Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the first reading of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. This is a Government bill and National is supporting it but with some reservations. I guess like much of the legislation that's come our way in the last eight or nine months or so it is in a poor state and an incomplete state. There has not been sufficient consultation with any of the key stakeholders including the insurance companies or the Earthquake Commission (EQC). These are the people really who ought to have been involved at the formation of a piece of legislation of this kind but because of the rush to get this done—and I guess that's because there is so little other work that is standing ready to go by this Labour Government that really was not prepared for Government and was really ill-prepared with a body of legislation that needed to go through. Perhaps that's why this was rushed through. So it will fall to the select committee to make some massive changes. It goes to the Governance and Administration Committee. Before I go through the parts of the bill that I think are better than others I would like to say this: it is the eighth anniversary of a sequence of earthquake events that changed for ever the face of Christchurch of Canterbury. I'd like to acknowledge the pain and the suffering of the people of the region who have been through that—[Coughs] Excuse me Madam Assistant Speaker. Excuse me. I think that when we look—[Coughs] I might need a moment; I've just choked. Excuse me. [Hon Member offers glass of water] Thank you very much.I think that one of the things that happens when you need to ensure—and no pun intended—that there are 3600 claims that need to be settled is that there is something more that is required but whether it is this tribunal or not remains to be seen. One of the things that the Minister said was that an independent fully funded mediation process would be allowable and would be part of this. I think given the complexity of some of the cases that will be coming before this tribunal that is an absolutely important element of all of this.I think that there are things that have occurred—thank you Kiri for bringing over some lozenges. This is indeed a cross-party cooperative venture. It's not often that somebody who's been a broadcaster for 30 years gets even mildly affected by the throat but I appreciate the gesture. Thank you and excuse me for sucking a lozenge while I do this speech. OK.So let's look at some of the issues that are raised with this piece of legislation. It has been touched on before and that's the onsold homeowners which from what I understand with my association with the city and in a previous select committee—on the Local Government and Environment Committee—we looked at a lot of the work that has been done to complete the rebuild of Christchurch. The onsold homes are indeed a looming issue. That is an issue that will need to be addressed and perhaps if there had been more time it could have been brought under the auspices of this particular tribunal. I wish it had been the case but I think that is certainly one of the big issues that will need to be addressed at some point.I guess this is a tribunal that has been set up for the homeowners. They are at the moment in the dark because of the lack of consultation but the Minister did make the point and I'm sure that people will take him up on the offer that they make submissions to the select committee that they tell their stories that they make people who are on this tribunal whatever level of skill and expertise that might have—those people need to be aware of the broad range of difficulties that people have experienced in order to rule fairly and properly. The insurance companies and EQC will also be making submissions on this and I think that there is some comfort to be had from that and I think that is a good thing.I worry though that some of the out clauses in this bill may mean that some of the decisions that the tribunal might make can then be appealed to the court which runs the risk of doubling up the process and slowing things down yet again. When we see the impact summary that was prepared by the Ministry of Justice to inform this bill and the policies around it they refer to the short period of time to scope and develop the bill. That's why they were unable to consult with those key partners and therefore there is a lack of data about the nature and extent of the problems and the number of stakeholders affected. So they are advising that there is a lot more that is needed and I agree with them.They've listed as well—the justice officials—some of the risks and they point out that these claims may take just as long or longer than the current processes and that must be concerning. I think that if a bill like this when it's put through the House and I'm sure it will be—there will be about a year's delay while the tribunal is set up. There will then be only a year's funding allocated for it which I think is concerning. A tribunal of this kind needs to be set up with a longer-term view than just being around for one year. And only being funded for a year I think does send a message to people that this is a quick sweep-up really—that's its intention as a tribunal. I think it needs more than this and I think the people of Canterbury deserve better than this.But the idea that the key objective of the initiative in terms of the general risks is not realized might mean that public confidence in the whole process is affected. I think that the system needed to resolve the final Canterbury earthquake disputes needs to be robust. It needs to do the job and my concern is that it will not. We will hope it can be corrected and added to within the select committee process but again we worry about the resourcing level and the volume of cases that might come before the tribunal.The advisers have pointed out as well that this might be as a process misused by some litigants—that they could in fact try to hold up and relitigate some of the cases that have gone through. So there are a whole lot of things that will need to be very carefully considered and resolved and I think that—you know this is a tribunal that will take a little while. Others—my colleague Stuart Smith has pointed out that we need to have people on that tribunal that have got the kind of skills and Dr Megan Woods did refer to the need to have somebody at a retired High Court judge level to chair it and hopefully a legal qualification to guide people through the quagmire and make the correct decisions as a tribunal.I think that they do only have the power to consider the simple cases that have not already come before the courts and out of those 3600 my understanding is that they are the more complicated cases. They are the ones that are going to be tricky to do so I'm not sure if this tribunal will be well-equipped. I think that when we look at the concerns over equal access only policyholders and insured people will be allowed to apply to this tribunal. Again it's narrowing it down which might mean that the tribunal will have less work to do but it also might mean that the very people that it seeks to help will not be eligible and the complexity of their cases will not be able to be heard. Who can bring claims? Not the insurance companies which surprises me somewhat. I would have thought that equal access and natural justice would mean that insurance companies could also be involved in bringing cases to the tribunal because that has been a problem and something that has held up the process of being able to resolve some of these claims. The unequal access thing will I think need to be kept in mind. When we look at some of the other issues that have emerged through Christchurch with regard to getting advocates who act on behalf of people I think that we always need in these kinds of cases to have appropriately trained and skilled people and having advocates there could be something of a murky area within a tribunal particularly if it is not set up with the right level of legal rigour around it. So while I wouldn't want to cast any aspersions on individuals who have advocated in the past I think there's a real need to be vigilant around those who might demand contingency fees or who might get involved for the wrong reasons. Again when I look at the make-up of what is considered around the recommendations and within this bill I am a little concerned that it will be a little underskilled and therefore potentially somewhat underwhelming. I certainly hope not. I think that the people of Canterbury deserve something that will give them what they need and that will resolve the most complicated of cases. I remain a little sceptical that this is the tribunal that will deliver it but I certainly hope that within the select committee process this bill which has been put together in a rush—it will take more than a year to get established as a tribunal and will then only be funded for a short period of time—will be allowed to have much more than that. It doesn't sound very promising. I commend the bill to the House but with some reservations. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.