Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill

I want to remind the Committee of the debacle that is involved in this legislation. What we have historically is that in 2002, in a mad rush, in a Supplementary Order Paper that was tagged on to another bill, we passed and set up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That was such a botch-up that the Government needed to come along, in 2005, with another bill in the name of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, to fix up that botch-up. Then earlier this year we discovered a botch-up in the fix-up of the botch-up from the botch-up!

So a new bill was introduced, and that bill was taken through its first and second readings, its select committee consideration, and all the way through the Committee stage. Now we have this extraordinary spectacle from the Government whereby we have done something that is done within Parliament only on very rare occasions—we have suspended the Standing Orders, and we have recommitted the bill to the Committee stage for the consideration of this Supplementary Order Paper.

I have a question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The Minister introduced the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service under a Supplementary Order Paper, and it was a botch-up. He then introduced a bill to the House to fix up that botch-up, and it was a botch-up. He then introduced amendments, this year, to fix up that third series of botch-ups. Are we now to trust that these amendments, which were tabled in the House only today, have got it right?

Well, I have to tell the Minister that we are once bitten, twice bitten, three times bitten, and we do not believe him. He cannot botch up the law as many times as that and ride roughshod over the legislative process. There is no good reason why the amendments contained in this Supplementary Order Paper 133 should not be referred to a select committee. In debating Part 1 of this bill, I would ask the Minister how many mistakes we should tolerate.

Let us just remind ourselves of the legislation we are dealing with. We are dealing with legislation governing the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. This organisation was set up in 2002 to resolve the problem of leaky homes. Despite our spending $85 million—$85 million—we have resolved, after 5 years, only 16 percent of the cases. It has been a failure because 85 percent of those homeowners out there who are waiting for justice and for some resolution of the problem of their leaky homes are still waiting. They are waiting because this Government has cocked up time after time after time with this legislation.

In this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill we have a provision to provide for general damages. The interesting part is this. At the select committee stage in 2005 submitters said that the law was not clear and that we needed to make it explicit that we would provide for general damages. What did the Minister and the Government say? They said that they had the law all right and that they needed to ignore that public submission. As a consequence, they have got it wrong, and that is the reason for the bill.

I have to say that in my 17 years as a member of Parliament—

💬 Darren Hughes: That’s too long.

It is a lot longer than the temporary member for Otaki will be here, but I cannot remember, in my 17 years in this House, any area of legislation that has had so many botch-ups. Let me remind members. There was a botch-up in 2002 and a botch-up in 2005 that were to be fixed with this bill in 2007, and at the very last moment, we are having to—[Interruption] Well, the member opposite—I cannot remember her name, she is such a non-event—

💬 Hon Member: Moron.

Moron—is that her name? The moron member opposite interjects.

Just before I call the next member, I would just remind members that this bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. That is what the debate is for: to consider the amendments. That is where the debate is. It is a narrow debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have a very unusual spectacle. It is something that occurs very rarely—that is, a motion passed by the majority of this Parliament to overrule the Standing Orders. The Government itself has mismanaged the legislative process that has resulted in this bill having to go back to the Committee stage. I would be very concerned, Mr Chairperson, if you were to now curtail the contributions from members of the Opposition after the legislative debacle that we have seen and the motion that has involved the suspending of the Standing Orders.

The Government has referred this bill back for recommittal. It is doing that to get around the process of having to introduce a new bill and, in my view, it would be quite an abuse of Parliament for you to now restrict members’ contributions. Members are debating Part 1, and they are perfectly entitled to debate every single part of Part 1, because that is what they are required to do.

I would just say to the member that it is my understanding that the bill has been debated previously. As set down on the schedule of proposed questions, it is stated specifically that the bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. So I too am guided by the Standing Orders of the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Members are able to debate Part 3, which is on the amendments that have been introduced by the Minister. Members are debating Part 1, and they are perfectly entitled to debate Part 1 under the recommittal motion as per the proper process, because they will again have a vote on Part 1. Members will vote again on Part 2, and they will also vote again on Part 3. So, as a consequence of the Government’s own sneaky decision to get around the Standing Orders, members are required to debate Part 1 of the bill.

