Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill

I move, That the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

It’s been eight years—in fact, to the day—since the first Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and a little less time since the big earthquakes of 2011, starting with the first major earthquake that year, on 22 February, and yet thousands of insurance claims arising from those earthquakes remain unresolved. This delay has left many Cantabrians feeling weary and frustrated, and we saw an expression of that in the weekend just gone.

This bill—the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill—establishes a specialist tribunal and a fully funded mediation service to help the people of Canterbury resolve longstanding residential insurance claims. I believe the tribunal will act as a circuit-breaker for these claims and provide people with the closure that they have long deserved. The tribunal has been developed to be homeowner initiated to ensure that policyholders feel empowered and in control of their situation. The bill puts the choice to access the tribunal in the hands of policyholders by allowing them, rather than insurers or the Earthquake Commission (EQC), to apply to the tribunal. I know this has been an issue of some controversy for some, but what is absolutely evident is that those who are missing out, those who have been seeking justice for so long are the policyholders and the insured parties, not the insurance companies and not EQC.

This tribunal is not intended to replace the courts or any other dispute resolution process. Rather, it has been developed as an alternative, to provide policyholders with the option of choosing a pathway that is tailored specifically to the Canterbury earthquake’s context, with emphasis on speed, flexibility, and cost effectiveness. If parties have already filed claims in court, the policy holder can apply to transfer the case to the tribunal.

As a specialist body, the tribunal will have jurisdiction to consider residential insurance claims between policyholders and their insurers or EQC. However, in some circumstances, the tribunal can join other potentially liable parties to the claim, such as a builder, where it’s necessary to reach a fair or speedy resolution. Claims must relate to damage caused by the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. The purpose of the tribunal is to help homeowners in Canterbury, many of whom have been waiting a long time for resolution. To make sure the tribunal can deliver speedy resolution and that certain cases remain with the courts, the tribunal will not consider claims related to onsold properties. Some legal issues emerging from these claims are novel and may have no clear precedent, and I consider that they are more appropriately considered by the courts.

The tribunal has been designed to provide processes that are easy for Cantabrians to access. There will be no application fee to access the tribunal, and people can choose whether or not to bring a lawyer. To ensure people feel supported throughout the process, they also have the option of choosing to be represented by someone who is not a lawyer. Detailed guidance will be available to help people feel prepared and informed about what to expect at the tribunal.

One of the key elements of the tribunal process is its flexibility. We know that the remaining insurance claims are complex and that a one-size-fits-all approach would be unhelpful. This is why there will be no standard process that all claims must follow; rather, the bill allows the resolution process to be tailored to the needs of each claim. The tribunal will take a proactive approach to case management and work closely with the parties to find the most appropriate way to resolution. Case management conferences can be used as often as necessary. These meetings will bring the parties together to exchange views, identify issues in dispute, and work collaboratively towards resolution. The tribunal can also use these meetings to set time frames for each stage of the process so that claims continue to progress without unnecessary delays.

The tribunal has a number of powers to help it consider claims. For example, it will be able to appoint independent experts. These experts will play a key role in helping the tribunal to understand complex information and will be able to provide an independent view of competing expert opinions. It is about trying to remove one of the big impediments to the resolution of claims at the moment, and that is the war amongst experts. We’ve got to bring that stuff to an end and have experts available to a tribunal like this who can be arbiters of technical difference, and so bring claims much closer to resolution.

I’ve decided to include an independent and fully funded mediation service within the tribunal process. Mediation empowers parties to settle disputes themselves. It can also be a useful tool to help narrow down the issues in dispute and provide a confidential environment for the parties to speak freely. However, it’s important to acknowledge that, after eight years, parties may already have tried to settle their claims through other dispute resolution processes. Therefore, the bill gives the tribunal flexibility to decide on a case by case basis when mediation will be helpful.

It will also be able to refer parties to mediation more than once if required, or direct a claim straight to a formal hearing without mediation. It’s not unusual in situations like this with complex claims where parties have reached, frankly, a stand-off situation, that once they get into a process such as that contemplated under this tribunal, they do find common ground and the points of difference are not as great as the parties might have once thought, and so it’s appropriate to have an avenue open to the parties where they can restart or retry mediation to try to bring them to resolution. As we know, the strongest and most enduring resolutions are those achieved by agreement, rather than being imposed on the parties.

When determining claims, the tribunal will apply existing law, precedent, and the terms of any relevant insurance contract. You would expect that. The rule of law will continue to apply. But this means the tribunal will apply the same legal rules that are applied in court. A tribunal decision will be enforceable as a District Court order and tribunal decisions will able to able to be appealed on matters of fact and law to the High Court and with the leave of the High Court. Appeals beyond the High Court will be on matters of law only.

We want the tribunal to work for those people who are still waiting for resolution. That’s nearly 3,000 claims sitting in courts or sitting with insurance companies for resolution. These people have waited too long. It was the explicit promise of all parties who make up this Government in the election campaign last year to explore ways to find a more speedy, more flexible, more custom-tailored means of resolution for their insurance claims. I am confident that with this bill and this tribunal we have found a means for those Cantabrians still waiting for resolution to achieve resolution in a speedy and efficacious way.

We want the tribunal to work for those people who have waited for so long and I encourage members of the public, now that the bill is here and will go to a select committee, to provide submissions during that process. We need to hear the stories, we need to hear from those people who are waiting for resolution of their insurance claims, and we need to hear from the insurance companies, and indeed EQC themselves. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’d like to begin my speech on the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill by pointing out that the National Party will be supporting this to select committee, but we do have major reservations about the bill, and I’ll go through those points now. Before I do that, we all have great empathy with the people that are still trying to get their insurance claims settled—and who wouldn’t? To try and find a way to resolve those as quickly as possible is of course something we all support. However, it’s not as simple as it might sound.

But this bill has gone through a rushed process. There’s been a lack of consultation. There was no consultation with the claimants, there was no consultation with the Earthquake Commission, there was no consultation with Southern Response, and there was no consultation with the experts—from engineering experts to building experts to legal experts—who are involved in these cases. It seems also the Minister was unwilling to take advice from his own ministry and other ministries. It was an election promise which the Ministry of Justice in fact advised against. We’re still waiting for answers about the onsold homes, which won’t be able to take part in this process. These are the most complex of issues, and they have been specifically excluded from this process, and so the Government needs to give some answers on that because that will make up a significant number of those unresolved claims.

There are 3,600-odd claims that are remaining, and most of them are complex, and it quite specifically states that no complex or novel claims will be considered by the tribunal. So those claims that are already in the courts—they also won’t be considered by the tribunal unless they seek leave to move from there, and none of the remaining claims that are too complex will be considered. In fact, the regulatory impact statement on 14 July says it expects that most of the outstanding claims are complex, so quite a small number, I suspect, out of those 3,600 will actually be suitable to go into this process.

The appointment of tribunal members is also an area of concern for us because there’s carte blanche for the Minister to appoint members to that tribunal. However, there’s no requirement for any qualifications for those members. I would have thought at the very least a law degree would have been the minimum—also, I would have thought some experience in practising in this area—and I’m very concerned about that. It seems to me that the only way to get around this would be to have an appointments panel. I think that appointments panel should have a High Court judge chairing it, with some others on that tribunal, in order to appoint the people who would have relevant qualifications and be able to handle these claims.

While they won’t accept complex claims, quite where “complex” starts and ends we don’t know, and so there will be some quite significant claims and complexity to deal with for that tribunal, and, if the members of that tribunal don’t have the relevant qualifications and the relevant experience to judge these submissions based on their merits not on the emotions involved, we’re only going to be seeing more problems caused rather than solved.

