SpeechDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. I want to congratulate the Minister and the previous Minister for all the hard work that's gone into this and the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its diligence. The ACT leader David Seymour has made a visit to most of the affected areas. On behalf of the ACT Party we have to say our heart goes out to everyone who has lost someone and who has lost their possessions as well and are missing. It really is a state that is unprecedented and we'd like to help in any way to alleviate the troubles of those people. He listened to them and he heard from them and he knows the devastation is enormous and as our leader he articulated very clearly this morning at caucus that we should really put our faith in locally elected officials in the community to get on with matters at hand with financial support from the Government. They must not be marginalised and ACT stands in support of these people. Before I move on to the bill we must really now consider the lessons from Christchurch. We need to enact a strategy now of adaptation in this country and build physical defences and not retreat. Centralised control and disaster politics are just counter-productive and everybody instinctively understands that. It leads to frustration and it led to frustration in Christchurch. People can't wait days for help or for the Government to show up and tell them then not what to do. They know their leaders locally and what has happened in the regions is not just a cyclone; the real issue is the flood. The failure of stopbanks and slash-destroying bridges contributed to just an all-round disaster. The biggest lesson was that it was far too easy for Government to look at Christchurch and admit that it unintentionally frustrated and stalled the recovery. We can't let this happen on this occasion and this bill does go some way towards that.One option I'd like the Government to reconsider under this bill—if it worries that too many houses are built in places that are too risky—is an adjustment to how Earthquake Commission (EQC) premiums are actually set and I should think Mr Clark would sort of share the sentiment that this could be worth a further look. EQC is the insurer of last resort so it is funded by a flat rate on existing insurance premiums. In future as we consider how some areas are going to bear greater levels of risk because of climate change such as those on flood plains or beachfront properties exposed to the storm then we need to consider how EQC is funded in a way that sends the right price signals to properties that at are higher risk and also how properties that are at low risk of natural hazards or that have put in controls to reduce natural hazards are not subsidising other properties. Let's not have another expansion of Government power around this one.Where mitigation fails the country must focus on adaptation and the policy implications of the cyclone recovery need to have action steps that actually really work. Sometimes the Government is the insurer of last resort but there is a role for a market-based solution and it exists and we should look immediately at EQC's role now given current levels. When this bill was contemplated the levy system was based around eventualities from the Christchurch earthquake and this is a new scenario which redefines this bill even further. Let's build defences and learn from other countries like the Netherlands and use fast test cases solutions. Dr Eric Crampton from the New Zealand Initiative puts it succinctly: Currently your EQC levy depends only on the value of your property. A million-dollar home perched on an unstable clifftop with beautiful views will pay the same EQC levy as a [multi-]million-dollar property in the safest part of the country. Work by Motu in 2018 showed that this aspect of our natural disaster insurance scheme works on average to the advantage of richer neighbourhoods rather than poorer ones [or poorer regions]. Letting premiums vary with riskiness would encourage building in safer places. It might also reassure private insurers who seem to have feared the political risks of such moves." We have to also be honest with ourselves and say that New Zealand is a country with many challenging features making land free from risk difficult if not impossible to find and that is the reality of the country that we live in. The Insurance Brokers Association have been discussing with this Government as part of the work being done on the national adaptation plan and flood insurgency plan. Early assessments of domestic and commercial properties and prioritising settlements and progress payments are some of the ways that the insurance industry responds to reduce hardship and support clients to get back to normality. Another lesson from Christchurch is that the Government might help to resolve uncertainty that would otherwise hinder recovery and in the next couple of days and weeks I would hope that that list emerges and a framework from Treasury comes out which shows how we can finance and fund this. The recovery and rebuild will be huge and Christchurch provides learnings we must not ignore or forget. Following on from this bill Prime Minister Hipkins must give local government a much more central role in the cyclone recovery and believe in localism and this Act. Leadership from those on the ground must now be made to matter. Linking EQC private insurers with an approach to riskiness will mitigate what is rebuilt—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member—I just would encourage him to have reference to the Standing Orders around a third reading. It is not permissible to introduce discussion on matters that are not contained in the bill. So I'm listening very carefully and the member has strayed a little bit too far about what he believes—could the member sit while I'm—DAMIEN SMITH: Sorry—yes. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The member has strayed a little too far out of what is in nature a summary of the bill. I have allowed context—plenty of context—around this reading and that applies to all members. But in the member's remaining nearly three minutes can I invite him to stick to what is actually in this bill. Thank you.DAMIEN SMITH: Thank you Madam Speaker. The point that I was raising was that when this proposal and law was brought to the Finance and Expenditure Committee it had four or five great elements to it and that we commend this bill to the House. It's just in the state of the last couple of weeks things have changed and I wanted to make the point that the EQC levy system may be not as appropriate as we originally contemplated it. So ACT does commend the bill to the House."