Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill

After that intervention, I feel that we need to stand for a moment of silence. I am very pleased to have heard the Minister declare his acceptance of the amendments to this particular bill as recommended by the select committee. Also, I am happy to convey to the Minister that the Labour Party will be supporting this bill at its second reading. Considering that the committee received only three submissions on the bill and heard only one, I think that the committee worked really, really well in terms of attempting to ensure the clarity of the bill and that any issues related to those who have the right to make claims in respect of their damaged buildings or homes are being addressed. As the Minister rightly said, it gives about 70 claimants the opportunity to be able to receive support through the financial package that has been prepared, provided they are able to meet the 50 percent mark.

I want to say, though, recognising the Minister’s ability to take advice from the committee and recognising also that the committee genuinely worked to try to find appropriate recommendations, I think we also need to recognise that this came about as a result of John and Helen Osborne, who won their legal battle in the Supreme Court last year, arguing that the 10-year limitation on leaky building claims should start from the time that the property is issued with a code of compliance by the council and not from the date that the construction is complete. We need to recognise and acknowledge their contribution to this, because I think that if they had not done it, not only the Government but all of us parliamentarians would have just forged through without due consideration of the impact on the lives of those people whose homes have been affected because of the leaky syndrome.

I think that we have got to recognise also that many of these people have just gone through such dreadful and stressful situations. I think that these people had no other choice but to come to the Government, failing to receive any support from their local governments, who are also facing financial difficulties. If it were not for the efforts of John and Helen Osbourne, I do not think that we as a Parliament would have been able to look genuinely at trying to address this particular matter. So I acknowledge those people in particular.

I want to say that I thought it was important in the recommendations that the select committee made that it looked at the three specific aims of the bill first and then made the various recommendations, which I am pleased to hear the Minister accepts fully. The committee recommended inserting via clause 5 new section 125BA into the principal Act, which groups together all related matters into one section, and it said that this definition would make it clear that a claimant must meet the contribution criteria in either clause 1 of the 2011 Gazette notice or in any other notice issued by the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

There is another matter that I just want to highlight, and it is that there was some wording to the effect of—I think it said—“all reasonable effort.” I think the committee found that you could not rely on some sort of definition that would be made by the local council etc. and that we had to be quite fair on people and take into consideration all the efforts that they were making to try to achieve an amicable outcome in respect of their claim. There was something that the select committee considered, and that was: “We note a suggestion by the Regulations Review Committee that the full content of the Gazette notice contribution criteria be inserted into the Act. However, we note that the criteria are the result of PTA negotiations, and for future flexibility we consider it unnecessary for them to be included in the Act in full.”

Those are really the only comments that I would like to make on this particular bill. The reality is—and I am not trying to be political in this regard—that we need to take note of how the leaky situation occurred. It goes back to 1994, when the National Government of the day decided to open up the market in order to free up the situation and to allow the market to dictate what happens to the building of new homes. The point that I would like to highlight by airing this is simply that this is an example of where the market has failed our communities. So I think that those opponents of the market place need to take note that when the then National Government opened up the building criteria in this regard, it actually took away the role of local government in ensuring that the quality and nature of building materials are of such a state as to ensure that this kind of incident does not occur.

I know that in the 1990s the Government of that particular time felt that the market was wonderful and that the market was the answer to everything.

💬 Hon David Parker: Who was the Minister? Mr Williamson.

That is right. I think it was Mr Maurice Williamson. To his credit, though, he identified that it was he and his Government—and that has been reported publicly—that were responsible, although he—

💬 Hon David Parker: They haven’t fixed it.

That is right. So I think the House needs to take note of the mistakes of the past if it genuinely wants to move forward. The House needs to, I think as a result of this example, recognise that the market does not provide the answer to all things. I think that when New Zealand was a mixed economy, it was a country that was thriving. It was a country that was able to have jobs for all and higher incomes and where the unions played a significant role, and, clearly, that is different from the situation we have now under this National Government. I just thought that I would highlight that, but, as I said, we are not trying to be political here. We are just simply trying to ask this Government to take heed of the past mistakes as we move forward. As I said, the Labour Party will support this bill in its second reading. Thank you very much.

With the indulgence of the House, I would like to take a moment before I comment on this bill to just send a message to my constituents on the east coast of the Coromandel this evening, who later tonight will be confronting what may or may not be a tsunami alert—well, the alert is out, but my advice to constituents on the east coast of New Zealand, and particularly those on the Coromandel Peninsula, is to keep yourselves updated, look at social media, look at websites of the Thames-Coromandel District Council and civil defence, and listen to radio and TV for updates, and do not be at all afraid to take careful, cautionary, prudent action tonight and this evening. So—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member’s time starts now.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is a small bill. It will not go down in the history of Parliament as being a hugely significant bill, but it is an important bill, none the less. I am delighted to have heard the comments from the Minister in his speech earlier on in the debate that the recommendations made by the Local Government and Environment Committee will be accepted in full, so I think that that is a good place to start a brief discussion on this bill.

This bill is all about creating certainty for a relatively small number of properties—we estimate about 70 in total—that are going to be impacted on if we do not enact this legislation by the time frames in the principal Act, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act of 2006. So, as a previous speaker indicated, there was a Supreme Court decision last year brought by John and Helen Osborne against the Auckland Council and, as a result of that decision in the Supreme Court, it became necessary for some clarity and some decisive legislation on the part of this House to give those 70 property owners some certainty about their way forward and the future for them and their properties.

This is all about ensuring that people do not get bogged down in lengthy, costly litigation that does not actually do much in terms of achieving the purpose of the bill, which is to create a weathertight home. So this bill actually seeks to do three things: it seeks to provide certainty in terms of the location of eligibility of the properties; secondly, it seeks to define the definition of built date; and, thirdly, it seeks to ensure that at the expiry of the Financial Assistance Package, which was originally due to expire in July 2016, the bill will extend that claim date for properties that are actively being progressed prior to that date, and I think that is a very sensible, pragmatic, and prudent thing to be doing on behalf of those people.

The bill was not one that received a huge number of submissions. In fact, there were only three, and we heard from one submitter in person. But they were all useful, constructive submissions that helped us come to decisions as a committee that I think meant that we could make recommendations that made the bill a better bill. I was pleased to hear that the Minister acknowledged that in his contribution earlier on, because I think that the way that the committee worked on this bill is a good example of how select committees should work. We worked collaboratively, we worked collegially, and we were able to hear a range of points of view that were designed to ensure a better outcome for all involved. I am absolutely sure that the bill that we are debating this afternoon is the better for that process.

I am not going to carry on at any length about the detailed provisions because those have been covered very neatly by the Minister in his comments, nor am I going to go into any detail about the recommendations that we have made as a committee other than to say that they are largely administrative and that they help provide clarity and certainty. This is a good bill. As chairman of the committee, I am delighted that the committee was able to work so well together to bring it back to the House for its second reading, and I commend it to the House.

It is my pleasure to rise to take a call on this bill. I think this is a very important piece of legislation. This is about fixing a problem that impacts on a small number of people but, none the less, it is very important.

For most New Zealanders, their home and their house is the biggest asset that they will ever own in their lives, and I think we need to acknowledge the uncertainty that a group of New Zealanders have been put through over the last few years in terms of weathertight homes. When you read through some of the media reports about families who have suffered through the leaky homes saga, I think you will really be struck by what a terrible piece of the history of housebuilding in New Zealand this really has been.

There is the story of the de Roo family in Porirua, who discovered on Christmas Day 1999 that their home was a leaky building. They thought that it had been fixed, but they discovered that their home was a leaky building when they got up to find that all the presents under their Christmas tree had been destroyed because the roof had leaked. So I think that we need to think about the human cost that sits behind the legislation that we are talking about here.

As previous speakers have noted, this bill went through the Local Government and Environment Committee with only three submissions coming in on it, and only one submitter asked to be heard in person. I think that that really speaks to the fact of how far we have come on this issue. We are getting close to a resolution, and I think that it was good that we were able to work in a non-partisan way to find a fair solution, and, of course, with the legislation expiring next year, there was an impetus on making sure that we did not leave people dangling. The changes that the select committee was able to make to this legislation have made it a piece of legislation that is all the better for that, but it is another patch-up that we are doing in this area.

Labour is supporting this legislation, as my colleague Su’a William Sio has indicated. We do want to tidy up the Act because we want to ensure that those who deserve it get the compensation that is due to them. I think that, without doubt, all of us in this House can have a great deal of feeling for the people who have been through this. It has been going on for years, and it is another piece of legislation we are having to be here to fix up.

