Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I must say it's a huge privilege to speak in this first reading of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. It's a privilege and a pleasure for three reasons one of which has just been alluded to and that is that the Labour Party in its campaign did say that this tribunal to speed up resolution of earthquake claims would be implemented and we are fulfilling yet another promise. A second reason is because this is exactly what is needed to get rid of these last claims; not a vast amount of claims when measured against the huge destruction that hit Christchurch and Canterbury but far too many—thousands of claims.Thirdly and probably most importantly is because this is an innovative piece of legislation it's an innovative tribunal and it's a new way of doing justice. This is not something that's been given a retread; this is a radical circuit-breaker that is re-examining how we can deliver civil justice to the people of New Zealand and I'm hopeful that this model will be used much more widely.The idea that we should have speedy flexible and cost-effective justice is nothing new but for far too long our civil justice system has struggled to provide that to ordinary New Zealanders and what has happened in Canterbury and Christchurch has simply thrown that into stark relief. Whilst we could ignore it when it was small-business people or the odd homeowner who had a fire in their house and a squabble with their insurers when it's thousands upon thousands of people who have got a problem and the courts can't provide speedy flexible and cost-effective justice we see there's a massive problem and so this bill has identified the problem and it's laid out a template for us to progress that.This is a non-adversarial approach. It's one which is expressly inquisitorial one that isn't led by lawyers but is led by experts. Some would think that I'm the last person to try and shift things away from the lawyers having had a career in the law to date but I have been there. I have stood in court and watched money walk out the door between experts and lawyers and what have you whilst homeowners hard-working decent New Zealanders employees and business people—whatever you like—haven't been able to afford to keep the case going and they've had to accept less than what they're legitimately entitled to simply because they have been worn down—worn down by time worn down by cost and worn down simply by the emotional exhaustion of the conflict.So this is an entirely different approach. It's one I entirely endorse. I think it's really important that we recognise now that this tribunal—its success will rest heavily on the shoulders of the tribunal members who run it. And we must give them a mandate a mandate not to be bound up by the rules of procedure not to be browbeaten by the lawyers who will no doubt have something to say about how they should run this but to actually be innovative in their approach.I've heard concerns raised and this is the place to raise them—concerns that the procedures will not be robust enough. But I want to say this. I want to say that justice—natural justice—is not an absolute concept. It is a balance. So yes we want a fair procedure. We want people to have a right to be heard. But we need to right-size justice to the size complexity and difficulty of the problem. I heard Mr Stuart Smith and I must say I was a little disappointed in some of his comments. I heard him be alarmist about the fact that the tribunal can say that they need not hear from the parties that they can decide something on the papers. Look when you've got reams of papers of experts' reports in fact that can be a very good thing. Far too often when you hear something in court all that happens is the person who's paid the most for the lawyer or the expert prevails not because of merit but because of cunning and that's not a justice system I want to be part of. I want to be able to give the courts the ability to look at things objectively on the papers before them if that is appropriate. The rules of evidence are there for a reason but let them be our servants and not our masters. We don't need necessarily to have a right of cross-examination in every instance. In many cases evidence will be uncontentious. There's no need to let point-scoring go on in court when all it does is add cost and nothing else at all.Really what we've got to do is give these tribunal members an absolute mandate to try something new to say Don't buy in to the conflict-oriented resolution that frequently typifies a usual proceeding."—but to actually engage to allow it to be expert led to take on an independent expert where necessary. We need to avoid a battle of the experts where all lawyers do is line up expensive engineers or quantity surveyors—or whatever it might be—in a big long line and the one who's got the most wins. The fact of the matter is any situation which advantages people who can pay more and spend more time at it doesn't advantage homeowners small-business people and anyone else without a big pot of money and a huge amount of resources behind them. I know that everyone in this House wants to see justice resolved fairly and appropriately and not on the basis of some irrational consideration.Let's also not be alarmed by the fact that there might be tribunal members who aren't lawyers—God forbid. Mr Smith MP for Kaikōura identified this as a concern. Well don't. Don't be concerned. Sometimes the person with the most knowledge about a problem is an expert. If it's a problem about engineering solutions let's ask an engineer. If it's a problem about costing let's ask a quantity surveyor. You know what? Lawyers don't have a monopoly on knowledge in expert areas. I know surprising—all but one all but one. Ha ha! You know there are rights of appeal here as well. So the fact of the matter is that the quality check is there. If there's something that goes badly wrong there's a check there. I heard Nicky Wagner former member for Christchurch saying that rights of appeal were a thing to be concerned about. I'm very surprised at that. We absolutely need rights of appeal for two reasons: for error correction and also to make sure that the law's right.And I want to mention just one other thing that I was very surprised about from the member from Kaikōura and that was the suggestion that the express provision that claimants could claim for mental distress was a bad idea. I was horrified to hear that because in fact if you look at what's gone on in Christchurch there are instances where the anguish and distress suffered by people through these disputes is palpable. Now I'm not going to pretend that that's the case all the time—that it's always the insurer's fault or the Earthquake Commission's fault. Sometimes problems are difficult. But in a concerning number of cases there has been a woeful inattention to these claims and it has clearly caused distress on those people that should be compensated. Mr Smith referred to some arcane rule of law which has no foundation in principle that we should keep it to the law of torts and not contract. If one person's wrong causes another harm the law should compensate it. That's a principle and it's a principle that this Act will apply.So look this is innovative. A lot of the concerns that have been raised have said we're going too fast. I don't apologise for trying to fix things quickly. It has been eight years to the day and waiting is not a solution. We are absolutely going to get on with this as we have with the rest of government. The Insurance Council—Tim Grafton chief executive is on the record saying "If this speeds things up I support it." I welcome that kind of attitude from Mr Grafton and I welcome the fact that his organisation will submit to the select committee. That organisation—and I've had a few disagreements with it—is an important organisation. It brings valuable knowledge to the select committee process. I look forward to it. This is a new approach and I don't apologise for that. This is exactly what's needed. It is the circuit-breaker for justice and for the earthquake issues that exist in Canterbury. I'm very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee."