Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14782] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I will be seeking a number of calls because as Dr Mapp said this is a very important part of the bill. I want to carry on from the point I made earlier about clause 159 “Building on land subject to natural hazards”. I said the bill does not include land subsidence or geothermal hazards and although the Minister has indicated in a Supplementary Order Paper that he will include a provision for subsidence I say it is very very important that the Committee accepts my amendment which does include land subsidence and geothermal hazards. 
In areas like Taupo where there has been major geothermal activity caused through man-made activities rather than natural causes—the bill talks only of natural hazards—a number of activities have adversely affected property. They have adversely affected the value of property and in that area they have also caused a major change in compliance costs for the local authority. 
It is interesting to note from the submission the Taupo District Council made to the Government Administration Committee that the council referred to subsidence areas: underground mining; dewatering of quarries and mines; rubbish dump sites; areas of geothermal and volcanic activity—this bill does not cover volcanic activity—compaction of poorly consolidated fill; and compaction of weak sedimentary layers such as peat. So there are plenty of examples around the Taupo region. As I mentioned in an earlier debate areas like Huntly are also affected by this issue as is the Waihi area in particular. There are plenty of examples of what has happened in those areas. 
I draw the attention of members to geothermal hazards. Although the Minister has indicated that subsidence is in his Supplementary Order Paper there is no mention of geothermal hazards. Those words encompass defined areas of what is known as hot ground but there is also the prospect of emerging geothermal hazards which in some cases might possibly be identified through appropriate monitoring. The issue is that there is no protection for the local authority. There is no way a local authority can say that it cannot grant a building consent for that property because of subsidence or geothermal activity. That is a real issue. 
When we are talking about consumer protection there is no protection from liability which is a major defect in this whole bill. If in the current Building Act we were to look at section 36 we would see that it says there is protection; and clause 159 in this bill is meant to carry over from that. But if members have ever had a section 36 slapped on the title of their properties they would know exactly what that means. We saw it in the Rangitikei area when Simon Power and I went through the devastation there and where local authorities after the floods were able to slap a section 36 on the title which simply meant the Earthquake Commission would not cover the properties. Insurance companies were turning down applications for insurance because local authorities were slapping a section 36 on the property titles. 
 This bill does not protect the local authority from that and this is a two-edged sword. Those properties were affected subsequent to the flooding. It was no fault of the owners that their properties were flooded. But subsequently they were caught by the current legislation when the local authority came through and put a section 36 on those titles. Clause 159 in this bill carries that on but the protection against liability that is not in this part and which councils will pay and at the end of the day ratepayers will pay relates to land subsidence and geothermal hazards. They are missed out and that is a major defect with this bill.