The claimants have been fighting for years for the right—we all think when we buy a house, and it really is part of the Kiwi dream, that it is going to be a warm and a dry house and it is not really going to become one of the biggest millstones around your neck. I think in the first reading of this bill my colleague Clayton Cosgrove noted how the Minister who is putting this current legislation through the House, when he was in Opposition, used to sit on the Opposition benches and bellow: “Just write a cheque.”—just write a cheque. That was Nick Smith’s approach when he was an Opposition spokesman, but when he came to the Cabinet table and he came to finding some solutions, maybe he found that the situation was a little bit more complicated, a little bit more nuanced, and maybe required a bit more thought than just simply bellowing across the House “Just write a cheque” to the then Labour Government. So I think that stands as an important reminder that what you interject in this House may sometimes come back to haunt you.

💬 Todd Muller: Indeed.

Well, some people choose their interjections more wisely than others, Mr Muller. So “Just write a cheque” did not prove to be, under Nick Smith’s solution that we are seeing in the legislation that is before us today.

I think it is important that we get on record—to pick up on the point that Su’a William Sio also raised—why we are in this situation that we are in. I think that it is an important point about deregulation and the fact that a whole cast of cowboys under the Bolger-Shipley Government was sent to go forth and build—anyone who wanted to. In his speech in the first reading debate my colleague Clayton Cosgrove said that he could have strapped on a tool belt, God forbid, and gone to build some homes. So I think that these are days that we can never return to—never return to.

Regulation is there for a reason. We need to have people who are properly trained and we need to have legislation that properly regulates these industries. Reading through and listening to some of the comments that are being made today—I think that the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee talked about how great it is to have certainty and decisive legislation, because otherwise homeowners are going to be put through lengthy and costly processes—I cannot help thinking of the parallels that we are currently seeing with the situation with foundation repairs in Christchurch at the moment.

Again, what we are seeing there is inaction and a lack of leadership from a Minister who will not make the decisive calls, a Minister who will not give certainty to people. A number of people have been warning that the situation with many foundation repairs in Christchurch actually risks becoming the next weathertight homes saga—the next leaky homes saga—that we are going to have to deal with over a number of decades. My fear is that in a decade or so we are going to be in this House, in this Chamber, talking about legislation similar to this: a fix-up for what has been another blunder from another National Government that thinks that it does not have to show leadership, that it can just let the market dictate, and that it can just let things go willy-nilly.

So that, I think, is an important and a very timely reminder, for all of us as parliamentarians and as legislators, that is contained in this because this is not something that we can allow to happen again. We have to learn the lessons of the leaky homes saga; it has been incredibly difficult for a number of individuals, incredibly difficult for them to get on with their lives, and we have to ensure that we never get there again. We have to remember how this first manifested itself, first of all thinking it was decaying timber framing that was to blame. I mean, we saw just how much more complicated the situation was as we went through.

So Labour is happy to support this legislation. I am sure my colleague the ever-learned Hon David Parker will pick up the point about the area of law that this is in and the many fix-ups that we have had to make here, but we do have to make sure we learn from this saga. We have to learn from this chapter of history. We have to see what just letting the market dictate in an unregulated and unfettered way can lead to, and that is the personal hardship and the very personal stories that we have to remember lie behind the numbers that we talk about when we say that only a small number of people are affected by this and only a small number of people are going to need to have recourse to the fund to fix their homes.

We have to remember that family that got up on Christmas Day 1999 to find not only that their Christmas presents were ruined but that the very place in which they thought they were safe, they thought they were secure—their home—was not that at all. They found that the Government had failed to put in place the things to protect them, to make sure that the people who were building their home were qualified, and to make sure that there was a regulated industry that was going to ensure their home was safe and that the local authorities were inspecting it in a safe way. I just hope we are not back here in a few years, talking about shonky foundation repairs in Christchurch and the same kind of fix-up legislation that may be required. Thank you.

I rise to take a short call on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill now that it has been reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee. I think my colleague and chairman Mr Simpson summarised our process in the select committee very well. It was collegial, which is becoming almost a habit in the Local Government and Environment Committee—

💬 Grant Robertson: Oh, we’ll sort that out.

