Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Yeah thank you very much Mr Chair. Just following on from the Hon Gerry Brownlee I wanted to move into a section of the bill in Part 5 Subpart 3 clause 138. This is in regards to some new and extended provisions in regards to information sharing information collection. While we are obviously supportive of this bill overall—wherever there are aspects of legislation which are looking to extend the ability of the State to be able to gather information from those constituents who are impacted by this legislation—one does need to have assurance that those powers are reasonable and appropriate in regards to the mechanisms which will result.So my questions for the Minister are as follows: why does the Minister believe that the information-gathering powers that are in the bill are necessary and who in terms of the extent of the individuals or groups or entities does the Minister believe that these powers are going to extend to? The second question in regards to the information gathering is: what assurance if any has the Minister received from officials in terms of the scope and ability to gather such information? I think on assessment of what is here—and I was a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which obviously did review this bill. But I think it's worthwhile revisiting this because it is important in terms of there is some assessment that actually the powers included within this bill could be seen or deemed by some as being reasonably unfettered and there are risks and concerns around that regard.The last question I have in regards to this area is in regards to the guidance that the Minister's received in terms of again the appropriateness of those provisions but probably more importantly in this context are the implications on other aspects or other ministries or other unintended consequences as a result of this information. We've had a number of instances again even in the last 10 days in terms of cyber-security issues around access of private information. So the concern always will remain from the public: Do I really need to be providing this information through the Government? What is it going to be used for? How is it going to be used and is that appropriate in regards to being a threshold of what is necessary in order for the Government organisations to undertake their job and not over and above what is actually required in order to fulfil that purpose?" So I'd appreciate a little bit of context in regards to that aspect.While I've got a little bit of time the other aspect is in regards to clause 24(1)(b)(i) and this is in regards to the definitions around imminent damage. So clause 24(1)(b)(i) in regards to some clarity from the Ministers is around when assessment is undertaken and the assessment that it's and I quote "more likely than not to occur in the next 12 months." This is obviously a change. I know it was discussed at some length in the select committee process but again a little bit of substantiation I guess in terms of how that 12-month aspect was determined and on what basis or what precedent does the Minister believe that period is appropriate? I mean any forecast into the future even tomorrow is a challenging one. So having a window of 12 months in terms of being able to make an assessment of whether it's more likely than not for damage or imminent damage to occur does place the decision-making power quite squarely on no doubt technical specialists and experts. But there does come with that quite a significant degree of latitude which would depending on the decision result in the fiscal implication to the Crown. So I'm looking for confidence around why we deem that to be appropriate.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I will respond to the first of the member's questions; I'm just seeking clarification on the second so that I can absolutely make sure I'm getting it right for the sake of the committee. The information-sharing provisions indeed reflect the current powers in the current Act. So I want to give the committee that assurance. They do reflect the current powers. They do provide for the ability for information to be requested in certain formats and in certain timing so that it can be useful information and obviously members can see—those following the debate at home might not be able to—that also in that section is a codification of the appropriate ways to handle information the responsibilities that surround it and the authorisations which are also really important to have outlined in the law.Primarily those powers will be used for information-sharing between the Earthquake Commission and the insurers and the same powers are in place where it concerns providing information publicly."