Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party as the member of Parliament for the North Shore to speak on the third reading of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. As the previous speaker acknowledged tomorrow will be the anniversary of the second Christchurch earthquake which happened at around 12.51 p.m. in which 185 New Zealanders and members of other communities in other aspects of the world lost their lives. So I think it is timely in the context that that event in effect formed the crystallisation of this bill and the process which we've gone through is where we are at this point. I also want to acknowledge the prior Minister for this bill the Hon Dr David Clark for his work in regards to shepherding this bill through the House. Along with my colleague Andrew Bayly and other members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee we had a very productive and collegial process with I think all members in this House in order to do what we could to take on board feedback and a significant amount of feedback from both experts and industry specialists and actually from individuals that were impacted by these natural disasters across the country—to take that feedback on board identify opportunities to improve the bill and actually follow that through and I think that that is a good example of where our cross-party work can lead to improved legislation. So I acknowledge the Minister for that and other members of the House that are here who sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. As has been noted the context in which this sits in terms of the Earthquake Commission (EQC) which has been renamed is that the view following the Christchurch earthquakes was that the implication of that did show us that the EQC was not prepared to be able to deal with the magnitude of the damage that was faced as a result of that disaster. The National-led Government initiated a legislative review which kicked off and undertook a review of the Earthquake Commission and that inquiry came back with recommendations of which this bill puts in place a number of elements there. I think that is appropriate due process in regards to weaknesses that were identified and it stands us in good stead as we move forward. The implications I think have been highlighted particularly over the period of the last week. I was reflecting actually that even though day one—today—is the first day that we're back in the House it doesn't feel like it's sort of the first day of the year. I was trying to think have we had summer yet? I don't think it feels like we've had summer but it's been a long long number of weeks for all New Zealanders. I think the implications of both the cyclone and the flooding and the storms make us feel like we've—I think all Kiwis feel like they've had a whole year of time even though it's only a couple of months into this year. Ian McKelvie: Well for us old jokers another quarter of the year's gone. SIMON WATTS: That's a very useful insight there from my good colleague Ian McKelvie. Depending on one's perspective it will define how long it has felt—very wise words there. So back to the bill. In regards to the scope of coverage my colleague Andrew Bayly articulated that well and the fact is that this bill has increased that scope and modernised a number of features in regards to that. I recall the select committee process in terms of some of the conversations that we were having around the position of dwellings and other aspects whether that was in scope or out of scope in regards to landslips and other aspects like that. It is important to reinforce that the committee did get into such detail because getting into that degree of detail was essential in terms of making sure and testing that this legislation would be fit for purpose and appropriate to deal with what we have ahead of us from here. The other aspect that is worth just reinforcing and touching on is in regards to the change in the monetary value. It is increasing from $100000 up to $300000 which I think recognises that the increase in the implications of costs in this current environment will be appropriate. Also there were a number of other aspects that we have changed as well just to iron out a number of the problems that were previously in the EQC model that needed some resolution in regards to that. The other component that I just wanted to touch on—and it is relevant in regards to the bill—is the implications of what we've seen in my home electorate of the North Shore. Probably in the region of around 100 to 150 homes in the North Shore electorate have suffered quite significant damage from flooding in a very isolated zone. Some of those houses are uninhabitable. The houses are red-stickered and the individuals have moved out and I think the complication of having that in an urban setting—I mean granted often we see flooding that is in rural and provincial New Zealand. But the scale of that impact in an urban setting—and I think I heard our colleague from Northcote who was previously speaking on this bill. His electorate like many others in Auckland was implicated as well. I think it just reinforced the need for us to have a broader scope in terms of how we look at the implications of natural disasters in making sure that the response and remediation provided by the EQC is appropriate for those circumstances because while these events headline and we use these ratios of sort of one in 50 or one in a hundred or whatever the ratio it doesn't particularly matter when you are the family or the household that is implicated and is impacted by that natural hazard and are having to deal with the following clean-up and process. Having seen that experience in my home electorate reinforced the importance of making sure that we have the appropriate processes and controls wrapped around this to ensure that we do look after our people our communities and our neighbourhoods in times of need in making sure that that process is both efficient and effective but also—importantly I think—timely because the degree of anxiety and stress and pressure that many Kiwis are feeling right now across our country but particularly when one is implicated in events such as what we have seen is significant. So I think that having this improved legislation is going to be important. So that's pretty much all I wanted to cover on this. I'm looking forward to—Hon Scott Simpson: No give us more. SIMON WATTS: —this being progressed through into law. Actually the Hon Scott Simpson was just referring—and I do want to acknowledge you the Hon Scott Simpson for your work in the Coromandel. This was the work that you have been doing in an area that has been significantly implicated as a result of that—particularly as we watched it on the TV—in terms of your roading corridors being taken out and the inability to get food and other supplies up to quite isolated areas of your community and I know that you have been working very hard to ensure that you are looking after your community. I must say that I know a number of people in your neck of the woods and I've had a number of positive comments of appreciation back for that so thank you for what you do. So I'm going to leave it at that. We commend this bill to the House.