Yes, I am sure you will, Mr Robertson, but it was a very good process. Obviously, this particular bill came from the history of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Act 2011, which was a very good law that we had put in place, and it was immediately taken up by a number of people. But as they went through the process, a couple of little anomalies were identified. It is appropriate to make sure we do this once and right and properly. If it becomes clear that some people could potentially fall out of eligibility through no fault of their own, it is absolutely appropriate that we go through this process and get those issues tidied up.

So, as we have heard, there are three main provisions in this bill: the definition of the built date, the legislative location of eligibility criteria, and, finally, the expiry of the Financial Assistance Package. Obviously, the issues around the built date and the definitional issues around that became very stark as an issue post the Osborne v Auckland Council decision in June 2014, when the definition moved from the final point of council inspection to the point where the code compliance certificate was issued. This potentially opened up the eligibility for a slightly smaller—but obviously very critical, if you are one of these people—pool of people who could potentially be eligible for the Financial Assistance Package. So, obviously, this bill will enable that to occur.

There were some technical changes with respect to, essentially, bringing the contribution criteria together and moving them into the Act to reinforce their validity. Finally, the third—the key—component is the expiry date of the Financial Assistance Package. It is due to expire on 23 July. All claimants will need to have been issued a notice to proceed, but we wanted to ensure there was a mechanism that enabled people who could demonstrate they were close to that notice to proceed to still be part of that cohort, if you like. So this is some sensible law to ensure that we do the right thing by these people.

We did have a good select committee process, as discussed. The recommendations that came through were very technical in nature, but I think they can be summarised as just providing absolute certainty. Yes, there were only three submitters, but they pointed to the risks associated with ongoing ambiguity and to the extent that we could be as precise as possible in respect of a couple of the components in the draft bill, they thought that would be useful. In particular, the definition of “qualifying claimant” was an area, and, again, the Financial Assistance Package eligibility requirements were an opportunity for us to further tighten the definition.

I think we have done some good work—if I can say so—as a collective committee. I think we are well served by the officials who are guiding us through what are pretty technical legislative amendments to make sure we get the effect that we are wanting through this proposal. Ultimately, this is ensuring that those who do qualify and should qualify for the Financial Assistance Package are enabled to do so through good enabling legislation. As we know through this process, it is potentially around 70 properties. It might not sound like a lot in the context of the many thousands who have been through this process, but for those 70—for those families—this legislation will enable them to get the right outcome. I, obviously, commend this bill to the House and look forward to the further discussions of the Committee of the whole House, which no doubt will be pending. Thank you.

I rise to take a call on this bill, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill, which the Green Party is, of course, supporting. We supported the original legislation in 2006 and then we supported the next round of amendments in 2010, so of course we are going to be supporting this third round of amendments in 2015 to fix up a problem that was initiated by, I believe, a National Party Government in 1994. Although we do not believe that any of the actual legislation from 2006 onwards has actually done justice to the problem or taken responsibility for the fault, anything to make things better for these families is worth supporting, which is why we have continued to stand in this House and support the bills that are, at best, in some ways a token effort.

So this latest amendment bill is, at the heart of it, going to provide the ability for 70 claimants to receive support through the Financial Assistance Package, providing, still, that they can come up with the 50 percent of the cost of the rebuild of their houses. It is really, as has been stated by other speakers earlier, a very small and technical bill. There were only three submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this, though there were amendments, and it has been great to hear from those members who were on the committee about how constructive the process was and to see Parliament working effectively to iron out some of the amendments needed.

I would note, too, that this bill has, in part, been prompted by a court case that happened last year when the Osbornes won in the Supreme Court against Auckland Council. It is very nice to have the opportunity in this House, when a court has found that there was an injustice or a lack of clarity, to come back and clarify that legislation in accordance with what the court found—as opposed to the family carers legislation that we had under urgency at last term’s Budget where this Government chose to override the findings of the court, and as opposed to what we are currently going through in the Social Services Committee where the Government is again trying to cover its butt, basically, through legislation overriding the finding of the court that this Government had not taken responsibility for its misinterpretation of the policy. It is a rare moment, which I am going to revel in—that the Government is taking a moment to accord the legislation properly with the interpretation of the courts and the needs of the community.

