Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to offer New Zealand First's support to this Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. I note that today is actually the eighth anniversary of the September 2010 quake. My probably overriding sentiment around this bill is I think it's probably three years too late. There are a lot of people who have been put under enormous stress through this process through no fault of their own and actually probably in many cases through no fault of the system. This is an unprecedented scale of event for our nation and mistakes were always going to be made. The process was always going to be difficult as we responded to this. So I have in my contributions on various earthquake-related bills steered away from the politics for the reasons I've just given. I think the scale and the unprecedented nature—certainly in modern times—of this event means that our response was always going to be less than perfect. But for the 2500 to 3000 people or however many it is whose cases are still unresolved I think we really need to do what we can for them and elevate matters. I think this bill does exactly that for the 2 percent of claims that are unresolved although I would add that as of 30 June there have been 142451 domestic insurance claims that have been made and payments have totalled $10.7 billion as well as 26275 commercial insurance claims totalling to date $10.3 billion. So that just shows you the scale of this particular event. I might say that I was in Christchurch last week—as a hard-working list MP for New Zealand First based in the South Island—and I must say that for the first time that I have been there in recent times I left feeling encouraged. In that central city which has looked like a bombsite—most of us aren't there all the time and when we go back we're generally pretty shocked at the state of Christchurch—it does seem like the modern new buildings and the buildings that are under construction are now outnumbering the parking lots and the building sites. So I think we are seeing finally after these six or seven years since the end of the quakes that there is a genuine revival. Most of the time when I go from Christchurch I leave with a bit of a heavy heart but this time I left feeling some hope and embracing the future as opposed to maybe dwelling too much on the past. But of course for these 2000 or 3000 people—I've heard various quotes now of 2500 claims and I've heard Maggie Barry the previous speaker saying it could be as many as 3500—their reality has not moved on. Just in recent times we've had a report on Stuff of Roy and Jeanette Walker. Roy is 94 and Jeanette is 81—so he's done pretty well for himself there—but after those events they are still trying to work through this process at their age and the stress of the events has taken a significant toll on their health to the point where doctors have basically ordered them into a rest home. Jeanette said Roy's health has not improved and I had a breakdown arguing with the insurers who seem to be making it as difficult as possible. The doctor said it was beyond us now. I just got exhausted." It's for Roy and Jeanette and for people like them that we stand here today and bring this bill to the House. It is a sensible bill. It does recalibrate the power imbalance that we do have between insurers and claimants and it does allow the homeowners to initiate this process because that is important. I'm actually involved in another bill before the House at the moment the Farm Debt Mediation Bill so I actually have been getting quite a bit of feedback through that angle on the process of mediation when businesses in that case are under stress. I have been given quite an insight actually into the pressures and the stresses and the power imbalances that do apply in these situations where you have in many cases incredibly well-resourced multinational companies going up against individuals who may be quite limited in their understanding or ability to respond in kind. There's this huge power imbalance so this mediation process is a really really important step. As I say I think we're well too late in getting to this point. There are people there like Roy and Jeanette and all those other people that will be at their wits' end. We could not even imagine I think individually how hard it would be to be battling large corporations like that—or the Government in some cases through the Earthquake Commission—for that period of time. So these measures will be welcomed I'm sure by those individuals. Of course the key to this is that the tribunal actually has some teeth. I think that its ability to set time frames and also to appoint independent experts where necessary—and you would have to think that many of these cases are very complex. They will have gone through a number of phases already. So this tribunal does need to have some teeth. It does need to be able to rattle some cages and have some powers to make progress happen. We have budgeted for it with the $6.5 million operating budget and the $1.5 million that is in the set-up costs and the foresight that went into that Budget round as Minister Little said in his opening address is something that was supported by the three parties on the Government benches. We recognised the importance of this and we have made provision for it. The fact that no onsold properties can be included in this—I think that's thoroughly sensible. I think if you've bought a property you will have gone in as buyer beware and it was up to you to have sorted through or recognised what the obligations would have been in that sense. So I think this is to sort out the issues for the genuinely bogged-down people who have been put in this position through no fault of their own. Of course the tribunal is enforceable but its powers are in line with the District Court and are open to appeal. So I think that is important. It has been mentioned that that may bog down the process but I think that's after the event. I think there will be far more disputes resolved before it gets to that point than would be the contrary. And I again refer to the work I'm doing with the Farm Debt Mediation Bill and the work that they have done in Australia has—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No. That's not relevant. MARK PATTERSON: Well it is part of the bill because it's absolutely the same principle—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Come back to the bill please. MARK PATTERSON: The experience there in a mediation sense has been that it has taken a lot of that court time away. I do note there has been a little bit of criticism about the lack of consultation but of course that's what a select committee process is for. It has been well signalled as was pointed out and there has been a Budget allocation made to it. So it's been perfectly transparent what we're looking at doing. As I say that has been supported by all parties on this side of the House. So without further ado New Zealand First is thoroughly behind this eminently sensible measure. In conclusion I would reiterate that I think it is too late. There are too many people that have been through too much unnecessarily. We should have put this relatively cost-effective—or very cost-effective—measure in place before we got to this point. I commend Minister Little and Minister Woods of course who has been so active in this space for bringing this bill forward. And New Zealand First absolutely commends it to the House. Thank you."