Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Well it is a pleasure to speak on the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill in its third reading and we will be supporting it as we have all the way through this process—however with some reservations. The two years I think—that was extending the time period to make a claim out to two years—was something that we did initially oppose. We've agreed to it reluctantly but with qualifications and I think that it is incumbent upon the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission now to ensure that it's quite clearly communicated to people that while they have an opportunity to wait up to two years to identify earthquake damage or other damage and make a claim with the Earthquake Commission (EQC) that is really putting themselves at risk because there is the material prejudice clause in there and I think it's very risky when you're getting up to a period like two years to actually meet that test and get a successful claim.It should also be pointed out to people that they most likely won't have cover for their house if they haven't been living in it for more than 60 days. Most insurance companies have a clause that you must live in or visit your house continuously or if you're away from it for more than 60 days you're actually required to inform the insurance company or your insurance can in fact be null and void or you can have a material increase in the excess—quite significant; $10000 in one case. So that might be quite significant for damage. You would think that the damage that wasn't obvious would be at the lower end of damages rather than at the higher end. So that's the two years. So I understand what would drive the Minister to want to do that but I think there needs to be quite a bit of caution there.Sharing information and tidying that up in the law and making it very clear that EQC can share information around natural disasters to help with preparedness and share it with other agencies is absolutely needed. As the Minister said this is the first opportunity really to do that. There was a lot learnt from the Christchurch event and lifting the cap from $100000 to $150000 and also removing the contents cover—there was quite a bit of work done on that by the officials in fact in a normal earthquake event that is likely to actually lower EQC's exposure by a small amount. So it wasn't a significant or material amount. But I don't know why and I don't understand why that couldn't have just been adjusted by Consumers Price Index rather than having to wait for legislation to change because inevitably legislation will come in well after the inflation has occurred and it's inevitable that they'll be behind and therefore the cap will be out of whack with where it should be.But the Minister alluded to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 156 at the end and I will cover that and I think that she also said that one of the aims of this bill was to promote efficiency. Well that's exactly what the memorandum of understanding (MOU) did. It was very clear right through the select committee process that all of the evidence supported having the MOU or the ability for an insurance claim to be made and that that would be deemed as an EQC claim and to take the middleman out effectively which is EQC and that the insurance companies who were the main submitters and legal practices as well—that that needed to be in the legislation rather than an MOU. We know it worked really well and I look forward very much to when the other piece of legislation that the Minister alluded to comes in and it has what is effectively my SOP in there—that the Minister will look for a really decent bottle of chardonnay that she can give me and thank me very much for all the work that I did on that. And if she doesn't like to bring me chardonnay a very good pinot noir would be good. It wouldn't be political to give a brand but I could give a price band. A good Marlborough wine or a good Waipara would be quite adequate for my tastes.But I think that it is important that we actually think about these things while we've got the opportunity and to wait for another inquiry I think is really abdicating your responsibility and I really don't believe that that's the right thing to do. I think that the more substantive changes—we've had enough time we've had enough inquiry and I think it is really just trying to deliver on an election promise. We had actually the chairman Sir Michael Cullen and Sid Miller the chief executive of EQC in front of the Governance and Administration Committee last week and I was quite alarmed because I really believe the MOU and the SOP—the opposition to those particularly from EQC is about patch protection. I think that they're out there to try and grow their influence. We were told under questioning from myself about the risk-based insurance pricing models and the impact on the market that EQC are looking at with Treasury becoming the insurer of last resort in New Zealand. I was quite shocked to hear that and I'm quite concerned about it so I'm flagging that now that we are certainly keeping a very close eye on that because that is a serious development. So with some caveats I commend the bill to the House.