Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Tolley AnneKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to debate in this third reading of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. I would like to clarify to the previous speaker Eugenie Sage that the National Party supported this bill on its first reading and second reading. During the committee of the whole House stage there were some sensible Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) which were tabled by one of our colleagues from this side Stuart Nash which would have improved this bill. The intention of this House is always to make sure that the people get a speedy more flexible and cost-effective service to resolve their issues. That is the intention of this bill also.We also want to make sure that the people in Canterbury who have been suffering—they should get these facilities. But the SOPs which were introduced by our colleague Stuart Nash they were all rejected by the Government.Hon Eugenie Sage: Stuart Smith I think.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Stuart Smith sorry Stuart Smith. Stuart Nash was talking about this bill earlier so that was on my mind—apologies. But the thing is that the bill overall needs to address some of the issues which are left out. They would have been like this: ensure only suitable qualified professionals should be appointed to this tribunal. If that would have been specified in this bill that could have been very easy for the Minister to appoint the people who are relevant who could give a very good judgment to the issues which have been lingering on for a long time. As we heard during the submissions some of the submitters said that some people because there is no cost involved will try to abuse the system and that is not fair also.Another thing which the SOP of Stuart Smith would have done is allow insurers and the Earthquake Commission (EQC) to continue to claim against third parties were the tribunal to avoid the slow and costly process of going through the High Court. As has been mentioned by the other speakers also going to the High Court is always expensive. As Dr Webb mentioned if we want to have a court case for 10 days at least $34000 is required. So it is a very expensive proposition. That's why it would have been a very good option to improve this bill by bringing this SOP into it.The third part of the SOP was to remove any doubt that the tribunal will not restrict the ability of parties to call or cross-examine experts' evidence. That is again a very wise thing to get the people who have got expertise. We want to resolve the issue we want to ensure that people get justice and that can happen only if the experts are there. If a member who doesn't have the experience is appointed to the tribunal then there will be no justice because he or she doesn't have the knowledge and that was another SOP which was rejected by the Government.The last one which I would like to touch upon is allowing insurers and EQC to bring claims before the tribunal to allow equal access to justice. Natural justice is very important. We want to ensure that people who are involved in these claims and disputes are able to come to the tribunal and put up their case. So it should not be one-sided; it should be available to both sides. I think we are right in opposing this bill because there are many points which are missing in this bill and this will not be a good outcome for the people of Canterbury. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Jamie Strange.