Woods Megan: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11858. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: On what date was he first advised that EQC would be increasing the estimate of liabilities left to pay as at June 2016 from $262 million to $1.9 billion and what amount of this increase is attributed to second-time repairs and reopened claims?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission):I speak to the Earthquake Commission (EQC) on a regular basis and am advised on the progress with reducing the liability—reducing the number of claims is the same thing. So it was evident soon after the publication of that $262 million figure that land payments were not being made as speedily as hoped nor was the resolution of the last-remaining more difficult properties happening as quickly as we would like. This is very well documented and in fact was previously mentioned in this House by the questioner. As for the cost of the second-time repairs it is estimated that they will be in the vicinity of some $60 million to $70 million. Overall the liability is a reducing figure on the initial June 2011 estimate of some $11.5 billion. The member is unfortunately trying to confuse I think the practicalities of making payments to people with the requirements to report expectations of dates when those would be paid. It makes absolutely no difference to the total liability.Dr Megan Woods: What is the overall volume of post-repair inquiries and how many does EQC estimate will lead to remedial works?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would stand corrected but my understanding is that it is in the vicinity of 5 percent of those repairs that have been done. Some of those will lead to further work; some will not.Dr Megan Woods: Does he have any confidence that EQC has the capacity to finalise claims associated with the liabilities for the coming financial year given the delays last year in addition to remediating the thousands of dodgy repairs; if so why?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Taking those many individual questions from the back to the front: firstly when it comes to the suggestion that they are dodgy repairs the important point to remember is that EQC is standing behind them as is the Fletcher EQR office. I think the thing to remember is that even on a new build the call-back rate is up to 85 percent. EQC has got a call-back rate of around 5 percent indicating quite a good performance. As for paying out what people are entitled to when it comes to increased land damage or vulnerability to liquefaction or increased vulnerability to flooding it is important that time is taken to get that right so that people get what they are entitled to. But I will make the statement again that the overall liability first calculated in June 2011 has not changed.Dr Megan Woods: Does he stand by his statements in the House on 10 May dismissing the impact of the EQC action group settlement and in particular his example that a damaged asbestos roof would need a full replacement; if so why is EQC insisting on repairing rather than replacing asbestos roofs?Mr SPEAKER: Again there are two supplementary questions. I will invite the Minister Gerry Brownlee to address one.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would like to address them both because I think the member is raising one interesting point and has got herself completely in the wrong space in the other. The first point is that the action that was brought by the action group effectively with its joint statement meant no change. It is currently pursuing the EQC for very very expensive lawyer fees that are in excess of 10 times the amount spent by EQC in its own defence. There was an agreed statement that agreed the EQC was right all along. When it comes to EQC apparently wanting to repair an asbestos roof tell me where that asbestos roof is and where EQC is trying to repair it and I will make sure it does not happen.Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To assist the Minister to know what is happening—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member wants to raise a point of order she has been here long enough to know how to do it.Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table an email to a claimant informing them that their asbestos roof will be repaired rather than replaced.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is—[Interruption] Is there any issue of privacy being invaded—Dr Megan Woods: I’ll need to talk to the claimant.Mr SPEAKER: Well you put me in a difficult position. I was going to put the leave. Now you are saying that you will need to check with the claimant as to whether—[Interruption] Order! You have sought leave to table an email. I am trying to assist the member to put the leave. It is reasonable to know whether there are any privacy issues that would be breached by the tabling of it. If the member simply redacts I guess the name of the person—Dr Megan Woods: That’s what I’m doing yes.Mr SPEAKER: —then on that basis I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that email redacting the author of the email so their privacy is protected. Is there any objection to that email being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may have misunderstood what I was saying. I think it would be useful to know the claim number at least so that the claimants can be contacted so that this situation can be put right. I do not believe that an asbestos roof is being repaired with an asbestos roof.Mr SPEAKER: Order! All members of Parliament get on very well together. It will be easy for the Minister to take that up with Dr Megan Woods at the conclusion of question time.Dr Megan Woods: Why does he not front up and admit that he cannot give straight answers that EQC is telling claimants they cannot have what he says they are entitled to and that 5 years on there is no end in sight to the mess at EQC?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That was one of the best questions ever delivered in this House and it would win a seventh form debating prize any day of the week but it had absolutely no substance to it and is complete rubbish.