Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this the Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill. I start by paying acknowledgment to the sponsor of the bill my colleague Stuart Smith the hard-working member of Parliament for Kaikōura an area that of course knows a thing or two about earthquakes and related matters. At this reading it's appropriate to understand the intent of the bill and the various things that it looks to do. The detail can come later if and when—and I say that hopefully—it proceeds to a select committee for consideration and beyond so that the issues that are raised in here by Mr Smith have the opportunity for the attention that they deserve.Dr Webb on the other side made a number of criticisms of the bill that I think were unfair and I want to raise a couple of those in passing as well as obviously comment more positively on the things that the bill will do besides those. One is that Dr Webb said that the bill does nothing. It doesn't do everything certainly and the sponsor of the bill wouldn't claim that it does but it does do something and it does something quite meaningful. It relates to the acceptance of a claim. Now that's the starting pistol fired at the start of the race. So when Dr Webb says in effect—and I paraphrase I think fairly—that the bill doesn't represent the whole running of the race and therefore the starting of the race is unimportant I think he misses something that is quite significant which is that for people who are making claims that are not yet accepted to even get off the mark if I may extend the metaphor is often a very difficult and stressful and time-consuming thing in itself. The bigger picture then is that we're talking about a framework where there are obligations that already exist—yes—and Dr Webb acknowledges issues of enforcement—yes. That's fine as far as it goes but the point about having a specific time frame that Mr Smith's bill does is that a claimant is able to have a line in the sand on which to hang their hat if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. They will have something to hang on to when engaged in a process that is more concrete more certain merely than an obligation to act in a fair and reasonable manner or within a time frame that is as soon as practicable or other similar phraseology. It is helpful I say to Dr Webb actually to have something a bit more certain than that a point at which one can start jumping up and down.I note that the bill prohibits contracting out and I think that's appropriate. The reality is that in this type of situation there is a power imbalance between the insured and the insurer and so I think it's right and quite sensible that my colleague is stating if I've understood the detail of the bill such as I've looked at it—and I must admit that I haven't done so in huge detail. But it seems to me that that's an important feature to ensure that everyone is bound by this regime so that there can't be any persuasion not to be able to enjoy its protections.I won't say much more than that except again as I say a very worthy purpose of the bill. I think some of the key features are really valuable and a faster response and resolution for claimants is something that every member of this House should be on board with.