Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill

It is a pleasure to make a contribution to the Committee stage of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. As the Committee will know, we have supported this bill through its first and second readings, and I think there was a pretty constructive discussion at the Local Government and Environment Committee. We have teased out various issues. Not all of the concerns and questions, from our perspective, have been addressed satisfactorily, but we remain of the view that this is a genuine and significant attempt by the Government, led by the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Building and Construction, to make a serious contribution to the situation facing many thousands of New Zealand homeowners whose homes have been affected by the leaky homes problem.

In the course of this debate we will be setting out four amendments, which will deal with the issues that we think are the most pressing and the most outstanding. If I may I will set out what those issues are, and I look forward, later in this debate, to having a good exchange with the Minister on these issues.

The first issue is that we believe there is insufficient justification for Crown indemnity, which effectively gives immunity to the assessors from the Department of Building and Housing. It relieves them of their common law duty of care for the work they do in assessing the agreed repairs. There was quite a lot of commentary in the regulatory impact statement, including commentary from officials from the Department of Building and Housing, who said that there was no need for that immunity, and there was no reason why the assessors working for the department should not be held to the normal duty of care and should not be able to be held accountable for negligence, for instance, down the track if things went wrong in the repair process because of a defect in their work. I know that that indemnity was the main purpose of having this bill in the first place, but I am not sure we heard a convincing explanation for it at the select committee.

There are other points. Another one that was dealt with in some detail in the regulatory impact statement is the question of the rights of third parties. We know that the councils said that if we want them to sign on to this package then we have to protect them from third party claims. But this bill effectively takes away common law rights that third parties might have, for example, if they are sued by an owner. If a builder or architect is sued for work they have done or have not done earlier, that home and homeowner is then part of this process and is given the benefit of the assistance package. The homeowner can sue that builder or architect, but the builder or architect is prevented by the provisions of this bill from joining a council, which, in their view, may bear more of the responsibility. I will table a solution in the course of this debate that I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to, because we think it is a compromise solution that may protect the council without actually—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Give me a chance to look at it and I’ll consider it.

We will do our best to get it to the Minister. It is currently being drafted.

A third amendment we will bring to the Committee deals with the whole issue of whether the benefits of this package should be available to property speculators. If the bill is passed in is current form, they will be able to pick up a leaky home at knock-down rates and get the full benefit of the Crown and local government contribution. Fifty percent of the repair cost will be contributed by the taxpayer, so the speculator can do it up, fix the problem, and flick it on at a significant profit. Given some of the restrictions that have been placed around this bill and around who may benefit from it, it does not seem justifiable in our view that the substantial council and central government subsidy should be available to speculators. I know that the view of the Government on this issue has been that we want to see these houses fixed and it does not matter who fixes them. But we think that, given the huge unmet need that will remain, it would make much more sense to limit eligibility to genuine homeowners, not people who bought the property knowing it had a leaky problem.

The fourth issue we would like to address in this debate, which we will be tabling an amendment on, relates to people who live in multi-dwelling complexes—apartment dwellers. It is my impression from having taken part in the discussions at select committee that it is unlikely that very many people whose apartments are affected by this problem will benefit from this package. We are told, based on the work of PricewaterhouseCoopers, that there are probably about 24,000 New Zealanders who are owners of units and multiple—

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into 20 bills, and progress on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.