I have listened very carefully to what the member has said. The difficulty I have as the Chair is that I am governed by the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings. It is also shown deliberately here, on the schedule of proposed questions, that we can consider only the amendments. I will be lenient with my interpretation of that, but I do not want members to go too wide outside the amendments that have been set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you clarify for the House, Mr Chairperson, that we are debating Part 1 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill, and that it would not be within the Standing Orders to debate Part 3 in the course of debating Part 1? It seems that your rulings are somewhat contradictory, Mr Chairperson. On the one hand, Mr Chairperson, you are saying that as a consequence of the motion from the House, members can debate only those matters that arise from the Minister’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133, and, on the other hand, you stated at the beginning of the debate that members were to debate Part 1. It will be either one or the other, because there is nothing in Part 1 that includes Supplementary Order Paper 133.

The member is using the point of order process to conduct a debate in part. In response to his main issue, which seems to be what the Committee can debate, the House has been put into Committee on the motion of the Minister, which was that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. That is the motion the House voted on to come into Committee. It is very clear what the House wanted us to debate. It is what is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. So I do not see how the—[Interruption] I am being interjected on during a point of order. But it seems to me that is quite tight. The Supplementary Order Paper had been sitting on the Table of the House before the House went into Committee, which is standard with Supplementary Order Papers in the Minister’s name. So I think members should proceed with the debate as was intended by the motion that they voted on.

I thank the member. I would just say that the motion that the House agreed to was specifically that the bill be recommitted for the purposes of considering the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. At the beginning of the debate, Mr Chairperson, you said that members were debating Part 1. I ask whether members are debating Part 1 or debating Part 3, which would include the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133. Mr Chairperson, you said very distinctly at the beginning of the Committee stage that members were debating Part 1 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill.

We are debating Part 1, and I have it in front of me. I am of the understanding that it is both clauses 4 and 5. The member will have a sheet like this one, where it is listed. This is what we are debating—this part here.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it part 1 of the Supplementary Order Paper or Part 1 of the bill?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Under the heading “Heading to Part 1”, it states: “To omit ‘General provisions’ … and substitute ‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” We are starting from there, and we go down to where it states: “Subclause (5): to omit ‘this Act’ … ‘Part 2’.” We are debating that part. That is, as I understand it, the situation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. To add to what my colleague Nick Smith has said, the fact is that this is what happens when the Government ends up suspending the Standing Orders in order to interfere with the constitution of this country and the Standing Orders. Now members find themselves in difficulty.

If members look at Supplementary Order Paper 133 it states, under the heading “Clause 3”: “To omit this clause (lines 1 to 3 on page 2).” Then it states, under the heading “Heading to Part 1”: “To omit ‘General provisions’ …”—you have just referred to them, Mr Chairperson—‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” The fact is that one cannot make an alteration to Part 1 without debating it. Members have the right to debate Part 1, as my colleague Nick Smith just did. The fact is that this is referring to Part 1.

I would just draw it to the attention of the Committee, and in particular to you, Mr Chairperson, that my colleague Nick Smith is absolutely right. When we say we are to change the heading to Part 1, that means it allows us to talk about the heading. When we start talking about the heading, we cannot, of course, talk just about the heading without advising the Committee of the whole House so it can make decisions around what is behind the heading.

My colleague Nick Smith was absolutely correct in setting out what was intended in Part 1 so that members could make sure they had the correct heading, so that, as a consequence, they could decide whether they were debating the right form of words under Part 1. It states that very clearly right at the very beginning. Nick Smith is absolutely right, and I support him entirely.