It can also transfer claims back to the courts. That means any claims that are too complex could go into the tribunal process then simply be transferred back to the courts. That will only slow the process down, and that’s something that we should be trying to avoid. So it’s, effectively, a doubling up on the court system. We all want good results, but we don’t want results that are only going to slow things down.

It also means that there are less experts to go around. The experts that are involved in hearing and working on these cases can be in the High Court, they can be in the District Court, and now they can also be operating in a tribunal. So they can only spread themselves so far, and I think this is going to be one of the major problems with this. In fact, in the regulatory impact statement dated 2 February, I quote, “Claims may take just as long, or longer, to be resolved through the new tribunal than under the status quo. This is due to the risk that it will be difficult to ensure sufficient numbers of technical experts are available to produce technical reports. … The need for suitably qualified lawyers … may also create [significant challenges].” That’s a very serious matter, and a significant part of solving these issues are those experts.

So it won’t be speedy, as has been claimed. There is the lack of experts and geotechnical engineers and lawyers, as I’ve alluded to. They’re already caught up in the courts. And when will this particular tribunal be up and running? It’s envisaged to be in March. I submit that it would be a far better course, as was advised by one of the reports, to have a mediation service instead of a tribunal and enhance the status quo. I think that would have been far more effective.

There is no requirement of a cross-examination—in fact, it’s only at the discretion of the tribunal—and yet members, and particularly the Minister, I advise, should look at Parkin v Vero to see in that case where an expert under cross-examination admitted that the evidence that they had submitted was a cut and paste that had been done by the counsel representing the claimant. So if you don’t have the ability to cross-examine those witnesses, how do you find out and tease those particular issues out? That is why we have cross-examination in the courts.

The tribunal doesn’t have to hold hearings, even. It can decide based on papers alone, and, again, I think that’s a very dangerous route to go down. Parties are unable to make submissions if questions of law are referred to the High Court—well, that’s usually the case anyway—and non-lawyer representatives are not bound by any ethical standards, and that’s really important. We’ve seen examples in Christchurch of claimants wishing to settle but being unable to do so because of the terms and conditions they signed up to with the person who is representing them—and they were quite outrageous in one case. There’s no code of ethics for them. I think that there should be, at a very minimum, an ethical standard for those people involved.

Unequal access—as the Minister said, insurers can’t take claims to the tribunal, only claimants can, and that’s outside of normal practice in our law, and I think that’s something to be concerned about. The departmental disclosure statement states that there is inequality in access in there. In fact, I’ve never seen reports so critical on a Government bill. I think that’s really quite poor, and it doesn’t reflect well on the Minister, unfortunately. It raises concerns of natural justice, and, particularly, when you can’t cross-examine and when we have unequal access, I think that’s something—a major tenet of our law—that is being trodden over on this. As I’ve said, the mediation, I think, would’ve been a better course of action—and, in fact, the Ministry of Justice recommended that—and I think extra money into the Residential Advisory Service, working alongside the mediation, would’ve been a far more effective strategy.

The final point I want to make is about damages for mental distress. Currently in our law, damages for mental distress are not available in contract law; they’re only available to be argued for tort claims. So this is a major departure from our legal system as it stands today. In fact, I refer the Minister to Dr Duncan Webb’s unsuccessful case, where he argued for damages of this kind in contract law in Parkin v Vero, where that claim was lost. I think the Minister would gain valuable insight as to why that should not be available in the tribunal and under contract law. That is a longstanding principle in our law, dating back many, many years, and I think it’s a very dangerous state of affairs to trample all over that.

So we will be supporting this to the select committee. The select committee has a lot of work to do—work that should’ve been done by the Minister—and it doesn’t reflect well on him. However, we will ensure that that select committee process follows through and does that work that should’ve been done before. Thank you.

It’s an absolute privilege to rise in support of this bill, which will make an enormous difference in Christchurch and in Canterbury. I want to begin by acknowledging my colleague the Hon Andrew Little for bringing this bill to this House. Andrew is not only a man who had the very good sense to marry a Christchurch woman but also a man who was with us on the day of the 22 February earthquake, and who has spent a lot of time in Christchurch over the last eight years, speaking and meeting with people who have been going through the trauma that is having an unsettled insurance claim.

Today, in my contribution, I want to focus on the human element of this bill, because this is a bill that will change lives, Madam Assistant Speaker, as I know you know. It will restore hope to our people. It will help people get their homes fixed and, most importantly, their lives back on track eight years on from an earthquake. I think that for many people who live outside Christchurch and Canterbury, it is very hard to imagine that eight years on there are still, literally, thousands of people who are stuck fighting the Earthquake Commission (EQC) or their insurance companies to get their homes properly mended.

I want to take this point in my speech to acknowledge today the eighth anniversary of the sequence—the beginning of the sequence—of earthquakes that changed our city and region for ever, and the enormous impact it has had on the people of that area, and the number of people who have shone over the last eight years. But I also want to acknowledge the people that have struggled, because we know there are many of them, and that is what today is about. I am enormously proud that on this eighth anniversary, this Government can deliver on its promises to the people of Canterbury to do things differently. Too many people are trapped, unable to move on with their lives, and I think that is unimaginable.

This tribunal is about giving people a way out, about giving them a tool to help break through that deadlock. This is part of a pipeline of initiatives that this Government is putting in place so that we can finally deal with the thousands of unresolved insurance claims in Canterbury. It is not the only thing. In December, we put money into the RAS when that funding was due to run out—the Residential Advisory Service. We have expanded the mandate of that service and we are continuing to do so. For us as a Government, doing nothing, or doing what had happened over the last eight years, was not an option. The status quo has not worked. There are thousands of people who cannot get on with their lives.

As an electorate MP in Wigram in Christchurch—as I know electorate MPs all over our city have—I’ve spent the last eight years seeing first-hand this struggle that people have gone through, and the thousands of pieces of correspondence that we receive on a daily basis. I want to read a very recent piece of correspondence that I received from a woman in her 60s to tell me about the limbo that she’s living in: “I live with four-by-twos diagonally bolted through my lounge carpet, propping the middle wall of my house up—house unpainted, leaks in my roof, angry neighbours because the shared driveway is not repaired and can’t be done until a resolution on my property. For the past eight years, I’ve not invited friends to my home because of the embarrassment of the condition of it.” I am not content for people in Christchurch and Canterbury to continue in this hell, and this is why we, on this side of the House, are taking action. Just think what it would be like if that was your life, your mother, your auntie, or your grandmother that was living through that.

I’ve heard some of the concerns that the Opposition have, and I hope they can be allayed in select committee, because I think most of them are misplaced. The Opposition spokesperson Stuart Smith said that he thought that a mediation service would be better. Well, there will be a mediation service. The Minister outlined in his speech that as part of the pipeline and the suite of services—the change that we are bringing—we know that an alternative dispute resolution service through mediation will be required, but what we are not content to do is waste millions of dollars in the courts when there are other ways to do this. In the last three years, EQC alone has spent $21.8 million in the courts defending cases, many of which it lost, and that doesn’t count the millions of dollars that the people of Canterbury have had to spend in the courts. This is why we are going to do something different.

