Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a great pleasure to take what I think is the final call on this bill as we've shepherded it through this Parliament to give to those Canterbury homeowners who have waited so many years to get the resolution and the justice they have looked for for their insurance claims arising out of the earthquakes from September 2010. It is disappointing that—as Dr Jian Yang the member who's just resumed his seat has acknowledged—the National Party won't support the bill and it is disappointing that we have got to that point given that really this is an issue that I think all members of this House know deals with the distress and the hurt that many policyholders in Christchurch have been feeling over those many years. I don't doubt that most members in the National Party are keen to see a resolution of those disputes between those policyholders and the insurance companies. This bill provides a mechanism to ensure that that can happen without all the paraphernalia and litigiousness that goes with conventional litigation processes. That's what this bill has sought to achieve because that actually has been part of the stumbling block up to now. Policyholders have sought to make their claim it's been put in dispute and that dispute has been dragged out with contention over engineering advice and expertise and what have you. Well we've actually got to get to a point where the several hundred householders whose insurance issues are still in dispute can get to a point of conclusion so that they can move on with their lives. I think that this tribunal will be a circuit-breaker for those many hundreds of disputes that have been dragged on for so long and for people who frankly deserve closure. Can I just deal with some of the issues that Dr Yang made in his address just now in terms of things that the National Party wanted to see in the bill but that are not there because in my view the things that the policyholders need to resolve their disputes—that is all there in this bill as it is now. So in terms of procedural fairness and the ability to bring expert evidence that is there and in fact what the bill provides for is for the tribunal to have on hand its own expertise so that it can provide real objectivity rather than one party or the other's high-paid favoured consultant of the day. The tribunal will have expertise available to it and on hand and it will be the source of objective advice to the tribunal and to the parties appearing before it. Then the complaint was Well there's no opportunity for cross-examination." That is not correct. The tribunal member—the adjudicator in the tribunal—will have the full power to test the evidence that gets put before it. Of course parties who are represented in the tribunal will have their questions and their issues and some will put them directly to experts and other witnesses but the tribunal member will have a duty to make sure that they understand the evidence and the evidence is clear and that the decision that they ultimately make is one based on evidence. The ultimate discipline on tribunal members making decisions is that their decisions are still subject to appeal and any person acting in a judicial capacity in any of our low-level tribunals or our senior courts that are subject to appeal knows that that right of a party to take appeal is integral to the discipline they exercise when making their decision. In terms of members being suitably qualified I think we need to understand too that it is not just lawyers—and particularly those steeped in insurance law—who have wisdom to bring on disputes between policyholders and insurance companies in this issue. There are plenty of articulate engineers—yes I'll say that again; articulate engineers—who are quite capable of not only understanding the technical issues but articulating the respective issues that each party might have and to bring it to a resolution as well as others who can bring their disciplined thinking to these issues. It doesn't just have to be lawyers. Then finally there is the issue of those who can bring claims. There is only one way an insurance policy falls into dispute and that is after a policyholder has made a claim and an insurance company takes a different view. I have yet to see a case litigated where an insurance company is suing a policyholder to bring a claim against the company. That doesn't happen—it's not how insurance claims work. So it is totally logical that those who initiate action in this tribunal are the policyholders because it is only once a policyholder initiates a claim that a dispute potentially arises. This tribunal will be set up to make sure that the policyholders—and they are the ones who are aggrieved and who are suffering the grief from a lack of resolution in addition to what has happened to their homes which is usually their largest asset—they are the ones for whom this tribunal will bring a resolution as well as with the insurance company. I might say too that the processes that this bill sets up for the tribunal to follow have been modelled on some of the alternative dispute resolution processes used for live insurance disputes in Christchurch in the last couple of years. It is about finding models of dispute resolution that actually work that are respectful of all parties and that get to the heart of the issues but that ultimately achieve a resolution that everybody is satisfied with and everybody can live with and conventional litigation doesn't always do that. Some would say it seldom ever does it. But in these cases when someone's home—the place where they have lived where they have perhaps raised a family the place that is their sanctuary—is severely damaged and is the subject of an insurance claim that attracts a whole heap of other emotion and sensibility and sense about it and this tribunal is about recognising the human factor that goes into these insurance claims with a view to bringing them to closure very quickly. This will be a specialist body with its specialist jurisdiction and it will operate in its specialist way in these very peculiar circumstances following the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. As I've said there will be a right of appeal. The final right of appeal will be to the High Court on matters of law only and that is as it should be. If a tribunal member gets the legal principles wrong let's apply the legal principles but let's not strip those tribunal members of the opportunity to look for creative and ultimately acceptable solutions through good creative engagement and creative thinking. These processes allow the parties to resort to either a mediation—a heavily facilitated mediation—or an arbitral process like a conventional District Court judge to bring these matters to a close. It gives flexibility and it would be a very human process and a very accommodating process that I think would give us a much better chance of bringing resolution and conclusion to these difficult claims. So I look forward to this tribunal getting under way and kicking off its work.Can I just conclude by expressing my thanks to the members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their work on the bill and for their close examination of it and to all members of the House for their contribution to it and their further examination of it. There are still many hundreds of claims that are yet to be properly resolved. This gives us a chance this country a chance and the people of Canterbury a chance to achieve some resolution to put these difficult issues behind them to bring peace and harmony to a city that has so desperately striven for it over many years—a city that is re-beautifying itself and looking amazing. I think this bill will go a long way to bringing that much-needed closure that so many in Canterbury have been looking for and now have a chance to receive. Thank you."