Members should be able to debate Part 1, and the words and the intent behind them, because that is what Supplementary Order Paper 133 states. It is set out very clearly. People like myself and Nick Smith, who have been around for a long time, understand these things. Members are entitled to debate Part 1. That is absolutely obvious.

Putting the hyperbole about the constitution of the country aside, when Mr Carter refers to clause 3 at the beginning of the Supplementary Order Paper, that is actually a separate question—that will be the third question members debate. The first question members are debating is under the heading “Heading to Part 1”, where we have new clauses 3A, 4, and 5. That is the limit of the debate as it affects Part 1. It is not a general free-for-all across Part 1. Dr Smith shakes his head, but that is what the motion putting the House into Committee states. It is so that members can debate Part 1 as it is affected by these clauses here, but it is not a free-for-all across all of Part 1. Although the two members giggle away there, that seems to me to be the obvious interpretation of what the motion was from the House.

Perhaps members have got themselves into a bit of a pickle. I think the point my colleague Dr Smith is making is that if members accept what my colleague Darren Hughes has proposed and debate the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper before them, then, following those amendments, they will vote on a new Part 1 as amended, so surely that gives them the right to debate Part 1 in full. The Minister may want to make some amendments, but this Committee still has to pass Part 1 with those amendments. So it surely has the right to debate Part 1, including the amendments that are being made.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just advise members that the question before the Committee is that Part 1 stand part. However, the debate is limited to the consideration of the amendments proposed to Part 1. I am prepared to listen to the debate and consider it as it progresses, and if I think members are going too wide, then I will use the motion. [Interruption] We have decided, I say to Mr Carter.

Can I just get clarification so that I can understand, if I make a contribution, whether I am within the scope of your ruling. My understanding was that the motion was to allow members to debate Supplementary Order Paper 133. I understand that is correct.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister’s amendments are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133.

Right—and that allows members to debate it. Therefore, if we look under “Heading to Part 1”, we see it states: “To omit ‘General Provisions’ …”. The heading refers to that. It states that very clearly in the Supplementary Order Paper I have before me, unless there has been an alteration—in which case members are entitled to debate the heading to Part 1 and the amendment omitting “General provisions” and substituting “Purpose and application of Part 2”. That then allows members to make contributions to that amendment.

As I said earlier, members cannot debate the heading without debating the intent, and if they are debating the intent, then they are allowed to debate what the intent means. Therefore, it gives them the ability to have a debate on the provisions of Part 1. So although I understand that you will listen carefully, Mr Chairperson, I would just say that you need to give members guidance as to what that actually means, because some members would interpret that as meaning they are able to cross over to the intent of the bill and to its provisions and the purposes, because that is stated in the Standing Orders. That was in the motion passed by the House—which we opposed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. In consideration of what the member has said, the debate will be taken in so far as the points are relevant to the debate.

I rise to speak about Part 1, and about the clauses in the Supplementary Order Paper that obviously affect Part 1 and that change the meaning and interpretation of that part as we originally debated it, I believe, the week before last. One of the difficulties we have, of course, in having confidence in these particular clauses and in the Supplementary Order Paper affecting Part 1, is that they have not gone through the normal select committee process whereby we can consider them in depth. For instance, in Supplementary Order Paper 133, under “Heading to Part 1”, the amendment states: “To omit ‘General provisions’ … and substitute ‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” It seems to us that that change gives more emphasis to the purpose and the application of Part 2. Yet when we said originally that we would support this bill, and particularly Part 1, our concern was for the fact that general damages could be claimed by those people seeking out the service of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service.

It is no surprise to us that New Zealanders across this country, many of them vulnerable and many of them elderly, are having to deal with all sorts of stresses, costs, and burdens as their houses continue to leak and rot, while this Minister bowls up year after year to make amendments to the original legislation, which first came into the House in 2002. That legislation was ill-considered, so legislation had to be brought into this House again in 2006. That too was ill-considered, so legislation has had to come into this House again this year at this time to fix the leaky homes problem. Again, the legislation is ill-considered, and we find ourselves with a Supplementary Order Paper, presented to us at the eleventh hour to somehow fix Part 1, which we are considering here tonight.

