Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill

I will just take the opportunity, as this is the summary of the Committee of the whole House stage, to thank all members. I also want to say to them that this is never ever going to be perfect—it never was; it never will be—but I am really pleased that it is a good attempt at getting a lot done rather then the alternative, which was to do nothing and leave people stranded. Yes, I feel for those people. It is a little bit like when the Government takes someone’s section away to put a motorway on it, as happens under the Public Works Act. That person can often be the luckiest, because at least the Government offers compensation. But those people who own the house next door get nothing, they can feel aggrieved that the Government drew the line just beyond their back boundary, and they wish that the Government took their house instead. That will always be the case when lines are drawn.

As I said in my Part 1 speech, as soon as we have the 10-year limitation period, which is in the Building Act and in a whole lot of other things, including the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act, that limitation is on local authorities and their ability to be held accountable for stuff. So the moment that line is drawn in the sand, somebody who is at 10 years and 1 month will fall outside the line.

In fact, I will give the Committee a really good example. A man came to see me who was beside himself about the 10-year limitation period. He was part of a residential development in which he had bought his place quite some time after most of the other owners. However, they qualified to make a claim because they came under the 10-year limitation period, but he did not because he had bought the display home. The display home had been built more than 10 years earlier and it was used as the display home for about 1½ years while all the others were built and sold. He had then bought that display home, and it turned out that all the homes were leaky. The other owners all qualified, as they were inside the 10 years, but he did not. All I can say is that I feel for him, and I think it is ghastly that that is the case, but the moment we decide that we are going to move that line, we put horrendous sums of money on one side of that line, and where do we stop? If that line was drawn at 10 years and 3 months, which was the length of time in his case, what do we do with the people who are at 10 years and 4 months? Then what do we do with the person at 10 years and 5 months? I think that 10 years is a tried and true limit.

I thank members for their contributions. I have tried to make sure I have answered the questions that were asked, and I can promise members that this has consumed hundreds of hours of meetings and trying to bring all parties together, which we have finally done. I can remember going to so many meetings. Paula Bennett took me to one in west Auckland, which I think really stopped me in my tracks. It was to do with a couple of apartment blocks at Westward Ho. Block A had been consented by the Waitakere City Council, and block B had been consented by an independent certifier. Under joint and several liability law, at least the people in block A had somebody to go after. There was a last man standing and it was the Waitakere City Council. Now it is the Auckland Council. But the poor beggars in block B did not have anyone to go after, because the builders had folded and gone, or started under a new name, or flitted off to the Gold Coast, or whatever. One lady was sitting there and crying her eyes out. She said she had to use a rubber stick on the light switches, because water was cascading down the internal part of her wall. There was no one she could go after. It is a shame on our country that lies right across the industry and across Governments and across a whole range of other businesses, and so on. We could spend a long time trying to pin down whose liability this was. This legislation is an attempt to get things fixed and to move on.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.