van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Now look I just wanted to pick up on an area that I touched on in the second reading here. It's an area that Mr Bayly has referred to as well that I would really appreciate some clarification from the Minister on and that's in relation to section 133BV around Works to remove or reduce other risks" and—Hon Nathan Guy: Very important. TIM VAN DE MOLEN: You're right there Mr Guy; it is an important section. One of the aspects under there in Part 1 new section 133BV(3)(a)(iiia)—so if they're putting in place that notice enabling them to access neighbouring properties with 10 days' notice etc. is one of the requirements as mentioned. The concern I have is that it doesn't express a requirement to notify or seek to notify the owner of adjacent vacant land—so this is section 133BV(3)(a) where it talks about at least 10 working days' notice must be given to consider the views of the following persons: the owner of the building—that's the damaged building—the occupiers of the building but also owners and occupiers of other buildings and owners and occupiers of other critical infrastructure whose use is disrupted by the measures put in place. But it doesn't require them to consult the owner of any vacant land whose use is disrupted by that section 133BR or section 133BS notice being put in place. Section 133BV(3)(a)(iv) and (v) do refer to persons who have an interest in the land but that's the land on which the damaged building itself is situated not an adjacent piece of land which could also be impacted. The example of the car park I think is a good example if perhaps you're fencing off a safety zone for this building that requires a significant portion or indeed all of that car park to be sectioned off from commercial use as a car park but yet there is no consideration to consult with their operator before inflicting that restraint upon them. So that is one area where I really would like to see some consideration from the Minister. I did note there was a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that came out but it doesn't appear to be addressed under that at all. I will reiterate it as during the second reading I didn't sit through the entirety of the select committee consideration but I did catch the end part of it and that was one aspect that was highlighted for me that I think we do need to have some clarity on. There may be a simple solution and perhaps I've missed a clause there but certainly some acknowledgment or addressing that concern would be greatly appreciated because of course there are issues anytime a seismic event happens. We want to make sure that safety is a key consideration but actually property use as well and property rights within that are actually very critical too. So whilst we want to ensure that safety is not compromised property rights must also be balanced appropriately. I think consideration for any owner of land and assets whether it be buildings or critical infrastructure or indeed the land itself should be consulted prior to any notice such as section 133BR or section 133BS being put in place on that particular building or adjacent building.Of course that can have a significant impact. Mr Bayly gave the example of numerous businesses going into receivership as a result of their inability to access and utilise that asset or property for the commercial operations in which they would have anticipated doing so. So it's just a small area but I think an important one that I would like to get some clarity on from the Minister so I invite her to give us that. Thank you."