O'Connor GregHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): To address a few of the points raised by Mr Brownlee which I think are really good and important things to be considering: some of them are within the bill but it's a wider discussion actually that I think is important to have about the model. Can I just from the outset note that the Official Information Act does apply to the private insurers and their dealings in so far as they are agents of the Crown. So they are still captured; they are not off the hook. If they're suggesting that they are they're in for a surprise. So we'll see how that plays out—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can I respond to the Minister as we're able to do in these things? I know I only—Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Certainly well I'm very happy—this is good conversation.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well the Minister's now resumed his seat so Mr Brownlee.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Thank you very much. This was supposed to be how this new committee structure worked and I know that you used this yourself that way Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well not so much by interrupting Mr Brownlee but just flowing shall we say.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well look when someone's heading down a track to fall over the end of a cliff you just want to make sure you stop them. All I'm saying is that I raised that like that because I have four claimants' emails from a private insurer saying they do not need to release that information. And I think that's the problem we've got that they are able to—as my initial contribution said I think they don't understand the full implications of the Act that they're now required to administer.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I thank the member for his contribution. That flow backwards and forwards—eight minutes one way 30 seconds the other—we'll get the balance. But I am delighted to have the conversation and I'm happy to talk to the member about that in particular because I do want this model to work well. I think there's real merit in having all of those insurers available and part of the process. The private sector has a lot of offices across the country and the ability to make it easier for people who are in a time of need to access help. They've got the existing relationship we've got more offices on the ground and we avoid that constriction point that we had when the Canterbury earthquake happened and the Earthquake Commission (EQC) was a very small agency at that time. So I think the model itself whilst new will have some teething issues and I'm keen to work through them with the member. I'm happy to take that offline as well in particular cases.The member also spoke of the perhaps natural cap at the $300000 level. The comment I'd make is that there is an assurance programme in place for all claims managed through that process and there are joint assessments for the EQC portion and the insurer portion done under that model. So there is a collaborative working arrangement if you like behind the scenes. Again all of this is relatively new and having said that we've had some examples already where we've had this new model in action and we can observe it working. So I think it is a really good model—a good step forward—but there will be things that will need to be worked through.Another of the member's points was talking about the more general shift to a more granular risk-based pricing—letterbox-based pricing—for insurance policies. It's something that the Government is very aware of. Well the ability that some of the smaller companies have developed technologies for sooner than some of the bigger ones—it's certainly something that was being talked about when I was a new MP nearly 12 years ago. I can remember having conversations in Opposition about the potential to move to a much more granular risk-based pricing model. Other things have intervened including the COVID period—I think that's kind of kept those insurance companies busy doing other things. But there is a global movement in this direction and I think we are as a Parliament going to have to think about the responsibility.I like the member's characterisation of insurance being a collision between a social outcome and a capitalist objective—I wrote it down; I'm going to take it away. I think it's a nice turn of phrase. It's the challenge we're trying to deal with here with the fact that New Zealand historically has had a very high insurance coverage. That's been in our national interest; it helps us come back from economic shocks or situations or natural disasters in a way that we want to continue into the future. And yet we've seen global markets get jittery at times around the provision of insurance. We've got good cover here right now. The reinsurers like the kind of diversity that New Zealand risk represents in the global picture. So while things might be good there we don't want to take them for granted. We want to ensure high insurance uptake and that means we need to look closely at the settings at the way in which more granular risk-based pricing is coming into the market—whether there's a role for Government there in ensuring that the social outcomes we want to achieve are achieved all the while mindful that markets are very efficient ways of solving problems if the right regulatory structure is around them.