Muller Todd: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9588. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. As my colleague Scott Simpson has already informed the House it is a good sensible bill that fixes up an anomaly that had been brought to our attention and as is typical of this Government if there is a job to be done we will get it done and make sure that we deliver for people who need our support.But I do have to start if I may with a retort on the previous speaker Su’a William Sio particularly on what appears to me is an immense amount of crocodile tears. I would just like to remind him perhaps of some of the history here. He talked about the 1990s and into the 2000s when we had a number of houses—some in Tauranga and obviously many in Auckland—that were impacted by the leaky home syndrome and he talks about in his view the lack of speed with which our Government has responded. Well I would like to remind him that it took 7 long years of the Labour Government before it put up a bill to get this sorted. Then once it got the bill passed in 2007 it took the National Government to actually pass the Financial Assistance Package to start ensuring that people who needed some financial support got it.So to stand here and cry crocodile tears about the fact that this Government does not care or does not know how to put a proper solution in place is nonsense and does not get borne out by the facts Mr Sio. This Government was the Government that acted. This Government is the Government that stood beside the people of Auckland and Tauranga who needed financial assistance. And when the courts said that there were a couple of anomalies that needed to be fixed it was this Government that put this bill up and has put it through the select committee process and now tonight it has a piece of legislation that is actually going to deliver for those homeowners.There are 70 homeowners who are going to benefit from this bill once it passes. What is interesting is that under the Financial Assistance Package since it has been in place there have been 1200 claims representing over 4200 homes that have already been assessed as qualifying for the Financial Assistance Package. What I think this bill shows is that there were 70 homeowners who had some potential opportunity to miss out in that process and we have identified what those anomalies are and this bill seeks to address those.We have already heard tonight about the two—I guess the two real key—components that needed clarification through this piece of legislation. The first relates to the term “built”. I think that most people in this House would understand why the view of the various agencies and the initial view of the courts was that “built” would be classified as the point of final council inspection. That was largely intuitive so you could understand why that was perceived to be the point of eligibility. But of course the court case that came through resulted in a different interpretation which is that “built” now sits at when the code of compliance is issued and it is appropriate therefore that we make this amendment. It might sound small it might sound very technical but it is an amendment that enables those particular 70 homes to now be included in this process if of course they meet all the other eligibility criteria.I think it is appropriate that while we are having this conversation we look at the merits of extending the expiry date. It makes sense. Clearly when this was first promulgated 23 July 2016 sounded a fair way away. We are obviously pretty close to that now so it makes sense that we actually make that adjustment—as we have done and will do so through this particular change in the expiry date clause.It has been an interesting process. It has had a lot of support through the select committee. There were not a huge number of submissions but it had pretty strong support. It was very technical and despite the rhetoric that we have already heard from a couple of the Opposition speakers when you strip it all back they know that this is good law and they know that this is law that their constituents in their electorates support.It is what this Government is doing and continues to do. When sensible things need to be done we do them. If issues and anomalies need to be clarified we sort them and the people of New Zealand benefit from such an approach. I thoroughly support this bill and commend it to the House.