Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to start actually with a comment that this is the first time that I can recall in my time in Parliament that there are no advisers present. I'm not quite sure what the reason or the need is for that. Perhaps we have an all-knowing Minister! Or perhaps they're trying to tell us something? But I'll leave that with you.I'd just like to respond to Dr Webb's contribution. He made a comment about my Supplementary Order Paper 156 and that insurers might not agree with it. Well I'm pretty sure he sat on the select committee that heard all the evidence and they were universal in their praise of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) arrangement and did want it in legislation. So I'm not quite sure where he might get that view from. I'm sure he would appreciate that in legislation you don't have to please everybody. If we tried to please everybody we wouldn't get any legislation passed. So I don't think that's a very valid point. He did say that legislation is not always the answer making the point that clearly an MOU might be sufficient and we could go out on an ad hoc basis from time to time and sign up these MOUs. Well that's not what the insurance industry wants. It's not actually what the policy holders want either. They want a seamless operation of the Earthquake Commission (EQC). They and their insurers want to know when they've had a natural disaster. They've got enough on their plate without having to worry about other arrangements to be made. And I'm very concerned that it would take that attitude.I want to now turn to the cap and lifting the cap from $100000 to $150000. It's absolutely obvious that lift is required in the cap and we saw quite a bit of work done through the select committee process. It was an original recommendation in the work that the previous Government did: that the cap be lifted to $200000. But when we looked at the shifting of the risk—because effectively you're shifting the risk between EQC and the insurance industry and if you put too much on the insurance industry they're getting a free ride. If you put too much the other way around EQC is getting a free ride. It's a balancing exercise and on balance $150000 was the best and the removal of the contents insurance is absolutely also the right thing to do. And I think everybody who's had an EQC claim would recognise that when you're dealing with an insurance company they are dealing with these things all the time. EQC is not set up to as I said before have a standing army to react to these sorts of issues; whereas insurance companies are dealing with claims every day. It's not their first rodeo; they know what to look for and how to get through these processes smoothly with the best outcome for everyone.But I do think that Dr Webb made a valid point that legislation isn't always the answer and so my question to the Minister in the chair is Can the caps and the building amount per square metre not be in regulations rather than having to go into legislation every so often to try and catch up on the inflation component when that could be done by regulation?" We saw a bill yesterday on medicinal cannabis giving carte blanche ability in the regulation-making power. Surely a simple thing like lifting the cap from $100000 to $150000 and then at some point in the future lifting it up again as inflation moves on and the building amount more importantly per square metre changing as inflation dictates over time—you would think that would be far simpler to be managed in a regulation-making power situation rather than having to go through the costly and timely procedure which will always be late. You won't do it ahead of time. Parliament doesn't legislate well ahead of time. So we will always be behind whereas using regulations that would be a far simpler more reactive process and we wouldn't end up getting things so out of whack over time as we have done with this because it's quite some time since that occurred."