Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and confirm our support for this Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. Of course we're debating here or confirming these four common-sense changes which represent the low-hanging fruit of our experiences and our hard-won experiences in the series of quakes that have afflicted us as a nation over the last eight years. I commend the Minister and New Zealand First commends the Minister in bringing these as I say low-hanging fruit or more obvious changes forward pending the more comprehensive review by Dame Silvia Cartwright. Of course there is the lifting of the cap to $150000 from $100000 as it was set in 1994 and of course we know that real estate and building prices have lifted considerably in that time. But I think there was some debate on where that cap should be set. I think some had advocated for a higher cap but I think $150000 is a fair level. I think we've got to be careful here with moral hazard. It is up to individuals to insure their own property and we can't have the State just being the default provider. The same goes in terms of the removal of contents from the process. That just merely clutters up what is—and we know there were hundreds of thousands of claims within the Christchurch and the Kaikōura sequences of quakes. So taking out the contents and personal belongings provisions does unclutter that process. It is a common-sense provision and once again it's a moral hazard. It shouldn't be up to the State to be insuring your telly or your vases or nanna's antique cups. That's up to you and I think that's fair enough.To extend the claim time—we've had a bit of debate about that tonight as well. I think three months seems to me to be an extraordinarily short period of time. These are absolutely traumatic events and it does not make sense to have an arbitrary three-month period. People will get their claims in as soon as they can but it does stretch that out for two years in the most extreme events and it does take some pressure off those people in traumatic circumstances.The information-sharing provisions—we do note that it was amended under advice from the Privacy Commissioner the select committee doing its work as it does well in this Parliament and we support that as New Zealand First. It does streamline the response and improve the efficiency of the Earthquake Commission. I would just like to touch on Stuart Smith's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). New Zealand First actually supported that SOP in principle. We thought it had merit. It had worked under the memorandum of understanding (MOU) during the Kaikōura sequence and we did seek some assurances from the Minister that that would be considered properly within the scope of the Cartwright review. We have had that assurance but we do share the Minister's view that it does not make sense to make ad hoc provisions on something that is a bit more complicated and that may have unintended consequences. We know that—the Kaikōura example is that we can bring this MOU in should it be required in lieu of the Cartwright report coming back and recommending that going into the fuller review of the legislation. So in closing I'd like to commend the Minister for bringing these common-sense provisions forward. I commend the Finance and Expenditure Committee. They obviously did quite a bit of work in panel beating this bill out particularly around those privacy provisions. The officials as always—and I would just like to thank also by just reiterating the words that have been spoken tonight as this will probably be my last contribution of the year: to you Madam Assistant Speaker a very merry Christmas and to all members of the House and in fact the precinct too in this weird ecosystem that we live in. I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year and look forward to working with you all again next year. So with that New Zealand First has pleasure in commending this to the House. Thank you.