Foster-Bell Paul: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10053. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Thank you Mr Chair and it was a pleasure to yield to my colleague even if I do not agree with aspects of his contribution.In speaking on this Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill in the Committee stage I want to begin by focusing on a piece of this legislation that may not have been concentrated on so far and that is the provisions around heritage buildings. There are two reasons for that. As a resident of Wellington where we have some wonderful heritage that needs protection but also as a resident of the second-most vulnerable capital city in the world to seismic events after only Tehran which is the No. 1 city vulnerable to seismic events I think there are some balances that we have to strike in this legislation to ensure that our heritage is protected but that human life is also protected. As someone who not only works in this beautiful heritage building 3 days a week but also lives in a heritage apartment block from the 1930s it is something that is on my mind and I know on the minds of many Wellingtonians.If we turn to clause 23 of this bill which amends section 133AT of the principal Building Act it talks about the owners of certain heritage buildings being given additional time. I think this is a sensible measure. If we look at the times that it would be required in Wellington Wellington is the highest-risk area so there would be a 5-year period for investigation and assessment of buildings with a further 15 years provided to allow for upgrades and renovations to take place to bring the building up to standard. In addition to that this particular section of the bill would allow an additional 10 years for the owners of category 1 listed historic places. Those are buildings that are listed in the New Zealand Heritage List maintained under section 65 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.Those are the most significant most important buildings and we have actually had a number of them feature in the media recently. There is the excellent work that has been done on the old Public Trust Office on Lambton Quay for instance—on the corner of Lambton Quay and Stout Street. That is a building of significant architectural heritage that has been renovated up to a very good standard using the latest technology to allow it to continue to function as offices including offices for the Ministry for Culture and Heritage but also it is rumoured to feature a new Jamie Oliver restaurant—another fine eatery for our capital’s entertainment sector.The sort of work that would be required there may actually be significantly more expensive than building owners can afford to do if it was required to be delivered within that 20-year period of assessment and renovation that would usually be provided for in an area like Wellington. So I think the addition of the extra 10 years for those most important buildings those very significant perhaps even unique examples of that style of architecture in New Zealand—for them to be preserved that is sensible.But we have other issues here in Wellington. The Harcourts building further down Lambton Quay; it is not a category 1 building. It is a less exceptional example. Having previously worked in that building—it is used in part by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—I can say it is not actually a fantastic building in its current state. It is not in my view particularly aesthetically pleasing. However it does have certain protections applied to it and that has complicated the renovation and strengthening process there.I think this part of the bill strikes a sensible balance between the need to protect human life and giving building owners of those heritage buildings sufficient time to undertake the work so I particularly want to applaud and welcome that provision in the bill that is clause 23. Thank you.