert a new clause 60. I look forward to a contribution perhaps from the Minister now on whether he will accept this amendment. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 4 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 59: 
59A 
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act or the Building Act 2004 the longstop period under the Building Act 2004 is hereby amended to 15 years so as to align with the general longstop period provided under this Act.