But the core of this bill, along with the 70 claimants being able to receive support, relates, I think, to the provision that will expand the definition of “qualifying claimant” to include those who prior to the cut-off date of July next year were engaged or will be engaged actively in working towards meeting the eligibility criteria. That is clearly an important thing to do. I do think it is worth restating in the House some of the things that people need to do to meet those criteria, so that we acknowledge that it is not an easy thing. People need to obtain an assessor’s report; arrange funding, which is that 50 percent of the rebuild costs; sign a homeowner’s agreement; commission a repair plan; obtain a building consent; obtain quotes—and all of this needs to be in place before that payment plan can be signed off. This is not an easy thing to do.

A friend of mine has been in that invidious situation of having bought a leaky home. Just from a place of significant distance, I have seen the massive stress on her and her family. Their savings all of their life had gone towards buying this house that they found they could no longer live in and that was actually a physical threat of collapsing on top of them and their children. They ended up having to move towns to find new jobs to be able to—to have to—start renting while still paying off this house in the hope of repairing it. I have seen the extraordinary stress of that and the injustice of it. Even the fact that they have to come up with 50 percent of the repair cost when it was not their fault, when they had been told that this house was safe, does seem to me really unjust. But that is the best that this House could come up with at previous times and that was agreed to. As we have said, of course, it is better than nothing.

The point has been made earlier, but I am going to reinforce it, that this leaky home crisis is a salutary lesson on the importance of regulation and the dangers of leaving our critical infrastructure, which is our houses, up to the market. I do note, too, that in Auckland at the moment in terms of the building consent process 40 percent of the houses being built now are failing those building consents. We have an ongoing process. Part of the problem that caused the leaky homes was the loss of the apprenticeship schemes and the loss of the skills in our building industry. That was part of the problem, and we have not fixed that problem. We are seeing that right now in Auckland, in the 40 percent of houses that are not able to meet the required level of quality to get their building consent.

This is an ongoing problem that this House desperately needs to put our attention to—not on a patch-up basis, not on a piecemeal basis, but from a very considered place of considering our housing as core infrastructure that affects the health of our community, that affects the basic economic flow of our communities, and that affects the well-being of all of us. It is essential that we take this seriously. The estimated cost of this leaky home crisis—the consensus that was agreed on on it, even though there were differing views—was $11.3 billion and 42,000 affected houses. From leaving things to the market, this is the cost. And only a tiny percentage, 10 to 25 percent, of that cost is being borne by the people who caused the problem: by the Government. Other outside estimates have actually estimated that the cost of the leaky building crisis is $23 billion and 89,000 houses affected. This is not a minor issue.

Although the bill that is in front of us is a small, technical bill to support 70 families before the expiry date hits next year, the underlying issues and the cost to our economy and our families are ongoing. We need a much more considered response, and particularly one focused on prevention in the future. I remain unconvinced we have those measures in place at the moment, but the Green Party will support this bill and give our best to those 70 families. We hope that you can come up with that 50 percent of the cost of the rebuild of your house. Thank you.

Well, once again here we are, at speaking slot No. 7. I am reminded often, Mr Assistant Speaker, how you do remind us, particularly at the Committee stage, how we should try to introduce new material and not be repetitive. It is always hard in the second reading speech when you really want to encapsulate in your speech the purpose clause, the aim of the bill, and what happened and transpired in the select committee, and make a valued contribution. But it has all pretty much been said, so I will try to touch on a couple of things.

The first thing I want to say is that it is really quite astonishing for me—working in the Local Government and Environment Committee, we have a very collegial committee that gets on very well and we are able to progress legislation through that committee in a very collegial manner. As can be seen in this piece of legislation, to have the Minister stand up and say he accepts 100 percent of the recommendations made by the select committee is a tribute in itself to the way in which the committee goes about doing its work. I guess I can only say that there are a couple of people from the National Party side of that select committee who, probably, if they were on the front benches of the Government today, behaving and working in the way in which they do in the select committee, there might be a far better relationship between the National Party and the New Zealand First Party. We would probably get on a whole lot better and would see less of the rubbish that we are seeing recently in the House from some of the front-bench members.

