Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to just talk a little bit about my colleague Stuart Smith's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 226 on this. The matter of permitting expert witnesses was something that we grilled officials on quite extensively in the select committee stage of this bill and Mr Smith's SOP I'd argue is incredibly constructive because it doesn't seek to simply relitigate the matter that we raised in select committee which was that the ability to exclude expert witnesses and cross-examination could hinder a fair and reasonable process in the tribunal. Mr Smith actually wants to ensure that those that want to have expert witnesses can have them but he's absolutely shifting some management of that back to the tribunal to enable the tribunal to limit the number of expert witnesses. Obviously the idea is there that particularly from the insurance side they're not loading up the process with hordes or multiple expert witnesses either to slow the process down or to use the weight of expert opinion to somehow sway the tribunal. So that sort of reinforces the point that Mr Smith was trying to make which is that in fairness for both or all parties within the proceedings it is absolutely appropriate that any party should be able to call at least one expert witness but to allow the tribunal to have the ability to limit that ensures that that doesn't get out of hand. That is a point of difference from the argument or the discussion that was had in select committee but I think it is a very fair way of addressing a balance. Maybe it is not a perfect balance but I'm not certain that that's exactly what we're looking necessarily to achieve here. It is a recognition that in the interests of justice and natural justice or just in fairness in a tribunal process everyone should be able to rely on experts to argue or to help to substantiate their particular arguments in the matter before the tribunal but also to make sure that that doesn't go overboard. I listened to the Minister. I will admit I wasn't here for all of his call but I listened to probably half of that and I take his point. But I would argue that this is not simply a case of Mr Smith seeking to say I tried this argument in select committee and was unsuccessful so I'm going to use the committee of the whole House stage to simply try to relitigate it." He's actually shifted the position which says that this is important from our perspective. We think it's important certainly for insurers but in the overall fairness of the tribunal proceedings arguably it's a fairness thing for all parties concerned. But he has moderated the position to say that if the argument from officials at least in part was "Well we don't want the tribunal to be weighed under by too many expert witnesses." then explicitly putting that provision in there allows the tribunal to effectively cap that and to manage that and it's not a set number by the way. It is at the discretion or the consideration of the tribunal members. But that way would allow satisfying both considerations or both arguments: the idea of ensuring that justice can be seen to be done and ensuring that fairness can be argued for all parties concerned but equally ensuring that the tribunal proceedings don't get smothered or overburdened with too many expert witnesses being able to be called. So I'd ask the Minister just to briefly reflect on that. The officials are obviously behind him at the moment and might consider the specifics not just to the fact that Mr Smith has called for an assurance that an expert witness can be called no matter who the party is but that by placing that locus of control back on to the tribunal members it will ensure that it doesn't and can't get out of hand and we have therefore fair access to expert opinion for every party in the proceedings but it's done in a way that means that no one party—and I'd admit that's probably more likely to be the insurers than any other party—can completely start to take over or overburden the proceedings with a raft of expert opinions which might just either slow it down or simply seek to use the idea of having the weight of expert opinion to try and sway a decision and an outcome. So I'd focus the Minister on that particular part of the SOP: the idea that within that the tribunal would still have the control to limit it. I would ask him to briefly reconsider it again and perhaps change the position because I think it is actually a good point. It was a good point made in the Governance and Administration Committee but this is a better way of moderating that position. It is different to what we discussed in select committee."