The Opposition spokesperson was also concerned that this service wouldn’t be able to deal with complex claims, and said that most of the remaining claims are complex. It’s true, some of them are, but I can tell you that at the rate of re-repairs coming in, particularly to EQC, there are a number of claims sitting there that could so much more productively be solved through an alternative dispute resolution service such as this. There are many thousands of lives that can be changed by this. There are 3,600 unsolved EQC claims at last count—600 with Southern Response and thousands more with the other private insurers. We’re talking up to 10,000 people in Canterbury who cannot get on with their lives. If this tribunal can help some of them, then it is a worthwhile addition to the pipeline of services that we have available.

Stuart Smith was also concerned that we wouldn’t be appointing people with the right qualifications. It stands to reason that what we have said—and we have publicly said that we see people of the calibre of retired High Court judges, senior members of the legal profession, being the right people to sit there. We also don’t agree that this will slow things down, because the other bit of the regulatory impact statement that the Opposition spokesperson didn’t go into is that it said only if there wasn’t enough expert advice available. We haven’t been content just to keep doing the same thing that happened for the seven years before we got into Government; we have been talking to professional bodies about how we can make sure that that expert help is there for people, because we will not let people languish in the way they have been left to languish for the last eight years.

Also, the issue of the ability to cross-examine was brought up by the Opposition spokesperson, and I think it shows where I hope the Opposition through the select committee process will begin to understand what this is trying to do differently. This is an alternative dispute resolution service. This is the kind of approach that we saw used to finally break the deadlock in a group action, or a class action, against Southern Response that had been going on for years. But when we came into Government and tried something different and employed alternative dispute resolution techniques, we were able to settle those claims so those people could get on with their lives, and that is the important thing that we have to do.

But, as I keep saying, it’s not the only thing; we are looking at other measures. We’re seeing a reformation of the way in which EQC deals with its claims. This is a Government that has worked with EQC, that saw—it took away the resource that was required in terms of the on-the-ground claims managers in Canterbury. That was scaled down far too quickly by the last Government, and we have worked with the commission to ensure that we have more people on the ground there. So I am confident that once we put together all this suite of measures, we will finally be able to get to an end of these insurance issues that are bedevilling our city and our region. It is not enough to say these are complex, these are hard, and these are difficult. Yes they are, and that’s why we’re a Government that is putting in place measures to deal with it.

One of the most complex issues that we have—which the Opposition has questioned why this won’t deal with it—is the question of onsolds. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with by the court. It is an incredibly complex issue where we have to determine where legal liability lies. It does not mean we should not set up this tribunal, that we shouldn’t be doing everything within our power to make sure that the issues of those Cantabrians—like the lady in her 60s whose experience of being too embarrassed to invite people over to her house eight years on—do not endure. We owe it to the people in our city and our region.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the first reading of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. This is a Government bill and National is supporting it, but with some reservations. I guess, like much of the legislation that’s come our way in the last eight or nine months or so, it is in a poor state and an incomplete state. There has not been sufficient consultation with any of the key stakeholders, including the insurance companies or the Earthquake Commission (EQC). These are the people, really, who ought to have been involved at the formation of a piece of legislation of this kind, but because of the rush to get this done—and I guess that’s because there is so little other work that is standing ready to go by this Labour Government, that really was not prepared for Government and was really ill-prepared with a body of legislation that needed to go through. Perhaps that’s why this was rushed through. So it will fall to the select committee to make some massive changes. It goes to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Before I go through the parts of the bill that I think are better than others, I would like to say this: it is the eighth anniversary of a sequence of earthquake events that changed for ever the face of Christchurch, of Canterbury. I’d like to acknowledge the pain and the suffering of the people of the region who have been through that—[Coughs] Excuse me, Madam Assistant Speaker. Excuse me. I think that when we look—[Coughs] I might need a moment; I’ve just choked. Excuse me. [Hon Member offers glass of water] Thank you very much.

I think that one of the things that happens when you need to ensure—and no pun intended—that there are 3,600 claims that need to be settled is that there is something more that is required, but whether it is this tribunal or not remains to be seen. One of the things that the Minister said was that an independent, fully funded mediation process would be allowable and would be part of this. I think, given the complexity of some of the cases that will be coming before this tribunal, that is an absolutely important element of all of this.

I think that there are things that have occurred—thank you, Kiri, for bringing over some lozenges. This is indeed a cross-party cooperative venture. It’s not often that somebody who’s been a broadcaster for 30 years gets even mildly affected by the throat, but I appreciate the gesture. Thank you, and excuse me for sucking a lozenge while I do this speech. OK.

So let’s look at some of the issues that are raised with this piece of legislation. It has been touched on before, and that’s the onsold homeowners, which, from what I understand with my association with the city and in a previous select committee—on the Local Government and Environment Committee—we looked at a lot of the work that has been done to complete the rebuild of Christchurch. The onsold homes are indeed a looming issue. That is an issue that will need to be addressed, and, perhaps if there had been more time, it could have been brought under the auspices of this particular tribunal. I wish it had been the case, but I think that is certainly one of the big issues that will need to be addressed at some point.

I guess this is a tribunal that has been set up for the homeowners. They are, at the moment, in the dark because of the lack of consultation, but the Minister did make the point, and I’m sure that people will take him up on the offer, that they make submissions to the select committee, that they tell their stories, that they make people who are on this tribunal, whatever level of skill and expertise that might have—those people need to be aware of the broad range of difficulties that people have experienced in order to rule fairly and properly. The insurance companies and EQC will also be making submissions on this, and I think that there is some comfort to be had from that, and I think that is a good thing.

I worry, though, that some of the out clauses in this bill may mean that some of the decisions that the tribunal might make can then be appealed to the court, which runs the risk of doubling up the process and slowing things down yet again. When we see the impact summary that was prepared by the Ministry of Justice to inform this bill and the policies around it, they refer to the short period of time to scope and develop the bill. That’s why they were unable to consult with those key partners, and therefore there is a lack of data about the nature and extent of the problems and the number of stakeholders affected. So they are advising that there is a lot more that is needed, and I agree with them.

They’ve listed, as well—the justice officials—some of the risks, and they point out that these claims may take just as long or longer than the current processes, and that must be concerning. I think that if a bill like this, when it’s put through the House, and I’m sure it will be—there will be about a year’s delay while the tribunal is set up. There will then be only a year’s funding allocated for it, which I think is concerning. A tribunal of this kind needs to be set up with a longer-term view than just being around for one year. And only being funded for a year, I think, does send a message to people that this is a quick sweep-up, really—that’s its intention as a tribunal. I think it needs more than this, and I think the people of Canterbury deserve better than this.

But the idea that the key objective of the initiative, in terms of the general risks, is not realized might mean that public confidence in the whole process is affected. I think that the system needed to resolve the final Canterbury earthquake disputes needs to be robust. It needs to do the job, and my concern is that it will not. We will hope it can be corrected and added to within the select committee process, but, again, we worry about the resourcing level and the volume of cases that might come before the tribunal.

The advisers have pointed out, as well, that this might be, as a process, misused by some litigants—that they could, in fact, try to hold up and relitigate some of the cases that have gone through. So there are a whole lot of things that will need to be very carefully considered and resolved, and I think that—you know, this is a tribunal that will take a little while. Others—my colleague Stuart Smith has pointed out that we need to have people on that tribunal that have got the kind of skills, and Dr Megan Woods did refer to the need to have somebody at a retired High Court judge level to chair it, and, hopefully, a legal qualification to guide people through the quagmire and make the correct decisions as a tribunal.

I think that they do only have the power to consider the simple cases that have not already come before the courts, and out of those 3,600, my understanding is that they are the more complicated cases. They are the ones that are going to be tricky to do, so I’m not sure if this tribunal will be well-equipped. I think that when we look at the concerns over equal access, only policyholders and insured people will be allowed to apply to this tribunal. Again, it’s narrowing it down, which might mean that the tribunal will have less work to do, but it also might mean that the very people that it seeks to help will not be eligible, and the complexity of their cases will not be able to be heard.

