Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Assistant Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. I'm grateful that I've had the opportunity to follow what I thought was a very considered and excellent contribution from the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson—one of his better contributions that I've heard in this House. I thought it was very good.Can I also take this opportunity Madam Assistant Speaker of acknowledging you and the role you've played throughout the year. This will probably also be the only opportunity I get to speak between now and the adjournment debate but I think you have done an exceptional job as a presiding officer of this House. And to all members from all sides of the House a merry Christmas to you all.Now to the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. My first point would be that I think it's a missed opportunity. I think there was a substantial amount of research and inquiries done in response to two major earthquakes—or three major earthquakes in Christchurch and one major event in Kaikōura—that actually gave the opportunity for the new Minister coming into this portfolio to do something that was significant and I think the opportunity has been missed for a reason that I'm not sure of. I could be unkind to say it's incompetence. I could be unkind to say the Minister simply hasn't had time to consider the issues.But to put a bill before the House which does effectively four relatively minor things is a missed opportunity. And I know the Minister's working on further reform and further legislation. I hope that that will come through with a little more guts and gusto to actually set ourselves up for inevitably another major disaster which will sadly occur in this country.So the four changes include lifting the cap from $100000 to $150000. It sounds like a big increase but when you consider the second aspect of the bill which is to remove the fact that currently the Earthquake Commission (EQC) covers contents up to $20000—when you take that out of the $150000 the adjustment actually is probably inflation since it was set in 1994. I fully support legislation taking contents out of the cover of EQC. I think that was the point that was made well by Mark Patterson that it's the complete responsibility of the individual owner to insure their contents in the event of an earthquake. EQC was set up for major coverage of things like the dwellings etc. not for contents. So I support that part.The fourth amendment this legislation does is around EQC's authority to share information—no problem at all with that. The one I certainly am very nervous about is the second major change. It's extending the time of notification from three months to two years. And I know that Dr Duncan Webb gave us an incredible example during the select committee process that I still find frankly incredulous. But he gave the example of a house that had been in the Christchurch earthquake that had suffered no known visual damage above the ground at all. No contents had fallen off the shelves. There were no cracks in the GIB board. But sometime afterwards they went to lift their carpet to replace the carpet and they found a massive fracture in the concrete foundation floor.Now I suppose it could happen but I just find it very very strange that a massive fracture could occur in a concrete foundation with absolutely no sign of any damage at all above that ground level. But Duncan Webb assured us that he'd had a constituent case like that and that's why he was strongly supportive of extending the time from three months to two years.I can accept some extension of time—I think to take it from three months to 12 months. But I just think by taking it to two years the longer that is open the more possibility there is for questionable or fraudulent claims and if there are questionable and fraudulent claims then there is a possibility that that has to be covered ultimately and that means levy increases and levy increases frankly mean that the cost of the levies increases for those that are honest. That's how insurance works.The last point I want to make a comment on is the superb Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 156 moved by Stuart Smith which has been rejected by the Government. But the interesting thing was the comment we just had from Mark Patterson the New Zealand First member when he said New Zealand First were actually supportive of the SOP. Well if they'd been prepared to support the SOP with courage and conviction it would actually have passed in the House during the committee stage.Be that as it may I speak from some experience. I had buildings—a home in fact that was affected by the Christchurch earthquake. I had a farm dwelling on a property out of Kaikōura—out of Cheviot actually—that was affected by the earthquake in Kaikōura. From my own experience—and I say this without criticism of EQC—they fell woefully inadequate in being able to assess the damage.In the first earthquake they arrived at my place and said Minor damage—it'll be below cap." The second earthquake they said effectively the same. The third event in Christchurch they acknowledged it would be above cap but at that stage they underestimated the total cost of the repair which ended up being over $400000. If it hadn't been because of the good faith of my own private insurer being prepared to negotiate with EQC it could've ended up in a very messy battle between the two.Stuart Smith's SOP would solve that problem and in the case of the Kaikōura earthquake the Government then agreed that instead of using EQC you use immediately your private insurer. That is the most efficient way to do it. That's what happened to the dwelling that I'm talking about in my Cheviot property. FMG Insurance came in as effectively the first responders. They worked in assessing the damage. They then were prepared with agreement from EQC to bill in those cases the first $100000 to EQC. The claim was settled very quickly.Now I know that the Minister says well of course you don't need a legislation change to do it and she's working on this idea because she thinks it has merit. I go back to the very first point I made: it seems to me that this legislation is being rushed through. It achieves four things which are yep satisfactory—four things which of course National supports. But if we had a Minister who was prepared to grab the challenge of the portfolio this is an opportunity where we could have seen a substantial review to EQC legislation. We could have set things up that would position EQC in far better shape to serve the needs of New Zealanders who may be very unfortunately affected by a major event such as an earthquake in the future.Having said that despite it not being enough change and not being substantial enough National does support the legislation. I take this opportunity of commending the legislation to the House."