Wagner NickyHon NICKY WAGNER (National): I'm absolutely delighted to stand up and speak to this bill because I absolutely do not agree with Dr Webb. Now I'll tell you why. National was very keen to support this bill—we were very keen to support this bill. We were hopeful that it would provide an effective alternative mechanism for Christchurch's Canterbury's and maybe even Kaikōura's outstanding earthquake claims. Of course we would support any legislation that would provide flexible speedy and cost-effective resolutions of earthquake claims. Of course we would support that but this proposed tribunal will do none of that and let me tell you why—let me tell you why; the problem is that this tribunal is not fit for purpose.I want to note Dr Webb that it doesn't matter how cheap it is dollar-wise; if it doesn't work it's enormously expensive emotionally and socially. We have seen the people of Christchurch go through enormous amounts of trauma and to put them through another process that doesn't work is absolutely unacceptable. For example let me tell you this tribunal can only deal with simple cases—simple cases that are not already in the court; please note Dr Webb. But the vast majority of the 2233 outstanding cases—and I would like to note that there were 66000 cases originally. Of the 2233 outstanding claims the vast majority of them are complex and technical. That's why they're outstanding. Otherwise simple cases can be solved and have been solved—over 65000 of them have already been solved.This tribunal is not flexible enough to deal with complex and technical cases. Furthermore the resolution of claims through this tribunal will not be speedy. I have a good reason to say it won't be speedy: the regulatory impact statement said—and I'm quoting this—Claims may take just as long or longer to be resolved through the new tribunal than under the status quo." So why would you consider setting up something that would be just as long if not longer than the status quo? On top of that the majority of the cases will not be able to be resolved through this new tribunal—the majority won't be able to—and nothing will be quick. Finally it won't be cost-effective.These are the three reasons why we're putting this tribunal up. We're going to put it up because it's going to be flexible it's going to be speedy—and we've discounted both of those—and it's going to be cost-effective. Actually it's an expensive process to set up the tribunal particularly considering the very small number of cases that it will be able to address. Particularly I note that the tribunal has no ability to deal with one of the most challenging problems in the claims space and that's the resolution of onsold-housing claims. So it's ridiculous. This is the biggest issue and the tribunal can't deal with that either.In conclusion—I'll make it short and sweet—the tribunal is not flexible enough it does not provide a speedy service and it won't be cost-effective so of course we're not going to support the bill. However I would like to make a more positive note. I would encourage the Government to continue to fund and support the Residential Advisory Service. Now the Residential Advisory Service—a free service free to claimants—was established by the National Government. It's normally called the RAS affectionately and it has a strong record of successful claim resolution—a strong record—and has the confidence of the people of Christchurch. We have seen thousands of people go through this process and have their claims resolved in flexible speedy and cost-effective ways. So I believe supporting the RAS would be a far more intelligent thing than to set up a new tribunal. It is more flexible it is more speedy and it is more cost-effective than this proposed tribunal. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."