So it is no surprise to us that many New Zealanders across the country, often elderly and often vulnerable, who are sitting in leaky and rotting homes right now and who are filled with stress and concern, will go straight to these new provisions in Part 1. They will walk off to court with them under their arms, and they will now be able to bring an eligible claim, under clause 4(a): “… for general damages (for example, for relevant mental distress), or for any other remedy, that could be claimed in a court of law in relation to, or for consequences of, all or any of specified damage, deficiencies, loss of value, and penetration of water;”.

But it is that focus on “general damages”—for example, “relevant mental distress”—that is of most concern to us in the National Party. We would have liked to see the leaky homes issues resolved very shortly after the problems were first discovered, which was early in 2000-2001. Here we are in 2007, under this Labour Government, still trying to pass legislation that will alleviate the stress of those New Zealanders who are now sitting in rotting homes, those New Zealanders who demand their day in court, and those elderly and vulnerable New Zealanders in particular who do not have years of earning power ahead of them to resolve their own leaky home crisis.

That is why I bring the focus of this particular chairperson and the Labour Party on to the purpose of this legislation, and the provision in the legislation that people can now claim for “relevant mental distress”. I can tell the Committee that there is a fair bit of mental stress going on in this country because of this leaky homes crisis—stress that is no less so because it has taken 7 years for this Government to resolve this crisis through legislation. It is also quite appalling to me that this legislation would try to bring district councils to account, when they too are in the dark as to what direction they are getting from central government.

I want to make a contribution to this debate and to draw to the attention of the Committee and the public the fact that this provision, if passed, will actually omit the general provisions of Part 1, which I understand is the intent of the Minister. I assume that is his intent—he is not nodding one way or another—but given his history we hope that he knows what he is doing this time, although we cannot be assured of that. The bill certainly states that it is his intention to omit the general provisions.

I listened to the contributions from my colleagues Nick Smith and Phil Heatley and the emphasis on the issue of stress under the general provisions, which will be taken out if this proposal is passed tonight. I say to those members of the smaller parties who may well support this proposal—we do not know yet; they have not indicated—that it is seriously important for this House and the public of this nation to understand that up until now we have talked about the leaky home syndrome that we currently know about. There were about 3,200 registered the last time I looked, although there may be more now, of which about 2,700 are in Auckland. It was—it was; I want to stress that—predominantly an Auckland problem up until this point in time.

The problem is that under this Minister, this Helen Clark - led Labour Government, and this Department of Building and Housing, we will find—given that the Government is looking to delete the general provisions that include the clause relating to stress—that there are more stressed people in this country than we ever understood. It is for this reason: this Government and this Department of Building and Housing are letting materials come into this country, and be put into houses, that will cause more leaky homes than we will ever begin to understand. The House needs to know that. I want put on record the fact that the National Party, at least, understands that we are building leaky homes today. We are building leaky homes right now in this country in volumes that have hitherto been unknown. It will take another 5, 10, or 15 years before the regime developed by this Minister and this Helen Clark - led Labour Government is exposed. The Government and the Department of Building and Housing have been so irresponsible that they are letting faulty materials come into this country and be put into homes today.

What we are doing tonight is taking away the ability of people to express a view, to express a concern, and to have the stress caused as a consequence of that noted. I say to the Minister, Clayton Cosgrove, that I cannot understand why he wants to do this. I cannot understand why the officers in his department are allowing this to happen.

Surely the Minister’s officers are competent enough to know that houses being built today will cause stress. Surely they are competent enough to know that the houses being built today will end up being leaky. Surely they know that the materials being put into houses today are faulty. Yet this Minister, the Government he is part of, and the department he represents are asking this House to pass this legislation so that people cannot express a view. I say to my colleagues—and I know they understand this—that if this bill is passed it will cause more unnecessary concern, emotion, and stress than ever. I say to the Minister that surely he understands that he is causing problems in this nation right now.

