Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this legislation the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill of course amending the 1993 Earthquake Commission Act which goes back to the original 1944 Earthquake and War Damage Act. I actually want to just pause to reflect on that. In 1944 after the Wairarapa earthquake and of course subsequent to the 1931 Napier earthquake that killed so many—230-odd New Zealanders—the Fraser Government that first Labour Government put this far-sighted piece of legislation in hand and I think the House should reflect as legislators that that is visionary and far-sighted legislation and that we should aspire to look to achieve those same standards. We quite so often get caught up in our three-year election cycle but these pieces of legislation—and by crikey didn't it come in handy? Of course so recently we have had the devastating events of that cluster of earthquakes in Christchurch and of course more recently the Kaikōura-Seddon cluster of earthquakes. I note there's been a little bit of politics played tonight. I'm not going to enter into that. I was not in Christchurch for those events. I can only imagine what it must have be like and the magnitude of that disaster and the three fairly large quakes there makes this something—I think we need to reflect on what happened but I think the people involved—and I acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee for his contribution. We can put a forensic lens over this with the benefit of hindsight but when you were there in the heat of the battle you will have done your best for your city and for your country in those circumstances and I certainly commend you for that and subsequent Ministers that have come in behind you. Of course we heard that there were 470000 claims. Even the Kaikōura earthquake which probably wasn't as big in terms of the damage was still 38000 claims so it shows you how important this organisation is in responding to these sequences of quakes that we've been having recently.OK so this legislation comes from the review set up in 2012. If I would be critical I would think 2012 and we're here in 2018 and we've only got some interim measures to act upon—I'm not sure what's going on there." I'm loath to sort of wade in but it does seem a little inappropriate that we don't have the full set of recommendations to act upon. But we do have the low-hanging fruit and I commend Minister Woods in bringing those forward for us to look at today. New Zealand First is supportive of them. We've been supportive right through of all the legislation that's come through. In fact one of my personal highlights—in fact the personal highlight of my time in this House so far—was the passing of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Act. As a former Cantabrian there was a lot of—pleasure's not the right word but acknowledgment—for the people of Christchurch and I knew how much that meant to them. So we'll go to the four proposed changes in the bill. The exiting of the personal property or the contents insurance—I think that's been well covered. That provision is overly complicated and the response you're dealing with is vases or televisions and the like and that's not life-changing stuff. That's stuff that can be replaced relatively easily and I note the deflation in those sorts of items too. A flat-screen television for example that may have cost $5000 or $6000 10 years ago can be bought for mere hundreds so it's not probably the death-blow that losing one's property is in these circumstances. So I think that's a very good common-sense part of this legislation that I'm sure will not have much opposition through the select committee process. I note in the Kaikōura earthquake sequence 80 percent of those claims did not include contents so it hasn't been too much of a major feature anyway latterly.Increasing the cap to $150000—I think that's again eminently sensible. I think when this legislation originally came in 1993 that that would've been a much larger chunk of the replacement. But I do concur with the views that have been put forward before. I think there is some personal responsibility here to make sure you're insuring your house and your contents and your vehicles and other things. You shouldn't be looking to the State unnecessarily. But I think that having this provision there—it does give our insurers and reinsurers the confidence that we have the capacity to respond and for them to be able to go into the private market. So I think by having these provisions we're helping keep premiums down on a yearly basis.The lengthening of the claim deadlines—I think this is probably the one as has been identified earlier on that the select committee will probably have a little bit of a play around with. I think if you go back to Christchurch there was the September 2010 through to sort of June 2011. That sequence—how does that all you know; what was the real life experience that we went through there and how does that reflect what we're looking to put up in legislation? So unfortunately we've got a lot of experience to draw upon but I'm sure that will be ironed out within that select committee process.The data sharing—I think that's also one that has come forward out of experience. We need to be able to provide the information in a timely manner to the people that need it. New Zealand First is always a little bit loath to extend powers of the State or weaken privacy provisions but we do note the oversight of the Privacy Commissioner. We've seen a lot of input from the private insurers and other expert parties within that process. So we're confident that certainly within that select committee process those privacy provisions will be appropriately set and tested.I think that's probably all I've got to say on the bill really. New Zealand First does support this legislation. It is common-sense legislation to bring forward those measures that we can reasonably do in lieu of the full report. So it makes sense to do this. The sequence of events we've had over the last decade suggests that we haven't got time to wait. So we support bringing those forward. This should make the Earthquake Commission fit for purpose and I must say it also allows us to learn the lessons that have been so hard won. So New Zealand First supports this bill and has pleasure in recommending it to the House."