Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I do so wish. I do so wish—I was expecting to be speaking after the dinner break obviously but it seems that we've missed a couple of speakers. But it's a pleasure to be here. I've got nine minutes and 40 seconds to go which obviously meant that I had 20 seconds in the last contribution which was on the last day of the year. At that point I had the pleasure of wishing everyone a very merry Christmas and I trust that they had a happy New Year. So it's great to have been the one of the last of the last year and be one of the first of the new year. So welcome Mr Assistant Speaker. I welcome all the members back to the House. It's good to be back. It's good to be opposing generally this amendment bill. Of course as we've already heard from a number of speakers it's a bill—the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill—which we will as you know be supporting. However there are a couple of points I would like to make regarding the bill. There are four parts to the bill. There should have been more—there should have been a lot more. There should have been a number of points which were submitted on and made by submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that were not picked up by the Government. This is disappointing. It's an opportunity the Government had to get this bill in first-class order really. Unfortunately it's a bit of a band-aid. The work is good but as I say we have to wait for another review of the Government to come forward before we get into the meat of what should be done and needs to be done with the Earthquake Commission (EQC). Another bill will no doubt—the Minister's already said—come before the House to fill in more of the gaps that are existing right here right now. But there are four good parts to the bill and if I could just quickly go through them first of all of course the Earthquake Commission does an excellent job. It's essentially an insurance company a little bit like the fantastic agency that is the ACC. The Earthquake Commission is not unique but is extremely embedded in part of the New Zealand culture because if we didn't have the Earthquake Commission we would end up in a situation where premiums for insurance in places like Wellington the Wairarapa Christchurch and Kaikōura would be much more expensive than they are today—much more expensive—because we have a situation where the Earthquake Commission now insures houses and property but not contents and personal property if you like across the board. So we've got Aucklanders paying or subsidising or insuring those who live in earthquake-prone areas and that of course enables those people in Wellington Wairarapa and Christchurch to have private insurance for amounts above the cap but at a reasonable rate because without it the risk is that people wouldn't bother insuring. It would be too expensive to insure a house in Wellington for example. So that is one of the main purposes of the Earthquake Commission: to assist and essentially spread the load of an earthquake that might occur in Christchurch across the country. The cost is spread across the country. So that is why it's a good thing. The first point that was made in this bill is that the cap has been increased from $100000 to $150000 plus GST. That keeps up with inflation but only just. However it has moved from $100000 to $150000 so my first point is it could have been adjusted annually or every three years by inflation—so keep adjusting to keep in touch with inflation. Otherwise without that adjustment that $150000 will be eroded over time by inflation and may be less meaningful to those who own a home. The other good part about the cap if you like—or the amount that's insured—is that cover for personal contents is excluded. It's been taken away. So the effect of that is essentially you're raising the cap to a greater extent vis-à-vis the property because that is what we are focused on and that is what we're concerned about. We're concerned about the housing of those people who live in the dwelling as being tantamount. The personal belongings of the individual—the personal crockery or furniture or whatever that might be damaged in an earthquake—is not superfluous but it's not the core being or the core statement or the core meaning or purpose of the EQC. The real purpose is to make sure people are housed. So the cover for personal contents has been removed from the Act with this bill and that is a good thing. The onus is on the individual to put more attention for themselves in the private sector for the purposes of insuring their personal property and that is a good thing. The third point that is brought up in the bill is the extension of time that a member—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member—ALASTAIR SCOTT: Again? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): —but it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora tātou everyone and welcome to 2019. Hon Ruth Dyson: Happy New Year to you too. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. We are on the third reading of the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. When we broke for dinner Alastair Scott had the floor and he has three minutes and 52 seconds remaining to speak. ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Third time lucky Madam Deputy Speaker and you're the third presiding officer I have spoken to in this contribution—Hon Member: The best! DEPUTY SPEAKER: Undoubtedly the best! ALASTAIR SCOTT: —once late last year for about half a minute; earlier before the dinner break today; and now—where was I? Where was I? Let me start from the beginning. We are in support of the bill as the House knows. There have been four substantial points made in the bill. I'd covered off a couple of them before the dinner break so I'd like to just go to the final two. I've found it interesting that the Government supported the idea that the personal property aspect—well personal property is excluded from the Earthquake Commission cover. It's outside the cap. It's now up to the individual to personally insure their own contents. The EQC now with this bill covers only the dwellings if you like which is good. I think that's a good point. It focuses the purpose of the EQC on that and doesn't distract it with the huge complexity involved in personal insurance. So I was quite pleased to see the Government admit essentially that the private sector is better than the Government sector at doing this particular role. I think it's a point worth making that the private sector is more effective and more efficient—and at least the Government is admitting it—in this personal space. So that's a good thing. So that's a good thing and I challenge the Government to look at other areas that the private sector can do better than the Government sector. I know that we on this side could list dozens of opportunities that the private sector might be able to take off the State sector but that's for another day. So that's the first point. The second point was the increase in the cap to $150000 from $100000—very good. As I say it excludes the personal contents which essentially means that the cap has been raised more than it otherwise would have been so that's good. The bad thing is that that's not adjusted every year or even every three years or five years for inflation and that's the suggestion at the select committee. It should be indexed to inflation at least so that we don't have a situation where the $150000 essentially gets eroded away over time by inflation. So indexing would've been great to see. Of course there's a whole lot of other things that the Minister did allude to—I'll give her credit for that—that do need to be considered and will come before the House at some other point once the review's been done and the committee or the review or the consultation—Stuart Smith: Working group. ALASTAIR SCOTT: —or the working group has finally completed their work. Unfortunately the Minister did have an opportunity to bring more of those ideas into this bill but has chosen not to. But at least she's suggesting that there is more work to be done and I commend her for that and I look forward to that work being presented to the House. But at this stage there's those four points that we've covered off from this side of the House and with that I commend the bill to the House.