Who can bring claims? Not the insurance companies, which surprises me somewhat. I would have thought that equal access and natural justice would mean that insurance companies could also be involved in bringing cases to the tribunal, because that has been a problem and something that has held up the process of being able to resolve some of these claims. The unequal access thing will, I think, need to be kept in mind.

When we look at some of the other issues that have emerged through Christchurch, with regard to getting advocates who act on behalf of people, I think that we always need in these kinds of cases to have appropriately trained and skilled people, and having advocates there could be something of a murky area within a tribunal, particularly if it is not set up with the right level of legal rigour around it. So while I wouldn’t want to cast any aspersions on individuals who have advocated in the past, I think there’s a real need to be vigilant around those who might demand contingency fees or who might get involved for the wrong reasons. Again, when I look at the make-up of what is considered around the recommendations and within this bill, I am a little concerned that it will be a little underskilled and, therefore, potentially somewhat underwhelming. I certainly hope not.

I think that the people of Canterbury deserve something that will give them what they need and that will resolve the most complicated of cases. I remain a little sceptical that this is the tribunal that will deliver it, but I certainly hope that within the select committee process, this bill, which has been put together in a rush—it will take more than a year to get established as a tribunal and will then only be funded for a short period of time—will be allowed to have much more than that. It doesn’t sound very promising.

I commend the bill to the House, but with some reservations. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

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 2,500 to 3,000 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 142,451 domestic insurance claims that have been made and payments have totalled $10.7 billion, as well as 26,275 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 2,000 or 3,000 people—I’ve heard various quotes now of 2,500 claims, and I’ve heard Maggie Barry, the previous speaker, saying it could be as many as 3,500—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.

Well, it is part of the bill, because it’s absolutely the same principle—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Come back to the bill, please.

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.

There are two essential questions that Parliament needs to focus on with the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. The first of those is: will this result in speedier settlements for those people that still have claims? And, secondly, will it result in more just settlements for those that have outstanding insurance claims? I want to focus on those two questions in my contribution on this first reading, but, before doing so, it is appropriate that we acknowledge today the eighth anniversary of the massive earthquake centred in Darfield that, very early in the morning, shook Canterbury back in 2010.

I’m a former Canterbury lad and have drifted a little north. I spent a good part of my university time studying earthquakes. What occurred that day will rate as one of the largest economic civil defence challenges that this country has faced, and I want to put on record the effort by people like Gerry Brownlee, like John Key, and Nicky Wagner in the intervening eight years to address those huge challenges.

I heard the previous speaker, Mark Patterson, note that the Government was spending $1.5 million on this tribunal. I’d just like, then, to take a moment to reflect on the $17 billion—$17 billion—that National committed to in Government to come to the aid of the people of Canterbury over that huge disaster that affected all of our country.

When I reflect on—if I take the new bus exchange, if I take the temporary stadium, and if I look at the new Justice and Emergency Services Precinct, and I was in Christchurch yesterday—the way in which Christchurch has rebuilt itself over the last eight years, it is a tremendous story in which New Zealand, Canterbury, and the previous Government can take great pride.

I want to, firstly, focus on the question of whether this will result in speedier settlements. I do have to say to Government members that I read that the regulatory impact statement, from the Government’s own officials, says this, and I quote: “Claims may take just as long, or longer, to be resolved through the new tribunal [process] than [is] the status quo.” That’s what the Government’s officials are saying about this bill.

The reason I have a degree of cynicism around all the promise that’s associated with this bill is—can I just look back to a previous experience, for this Parliament. In 2002, a previous Labour Government, under Clayton Cosgrove, introduced the Weathertight Homes Tribunal with a near identical process as is set out here. When that weathertight homes process was introduced into this Parliament in 2002, the then Government—a Labour Government as well—promised that all of the claims would be settled in two years. Go back and check Hansard. I have. They said all the claims would be settled in two years. Do you know what portion of claims were settled within two years? Not all—3 percent were settled in two years. Even after four years, only 7 percent of claims, and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal actually took 14 years to get the job done. So when I hear Labour members introducing this bill and pretending it is a panacea for the difficult remaining insurance claims in Christchurch, I would love it if either the Ministers or one of the other Government members would explain why it will be different from the very disappointing experience with the previous Labour Government’s attempts over the Weathertight Homes Tribunal.

I also want to challenge members opposite in respect of the record of settlement of insurance claims in Christchurch. This was the largest number of insurance claims not just in New Zealand, but in 2010-11 there were more insurance claims generated in New Zealand than in all of the developed world. Isn’t that extraordinary? In little New Zealand, we had over 260,000 insurance claims—260,000 insurance claims. And so when I hear members opposite trying to deride and denigrate the record of the previous National Government, in which 98.5 percent—98.5 percent—of those claims were settled, I think they are being a little naive and they are being a little unfair. Here’s a simple challenge for Labour members: how many claims will be settled by this tribunal, and by when—OK? I’ve heard Megan Woods decry my colleague Gerry Brownlee for years on this issue. Put some pegs in the ground and give us some commitment—OK?

We’re going to face a new election in September of 2020. We know from this bill that there are 3,800 claims still outstanding. I ask a member opposite: how many of those 3,800 claims will be resolved by the time we go to the polls in 2020? Is there a member opposite that can give an answer and a commitment? The silence is deafening, because while the rhetoric is strong, members opposite are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is and actually connect some performance with this bill.

The second point that seems to be lost on members of the Government is that when you change the contracts around insurance, it is a free good. It is not. Any New Zealander who has received an insurance bill, from Kaitāia to Bluff, in the last 12 months knows the huge increase in costs facing families as a consequence of when they go to secure their insurance, whether it be through the EQC—the Earthquake Commission—or whether it be in terms of their private insurance. Here’s the bit that members opposite forget: every time you impose an additional cost or you extend the entitlements with respect to insurance claims—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Just stop referring to the Speaker, please.

When the Government extends those insurance entitlements, there is a real cost for other New Zealanders. Whether it be in the housing sector or the insurance market or any other sector, they are imposing costs on New Zealanders.

So I’m very supportive of the statements made by Stuart Smith, my parliamentary colleague from next door in Kaikōura, who’s had enormous experience with these issues and is raising the quite legitimate question: for all the rhetoric, is this tribunal going to make a positive difference? And I do need to question the urgency. Labour announced in its policy, when it became the Government, that this legislation would be introduced as quickly as possible. Well, it’s been nearly 12 months since this Government was elected. The select committee process is going to take a further six months. Did the electors of Canterbury really believe that the first tribunal hearing would be in the latter part of 2019, and does that match up with the rhetoric and the promise that Labour members made in Christchurch when they said that this tribunal would be put in place? I think not.

My colleague Stuart Smith has also raised some quite legitimate questions about the specifics of this bill, as to whether it will improve the timeliness and the justice of the outcomes from the insurance settlement process. The evidence that’s in the officials’ regulatory impact statement on this bill, and the experience previously of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, raises real questions as to the rhetoric from Government Ministers and the reality.

