Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill

I just want to take a call on the title of this bill. I think it should be called the “Government’s Third Attempt at Trying to Provide Justice for Leaky Home Owners Bill”. This is a Groundhog Day sort of bill, and we have seen a series of Government Ministers in this portfolio. In fact, there have been seven Ministers in just 7 years, so it is no wonder there has been a series of debacles in this area. I could go through and list all of those Ministers. We started with the Minister in charge of this portfolio, Mark Burton. Then he passed it on to George Hawkins. We then had John Tamihere—he had a go. The hot potato was then passed on to Margaret Wilson, our dear Speaker. Then it was handed to Chris Carter, and then to Clayton Cosgrove, who had it from 2005.

The really interesting thing is that when Clayton Cosgrove took over the portfolio he said that the record was not good. So he was prepared to damn his previous Ministers. He said there would now be far more progress. I just remind the Committee of the figures for the last month. Ten claims were resolved, and there were 18 new claims, going backwards at a rate of almost 2:1.

I would love to hear from the Minister in the chair, Clayton Cosgrove, as to when he thinks this process might be complete. Otherwise this bill should properly be labelled the “Weathertight Homes Into the Never-never Bill”, or the “Weathertight Homes (Repeated Efforts and Failures by Clayton Cosgrove to Fix this Issue) Bill”, or “Another Labour Arrogance Problem Bill”. Lots of labels would be suitable, given the very sad history that has occurred around leaky homes. It is inevitable also that the title could be “Pass the Hot Potato Bill”, in the sense that this portfolio has been passed around among so many—

💬 Craig Foss: Kumara.

I am sorry; the member suggests it should be “Pass the Hot Kumara Bill”, given the number of Ministers in this portfolio. The number of changes is unsatisfactory; it makes it so much more difficult for both homeowners and this Parliament to hold Ministers accountable for the lack of performance. Every one of these Ministers has said: “It’s not my fault; it’s the last one’s fault”, and then we get another Minister and another mess.

So lots of other names could be given to this bill. But it cannot be given the name “Justice for Leaky Home Owners Bill”, because justice for leaky home owners will come only when there is a change of Government.

I rise to speak to the title of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. A recent High Court decision means that neither the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 nor the 2006 Act permits adjudicators or the Weathertight Homes Tribunal to award damages for mental stress and anxiety. The amendments are to give the adjudicators and tribunal the same ability as the courts to make awards for general damages for relevant mental distress. Earlier on, I covered Part 1, and I would now like to touch on Part 2, which was not touched on, and which talks about amendments to the principal Act.

Basically, Part 2 covers the definition of “damages”, which means “any form of monetary compensation”. The definition “mental distress” is an adjustment for emotional or mental anxiety, or for distress or stress. I stated earlier that the “mental distress” definition would not be necessary if the leaky homes situation simply was fixed in a timely manner. But this bill fails to address that matter. The issue is more than simple: we should not allow homes to be built in such a way that they become leaky homes. We understand about putting battens between walls, and about putting sills underneath window fixtures, so we should not get leaky homes—it is as simple as that. But, no, we are building leaky homes and are continuing to build them, which is the scary thing.

If we look at copper piping, we see we are bringing in copper piping from Australia, which is certified for 50 years. We are bringing in copper piping from England, which is certified for 50 years. But we are also bringing in copper piping from Asia, which is not certified at all. More and more spec homes have Asian copper piping. Builders are expecting that copper piping to last for approximately 7 years. So all the piping that is going into those homes will eventually cause leaky homes. I would not want to flush my toilet and have the water go up through the tap in my kitchen. That is for sure! So leaky homes are still being built. If we just stopped creating them, we would not have leaky homes. If we just solved the issue of leaky homes to begin with, instead of dragging it out, and with nobody taking responsibility for building them, then—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: When did it start to happen?

1987. It should be noted that in the definition “relevant mental distress” the reference to “claimant” is changed to “claim”. That change widens the definition from the claimant to anybody who may have incurred mental distress from having a leaky home. That is quite fundamental, because not only can the homeowner claim now but it is much wider. It could be a relative, a neighbour, or a builder who has received mental stress from just being related to or near the person who has the leaky home.

Part 2 also includes new section 50 in clause 10, dealing with the remedies that may be claimed. They include general damages. The remedies should cover all fixing of the leaky home needed to make it a liveable weathertight home, and damages for mental stress. We all know that is relevant only if the homeowner receives the compensation, and in many cases, as Ministers have already stated, the homeowner does not always receive that compensation, even though it has been awarded. So the Act, in effect, is not even helping those homeowners to fix their home and get a resolution.

