Parker DavidCANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL BILLSecond ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister for Courts): I move That the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill be now read a second time. On behalf of the Minister of Justice and Minister for Courts the Hon Andrew Little I'd like firstly to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for its work in examining this bill during the select committee stage. I'd also like to thank everyone who submitted on the bill for their valuable comments and insights. Hearing and considering the views of the public is of course essential to developing effective legislation and that feedback has helped guide the further development of the bill. I'm pleased that in general submitters were supportive of the bill's objective. The bill will establish the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal. This tribunal will be a specialist judicial body that provides policyholders affected by the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes with a way to resolve their longstanding residential insurance claims with the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and their insurers including Southern Response. I'd like to give some of the background to the introduction of the bill and then outline the key changes that have been recommended by the select committee in the reported-back bill. It's now been more than eight years since the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 and yet thousands of insurance claims arising from these events remain unresolved. That delay has left Cantabrians feeling weary and frustrated. The tribunal has been designed to address that by providing a fair speedy flexible and cost-effective service including a funded mediation service to the people in the region with outstanding claims so that they can achieve some closure and move on with their lives. To ensure that policyholders feel empowered and in control of their situation access to the tribunal will be homeowner-initiated. This means the decision to access the tribunal will be in their hands rather than driven by the insurers or by EQC. The tribunal has been designed so that's easy for policyholders to access. There will be no application fee to access the tribunal and policyholders may choose to be represented by someone who's not a lawyer or they may choose to represent themselves. Detailed guidance will also be available to help people feel prepared and informed about what to expect at the tribunal. The tribunal isn't intended to replace the courts or any other dispute resolution process; rather it's been developed as an alternative specific to the earthquakes in Canterbury emphasising speed flexibility and cost-effectiveness. If parties have already filed claims in court but they haven't been concluded policyholders may apply to transfer the case to the tribunal. If the parties are using the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service they will be supported in applying to the tribunal should they choose this option. Flexibility is a key element of the process. We know that the remaining insurance claims are often complex and that a one-size-fits-all approach would be unhelpful. For this reason the bill allows the resolution process to be tailored to the needs of each claim. The tribunal will take a proactive approach to case management and will work closely with the parties to find the most appropriate way to resolution. The tribunal can set time frames for each stage of the process so that claims continue to progress without unnecessary delays. The tribunal has a number of powers to help it consider claims—for example it will be able to appoint independent experts. These experts will play a key role in helping the tribunal to understand complex information and provide an independent view where there is competing expert opinion. The tribunal process will include an independent and fully funded mediation service as I mentioned. Mediation empowers parties to settle disputes themselves and can be a useful tool to narrow down the issues in dispute and provide a confidential environment for parties to speak freely. However it's also important to acknowledge that after eight years parties may already have tried to settle their claims through other dispute resolution processes and therefore the bill gives the tribunal the flexibility to decide on a case by case basis when mediation will be helpful and when it won't. To make sure the tribunal can deliver speedy resolution the tribunal will not consider claims relating to onsold properties. Some legal issues emerging from these claims are novel and they may have no clear precedent so the Minister considers that they're more appropriately considered by the courts. I will now highlight some of the changes to the bill that the Governance and Administration Committee has recommended. I consider that these will improve the bill's effectiveness in helping policyholders resolve their longstanding claims. The committee has recommended that the purpose statement of the bill should include the word fair" to reflect the policy objective of the tribunal to provide fair services and to comply with natural justice rules while also being speedy flexible and cost-effective. Based on submissions the amended bill extends the date range to include Canterbury earthquakes from 31 July 2011 to 31 December 2011 so that those people who suffered damage in the 23 December 2011 earthquake may also apply to the tribunal. The tribunal will also be able to consider liability for damage from aftershocks and earthquakes that occurred after 2011 where some damage in a claim occurred before 31 December 2011. This will remove the need for parties to go through a separate process to resolve damage from earthquakes after 2011. The amended bill also allows for parties to comment on transfers between the courts and the tribunal and vice versa and to comment on the referral of questions of law to the High Court. In addition the bill originally allowed the referral of questions of law only at the hearing stage but the bill as amended now allows them to be referred at any stage in the process. The committee also recommended some amendments to the parts of the bill relating to experts and evidence. One recommendation is that a new clause be inserted allowing the tribunal to bring separate claims together to hear technical evidence on similar subject matter at a special hearing with all affected parties present provided all the parties to the claim agree. This means that a number of claims with similar technical issues can if the parties agree be resolved more efficiently. A further recommended change to the introduced version is that parties be allowed to use experts except where the tribunal deems it unnecessary. This upholds the principle of fairness for policyholders while ensuring that the tribunal retains the power to prevent the unnecessary use of experts. On the matter of cross-examination in accordance with the principles of natural justice the committee has recommended removing the reference to the tribunal's "absolute discretion"—as it was in the original bill—to permit cross-examination as it's not the intent of the bill for the tribunal to have absolute discretion over allowing cross-examination. The intent of the bill is to allow the tribunal to permit cross-examination where appropriate. However the tribunal is not required to permit the cross-examination of any and every party and it must not permit any unnecessary cross-examination. Lastly the committee has recommended changes to the status of settlements reached before the claim goes to a hearing. The reported-back bill now proposes that all settlements reached at mediation will automatically be recorded as a decision of the tribunal and will therefore be enforceable thereafter in the District Court. In addition the bill now clarifies that policyholders may ask the tribunal to record a settlement agreement reached other than through mediation without needing the agreement of all the parties. This means that policyholders can choose whether or not to have their settlement enforceable by the District Court and this again aligns the bill with the overarching objective to be homeowner-oriented. The Minister intends to table a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that will clarify a few minor and technical amendments required for the tribunal to operate in line with its purpose. For example the SOP will align the tribunal with the upcoming Courts Security Regulations and also clarify that parties may bring a support person with the tribunal's permission. We want the tribunal to work for those people who are still waiting for their longstanding claims to be resolved. This was an explicit election promise of all parties who make up the Government to explore ways to find speedier more flexible and tailored means of resolution for Cantabrians and we're confident that with this bill and this tribunal we've found a means for those Cantabrians still waiting for a resolution to achieve this in a speedy and efficacious way. I'm pleased that the bill was widely supported in its first reading and we hope that this continues at this stage. So I commend this bill to the House."