Smith Stuart; Tolley AnneSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. It's been an interesting night so far I have to say. Yes well Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 229 in my name—Matt Doocey: Great SOP. STUART SMITH: It is a great SOP. The SOP guarantees only suitably qualified professionals with legal or arbitration experience can be appointed as members of the tribunal. My colleague Jacqui Dean has just spoken and referred to that and I think that she made some very good points. I don't want to take up too much time on it but I've got a few points here including in fact a quote from the first reading speech from the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission the Hon Megan Woods which cuts completely across what's in this bill. You know it really is quite amazing and there's a theme running through here as I'm sure my colleague Jacqui Dean behind me will have noted—and I'm sure the officials have as well—which is that all of these things are linked. None of them are political. They are all about making this bill fit for purpose and actually fitting with our legal principles in New Zealand and it's playing fast and loose with those principles as this bill is. It doesn't achieve anything other than getting sloppy laws in New Zealand. We in New Zealand are at some risk I believe of losing our faith in the insurance industry and this is going a long way to making that worse. I think it's far more serious than the officials and the Government realise. We're in a reasonably tenuous position here. It's not just about the risk that insurance companies weigh up when they're going to risk their capital or not; it is the legislative framework that they have to operate under and that's very important. That's where this SOP— Brett Hudson: Mr Hipkins is sympathetic to your position. STUART SMITH: —speaks to that and yes I can see Mr Hipkins is quite uncomfortable there as the Minister in the chair but never mind. So the bill is actually silent on what constitutes a suitable knowledge and what skills and experience are required. As we've talked to on the other parts in this bill these claims that are unresolved are all technical. They are all complex. They are all difficult or they would have been settled by now. So this whole tribunal will fail miserably if it doesn't have the suitably qualified people to run the tribunal. You'll end up—well not you Madam Chair. But what we will end up with is creating one injustice to try and fix another. I think that the justice department in New Zealand should be about justice—that's what it should be about—not about injustice and this is getting pretty damned close to it if you'll excuse my French Madam Chair. I did promise a quote—and I'll come to that in a minute—but the bill doesn't require anyone to have a law degree to sit on this tribunal. As I've already said these are complex issues and they will come down to technicalities in the contract in the end and how can someone off the street without suitable qualifications be in a position to adjudicate on that? That's a question that perhaps the honourable member in the chair might like to enlighten us on. It would be quite a difficult one to answer I suspect. But I did promise a quote from the Hon Megan Woods the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission who said in her first reading speech on this very bill that we have publicly said that we see people of the calibre of retired High Court judges senior members of the legal profession being the right people to sit" on the tribunal. So why would that not be in the bill? Hon Jacqui Dean: "Uh oh!" STUART SMITH: That's a big "Uh oh!" It really is an own goal as far as that goes and I think the Government members just seem to have lost the importance of justice in this bill. This is access to natural justice a one-way justice system and there is the potential to have unqualified people sitting in judgment on these highly technical highly complex issues. They'll likely end up creating an injustice in order to try and fix another injustice. That is one wrong building up on another and we will end up with a disaster further down the track. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I apologise to the member. His Supplementary Order Paper 229 is in order for Part 3 so therefore my ruling in Part 2 that it was negatived was an error. Stuart Smith: Apology accepted Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK."