Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It was a real pleasure to sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee which considered this bill. It was good for a number of reasons but most importantly so that we could get the Earthquake Commission in shape for the future because its performance historically in respect of the Canterbury earthquakes left something to be desired.It is important to note that that $150000 as the member who just spoke observed won't do what originally the Earthquake and War Damages Commission was intended to do which was to replace more or less an entire average house. Really it is just a first level a first layer of insurance. But it has gone up significantly and that is important because what we found in the Canterbury earthquakes was that by far and away the vast majority of houses in fact were dealt with entirely by the Earthquake Commission and increasing that amount by 50 percent will be proportionately another significant number meaning that people won't have to deal with their private insurers.Can I just say that I think the greatest improvement in this bill at the select committee was the extension of time for claims. Now it is quite correct to say that 99 percent of claims are made within three months and obviously there's a real incentive to do that but it was a real concern in the committee that there would be people who didn't make a claim for very valid reasons. Perhaps they were not particularly able didn't realise that their house had been damaged or didn't see the magnitude of the matter. Or perhaps they were ill or in hospital or even overseas. Conceivably they could even have died between the time of the earthquake and the time for making a claim and the matter was left to their estate. So all of those kinds of situations are really quite valid reasons where the claim might not have been made. To have that hard cut-off was really quite inappropriate. So it was very very good to see a little bit of indulgence—Hon David Parker: Didn't know they needed more than one claim for more than one earthquake.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Minister Parker makes a very good point that in multiple events they may not have realised they had to put multiple claims in. So it is for all of those kinds of situations.What this bill actually does is make this much more aligned with the insurance industry which in fact has no particular limit on the making of claims. They can only bar a claim when the insurer can point to prejudice in that delay.There are some other important points in there. In terms of information disclosure the Privacy Commissioner was extremely helpful. It is absolutely appropriate for the Earthquake Commission to gather data on things like land quality or how foundations respond in earthquakes but they need to do so in a way which is entirely consistent with the privacy principles whilst at the same time pursuing one of their objectives under the Act which is to ensure preparedness for earthquakes.This is a bill which to my mind was greatly improved at the select committee. It is an amendment bill. If I could say one small thing about the contents matter contents in fact are easily insured by private insurers. They were covered for $20000 which is not a catastrophic loss for most people. So once again there's a tidy-up to streamline the process to make claims resolution much quicker.So look the next event that comes once this bill has passed into law will be managed more quickly more fairly and more effectively and the Earthquake Commission will be much better placed to be a great insurer of first resort into the future. I utterly commend this bill to the House.