Bennett Paula: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett Paula: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10657. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I have quite a simple question to ask the Minister—if he got it so right and if it was only the judges’ fault then why are we here? If the Minister had clearly stated his intent and there was no question in the bill as it was written we would not be here fixing this mistake. He can prosper and he can make personal attacks on members in this Chamber as he stands there but the reality is that yet again we are here trying to fix a mistake that has been made in this legislation.  
I was thinking that it is not unlike the community sector which I have a personal interest in and am very passionate about. Often we hear people say they will accept a contract that will not quite work for them but they do so because they want to make some sort of difference—it is better than doing nothing. That is a bit how National Party members feel yet again on this legislation. We do not think this legislation will fix the problem; there is no way it is fixing people’s homes but it is a little bit of something and it is something that we have to do. As a consequence we will go through this charade and actually make the Minister’s intentions clear to the judges whose job it is to administer it yet again.  
But there are questions that are not being addressed. The Minister can bandy around popular names like John Gray who is doing a fantastic job in Auckland and I have spoken to him a few times and think that will get him off the hook when the job is not being done correctly. But the reality is that people’s homes are not being fixed and they are in the same situation that they have been in for many years. This is probably when I should stand up and confess to a conflict of interest because I think that is only fair. I have a leaky home in Auckland and I am currently in the process of getting it fixed and it is one of many. So I stand here with some personal experience but my experience is nothing compared to others in Auckland—and other places in New Zealand but it is probably Auckland that I know better—who are dealing with far worse problems than I am. It is a home that I do not live in so it is more as a homeowner that I am dealing with the situation but I already have an understanding of the hours that are put in and the anguish.  
When I look at my neighbours and think about the fact that they cannot afford to pay for repairs and are having to take out extra loans I am incredibly grateful for the salary that I have that means I can pay my extra bits each week. But if members look at the financial burden and the health burden on many people and the effect those burdens are having on their lives through and through this patch-up is of course necessary because of the botch-up before but it is not fixing the problem.  
The Minister can stand up and ask if the National Party will write a big cheque and will it do this and will it do that but he is in Government and it has been nearly 8 years. It is time something was done—something that is going to make a difference for these people. National members looked at the legislation that went through. I was on the Social Services Committee at the end of last year when it considered this bill. It felt rushed. It felt like we were not getting through everything like we should. It felt like those people who submitted to us and pointed out to us some of these problems which we are now fixing were rushed through and were not listened to as clearly and as well as we would have liked them to be.  
The reality was that the Minister had put such a tight deadline on this bill being reported back and in that select committee which is run by Labour National members did not have the power to slow it down and make sure that we got it right. As a consequence we see us going backwards. Yet again in that select committee prior to Christmas there was that point where we did not agree and thought that the legislation was not everything that we wanted. However we felt that something had to be done and this small step was way better than no steps which had been happening pretty much previously.  
So we will start looking at the money. I might stand to be corrected but I was looking at a figure of $96.4 million going in. How does that relate to people and their homes that they are trying to get fixed? That is the key question.