Woods Megan: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Has EQC’s position that it will reinstate earthquake damage to a condition substantially the same as “when new” been applied to every home repaired in the Canterbury Home Repair Programme; if so why does the EQC customer guide state that customers’ homes will be returned to a “pre-earthquake state”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Yes because that is what it means.Dr Megan Woods: Was finance and insurance expert Dr Michael Naylor wrong when he stated that “It is now generally accepted that the EQC repair process has not been up to the expected standard for approximately 10 to 20000 homes.”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes he is.Dr Megan Woods: If an Earthquake Commission claimant who is not part of the EQC Group Action settlement believes that the repairs to their home have not been to a condition substantially the same as when new will the Earthquake Commission agree to re-scope the repair work; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think it is very important that the House hears that the court action brought by that particular group started out as an attempt by a law firm to put together a class action. That was rejected—it failed. It then went to a point where it was going to be a declaratory judgment and then there was an agreement that actually everything the law firm wanted—everything the claimants were trying to achieve—could actually be found on the Earthquake Commission website. There was a statement with the two parties agreeing to that. The member needs to stop encouraging these ambulance chasers who are unreasonably taking money off people when there is no benefit to them.Dr Megan Woods: Given the Earthquake Commission’s statement that if repairing an earthquake-damaged part of a house means that work is also required to an undamaged part of the house the Earthquake Commission will cover the cost of this work will claimants who have previously paid for the undamaged repairs themselves be eligible for reimbursement?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The question presupposes that every case is the same and that all these matters are simple. In the case for example of an asbestos roof that has crashed in or has had a chimney crash through it the entire roof needs to be replaced because there is no asbestos material—and it would be irresponsible to use it if there was—for that replacement. But if there is an opportunity taken by a homeowner to effect a change to their property for some damage or some pre-existing condition then that is a reasonable cost that will be applied to them.Dr Megan Woods: Has he had any meetings with the Minister of Finance in the lead-up to the Budget regarding a potential fiscal risk to the Crown as a consequence of the Earthquake Commission settlement with EQC Group Action; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The first point is that I regularly have meetings with the Minister of Finance and I am sure that on 26 May the member will see what a great finance Minister he has been for New Zealand—and continues to be. Also let me just say too that this was not a settlement in the court; it was an agreed statement after what effectively was a failed action by an ambulance-chasing group of lawyers.Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with the Earthquake Commission that it is time to turn off the tap and is that why he refuses to do his job and face the facts—that the Government has completely botched the Canterbury Home Repair Programme and exposed taxpayers to massive liabilities?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Working back through that question the first point is that the Earthquake Commission repair programme is not botched. The Building Research Association of New Zealand report will tell you that the call-back rate on a brand-new home is around about 80 percent. On the repair programme run by the Earthquake Commission it is about 8 percent. It does not indicate any great problem. Further there was no settlement as the member claims and when it comes to the statement “turn off the tap” that was an internal document used by some staff looking at the issue in the Earthquake Commission. It is not official Government policy and it is no less valid than the Labour Party putting up on the screen yesterday at its caucus “We want to win the 2017 election.” Neither is going to be true. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 12 Mahesh Bindra—[Interruption] Order!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Listening to the—Hon Member: Barrage.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —well I will not call it a barrage—the interjection from across the House it is clear that I made a mistake. I meant their website today. However that was this morning and I think they will probably revise—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No where we are going is not going to help the order of this House at all. [Interruption] Order! I have called Mahesh Bindra.