Simpson Scott: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee which has considered and guided this bill through the select committee process it is a pleasure and a privilege to speak in this third reading debate particularly following Phil Twyford who has come to this third reading debate ill-prepared ill-informed and trying to fluff and fill 10 minutes on a range of subjects to do with all sorts of things other than the bill.This is a small bill but it is an important bill and to discount with such arrogance really the impact that this bill has on the people affected is to discount their situation in a way that I find appalling and shameful. I would have expected better from that member. This is a bill that will amend the principal Act the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act in a way that gives certainty resulting from a court case that created some uncertainty and will also help those people who have already spent too much time and too much energy on long and expensive litigation to try to get their leaky home situation fixed.This is a bill that provides an alternative to a litigation pathway and I think that is a good thing. I think there have been far too many lawyers involved in expensive litigation in many leaky home matters. This is a Government that has decided that enough is enough and it was this Government that decided to take action on the whole leaky homes issue in a way that the previous Government sought not to do. Given that a major commitment to the Financial Assistance Package was made by this Government during a time of incredibly tight economic hardship it is an indication of this Government’s commitment to supporting those people who are confronting leaky home issues around the countryside.This bill admittedly as Mr Twyford said may impact on only a relatively small number of homeowners but it is important to them and it is important that this House duly considers their situation because we would like to take a pragmatic and sensible approach to solving those people’s issues and providing them with some certainty. This bill amends the principal Act to remove doubt and to sort out the validity of two criteria that determine eligibility for the Financial Assistance Package and I think that is a very good thing. This bill does not actually change anything about the Financial Assistance Package itself as set out in the principal legislation; it simply removes doubt and provides claimants with access for those who want to take recourse to the Financial Assistance Package and use that methodology to advance a resolution of their leaky home situations.Clause 2 of the bill relates to the commencement and it has been amended so that only the amendments made by clause 7 are brought into force on 23 February 2015—that is the date on which the bill was introduced to the House. That is important because the rest of the bill will now come into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. There was a further amendment made during the select committee consideration and that involved clause 7 which amended the bill to remove those provisions in the clause relating to the insertion of new subpart 9 of Part 2 into the principal Act. Those amendments are now moved to a new clause 8. This was necessary to avoid new subpart 9 coming into force on the date on which the bill was introduced.This may sound all a bit technical and a bit pointy-headed but it is actually quite important because the courts are sometimes inclined to interpret the legislation that gets passed in this House in a narrow way. Indeed it was that matter in the case of Osborne v Auckland Councilthat led to a significant issue in the Supreme Court where they interpreted the word “built” differently to the way that that word and that term had been interpreted previously by High Court and Court of Appeal decisions. The meaning removed from the point of final council inspection to the point at which a code of compliance certificate was to be issued.That is why in this bill we are moving to clarify that definition. The new meaning of “built” can be applied not only to future decisions on eligibility but also to make sure that the position for these people is found to be based on a past interpretation in other courts. This bill clarifies the position for past claimants and is a further indication that we are a pragmatic sensible and good Government in terms of tidying up these matters.This is a good piece of legislation. It is a small piece of legislation but it is important and this is a Government that takes these matters seriously. I commend it to the House and I want to thank the committee members for their work in guiding it through to this third reading stage.