So, again, I say to members opposite: if we are to believe that this bill is going to deliver all that they say, why will the Government not commit to specific targets? Why will they not commit? We know at the moment that about 1,000 claims are being settled per year. How many more are going to be settled more quickly by this tribunal? How do we know that the outcomes are going to be more just when the very process that has been set up has received quite substantive criticisms from those that are there? Let’s go back, fundamentally, to the issue of the technical expertise that is required. In my view, they are some of the key issues that do need to be resolved to resolve these remaining settlements of insurance in Christchurch.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The previous speaker, Nick Smith, is being too negative. As Minister Little said, this tribunal is intended to be a circuit-breaker. There are over 2,500 claims that have yet to be resolved, and as the regulatory impact statement on the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill, which the Green Party is please to support, notes, there are a number of frustrated and vulnerable claimants. So by setting up this tribunal, it’s seeking to actually cut through some of the issues which have bedevilled the settlement of those claims. They are generally the more complex claims, but they also may not have been settled because of the vulnerability of the claimants. The processes that this bill enables, through the tribunal, provide a less threatening environment than a court system and one which, because of the recourse to mediation, can enable those claims to be settled.

So I congratulate Minister Little and Minister Woods who have done all of the work in bringing this bill to the House. I think it is being innovative. We have a tradition in New Zealand in forums like the Environment Court where mediation is used to really good effect and similarly with the disputes tribunal. It is this ability to have the tribunal refer claims to mediation to enable the parties to get around the table, to either narrow the issues that are subject to debate to potentially go for a hearing later, or to actually get them resolved in that mediated forum that is one of the major benefits of the bill. The bill also ensures that people don’t need a lawyer to take their claim to the tribunal. They must have an insurance claim. They must be a policyholder or an insured person. They must either have a dispute with their insurance company or, as an insured person, with the Earthquake Commission.

We know that there is this tail of difficult to resolve claims, so this is the Government saying we need to get these nearly 3,000 claims actually dealt with, given that today is the eighth anniversary of the earthquake in Darfield along the Greendale fault. It has dragged on too long. It’s caused significant distress to those families who haven’t been able to get their homes repaired, who are still negotiating and putting all of that energy into the negotiations with the insurance companies, and who are facing enormous stress because they haven’t been able to move on with their lives. So this Government cares about getting these issues resolved and that’s why this bill is before the Parliament.

It will enable people to represent themselves if they feel that they would prefer to do that rather than having a lawyer. That doesn’t deny access to justice. Proceedings can still go in front of the courts, but it enables things to be worked through in a less formal way through things like mediation. It aims to be speedy, despite the Hon Nick Smith having doubts about that, it aims to be cost-effective, and it aims to be flexible. It will be able to be flexible because of the case management approach that is being used here to recognise that each claim has its own circumstances and there needs to be flexibility rather than just a one-track process to deal with that.

Stuart Smith raised concerns about the lack of ability for cross-examination. Cross-examination is a very formal procedure. It does ensure that evidence is robust, but it normally takes place where proceedings are adversarial. This tribunal is inquisitorial, so there is the ability for those presiding over the tribunal to delve into the issues in each claim and to ask probing questions. That guarantees the probity of the process, but it ensures that we are not setting up an adversarial system the way you have in a court, and it’s often by recourse to an inquisitorial system, to a system which is flexible, which focuses on case management, which enables the party to go to mediation that is often the more effective way to resolve some of these difficult claims.

It’s combining the best of a court system and a more flexible process, because the tribunal, like a court, can actually make orders, given that the presiding officers do have those inquisitorial powers and they are very independent. It also—by the fact that it is not requiring fees or a claim to be filed—means that it’s accessible to everyone. There will be the power under regulations to set fees if necessary, but it enables access to justice for everyone.

So there are a number of benefits here with this circuit-breaker process, with the flexibility it provides, with the ability to make orders, with the ability to refer the parties to mediation, with the ability to ensure that the appropriate experts are brought in—they may be engineers or geotechnical experts—and the assurance that they are brought together and have call conferencing so that they share their advice and help all the parties actually work through the claims.

So I think it’s an opportunity for a different way of working, which is why the Government is introducing the tribunal to deal with this tail of claims which are causing significant stress to the householders concerned. I think it has the potential to be a circuit-breaker. I think the Hon Nick Smith should have a little more confidence that it will work. We are not setting performance targets, because that is not appropriate. It would cut across the flexibility, the case management approach, and the emphasis on mediation that the bill enables. It does provide an alternative to the court but without taking away parties’ ability to access the court.

So the parties taking a claim to the tribunal must want to seek resolution, there must be a dispute, and this tribunal is a way of resolving those really difficult claims. I think, as Mark Patterson noted, that because it’s not dealing with the whole issue of onsold properties—because if you’ve got a claim and you’ve bought a property from someone else, you can’t take a case—it does set some parameters around the tribunal’s work and it is intended to actually deal with those nearly 3,000 cases where people are still subject, on the eighth anniversary of the first of the quakes, to the fact that they haven’t got the earthquake damage to their single most important asset, their house, resolved. So I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too would like to note that today, 4 September, is the eighth anniversary of the Canterbury earthquakes and the first major earthquake of a 15,000 - earthquake sequence, and I remember that morning extremely well.

Everyone who lives in Canterbury and in Christchurch has been affected by these earthquakes. Everyone has been touched; everyone has felt the loss. But I do have to say that I think we can all be very proud of how Cantabrians have responded over this length of time, over the last eight years. There have been enormous challenges, of course, and one of the most major challenges has been insurance issues. When you think about it, there were over 600,000 individual claims with about 200,000 properties affected, and over the last eight years, of those 200,000 properties, all have been completed, with 3,600 left still on the Earthquake Commission’s (EQC’s) books.

Of course, we always knew that there was going to be an enormous amount of work and an enormous amount of heartbreak, I suppose, that went through these insurance policies, and we always knew that some people would be the last. The last people are the ones that are often the most vulnerable, the ones who’ve had the toughest times, and so it is really good that we are looking today at this Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill, because if we can use this to clean up those last 3,600 claims that are still with EQC, that is a very good thing.

So National will be supporting this bill. We’ll be supporting it because we think it’s important to try everything we possibly can to complete the insurance settlements in Christchurch, not because we have any faith in the bill. In fact, we have no faith in it, in terms of its shape, in terms of its substance, or in terms of its practicality. Like all Christchurch and Canterbury MPs, I’ve been deeply involved with insurance claims over the last eight years, and we’ve supported thousands of people to go through the EQC process. So we’ve learnt a little bit about insurance, and we’re very hopeful that we can finish those last claims, but what we have found over that length of time is that things like the Residential Advisory Service have provided support for some of these very complex and difficult claims very successfully.

Now, just looking at the principle of this bill. The principle of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill is “to provide speedy, flexible, and cost-effective services to help resolve insurance claims between policyholders and insurers … and insured persons and the Earthquake Commission”. As I said, National supports this purpose, but we feel that this piece of legislation is flawed. It has been rushed, as has been noted today, and there’s been very little consultation either with the industry or with the insured people. It’s really supposed to be to help homeowners, so it was particularly important that homeowners were part of the process, and that hasn’t been the case. It sort of feels that rational policy development with good information has been sacrificed for the rhetoric of the election promises, and that’s a real worry.

It’s a real worry that even the regulatory impact statement identified as well, because what it said was the lack of consultation has compounded the lack of data—both of which you could’ve got if you’d talked to the people involved—which means that Cabinet faces significant unknowns. Now, that’s particularly concerning, because, really, what we want right now is a little bit of certainty.

So, as I said, National supports the idea of “speedy”, we support the idea of “flexible”, and we support the idea of a cost-effective process, but let’s test whether this legislation actually delivers on that. First, let’s look at “speedy”: well, again, the regulatory impact statement says it “may take just as long, or longer, to be resolved [by] the new tribunal than under the status quo.” On top of that, we’ve heard that the tribunal won’t be up and running till at least later next year. So, taking longer than the status quo, not starting till later than next year—would we consider that speedy?

