Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, and I appreciate in the previous section of this debate, on a bill that Labour does support, your willingness to take those three clauses together and to have a reasonably broad-ranging debate.

It is in that spirit that I would observe that Labour is supporting this bill, which tidies up a number of the provisions of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act, and in particular seeks to remove doubt around the validity of the criteria in clauses 1B and 1C of the 2011 Gazette notice by inserting them in the Act. It also deems certain claims eligible that were not previously clear in sections 14 to 18 of the Act, as a result of the 2014 Osbourne v Auckland Council Supreme Court case. Thirdly, it widens the definition of “qualifying claimant” to allow claims that are in progress up until the end of the current eligible period to continue to be heard. All of those are small but worthy amendments that broaden the scope and improve the potential range of eligible families in respect of their homes.

None of that, as we previously observed, can take away from the fact that the weathertightness service is really a very poor ambulance at the bottom of a very high cliff, and it is a cliff that has cost New Zealand and New Zealanders several billions of dollars and has caused untold distress to families up and down the country. As we know, it has been very difficult for New Zealanders to get a resolution on leaky buildings because of the pyramid structure of fly-by-night developers, and because, in some cases, the liability of the regulatory authorities—the councils—has not been clear. This bill is a small afterthought that allows a number of claims, which otherwise might have been inadvertently caught in the cessation of the current window, to have a continuation of their hearing process. That is a good, but limited, thing.

It will not be lost on New Zealanders that the House is discussing this bill—a remedy after the fact for the terrible leaky building syndrome—on the same day that it has discussed another bill around housing: that debated earlier this afternoon in the Chamber about social housing. Taking these bill together, I think New Zealanders have a very stark picture of what this Government has been about. This is a Government that in earlier days deregulated the building industry—some would say under pressure from the manufacturers of kiln-dried timber—by removing the requirement for treatment, like tanalisation of that timber, and relaxed some of the building code requirements to allow mono-cladding and lower-quality flashings. This was all in the name of haste, speed, and efficiency—actually, greed—and was an ingredient in an industry structure that resulted in the collapse of lots of companies as risks were passed down to subcontractors, and the defrauding of thousands and thousands of New Zealand families who got left with lemons, white elephants of buildings that leaked, and, in many cases, resulting in family breakdown and suicide.

So it is with no joy that we support this bill. We know that these small steps are useful in increasing by, we were advised, some 70 cases the number of families eligible to have their hearings taken through to a conclusion—but that is 70, as against thousands of people who have been affected by the leaky building syndrome.

At the other end of the scale—and debated today, as I said earlier—we have the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill. It is one not designed for those in the early stages of the building process of the property ladder. It is for those who have not even got secure rentals; those who are without secure housing. The social end—the emergency end—is also an area where this Government has a woeful record. It is an area where it is now saying it is going to invest—wait for it—$2 million in emergency housing across Auckland. Two million dollars, which will buy very, very little in the way of—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of the debate.

You are right to bring me back. I certainly would not wish to divert from the substance of this bill, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill, but it is tidying up after a major deregulation wave, and people will not fail to see the irony that we are debating this on the same day that the Government sought ministerial approval to sell off what is left of the State housing—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Come back.

There is material contained in these three clauses.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 125 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.