Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Well the bill's been well-outlined by the Minister. There are some very good things about this bill; however there are some quite bad things about this bill and I'm going to touch on those. I can start by saying that the National Party will not be voting for this bill because of the significant issues that I will be pointing out in a moment. No one disputes that there needs to be some final justice for those people through the system but you don't deal with injustice by creating another injustice and that is what this bill will do. I introduced several Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) during the committee of the whole House stage none of which were supported by the Government—they may well feel quite uncomfortable about that in time. So one of the first ones I brought in was around allowing who can bring a claim to the tribunal. As the legislation stands it's only an insured that can do that. That is actually against the advice that Cabinet received from their own department which said You cannot do this you should not do this" but they've done it anyway. It is unprecedented in contract law in New Zealand. The only time that you have an access issue like this is like in the leaky homes legislation tribunal and that's where all the problems come from with this bill. They have been quite lazy; they've just done a cut and paste from that legislation into this bill and that is where the problems begin because that is under a tort law and this is under contract law. So that is a major issue with the bill—it's something that we won't support for many reasons but that's one of them. The second one I think perhaps more importantly is clause 37(4) in the bill which potentially limits the rights for cross-examination and calling of expert witnesses. It actually goes against the purpose of the bill. One of the purposes of the bill—and the Minister touched on this—is for fairness. This is not fair. I'll read the clause; it says: "[it] does not require the tribunal to—(a) permit the cross-examination of a party or person: [or] (b) allow the use of an expert by a party in the tribunal's processes". These disputes are all about experts; that's how the insurance damage is assessed. It's about how the damage is assessed what the quantum is to repair it; it all swings on expert witnesses and yet that tribunal has the right to actually limit that. It's also in contravention of section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which I'll quote from this—[Interruption]—it's very important and perhaps they could listen—"Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights obligations or interests protected or recognised by law." This goes against that and the problem with it is far from being speedy it could end with someone taking this to the High Court if they feel that their rights have been trampled on by this tribunal. A simple thing to have fixed—I had a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that would have fixed it. It was interesting during the select committee process and in the committee of the whole House; you could see how—not you Madam Deputy Speaker but believe me I could—uncomfortable the officials were with some of the things in this bill. They had to do what they were told. They were deeply unhappy and deeply uncomfortable. The only one thing that was really bad in this sort of area—we tidied a whole lot up in the select committee—was around the issue of awarding damages for mental distress which we got thrown out. The officials were deeply unhappy—it was quite entertaining actually but I felt sorry for them. They were doing what they were told.Another SOP I put up was to ensure that the tribunal members had suitable knowledge and experience in this area; so that they had a law degree several years of legal practice or that they had arbitration experience. Unfortunately that is not the case in the bill and what will happen potentially is these highly complex matters could be decided or adjudicated on by someone who lacks the experience of someone with legal training or arbitration experience to sort out what the right and the wrong is in that argument. It is absolutely incredible that that should be put in this bill. I can't believe it and I know also the officials were deeply unhappy with that and very uncomfortable.The final one I want to touch on is around the third parties. In some cases these insurance claims will include a third party which might be a builder who has done some earthquake repairs and the insured is unhappy with those and has taken a claim to the tribunal. So you'll have potentially the Earthquake Commission an insurance company and the insured plus this third party or parties before the tribunal. Unfortunately in the bill the moment the insured and the insurer have reached a resolution it's discharged from the tribunal—it's finished. So if those third parties haven't reached a resolution with them that then has to go to court. If you're talking about fairness if you're talking about speed if you're talking about justice why not keep it in the tribunal until they're all tidied up and settle there? It will have a perverse effect potentially of encouraging the slowing down of the process because it will be like a Mexican stand-off waiting for someone to blink and they won't want to settle. It may in fact also lead to appeals to the High Court. I think all of those are significant issues with this bill. I think it's untidy—I'm being very kind—legislation. It's unnecessary. The people of Canterbury and Christchurch deserve better than this and I don't know why it's been so sloppy. I think it's unusual that the Minister of Justice would bring something that potentially impinges so badly on our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and for that reason I oppose this bill with some vigour. Thank you."