Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There are two essential questions that Parliament needs to focus on with the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. The first of those is: will this result in speedier settlements for those people that still have claims? And secondly will it result in more just settlements for those that have outstanding insurance claims? I want to focus on those two questions in my contribution on this first reading but before doing so it is appropriate that we acknowledge today the eighth anniversary of the massive earthquake centred in Darfield that very early in the morning shook Canterbury back in 2010.I'm a former Canterbury lad and have drifted a little north. I spent a good part of my university time studying earthquakes. What occurred that day will rate as one of the largest economic civil defence challenges that this country has faced and I want to put on record the effort by people like Gerry Brownlee like John Key and Nicky Wagner in the intervening eight years to address those huge challenges.I heard the previous speaker Mark Patterson note that the Government was spending $1.5 million on this tribunal. I'd just like then to take a moment to reflect on the $17 billion—$17 billion—that National committed to in Government to come to the aid of the people of Canterbury over that huge disaster that affected all of our country.When I reflect on—if I take the new bus exchange if I take the temporary stadium and if I look at the new Justice and Emergency Services Precinct and I was in Christchurch yesterday—the way in which Christchurch has rebuilt itself over the last eight years it is a tremendous story in which New Zealand Canterbury and the previous Government can take great pride.I want to firstly focus on the question of whether this will result in speedier settlements. I do have to say to Government members that I read that the regulatory impact statement from the Government's own officials says this and I quote: Claims may take just as long or longer to be resolved through the new tribunal [process] than [is] the status quo." That's what the Government's officials are saying about this bill.The reason I have a degree of cynicism around all the promise that's associated with this bill is—can I just look back to a previous experience for this Parliament. In 2002 a previous Labour Government under Clayton Cosgrove introduced the Weathertight Homes Tribunal with a near identical process as is set out here. When that weathertight homes process was introduced into this Parliament in 2002 the then Government—a Labour Government as well—promised that all of the claims would be settled in two years. Go back and check Hansard. I have. They said all the claims would be settled in two years. Do you know what portion of claims were settled within two years? Not all—3 percent were settled in two years. Even after four years only 7 percent of claims and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal actually took 14 years to get the job done. So when I hear Labour members introducing this bill and pretending it is a panacea for the difficult remaining insurance claims in Christchurch I would love it if either the Ministers or one of the other Government members would explain why it will be different from the very disappointing experience with the previous Labour Government's attempts over the Weathertight Homes Tribunal.I also want to challenge members opposite in respect of the record of settlement of insurance claims in Christchurch. This was the largest number of insurance claims not just in New Zealand but in 2010-11 there were more insurance claims generated in New Zealand than in all of the developed world. Isn't that extraordinary? In little New Zealand we had over 260000 insurance claims—260000 insurance claims. And so when I hear members opposite trying to deride and denigrate the record of the previous National Government in which 98.5 percent—98.5 percent—of those claims were settled I think they are being a little naive and they are being a little unfair. Here's a simple challenge for Labour members: how many claims will be settled by this tribunal and by when—OK? I've heard Megan Woods decry my colleague Gerry Brownlee for years on this issue. Put some pegs in the ground and give us some commitment—OK? We're going to face a new election in September of 2020. We know from this bill that there are 3800 claims still outstanding. I ask a member opposite: how many of those 3800 claims will be resolved by the time we go to the polls in 2020? Is there a member opposite that can give an answer and a commitment? The silence is deafening because while the rhetoric is strong members opposite are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is and actually connect some performance with this bill.The second point that seems to be lost on members of the Government is that when you change the contracts around insurance it is a free good. It is not. Any New Zealander who has received an insurance bill from Kaitāia to Bluff in the last 12 months knows the huge increase in costs facing families as a consequence of when they go to secure their insurance whether it be through the EQC—the Earthquake Commission—or whether it be in terms of their private insurance. Here's the bit that members opposite forget: every time you impose an additional cost or you extend the entitlements with respect to insurance claims—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Just stop referring to the Speaker please.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When the Government extends those insurance entitlements there is a real cost for other New Zealanders. Whether it be in the housing sector or the insurance market or any other sector they are imposing costs on New Zealanders.So I'm very supportive of the statements made by Stuart Smith my parliamentary colleague from next door in Kaikōura who's had enormous experience with these issues and is raising the quite legitimate question: for all the rhetoric is this tribunal going to make a positive difference? And I do need to question the urgency. Labour announced in its policy when it became the Government that this legislation would be introduced as quickly as possible. Well it's been nearly 12 months since this Government was elected. The select committee process is going to take a further six months. Did the electors of Canterbury really believe that the first tribunal hearing would be in the latter part of 2019 and does that match up with the rhetoric and the promise that Labour members made in Christchurch when they said that this tribunal would be put in place? I think not.My colleague Stuart Smith has also raised some quite legitimate questions about the specifics of this bill as to whether it will improve the timeliness and the justice of the outcomes from the insurance settlement process. The evidence that's in the officials' regulatory impact statement on this bill and the experience previously of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal raises real questions as to the rhetoric from Government Ministers and the reality.So again I say to members opposite: if we are to believe that this bill is going to deliver all that they say why will the Government not commit to specific targets? Why will they not commit? We know at the moment that about 1000 claims are being settled per year. How many more are going to be settled more quickly by this tribunal? How do we know that the outcomes are going to be more just when the very process that has been set up has received quite substantive criticisms from those that are there? Let's go back fundamentally to the issue of the technical expertise that is required. In my view they are some of the key issues that do need to be resolved to resolve these remaining settlements of insurance in Christchurch."