Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14778] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that the chair of the Government Administration Committee has just told us to wait for the regulations to come out because they will be long. They will be long all right because that is the nature of this bill. The regulations and the costs associated with it will be horrendous but that is not in the bill. The regulations will be absolutely horrendous and that is one of the reasons why National will not support the bill. 
The compliance cost regime in this bill is quite outrageous. When we consider what is actually entailed we see that it is absolute overkill and as Dr Mapp said it is a consequence of the leaky homes situation and the weathertightness report. 
I want to pay a tribute to the advisers. They spent a lot of time on the legislation and gave a lot of advice to the committee. National appreciates that. Although they did that we did not agree with the bill so during the process we brought up questions. We did not agree with the outcomes and we voted against the bill when we deliberated. So it is not new that National is opposing the bill now because in the select committee deliberation we voted against it and voted against it right through—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I apologise Mr Tisch. I say to members that if they want to talk to other members would they please keep away from the speaker and give him the opportunity to speak. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I want to draw attention to the definition of “natural hazard”. Clause 6 states: “natural hazard has the meaning given to it by section 159.” Specifically clause 159(3) mentions a number of points that relate to what a “natural hazard” is: erosion; falling debris be it soil rocks snow or ice; flooding—and that is why we mentioned stopbanks earlier on—overland flow storm surge tidal effects and ponding; and slippage. But it does not include—as is currently included in the Building Act of 1991—land subsidence and geothermal hazards. 
I know that the Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper that includes subsidence but it does not cover geothermal hazards—or “hot ground” as it is called—in those areas that have geothermal activity. I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that includes an amendment on subsidence and geothermal hazards because in some parts of the country those are major issues. It is all very well for members to say that this bill will protect people because it will do A B C D and E. If people can build on subsiding land and if people can build where there are geothermal activities and hazards it does not matter how good the building is or what the building is made of because it will disappear. One of the major concerns National has about this bill is that those areas are not covered. 
As an afterthought the Minister in the chair John Tamihere has come up with a Supplementary Order Paper. He might like to comment on why he includes subsidence in his Supplementary Order Paper but has not considered geothermal hazards. The Taupo District Council in particular is very concerned about geothermal activity in its area. It has already had to pay out on what is called “differential subsidence” and that is also the concern of other areas. In my electorate we have problems in the Huntly area which are a consequence of the shafts in former coal mines. Over in Waihi in Sandra Goudie’s electorate of Coromandel there are problems. We know where houses have disappeared and where there have been huge payouts to re-house affected people. The things we are talking about are not included in this bill. 
So it does not matter how good the bill may be at trying to protect the consumer in relation to building materials or the way in which houses are to be built. If district councils and city councils are still able to give consents—and that is what the bill allows—to build on those particular types of land there is no guarantee of protection. One of the major concerns we have about the bill is that that protection is not included.