SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. We're approaching this bill with cautious optimism. The evolution of the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and how it operates and how people make claims and what it covers has evolved over quite some time but I think there is a general consensus that something does need to change that it needs to continue evolving. As we discovered with the Canterbury earthquakes the system just wasn't up to scratch and couldn't function well under great pressure. That as we all know resulted in great pain and frustration and a lot of lessons learnt.Now as others have said legislative changes like this in this area notwithstanding amendments don't happen very often so there's a bit of a feeling out there that it could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity we've got here. That might be a bit dramatic but it does have to be done right.Now there is a fair amount of confusion out there when speaking to stakeholders and getting information and what I'm hearing here in the House tonight as well in terms of cover and range and exactly what we're getting into. It would have been very helpful I think for the sector to have had an exposure draft and actually had a bit of upfront consultation here because we absolutely do need to get this right.So I'm hopeful that this bill is the right way to go about it and that there is a thorough process which means a full select committee. They need to spend a fair amount of time getting stuck into this listening to the sector and those who have experience in dealing with this system. Again I stress the importance of this because stakeholders insurance companies—they did not get an exposure draft as I noted. They are still reacting to it. The bill is considerably larger than the one it is replacing in terms of pages and clauses and it's pretty technical.Some of the initial feedback I've received is there's questions about raising the cap to $300000 which is locked into this bill and there are concerns about how much risk the Government wishes to take on and therefore away from the private sector despite their confidence in actually being able to insure and their ability to do so. There are questions about the financial settings over time—the cap itself and the levy. It seems logical that it will increase but some more certainty around that would be helpful. The overall feeling the overall direction of this bill out there is positive but it's cautious. Again I stress that a lot of that could have been solved by a bit more communication with the sector previously.As others have noted the name of the commission including Natural Hazards Commission" runs the risk of causing a bit of uncertainty about what exactly is covered and to what degree. There's certainly been some different commentary out there so we need to absolutely make sure we unpack that in the select committee. One could argue it's just semantics and operationally it will be fine but I'm very keen to hear that discussion. I agree there is probably justification for a name change. The EQC brand has taken a bit of a beating over the years so it's understandable there's a wish to move on.Those covered by this need confidence that the fund itself has solid oversight and cannot be tapped into inappropriately and that running costs do not get out of hand given they rely on that fund. Overall change is needed because there has been too much inefficiency and too much heartache but we should always be mindful that there needs to be sufficient or substantial justification for Government intervention in a market and when there is for the State to not get carried away because when it does that that is when unintended consequences come along—or very foreseeable ones in many cases—and we have to come back here and fix things. That's why the select committee is so important and the Government should give this bill its full hearing that it deserves and not rush the process like it has for pretty much everything else. So with that we commend this bill to the select committee. Thank you."