Secondly, “flexible”: the tribunal only has the power to decide simple cases—simple cases that are not already in the courts. So it rules out a large number of EQC claims already in the system. The final 3,600 claims that are on the books are largely not only complex but very complex and technical, because that’s why they’re outstanding—they’re the ones they haven’t been able to solve. So this tribunal needs to be flexible enough to deal with those issues, and it’s obviously not. Equally so, as has been mentioned today, it doesn’t deal with onsold properties, onsold claims, and that’s an issue that’s becoming increasingly pressing. This Government has done absolutely nothing to deal with them.

Finally, decisions by the tribunal can be appealed back to the court. Now, that’s neither speedy nor flexible, and, in fact, Mr Little’s own department, the Ministry of Justice, preferred a mediation process to this tribunal, something along the lines of the Residential Advisory Service. Now, that’s the service that National set up nearly six years ago, which has been running very successfully. It’s morphed and it’s tweaked to deal with the issues that’ve come up. It’s dealt with thousands of cases, very complex cases—cases that have got very vulnerable people. I actually say they have been very flexible about how they’ve dealt with those cases, how they’ve dealt with EQC, and how they’ve dealt with the insurers. So it seems to me that something like the Residential Advisory Service on steroids would actually deal very effectively with these last 3,600 claims.

Finally, let’s test the idea of cost-effectiveness. Because the bill has been so rushed, there’s actually no information about any cost-benefit analysis at all. We don’t know whether it’s going to be cost-effective. We’re only going to find out when we get a hefty bill, and right now there’s only one year’s worth of funding allocated in the Budget, so where will the rest of the money come from? So, cost-effective? I doubt it, and, again, because of the rush, we not only have been unable to understand the data but also can’t understand how that data can be used to get effective outcomes.

So, in summary: the new earthquake insurance tribunal, will it be speedy? I don’t think so. Will it be flexible? No, it can’t be. And will it be cost-effective? Well, we won’t know until we get the bill. As I said in the beginning, National absolutely supports this bill because doing something is better than doing nothing, but I really believe that the strengthening of the Residential Advisory Service would’ve been a much more speedy, much more flexible, and much more cost-effective approach. We’ve seen it being successful—thousands of claims have gone through that service—and I believe it’s far better to build on a success, build on something that’s working and something that can give the flexibility to finally close off these very last insurance claims. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

This is a split call—five minutes. I call Jo Luxton.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am really thrilled to be able to take a call on the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little for bringing this bill to the House. He quite clearly understands and empathises with the issues that several thousand people in the Canterbury region have faced or are facing every day. I also want to acknowledge the people in Canterbury, and in particular Christchurch, on this, the eighth anniversary of the 4 September earthquake. This earthquake marked the beginning of a series of events that has changed people’s lives for ever.

I can recall where I was at the time of the earthquake in September. When the earthquake hit, the house that I was living in at the time felt like it was nothing more than a cardboard box being thrown around. Thankfully or miraculously, we were never put into the position where we had to look to make an insurance claim because the house wasn’t damaged in any way. However eight fast years may have flown for me—which I feel like eight years has really flown by; I can’t believe that it’s been that long since that earthquake—there are people in Canterbury who are still struggling after eight years, who are still trying to get their claims settled.

Now, we can’t control an earthquake and we can’t control the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, but what this bill does is it gives some control back to the people of Canterbury, and many of those people have felt that they’ve had no control and no hope over their lives for the last eight years. They are living their lives—some of them, I believe—in a truly, truly dark way. They are living—it’s like Groundhog Day: you wake up, every day it’s the same. You’re facing the same battle trying to settle your claim. It’s not fair. It’s not good enough, either. This bill will also bring back fairness and equity to the people who are fighting their claims. We know there are several thousand outstanding claims—several thousand too many. I acknowledge that some of these claims are likely to be quite tricky to work through, but still, eight years is a really long time.

This bill provides a pathway forward. People still, after seven and eight years, are living in caravans outside their houses because their houses are unsafe to live in and they are still fighting their insurance claims to get their houses fixed, repaired, or replaced in total, so that they can actually live a normal life again in their homes. As I said, it is a pathway forward. It’s really important for the people of Canterbury that they have this pathway forward, which this bill enables, because they have been left weary, worn down, suffering serious mental health issues trying to navigate their way through this legislation in order to get their claims resolved.

What I think is really important about this bill is that it enables a shift from being worn down and weary to people being empowered and in control again. It gives policyholders a choice—a choice to access the tribunal, which allows them the option to apply to the tribunal, rather than going through the insurers or the Earthquake Commission. It’s not going to be regimental in its approach, and it will assess each individual claim, and be flexible and tailor their response and their approach to each individual claim.

This Government is delivering on its pre-election promises by establishing this tribunal for the people of Canterbury and, in particular, Christchurch. I really, absolutely, happily commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m rising in support of this very important bill for the people I represent, of Waimakariri, and for the people of greater Christchurch and Canterbury.

It is a special day today. In the early hours of this morning eight years ago the people of Waimakariri were woken up with a violent jolt. Many in the town of Kaiapoi lost their houses that day. We lost just under 1,000 residential houses—the town of Kaiapoi being one of the only places outside of Christchurch that has a residential red zone. That’s why it’s important that we call it the “Canterbury Earthquakes”—which this bill does do—not the “Christchurch Earthquakes”. Quite rightly, we focus on the 2011 earthquakes where we lost the lives of 185 people, but we shouldn’t forget that the first earthquakes were 4 September 2010. That has scarred many of the community in the electorate I serve. As a constituent MP, I just want to take the time to acknowledge the former MPs of the Waimakariri electorate and list the Hon Kate Wilkinson and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for the work that they undertook in the time of need for the people.

As an electorate MP, unfortunately there are still cases coming through the front door of my office. These cases are at the tail end—very legally challenging and technically complex. I think that even though today we’ve heard support across the House for this bill in the first reading, as some of the previous speakers have outlined on this side of the House, we think there are some real deficiencies. Or, to take a strengths-based approach, there are real opportunities.

But first, I do want to acknowledge Parliament. I think the people of Canterbury genuinely feel that Parliament has stood behind them right from the start—the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act, we’ve done local bills on the Arts Centre of Christchurch, as well as Christchurch Cathedral. So this Parliament has worked well for the people of Canterbury. And I do hope, in the legislative process that we are about to undertake, Cantabrians voice their concerns, we hear them as submitters, and this bill will come back amended and better for that process. There are some areas that we need to focus on.

One small detail that comes through my constituents many a time is about the land information memorandum (LIM) reports. I think we need to have a serious think about whether we standardise the reporting of the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and earthquake damage of properties on those LIM reports, because there are situations where people are buying property and potentially, maybe, not taking due diligence, but not having access to the resources to understand the full scope of damage to the property and buildings they’re buying. Onsold properties are a huge issue. There’s a constituent I’m working with who bought a property in good faith, to find out that, actually, the EQC report was incorrect—was inaccurate. EQC have acknowledged their report has failings, but, unfortunately, even though they can acknowledge that, they can only pay out the cap—just $110,000.