I would like to take just a quick call on Part 1. I understand that we are confined to Supplementary Order Paper 133, but when we look at what those omissions are about, they are about enabling the original bill, debated in the Committee stage 2 weeks ago, to be changed, and divided into two bills. One bill will continue to be the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and do all the things we find in clause 4 in relation to general damages and aiding the process of resolving leaky homes. The second, which we will be debating in Part 3, is because in the mess that comes before this House there is another set of amendments to another whole bill that is completely outside the scope of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill.

So in debating this very tight Supplementary Order Paper’s clauses and changes to Part 1 of the original bill, it is almost like a Trojan Horse, because it is the mechanism for allowing changes that are completely outside the scope of the bill to be entered into this Parliament and debated. That is offensive. I find that a perversion of the processes of this House. I say to the Minister that it was only 2 weeks ago that we were debating the Committee stage of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. If he had changes to make, why were they not made then?

The whole point of the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 is about allowing the Minister to make changes to a bill unrelated to the bill before the Committee, to fix up a mess that the Minister has got himself into because he would not listen to local bodies. I find it amazing that we are in this position.

I realise that we are under very tight restrictions in this debate and I look forward to the Minister taking an active part in dealing with Part 3 and explaining to the Committee how we got into this pickle. But I make the point again that the only reason we have these amendments to Part 1 is that the Minister has to cover up his incompetence by splitting the bill into two and perverting the whole parliamentary process to allow him to fix up his botch-ups.

I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, and I want to just remind the Committee of the history of the leaky home issue. If we go back to 2001, we will remember well when the issue was raised by the New Zealand Herald. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, said she did not know what the Herald was banging on about. There was a denial from the Government that this issue, which affects thousands and thousands of New Zealand families, was completely ignored by the Prime Minister.

I have to commend my colleague Wayne Mapp, who pursued the then Minister George Hawkins. Would members believe that we have had seven different Ministers in this portfolio area? It is sort of like a game of pass the parcel within the Government; I think we have had John Tamihere, we have had Speaker Margaret Wilson, we have had Mark Burton, we have had George Hawkins, of course, and now we have Mr Clayton Cosgrove.

My question to Mr Cosgrove, relating to the bill, is this. The Government has spent $85 million on the bureaucracy to deal with the leaky home problem. The average settlement for a homeowner has worked out at $70,000. The cost per settlement for the taxpayer has worked out at over $120,000. That $120,000 has not been to fix the houses but to pay for the bureaucracy of the legal mechanisms in this very bill. Can the Minister not see that he has wasted millions of dollars of public money? How could any person with so much as an ounce of common sense defend what has taken place since the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was put in place in 2002? I find it indefensible that we would spend more money—

💬 Darren Hughes: Is that what you tell the judge?

Darren Hughes pops his head up. I ask him whether he thinks it is a good system if it costs $120,000 per settlement for the bureaucracy of the settlement process when the settlement for the homeowner is only $70,000.

💬 Darren Hughes: Explain a better process, then.

The member opposite is interesting. He asks me to explain a better process. Well, I put this to him. Does he accept that the process in place is a dog? I think members on this side uniformly agree that it is a dog.

It seems like common sense to us—as my colleague Bob Clarkson has argued up and down the country—to spend the money on fixing the homes, not on the lawyers and the bureaucrats. So I ask whether this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill will spend the money on fixing the houses. No, it will not. All it does is continue the mad system that has failed for 5 years.

I simply ask the Minister in the chair to get to his feet, as he is responsible for this huge vote. [Interruption] Maybe the member moron opposite might explain.

