Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to talk to clause 5(2) in Part 1 which amends section 96 of the Building Act 2004 by repealing subsection (1)(d). I have the Building Act in front of me and I want to ask the Minister in the chair Nick Smith to clarify why it is that we are repealing section 96(1)(d).Section 96 of the Building Act which this bill repeals subsection (1)(d) of deals with the situations where a territorial authority can grant on application a certificate of acceptance for building work already done. This is not the situation where someone has applied for and got a building permit and is then seeking a compliance certificate for the work that has been done in compliance with that building permit; this is dealing with situations where building work has already been done but it probably has not gone through proper consenting processes. Section 96(1)(a) describes where this normally happens. It says: A territorial authority may on application issue a certificate of acceptance for building work already done—(a) if—(i) the work was done by the owner or any predecessor in title of the owner; and (ii) a building consent was required for the work but not obtained;"—so that is pretty clear; you can see why that is necessary there. Then it has an "or" and it has some other examples in paragraphs (b) and (c) which are not being dealt with here.Then in section 96(1)(d) the provision that is being repealed it currently says that: "A territorial authority may on application issue a certificate of acceptance for building work already done—(d) if—(i) the work affects premises to which section 362A applies;"—and I am not going to go into that—"(ii) a building consent for the work was obtained before 31 March 2005; and (iii) the territorial authority is unable or refuses to issue a code compliance certificate for the work; and (iv) the application for the certificate of acceptance was made before 31 March 2010." Presumably that arm of section 96(1)(d) was of relevance and actually dealt with problems that some people had that would not be able to be cured but for section 96(1)(d). I want to know why if it was useful back then we can be assured that it is no longer needed now.I am going to give you an example of how long these things kick in. When I am in Auckland—surprising though it might seem to people—I look out the back window and it looks like I am looking at the Southern Alps. There is a huge shroud in white of a sort of three- or four-storey peaked building one street across on Sackville Street called Summerfield Villas. Summerfield Villas were built many moons ago by Mainzeal construction. They have been repaired three times. They are currently being repaired for the third time and this shroud has been over them for about a year whilst many hundreds of thousands—I suspect millions—of dollars has been spent on the refurbishment of those premises. Those premises were built long before I was on the scene up there. I suspect they were built more than 10 years ago.We know that Mainzeal construction is no longer so you cannot force Mainzeal construction to fix these things up and meet the Building Act requirements in respect of those Summerfield Villas on the corner because it no longer exists. It has been put into liquidation. There was some controversy under Dame Jenny Shipley as to whether it was trading at a loss. But it just shows how long it is that these things can be problematic for the owners of those buildings—the unfortunate owners of these leaky buildings—mainly in Auckland.I want to have an assurance that this deletion now of section 96(1)(d) is not going to deprive owners of a route to get a certificate of acceptance for building work that has already been done. Presumably that paragraph (d) which I have read out was necessary in respect of people who had this work done and applied for this work before 2010. But I suspect there are plenty of people out there who are still waiting for decisions from the council that relate back to 2010.We know that some of the applications that people have made in the likes of Christchurch to resolve insurance claims from more than 6 years ago have not been resolved. I would not be surprised if there are people who have been waiting for more than 6 years to resolve their problems relating to buildings or problems relating to an overdue certificate of acceptance for building work that has already been done even though that work was that old."