So I am looking forward to Scott Simpson becoming a Minister and replacing Mr Joyce—no, he will replace Mr Brownlee. And I am looking forward to Todd Muller moving through and taking over from Mr Joyce, who probably does need to be moved on and put out to pasture. So I want to thank the National select committee members for the way in which they have worked on this legislation, and the whole of the committee—the Labour team as well—because it really does make life pretty simple.

What can we say about this legislation that has not already been said? I do want to put on the record that sometimes when we are moving legislation through the House—and this piece of legislation is probably a good example of it because it is technical, it is small, it is brief, and it was easily managed—we do sometimes forget where this all came from. The points were raised by the Labour members here today about what was an idealistic drive towards deregulation, which, I have to say, started in the era of the Labour Government in the 1980s when deregulation by Roger Douglas and all his acolytes—Phil Goff, I think, was an Associate Minister of Finance around those times; there was the mantra for deregulation. He actually wrote to me when I was in the Middle East, explaining to me why I had to pay tax as a contract officer in Oman, employed by the Sultan of Oman—a letter that I still have, actually.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think we might come back to the bill.

We talk about the drive towards deregulation—that actually created the problems that are still being addressed. It is that drive that put enormous stress on families; we heard the stories about marriage break-ups, suicides, and bankruptcies. It is easy to forget that sort of thing, at this point in time in the debate.

I want to put on the record again that New Zealand First is very aware of the trauma that was inflicted upon families who unsuspectingly bought these homes. Then to have ratepayers, who had nothing to do with this problem at all, being forced to pay for the remedial work on these homes—25 percent from local government. Interestingly, Carterton had one leaky home—one leaky home. This from a district council that is able to put through consents in 4 days—not like Auckland. What are you talking—4 years, four millenniums, four generations? We do not know. In Carterton, consents are through in 4 days—4 days—and only one leaky home. It is interesting that in certain parts of the country, builders would not build houses in the way in which they were being built in Christchurch, in Auckland, and in Wellington.

But here we are, thanks to the bravery of a couple who went to the Supreme Court and forced the Government’s hand by winning their case in that court, and the Minister at the time, Nick Smith, picking up the legislation, realising that something had to be done for these 70 people—hence the legislation he brought to the House. But it is interesting, is it not, the comments that were repeated here in the House by the Labour Party about Nick Smith’s response to the Labour Government of the day, when this issue was being worked through and the Government was struggling with how to compensate these people for the silly decisions of a former Government. Mr Smith, as we have quite rightly been reminded, told the Government to just write the cheque.

This is the same Mr Smith who ended up being sued by Osmose New Zealand for comments that he made as a member of Parliament about TimberSaver. It is all a matter of record and you can read it on Stuff. But it is interesting that we have the Minister, finally, who was concerned, obviously, about the preservative techniques and wanted to sheet home the blame for the leaky homes, I guess. I am not sure. But as a member of Parliament, he made a comment about a company that defamed it and resulted in the company taking him to court. Of course, the taxpayer ended up subsequently providing some funds towards the defence.

It was all back to leaky homes though—all back to leaky homes. The impact was not just small and focused on a few homes in New Zealand. As we have heard from the Greens, it affected tens of thousands of homeowners and, ironically, in a strange way, it personally affected the Minister who brought this bill to the House, as he fought the case and spent around, I do not know how much—hundreds of thousands of dollars on defending himself in the court and eventually settling out of court. A long sordid story—

💬 Hon David Parker: The Government funded that. The Government funded his legal costs.

Yes, Parliamentary Service paid $209,000 towards Nick Smith’s defence. It was taxpayers’ money. It is really interesting. A horrible set of decisions made right at the outset around deregulation—[Interruption] That member—I cannot remember his name but he is clearly a deregulation fan. He is chipping at me. A horrible set of decisions on deregulation, made by a Government, led to—what are we talking now? Is it 15, 20 years? Twenty years—deaths, suicides, bankruptcies, marriage break-ups, a member of Parliament, probably inadvertently, saying the wrong thing and ending up getting sued, a couple of hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers’ money, and a law suit brought by a couple against the Government, in order to get treated fairly.

And here we are today, finally, hopefully, passing the last piece of legislation that will see, in some way, some of the wrongs being redressed. Seventy people who were not eligible up until this point in time are now made eligible, and are now able to get funding assistance. Hopefully—hopefully—this is the closing of what is a terrible chapter in New Zealand’s history on an experiment in deregulation, driven myopically by free-marketeers who believe that the market will fix everything. Oh, how wrong we are.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. In rising to take a call in this second reading debate on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill I do want to congratulate and thank John and Helen Osborne of Remuera, who did bring the case against the Auckland Council, which has spurred the Government on to correcting the technical deficiencies in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act, which can broadly be put into three categories.

