Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Madam Speaker thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. Like Rachel Brooking the previous speaker I too want to acknowledge that tomorrow is indeed the 12th anniversary of the day that many Cantabrians will never ever forget. It's certainly something that I won't forget. I will be attending the earthquake memorial service tomorrow as I have every year and we will continue to pay our ongoing respects to the 187 people who perished in that event. My goodness Christchurch is a different place and I can only recommend to anyone looking for somewhere fabulous to go to take a visit and see our new city because it has indeed risen out of the ashes.I do certainly want to acknowledge those who are going through the absolute trauma of the disaster recovery that is occurring in the North Island at the moment. I think that more than anyone else Cantabrians can understand and empathise with the drastic impacts that a natural disaster of this kind of scale has on lives and livelihoods. So my thoughts are with the people of Hawke's Bay and Gisborne and the upper North Island.I think as has been very clearly highlighted by Cyclone Gabrielle it is really important that when disasters like this occur there is a need for a secure and an effective system that's ready to go that is modernised and effective and of course that is underpinned by legislation that will strengthen that system already in place. This bill certainly seeks to fix the gaps that we've now been aware of thanks to that review led by Dame Silvia Cartwright. The bill's aim is to better enable the community recovery from natural hazards. Once again I refer to my own experience in 2010 and 2011 in Christchurch and indeed from what I understand to be occurring in the upper parts of the North Island at the moment the community recovery has been something to behold. It is quite extraordinary how organisations and groups and neighbourhoods gather together at a time like this. The bill will clarify the role of the commission and the cover provided. It is there to enhance the durability and the flexibility of the legislation. We've certainly seen—again I know I keep referring to the earthquake situation—that the outdated and now former Earthquake Commission Act was utterly inflexible and it has caused ongoing stress and trauma for 12 long years for some people who are still trying to seek insurance and opportunities to rebuild their homes and their properties and often at times to rebuild their lives as well.It is of course I think as other speakers have acknowledged a necessary and very long-overdue change that has resulted from the original review of the Earthquake Commission Act of 1993. So one would say that it is an old Act now and does need to be modernised. As we do start to see an increasing level of natural events and natural hazards we do need a system that is going to be flexible and is able to cater for all sorts of natural hazards. I note that it will deal with a huge array which is anything but it is not limited to landslips volcanoes—some might think well why would you need volcanoes but we do know all too well here in New Zealand why we need cover for events like that—as well as tsunami and again hydrothermal activity.The National Party is very pleased to support the updating of this legislation. From what I understand our members have been collegial and supportive during the select committee process with the thrashing out and the ongoing passage of this bill through the House. It does in many parts look to improve operations but also clarity of definition and to—I think most importantly—improve the speed and simplicity with which resolutions can be made and ultimately payments can be given out to those claimants.I would also like to point out that the previous Earthquake Commission (EQC) cover provided for depreciated value of retaining walls bridges and culverts. I think it is very pleasing that this bill in particular actually proposes using the undepreciated value—obviously with a limit and I think that's $50000 per dwelling on a retaining and $25000 per dwelling for bridges and culverts. To me this seems an issue of natural justice—a fair price paid a fair price paid out I would probably more colloquially describe it as.I did just in my final comments want to take a moment to vocalise an observation I have made of the culture of the Earthquake Commission that I think began two Ministers ago. It's certainly not regarding the current Minister nor indeed the former Minister but what I've observed is a culture of simply clearing the decks within EQC and it's simply just making payments for the sake of getting rid of them and for reaching targets. I do think that the building industry needs to have a laser run over it. I think there is an extraordinary culture in Canterbury whereby the veracity of claims and quotes actually needs to be further analysed. There are vastly inflated quotes and claims being made that are being paid out and yes I absolutely acknowledge that inflation is very live and very real across the country at the moment but this has been going on for a number of years now. I think that if I could I would encourage the new Minister to start asking some really serious questions of the senior leadership within the commission.With that I'm pleased to commend this bill to the House. Thank you for the opportunity.