💬 Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Of all the members in this Chamber, of all 121 members, Nick Smith would have to be the last member who should accuse another member of the name he just used for one of my colleagues. It is unparliamentary and he should not do it—[Interruption]—and Mr Henare should not interject on a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If a member takes objection to something that is said, the member himself or herself should take objection. It not for another member to do so on behalf of someone else. The Committee has listened.

My simple challenge to the members of the Government is to answer this question: are we, as a country, getting value for money? I ask Mr Hughes whether we are getting value for money from the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. No, we are not—$85 million has been spent with only 15 percent of cases resolved, and those cases cost more for the bureaucracy to resolve than what goes to the homeowner. That is clearly not fair.

I further wish to ask why it is that the Government under urgency in 2002 rushed through the legislation establishing the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service, made a botch of it, came along in 2005 with the Minster in the chair—in a rush, again—and botched it up again, and the third time around brought a third bill to the House to fix the botch-up, yet we are no closer to fixing the plight of leaky home owners.

Laws should be made after careful studies to solve the problem; this is what the problem is. Debates should be had with people who understand the problem and can give good advice on how to rectify the problem. You should not make laws on the run. You should not wake up with a warm feeling after a long night. This bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is bringing the Chairman into the debate.

I apologise. The Government is protecting itself through the courts by letting the Building Industry Authority off the hook, and it has caused a lot of mental stress for thousands of homeowners. Now we have a Minister bringing a bill into the House that allows people to claim for mental stress. How strange is that? The Government causes the stress by not dealing with the situation and by protecting one of its departments, the Building Industry Authority, so it cannot be sued for damages. This in itself causes the stress.

The bill is a waste of time. We can fix the mental stress by fixing the problem. In case the Minister has lost sight of the problem, I tell him that it is that we have leaky homes that are taking too long to get fixed. We have people who cannot face a hearing in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—or the later versions of that service, because that has changed now, too—because they do not know anything about houses. That is what got the Government into problems in the first place.

There is a major problem with people getting stressed; the problem being that they cannot afford to pay a lawyer to assist them. They have to take a lawyer along to the hearings at the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service because the other side has top lawyers defending them. The Minister has the cheek to say that one does not need a lawyer to defend oneself in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service hearings, but if there are lawyers on one side, it is only fair that there are lawyers on the other side; otherwise one will get stressed.

I say to the Minister that he should wake up and get in the real world. What is the use of spending more money on a lawyer to win a mental-strain case when there is a fair chance that the full payment on the case just won concerning a leaky home will not be paid? The lawyer’s account will be bigger, but there will be no extra money for the homeowners. Take the Hartley case in Auckland. If they had been allowed to claim for mental stress and damages, they would have won the case; the problem is that they would have ended up with a bigger legal bill and would not be paid any extra dollars. In that particular case their claim was for $270,000. They won $90,000 through the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service hearing. The hearing was a failure—it put a lot of stress on them, as it happens—so they went to the High Court and got another $90,000, which made it a total of $180,000.

How could this new bill have helped them? Maybe they could have spent another $15,000 on lawyers’ fees and been awarded another $20,000 in compensation for stress. The bill would not help because the builder is hiding behind a company and has no money; he has offered $46,000 in a full and final settlement. Therefore, the Hartleys would have to pay their lawyer’s account, which would be bigger, and they would not get any extra dollars. So that makes the bill an ass, actually.

Would the Minister please get real, get a decent policy sorted out, and please think of the people involved and how they are getting ripped off. All the people I have met just want a deal in place that fixes their houses. They want their houses repaired and should not have to wait for years. The repairs should be done now.

I have got myself lost here; that is sad, is it not? I will just finish off, at any rate. I have tears in my eyes every time I hear the statement “with access to speedy, flexible, and cost-effective procedures” to fix these houses. What a joke! It will take 20 years to sort all these problems out. There will be a hell of a lot of stressed people around by then. They will not get any extra money. They will not get all the money on the first claim, at any rate. We have to support this bill, because some people might get some money. I will leave it at that.

I move, That the question be now put.