Auchinvole Chris: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19964] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am very conscious of previous speaker Dr Prasad’s family involvement which he expressed during the second reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. Far be it from me in any way at all to try to dilute the reality of that situation for anybody who has been involved but I would like to reassure the member on some of the points raised by him. Although I appreciate that not everybody can be at a select committee I think he would have been comforted by the degree of thoroughness that the Local Government and Environment Committee process ensured was given to these things. I mean that quite sincerely because the stories that came before us were oftentimes heart-rending. 
I will address two of the points the member made and I am sorry that the member’s representatives on the committee did not explain this when they were explaining the bill to his caucus. The 10-year feature is because prior to 2004 things were done to start to stop the leaky home syndrome. The Building Act 2004 made sure that the leaky homes problem would not arise again. Building techniques were developed supplies became better and the accreditation of building consent authorities was concentrated. So the select committee was assured that it is reasonable to expect that claims coming forward now would have occurred well within the 10-year period. It was on that basis that we accepted that there has to be some sort of defined point. 
The other thing is that there is a no-blame basis for this legislation—a little like ACC. It is not designed to comfort—and I do not make the remark flippantly—homeowners or initial owners of leaky homes; it is designed to address the problem. In this case the building is the feature not the owner. It is the building that has to be corrected. From that point of view there is a no-blame basis. I understand that there has been very good sign up from local government and territorial authorities—not because it is cheap or an easy way out but simply because it gives certainty. This is where I think the Minister for Building and Construction’s bill and his work have been so praiseworthy in terms of getting this put right. It does not do anyone a favour but it certainly gets the work done. 
Just to address one of the points that was raised about past practice I must say that I concur with the previous speaker from the other side of the House that now is not the time to be allocating blame. Indeed this bill does not. Nothing about it allocates blame. But it is a case of bye-bye to the cowboys. The Minister who is not known for his love of intense regulation—he has not been previously known for it—has reintroduced regulation and has reregulated builders and shortly the licensed building practitioner scheme will come into effect in March next year. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes this Minister did it—mandatory H1.3 timber treatment is required. This Minister has reregulated. 
I know we have done a lot of work on the building amendment bills Nos 1 2 and 3 and I think No. 4 is coming up shortly. A lot of work has been done and it is most reassuring. All in all this is a most worthwhile bill. I am very proud to be involved in its processing. Thank you.