Simpson Scott: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): 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.SCOTT SIMPSON: 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.