GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): It is a privilege to rise at the second reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. As chair of the Social Services Committee, may I acknowledge the general cooperation from all of the committee, frankly, to process this bill speedily. I particularly thank the officials from the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Building and Housing, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for the intense amount of work they had to do in a relatively short time.

The committee received the bill on 31 August and the closing date for submissions was 6 October. We received and considered 27 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and we heard 23 of those submissions. There was great sympathy as we heard the submissions, particularly those from people who were direct victims of the leaky home problem. The committee was very resolute in its decision to process this bill as quickly and expediently as possible but not by doing a once-over lightly.

It was also an advantage to have on the committee a member, in the form of Paula Bennett, who had actual experience of the leaky home problem. To Ms Bennett's credit she declared that possible conflict of interest, but it turned out to be helpful to have someone who had that experience, and she brought to bear that particular perspective without it prejudicing in any particular way the committee's decision. So that was helpful.

The member who has just resumed his seat waxed lyrical—it was a typical filibuster speech from Nick Smith—and highlighted all the problems and issues the Opposition wished to debate, but he gave not one idea as a solution. Perhaps we may be enlightened further on. The basis of what has happened occurred over the 1990s, in particular, and up to recent times. This Government has indeed progressed the issue, no matter what feelings of derision the Opposition may have about slowness. The Opposition may say it is not enough—it is never enough—but it is more than we had before.

One of the important aspects decided by the committee was simply that the bill would supersede the principal Act. The bill as it has been returned to the House will now become the primary Act, as opposed to an amendment to the primary Act. That is quite major, and a lot of work had be done by various officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, in particular, to get that rewrite—for want of a better term—completed so that we could process the bill as quickly as possible.

The committee gave an undertaking to submitters, particularly in the final hearing but generally to all, that we would report this bill back by 4 December. Indeed, we happened to report it back a week earlier than that. That, I hope, highlights the commitment the committee had to seeing it happen. All that is left now is to hope that the bill will proceed expeditiously through its Committee stage and third reading, and be completed by the end of today's session. With that, I thank you.