It must be noted the New Zealand Law Society has been extremely helpful in its submission on the bill, ensuring that the legislation is kept simple and easy for the layperson to understand. It must also be noted that the Law Society was the only organisation called upon to comment on this bill—not that it commented on the title.

If we are to talk about the title, that could take all night. In effect, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill could be the “Remedies Only if You Get Compensation Bill”, because homeowners are not getting any remedies. Who is paying the money? Lots of these homeowners are not getting remedies. Should we remove the word “(Remedies)” from the title, should we say “Leaky Homes Continuing Bill, or should the title be “Remedies but Only if the Person has the Money to Pay for Them”, meaning that the money has not been put through a trust or company, or hidden? What should we call the bill? Should it be the “Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Remedies (Sometimes) Amendment Bill”? Maybe we should call it that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I just remind members that this is a debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3, which deal with the title, commencement, and an amendment to the principal Act. In addition, this can be a wide-ranging debate, summarising everything that has been discussed this evening.

I rise not only to talk about the title of this bill but also to give a bit of a wind-up of what has been going on this evening in this debate. Obviously, the bill should not be called the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill, because that is just confusing. There have been so many amendments to this bill that the public are confused, and this title will just confuse them more. So we need to come up with a new title.

Perhaps we could call the bill the “Minister Cosgrove Got It Wrong Again and Needs Parliament to Spend More Time On It Amendment Bill”. While we are doing a round-up of what this bill actually means, I say that the Minister, while we were doing the “Weathertight (The Minister Got It Wrong Yet Again and We Are Having to Come Back to Parliament to Fix It) Bill”, talked about the fact that we should not let off the builders, the architects, and the people who got it wrong. He is right, in so many respects. But who can find them?

What ends up happening is that taxpayers pay for it, perhaps via their rates because it is the councils that are left holding the can. That is obvious, and the Minister knows it, if he has heard any of the submissions and has spoken to any councils around the country. That is where real concerns come into it. It raises real concerns to do with the insurance companies that are insuring the councils. Councils are in the situation where they will not be insured to the same level, or they will have to pay in so much more money to become insured, and their rates will have to go up to fix this problem. As a consequence, people in their homes should be very concerned.

The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill is not an accurate title, and it is not what we in the National Party think it should be called. In fact, we are quite appalled that members are back here in the Committee, having to take the time to fix this situation. The Minister is constantly saying that it was the High Court judge’s fault and that the judge got the intention of the legislation wrong. Well, I say to the Minister that his intentions were not clear. If the intentions were clear, then we would not have to be back making amendments yet again, and wasting Parliament’s time, Parliament’s money, and, yet again, taxpayers’ money.

Should we call this bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill? No, we should not. I have real concerns, and my colleagues share them and we have been discussing them in some detail, about the confusion that will be out there when people look at this bill with that title. Our concern is that people will not know which amendment it is, because there have been so many of them.

Earlier I heard someone yell out: “Resign!” to the Minister. What a concern that would be, in talking about the title of this bill. If this Minister was to be taken off this portfolio, we would be on Minister No. 8 for it. So we could call this bill the “Weathertight Homes Resolution (We Have Been Through Seven Ministers; Here is Another One) Amendment Bill”.

💬 Hon Member: Better Ministers or worse Ministers?

We have had better Ministers and worse Ministers. The truth is that the Government is running out of Ministers.

💬 Craig Foss: Shadow Ministers.

We could pop in some shadow Ministers. I cannot actually think of anyone who could take on the role.

💬 Craig Foss: Religious ministers—it needs a miracle.

It does need a miracle, and it is of huge concern.

The Weathertight Homes Resolutions Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill, by its title, is of huge concern to the National Party, and it is something that we think does not truly reflect the problem. The title of this bill is not reflective of the bill itself and of the magnitude of the issue out there for the New Zealand public—not just in terms of the cost but, obviously, in terms of the emotional and physical trauma people are having to go through. This bill and, more important, its title, do not reflect what is actually happening out there in the communities, yet again.

So I say: “Shame!” that we have to be back here discussing the title of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill.

💬 Craig Foss: It’s a Clayton’s bill. It’s a bill you have when you don’t have a bill.

It is a Clayton’s bill. It is a bill you have when one does not have a bill.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It took an hour!

It did take an hour. It came from Craig Foss. I would say that it is probably not the first time that this Minister has heard that comment. It would not be the first time that this Minister has put up a Clayton’s bill, and it is probably not the first time that this Parliament has wasted huge amounts of time and huge amounts of taxpayers’ money having to do this. I personally find that to be disgraceful, and so do my colleagues. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.