Of course, now this person is in limbo, because their insurer says “Well, we didn’t hold the policy of the house during the earthquake.”, and the insurer of the house during the earthquake says “Well, this person wasn’t the policyholder.” The problem is, if we exclude this group, they are actually one of the biggest groups of people left. I do hope we can look at that, because, actually, we need to think: what are the issues? I think it’s time to open that up in the select committee process, hear from the submitters of Canterbury, and, ultimately, bring a bill back to the House that is fit for purpose to address some of these very technically and legally complex challenges for the benefit of some very vulnerable people in Canterbury. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Malo e laumalie, Mr Assistant Speaker. Warm Tongan greetings from the member for Te Tai Tonga. I am pleased to speak in support of this Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. It is eight years to the day since we had that initial quake on 4 September 2010, which started the series of seismic events which have totally transformed and affected the whole Canterbury region. As is customary, I note all those difficulties that families have gone through, but in particular I also think of the fatalities, as well. In particular, Mr Doocey was talking about Kaiapoi—that’s our home pā where I come from—and the whanaunga that we lost in that. So āpiti hono tātai hono, rātou te hunga wairua ki a rātou, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[So let the connections be made, the spirits remain amongst themselves, and the living now turn to the living, greetings, greetings to us all.]

I am pleased to speak in support of this bill. I think what we’ve heard this afternoon is a glass half-full, glass half-empty debate, but I’m pleased that all of the parties of this House are in support of this bill at its first reading, because this is fulfilling a promise that we made. I want to commend Minister Little and Minister Woods for their work in bringing this bill to the House. What we’re doing here is we really want to get to the completion of the tail of outstanding unresolved insurance claims, which are affecting so many families across the Canterbury region. I too deal with cases of whānau that are still in suboptimal situations within their houses, whether it’s draughts or uneven living conditions and the like. So this is a means for us as a Parliament to actually put a mechanism in place whereby we can deal with these cases and make sure that they can be resolved.

Eight years is a long time. Eight years—and then the subsequent events that happened later—is a long time for families to be under the stress and the difficulties that they have faced in dealing with these insurance matters. This bill puts in place a user-friendly type process. We are putting in place a tribunal process. It’s an inquisitive process. It’s not adversarial. It provides options from case management conferences to fully funded mediation. So it is tailored to ensure that those policyholders, if they so choose, can elect to go down and use this tribunal process to ultimately get to a resolution of their insurance claim. So we are wholeheartedly in support of that.

Yes, there will be issues, I guess, as have been raised in the debate so far, and I’m sure the Governance and Administration Committee will be carefully going through all of those issues. I’m sure submitters will be raising those and many others, because we want to make sure that we get this as right as we can. Certainly, if there are little tweaks that can be made, as long as we’re improving the ultimate outcome, which can ultimately lead to the resolution of these claims, then I think that’s what we should be doing as parliamentarians. So I acknowledge the contributions that have been made.

Ultimately, this is taking action, because the overhang has just been lasting too long. Families and policyholders want resolution. They have been worn out. I know many that have been just simply worn out by the whole process and have given up, and maybe they’ve settled for something suboptimal. But this is a process for those remaining claims, so that people are able to, confidently, at their own election, access a range of different processes to ensure that they can get to the outcome that, hopefully, will bring finality to the matter. And then, of course—it is just an option—there are always the courts that we have, to deal with the more complex issues and the more, I guess, litigious issues that only courts can examine and can adjudicate upon. So this is just merely putting in a mechanism of a specialist tribunal and a range of different avenues which a policyholder can elect between.

The aim is, as has been mentioned, speed, flexibility, and, of course, being cost-effective, as well, because eight years of seeking legal advice and being at war with insurance companies, whether it’s the Earthquake Commission or others, is not cheap. I’m sure a lot of expense has been outlaid in that intervening period. So that’s we want to achieve with this legislation. We want to eliminate that tail and deal with all these cases, and ultimately the outcome that we want is for those policyholders to reach finality with their claims. It may be to their satisfaction or it may not be, but at least this is a mechanism whereby it can come to a conclusion and they can move on with their lives. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Malo, malo e lelei. E Te Mana Whakawā, huri noa e Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. I too want to acknowledge all the previous speakers, and those that have actually, in their kōrero, remembered either those that have gone because of the earthquakes or, particularly, those who have been affected as well. I say that because, on Sunday, which was Father’s Day as we all know, my whānau and I went to Rāpaki. Early that morning when the earthquake hit the 15 houses that are there, 39-odd people, that is where we all actually came out of our houses and came together. I can remember in the dark as we were moving through the village, the kāika, just checking on how our whānau were. Were there any injuries? There was a lot of fear, though, because walking down the road, our mauka, Te Poho o Tamatea Pōkai Whenua—we could hear the shingle or the rocks actually coming down the mountain. So we actually met over there just to remember some of those very fearful incidents that took place eight years ago.

Then this morning I was at Ngāi Tūāhuriri, Tuahiwi. It wasn’t so much about remembering the eighth anniversary, but it was also there that we were talking about the effects of the earthquakes—first of all, the first one, back in September, eight years ago, but also the main one as well, in February. But we were actually talking through with Regenerate Christchurch about the incredible programme that’s going on there—the project that they’re looking at around the Ōtākaro. So all of this is a direct reflection of what had happened eight years ago, and also moving through to the real bad one in February the following year.

I’ve heard, also, a lot of the discussions here. The previous speaker, my whanauka Rino Tirikatene, did also mention the fact about the glass being either half full or half empty. I think the important thing here, though, is that what these Christchurch earthquakes and a lot of the legislation that has come out of the Christchurch earthquakes—I think one thing that we can all be proud of, right across the House, is the fact that there has been that legislation, right from the beginning and all the way through, to try to actually find better ways to ensure that those that were affected by death, loss of property, or mental health have actually been, as much as we can actually do in this House, in some ways addressed.

So it is indeed my pleasure to talk about the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill on the first reading. As our previous speakers on this side of the House have said, we do support this bill with some major reservations, and so are supporting it through to select committee because, as we all know, the select committee process is a process where we can all work together to make this bill a much better bill than what it is now. The reason for that is because there are some reservations, as has been well articulated by my colleagues on this side of the House. The major one is particularly around consultation—particularly around consultation. I think the important thing, though, with us on this side, is let’s just have a look and put some of the results or some of the themes in context that I don’t think have actually been discussed or actually highlighted here.

I want to talk about the last nine years that we were in Government, and particularly when we were addressing the huge issues post-earthquakes. When you look at that—particularly with the legislation, but also around the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and insurance companies. I’m based in the Port Hills in Christchurch. Obviously, the name suggests that that is actually the very hilly area between the Canterbury Plains, Waitaha Whakatekateka o Waitaha, and then across those hills you have the beautiful Te Pātaka o Rakaihautū, or Banks Peninsula. On those hills are really where a lot of the very hard and technical cases are that we’ve been working through. So that’s why, in some ways, we do support this bill, but let’s get it moving to select committee so we can hear more submissions and more kōrero on this bill.

I just want to reiterate for the record that, as a proud Cantabrian, yes—and I watch with real concern of post-earthquake trauma and all of that. But also I think it’s important that we—the National Government—did work very, very hard, and that is why, when you look at the stats today, that is a true reflection of that: 98.5 percent of these claims have actually been settled—and that’s a Ministry of Justice number. The remaining 1.5 percent are already under consideration through the Residential Advisory Service, EQC, and Southern Response. Of the remaining approximately 3,000 dwelling claims, 20 percent are already on a clear pathway to settlement. A further 36 are being considered for cash settlement right now by the claimants.

