Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): There's just some incredulity and disappointment when I listen to the member for Kaikōura—someone whose constituents have been affected by an enormous earthquake of their own and here we have a piece of legislation which at last is addressing the crisis of access to justice that we have in New Zealand. As I was thinking about this I dug back in my old law books and I looked at the Statute of Westminster The First from 1275. This is the oldest piece of—[Interruption] Learn something in the whip's chair over there. Here's a bit of law for you the oldest bit of law we've got and it says that common right be done to all as well poor as rich without respect of persons"—that's our oldest bit of law. You know what? In New Zealand right now the poor—and even the middle classes the moderately wealthy—don't have access to justice and Christchurch is an example of that. The High Court list there the earthquake list there still has over 500 claims unresolved in Christchurch. We hear the member for Kaikōura saying that he doesn't want that addressed. He thinks that really everything is okay. He's not going to support this. The clearance rates on those cases—in 2018 253 new claims were filed; seven were resolved. That is not justice working. Now I'm not blaming the judges or even the lawyers who work in those courts. They're working within rules and within a framework which is simply broken. If you think about what it costs to go to court—what it costs even just setting down and paying the bill so the court will book your dates for a 10-day trial: $34000.Kieran McAnulty: How much?Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Do you know what? Do you know what Mr McAnulty—$34000 and here's the irony: to get legal aid you have to earn less than $23820. So it's an absolute Kafkaesque paradox. It's impossible. So here we have a bill a bill which in principle—and can I just go back a step and say that Mr Stuart Smith talks about natural justice. Well natural justice should not be justice you can't afford. So what we have here is a tribunal based on four principles. Fairness—and I'm going to talk about that; I'm going to address the points raised by Mr Smith. Speedy—frankly when you've got claims that have been languishing in the High Court for four years there are people who have died waiting and that's not good enough. Flexible—something that looks at the size of the problem the nature of the parties and adjusts to fit. And cost-effective—if you've got a claim that's $300000 in dispute it's no good having to spend that on your experts on your court fees and on your lawyers' costs and can I just say that's absolutely how much those experts court fees and lawyers' costs add up to.So to talk about natural justice—and look it's all very nice for the member over there to say that rights of cross-examination and rights to have experts are absolute but you know it's a pity Mr Finlayson's not still in the House because he would be the first to haul that member in and say "Hey sonny Jim you haven't been in court. You haven't seen the abuse by the battle of the experts where well-funded litigants"—and here let's face it I'm talking about insurers—"will just grind a matter out with a geotechnical expert an engineer another engineer a building surveyor a land surveyor and off they go." Of course the poor homeowner who may be earning a goodly sum—decent well above the average wage—may have a family income of $90000 or $100000 they can't even keep up with that. They can't borrow against their broken house any more. They can't fund it. So it's entirely reasonable for this tribunal under the provisions here including section 37 to be able to appoint its own expert.So look I'm not interested in this battle of the experts. I'm not interested in generating disagreement where none need exist. I want to see an independent expert. I want to see one who isn't beholden to either party who isn't on the payroll who hasn't had the entire last four years giving reports to the litigant party insurer and amending those reports to make sure that they fit within the budgetary constraints that the insurer imposes. That kind of expert whilst they might still technically qualify as an independent expert knows where their loyalties lie. So there's absolutely nothing wrong.I entirely agree that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should apply along with the Statute of Westminster The First along with that good old Magna Carta that we see that we see quoted so often 1279: "We will sell to no man we will not deny or defer to any man justice or right." We've been denying justice and right in Christchurch for far too long. The current Chief Justice in her Ethel Benjamin lecture gave a fantastic paper on access to justice and she identified the fact that ordinary people—just ordinary folks who you think would never have a worry in the world—when they run into a significant problem can't afford to go to court. So this is a sea change in civil justice.You know I don't buy into Mr Smith's suggestion that it's simply a rehash of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. That's quite wrong. You know I had quite a lot to do with that tribunal as well; clearly he didn't. That tribunal got bogged down in procedure. That got bogged down in appellate procedures and in interlocutrixes.The other thing that this does in a fantastic way is buy into alternate dispute resolution. It is integrated with the Greater Christchurch rebuild programme and it will be able to use mediations where appropriate and enter into binding mediation arrangements where the parties are given a mediator and where they are encouraged to identify what's in dispute so that they don't have to embark on—and let's just remember the costs of litigation are not just financial. They are emotional and they consume enormous amounts of time and if we can encourage parties to take independent technical advice and to mediate their disputes then they will avoid that cost that time and all of that grief.Just one other thing: you know lawyers don't have a monopoly on how to resolve disputes. Yes a lawyer will head this tribunal but it is absolutely imperative that we have other people with other skills alongside them and we do that in other technical areas. The Commerce Commission is a really good idea in Commerce Act cases. So where we have technical problems we need people with technical knowledge to help us solve them. Sure lawyers are going to be good at ensuring process is there understanding the legal framework but this is a tribunal which has a fact-finding role and to have a fact-finding role in respect of technical engineering and building disputes you need people with those skills and that knowledge.So look I'm sure the member for Kaikōura is out on his own. I'm sure the rest of his party including Nicky Wagner is going to vote in favour of this bill because she surely with her people in Christchurch the people she knows knows how hard it's been. She certainly was out there helping them dealing with them and still is on a daily basis I'm sure and she would know the tears that this has caused. I can't imagine that she'll stand up and say that this isn't a fantastic idea. We know there's a shortage of justice. We know there are 500 cases outstanding in the High Court. We know there are about 20 still in the Court of Appeal and there's at least one in the Supreme Court. I haven't even mentioned the District Court where a lot of people go. So look I'm sure there's going to be a heart-warming speech indicating her support for this fine bill a change in the way we do justice. This I'm sure will be a template for how we do justice in the future and I look forward to the support from the other side."