No one claims that this piece of legislation is wide ranging, is large, and is going to make an enormous difference to those who have suffered the terrible issues around having a leaky house, a leaky home, but it will correct three specific technical deficiencies that were identified by the court as being significantly problematic.

Firstly, it gives clarity around the definition of what constitutes the built date of a property. In some cases there can be significant differences in the time frame between when a council certificate is issued through to when the final inspection has happened. So this gives clarity around the interpretation of when a building is designated as having been built. Secondly, it deals with the issue of the location of the criteria in the legislation. The court was very clear that the criteria could be challenged simply on the grounds that they were contained within the New Zealand Gazette instead of being in the regulations or in primary legislation. This bill corrects that issue and gives greater clarity so that the courts in the future will not identify that particular problem.

Thirdly, it does address the expiry date of the Financial Assistance Package, which the Government has put in place for a fixed period of 5 years and which expires on 23 July next year. So it gives greater flexibility to those who would seek to have redress for the issues that they have suffered in having a leaky home and, I think, a more liberal interpretation of when they need to start their action, rather than having a formal issue of notice to proceed. That will actually bring in place, I think, a more liberal approach when dealing with those people who have been affected.

Contrary to what some members, I think, have been arguing—and Jan Logie from the Green Party was saying that not enough has been done—significant investment has been put into assisting those with leaky homes. The liability for the Government, as it stands right now, is $115 million, and that is estimated to generate a further $460 million worth of home repairs. So this is, clearly, part of a significant amount of work that is going on.

This particular series of small technical amendments is only applicable probably to around 70 properties in New Zealand. But it is still a valuable change and will mean a huge amount to those people who are affected in these ways. For this reason, I commend this bill to the House.

I am happy to take a call on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill this afternoon. The leaky home saga has been going on for years, as has been acknowledged in the House today. The numbers around that, of course, are quite staggering when you consider that, depending on who is doing the estimating, it is somewhere between 42,000 and 89,000 buildings, at a cost of $11.3 billion through to $23 billion.

So this bill deals largely with around 70 claimants or families and improves their situation—their situation of having been fighting on this issue for many years. They finally have a piece of legislation that comes to the House that actually effectively deals with that. As my colleagues have already said, we on this side of the House are supporting this bill in its second reading. We look forward to the Committee stage, of course. The many families that this issue has affected, which is corrected by this particular bill—I want to pay particular acknowledgment to them for their resilience, I guess, and for pursuing this issue, and, in particular, to the Osborne family, who actually persevered with this issue and really need to be acknowledged for making this change happen.

One of my colleagues, Dr Megan Woods, mentioned that the Minister for Building and Housing, when he was in Opposition, challenged the Labour Government to just write a cheque, and I can understand that. He knew that Labour knows how to balance a cheque book and produce surpluses, unlike the Government benches opposite, so that was an easy thing for the member, then, to actually say.

I am not going to take up any more time, except to say that for all of those families who are dealing with issues around housing, whether it be leaky housing or just not having a house or not having a dry, warm house, we in Labour support those families and we look forward to the time that we can, again, from the Government benches, actually do a lot more for the families involved in this huge housing issue that we are facing in our country. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi atu ki te Whare nei i tēnei pō [And so I acknowledge the House this evening].

I stand to take a short call—a very short call—on the second reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill, sponsored by the Hon Nick Smith.

As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am really pleased to take this short call because the work that has gone on behind bringing this bill to the House has been, for want of a better phrase, a very smooth and collegial process. A lot of it, yes, we can attribute to the very good chairmanship of Scott Simpson. I was in his select committee last year, and he also chaired that select committee very well back then—it was the Justice and Electoral Committee.

My colleagues have given lots and lots of explanations about this very short, very important bill that affects a lot of people who have suffered leaky homes or leaky buildings. I understand that time is of the essence, I am watching that clock tick on by, and I want to be able to get as many people as possible through this process of being able to share their contributions to this bill. So, without any further ado, I stand to commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a second time.