What I’m saying here is that one of the reasons, possibly, that there was not a lot of consultation is that even the Ministry of Justice officials are struggling with this bill, because they’ve said “this is a misconceived, poorly thought through, ‘seat-of-the-pants’ policy that runs roughshod over natural justice.” And that’s what it’s about: natural justice as well. Going through the select committee process of this will actually bring this out. But I think the important thing with this bill, though, is that it’s going to take possibly two or three years before anything’s going to happen on this bill.

Basically, one of the reasons why there’s no consultation is because the officials would have probably said, “It’s already happening.” It’s already happening. So why would you want to put another process in place when it’s already happening? We know the answer to that: because this was an election promise. But, unfortunately, it’s just put another layer on it—another layer that will hold up a lot of the great work that is going on which will actually assist these people to have a final settlement.

Even though on this side of the House we believe strongly that this bill is not really needed, what we’re going to do again—as we have supported the people of Canterbury and Kaikōura—and what we have done, is continue to support them by supporting this bill. We will actually work hard to ensure that this bill is going to be better than what it is here at the moment, and that is why we’re supporting it.

As someone from Waitaha, from Canterbury, and as someone, actually, that has been in this Parliament during these terrible periods of rū whenua, it is indeed my pleasure to be able to say that we support this bill to select committee. Kia ora. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I must say, it’s a huge privilege to speak in this first reading of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill. It’s a privilege and a pleasure for three reasons, one of which has just been alluded to, and that is that the Labour Party, in its campaign, did say that this tribunal to speed up resolution of earthquake claims would be implemented and we are fulfilling yet another promise. A second reason is because this is exactly what is needed to get rid of these last claims; not a vast amount of claims when measured against the huge destruction that hit Christchurch and Canterbury, but far too many—thousands of claims.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, is because this is an innovative piece of legislation, it’s an innovative tribunal, and it’s a new way of doing justice. This is not something that’s been given a retread; this is a radical circuit-breaker that is re-examining how we can deliver civil justice to the people of New Zealand, and I’m hopeful that this model will be used much more widely.

The idea that we should have speedy, flexible, and cost-effective justice is nothing new, but for far too long our civil justice system has struggled to provide that to ordinary New Zealanders, and what has happened in Canterbury and Christchurch has, simply, thrown that into stark relief. Whilst we could ignore it when it was small-business people or the odd homeowner who had a fire in their house and a squabble with their insurers, when it’s thousands upon thousands of people who have got a problem and the courts can’t provide speedy, flexible, and cost-effective justice, we see there’s a massive problem, and so this bill has identified the problem and it’s laid out a template for us to progress that.

This is a non-adversarial approach. It’s one which is expressly inquisitorial, one that isn’t led by lawyers but is led by experts. Some would think that I’m the last person to try and shift things away from the lawyers, having had a career in the law to date, but I have been there. I have stood in court and watched money walk out the door between experts and lawyers and what have you, whilst homeowners, hard-working, decent New Zealanders, employees, and business people—whatever you like—haven’t been able to afford to keep the case going, and they’ve had to accept less than what they’re legitimately entitled to simply because they have been worn down—worn down by time, worn down by cost, and worn down, simply, by the emotional exhaustion of the conflict.

So this is an entirely different approach. It’s one I entirely endorse. I think it’s really important that we recognise now that this tribunal—its success will rest heavily on the shoulders of the tribunal members who run it. And we must give them a mandate, a mandate not to be bound up by the rules of procedure, not to be browbeaten by the lawyers who will no doubt have something to say about how they should run this, but to actually be innovative in their approach.

I’ve heard concerns raised, and this is the place to raise them—concerns that the procedures will not be robust enough. But I want to say this. I want to say that justice—natural justice—is not an absolute concept. It is a balance. So, yes, we want a fair procedure. We want people to have a right to be heard. But we need to right-size justice to the size, complexity, and difficulty of the problem.

I heard Mr Stuart Smith, and I must say I was a little disappointed in some of his comments. I heard him be alarmist about the fact that the tribunal can say that they need not hear from the parties, that they can decide something on the papers. Look, when you’ve got reams of papers of experts’ reports, in fact that can be a very good thing. Far too often when you hear something in court, all that happens is the person who’s paid the most for the lawyer or the expert prevails, not because of merit but because of cunning, and that’s not a justice system I want to be part of. I want to be able to give the courts the ability to look at things objectively on the papers before them, if that is appropriate. The rules of evidence are there for a reason, but let them be our servants and not our masters. We don’t need necessarily to have a right of cross-examination in every instance. In many cases, evidence will be uncontentious. There’s no need to let point-scoring go on in court when all it does is add cost and nothing else at all.

Really what we’ve got to do is give these tribunal members an absolute mandate to try something new, to say, “Don’t buy in to the conflict-oriented resolution that frequently typifies a usual proceeding.”—but to actually engage, to allow it to be expert led, to take on an independent expert where necessary. We need to avoid a battle of the experts where all lawyers do is line up expensive engineers or quantity surveyors—or whatever it might be—in a big long line and the one who’s got the most wins. The fact of the matter is any situation which advantages people who can pay more and spend more time at it doesn’t advantage homeowners, small-business people, and anyone else without a big pot of money and a huge amount of resources behind them. I know that everyone in this House wants to see justice resolved fairly and appropriately and not on the basis of some irrational consideration.

Let’s also not be alarmed by the fact that there might be tribunal members who aren’t lawyers—God forbid. Mr Smith, MP for Kaikōura, identified this as a concern. Well, don’t. Don’t be concerned. Sometimes the person with the most knowledge about a problem is an expert. If it’s a problem about engineering solutions, let’s ask an engineer. If it’s a problem about costing, let’s ask a quantity surveyor. You know what? Lawyers don’t have a monopoly on knowledge in expert areas. I know, surprising—all but one, all but one. Ha, ha!

You know, there are rights of appeal here as well. So the fact of the matter is that the quality check is there. If there’s something that goes badly wrong, there’s a check there. I heard Nicky Wagner, former member for Christchurch, saying that rights of appeal were a thing to be concerned about. I’m very surprised at that. We absolutely need rights of appeal for two reasons: for error correction and also to make sure that the law’s right.

And I want to mention just one other thing that I was very surprised about from the member from Kaikōura, and that was the suggestion that the express provision that claimants could claim for mental distress was a bad idea. I was horrified to hear that, because, in fact, if you look at what’s gone on in Christchurch, there are instances where the anguish and distress suffered by people through these disputes is palpable. Now, I’m not going to pretend that that’s the case all the time—that it’s always the insurer’s fault or the Earthquake Commission’s fault. Sometimes problems are difficult. But in a concerning number of cases, there has been a woeful inattention to these claims and it has clearly caused distress on those people that should be compensated.

Mr Smith referred to some arcane rule of law which has no foundation in principle that we should keep it to the law of torts and not contract. If one person’s wrong causes another harm, the law should compensate it. That’s a principle and it’s a principle that this Act will apply.

So look, this is innovative. A lot of the concerns that have been raised have said we’re going too fast. I don’t apologise for trying to fix things quickly. It has been eight years to the day and waiting is not a solution. We are absolutely going to get on with this as we have with the rest of government. The Insurance Council—Tim Grafton, chief executive, is on the record saying, “If this speeds things up, I support it.” I welcome that kind of attitude from Mr Grafton and I welcome the fact that his organisation will submit to the select committee. That organisation—and I’ve had a few disagreements with it—is an important organisation. It brings valuable knowledge to the select committee process. I look forward to it.

This is a new approach and I don’t apologise for that. This is exactly what’s needed. It is the circuit-breaker for justice and for the earthquake issues that exist in Canterbury. I’m very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.