Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much. Look I think it's important that we deal with the honourable member Stuart Smith's Supplementary Order Papers first and foremost just to clear up a few things. First of all we do not support the recommendations of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 226 and let me explain why. We don't agree that procedural fairness or natural justice more broadly means that the use of experts or cross-examination should be permitted in every case as a right. Clause 37 requires the tribunal to comply with the principles of natural justice when managing claims. However this does not require the tribunal to permit the use of experts if the tribunal considers this is unnecessary or to permit cross-examination of a party or a person. The default assumption is that parties can use experts and have them provide evidence. The tribunal can already limit the use of experts including their number if it considers they are unnecessary—for example when a party has multiple experts of the same discipline. That's in clauses 20 and 27. Clause 23 of the bill also allows the tribunal to limit the number of experts at the first case management conference. Under cross-examination natural justice does not always require a right to cross-examination in tribunals. For example the Law Commission's 2008 report Tribunals in New Zealand noted that the requirement for tribunals to comply with natural justice normally requires a right to call witnesses and present evidence in support of their case but does not always require a right to cross-examination. The tribunal is not as formal as the courts and does not apply the formal rules of evidence—Stuart Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Clause 37 is in Part 2. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes we agree. However the Minister did start to refer to—Hon STUART NASH: To your SOP 226. Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just a moment. There are elements of the Minister's explanation that relate to clauses 20 and 21 I believe but there are some elements that refer to Part 2. Stuart Smith: I didn't speak to SOP 226. Hon STUART NASH: What did you speak to? CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): SOP 227. Hon STUART NASH: OK. Let me continue. Supplementary Order Paper 227—we do not support this either. Let me outline the reasons why. The intent of the tribunal is to primarily resolve disputes between insurers and policyholders not third parties. If the main—Stuart Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. SOP 227 is on clause 11 and that's in Part 1. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That's right. That's correct. We are debating Part 1. Hon STUART NASH: This is SOP 227. It's clause 11 to allow an insurer and a third party to remain in the tribunal once the policyholder is removed. As mentioned we do not support this and let me just outline why. The intent of the tribunal is to primarily resolve disputes between insurers and policyholders not third parties. If the main dispute involves a third party and does not involve a policyholder or an insurer or EQC this dispute should be dealt with in another forum. Clause 11 provides that if the insurer EQC or the policyholder are removed as a respondent or a claimant from the claim so that only a respondent or a claimant and a third party remain the claim cannot continue in the tribunal. This is not the same as settling a claim. The claimant can pursue a claim against the third party in another forum within six months from when a respondent was removed. If the claim reaches a tribunal decision stage with a third party joined to that claim and the tribunal finds there is no liability between the insurer or EQC and the policyholder or vice versa the tribunal can still decide the liability of a third party. This means that the claimant does not necessarily need to start over again in another forum to claim against a third party. If a third party's claim remained in the tribunal this would stretch the tribunal's resources and negatively impact the process of other claims. That is the reason why we can't support SOP 227.