van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a privilege to take a call at the third reading now of the Building Amendment Bill. I'd just like to start by picking up on the previous speaker Ron Mark's comments there. What we've seen with a number of pieces of legislation is that there has indeed been a high level of congeniality which is encouraging and reassuring and exciting to see. I think perhaps it's a reflection of the high-quality legislation drafted under the previous Government in this case started by the Hon Dr Nick Smith which of course then becomes a lot easier to support for all sides of the House and we proceed duly from there.So with that little bit of jest just delving into a few of the details in relation to this bill: really it's about creating a clearer process so that whenever we have a terrible situation such as an earthquake there is a clearly defined system for working through the aftermath of that. I'd just like again to commend the previous speaker on the award obtained by his son-in-law. I'm sure he was a proud father-in-law at that moment and rightly so. The first responders do a fantastic dangerous job as well but we also need to be mindful of the next steps and that's what we're addressing in a number of manners through this third reading of this Building Amendment Bill—the powers that we're looking at there in terms of managing buildings through those emergencies but also providing the ability to check to learn and to grow in terms of our knowledge from what has happened in those situations with a view to trying to prevent that happening again. Those are some really important aspects that are covered quite well under this bill.It's a balancing act because on the one hand we've had such examples of seismic activity and there's a significant safety risk—and of course safety is paramount; we have to be taking that into consideration—but on the other hand we have property rights: the rights of use for the owners or the occupiers of a particular building or adjacent property. So it is a balancing act between that. We want to make sure that people are as safe as possible but we don't want to impact unnecessarily on their property rights and usage any more than is necessary to get that balance right. So I think this bill does that quite nicely in terms of the powers given to responsible persons based on the assessment of the building and whether it is urgent in terms of the work it needs or less urgent but still definitely needs some work. It sets out different processes for each of those stages so that people can be clear of where that sits and what the process is for managing through that. Of course there's always an element of subjectivity in terms of where a property might sit within that and how that assessment is made but this bill certainly helps to clear up a lot of that previous ambiguity in relation to those considerations. It also outlines then who is a responsible person who is able to make these decisions and what their powers then subsequently are once they have acted within that as well.Now one of the points that I did just want to touch on and this is something I brought up throughout the different stages of debate on this bill as well was in relation to the consideration for adjacent landowners or occupiers if there's no building on that adjacent land. So section 133BV talks about the outlines—the process—when we're in a situation where works need to be done to remove or reduce risk but it's not the urgent" level. So this is slightly less serious and therefore the responsible person comes in and has a different set of powers compared to if it was the urgent situation and part of that requires them to consult with the owner and occupiers of firstly the damaged building but also neighbouring buildings that are impacted by that if for example a perimeter has to be set up—a cordon—to ensure safety within that.But what it doesn't cater for is the requirement to talk to the owner or occupier of adjacent bare land. The example I gave in the earlier stage was around a carpark which could have its use impacted by having a cordon put in place perhaps through the middle of it yet they're not required to be consulted under this because they are not an adjacent building; they're simply adjacent land. It doesn't specify the requirement to talk to adjacent land users; simply building owners and occupiers. It does require the responsible person to talk to anyone who has an interest in the land on which the impacted or the damaged building sits but not on adjacent land. That was one area that I did raise during the committee stage as well. I wasn't entirely comfortable with what the Minister sought to give an assurance on in that space but hopefully such situations would be unlikely to occur and if they were then there may be an element of practical implementation or interpretation of what the intent would be for that property should a building be on it.On the balance of it I think we've got a pretty good bill here. It pretty well encompasses the requirements in terms of managing that initial process after the event and where those powers sit depending on the severity of the damage to their property and neighbouring properties. Look we are happy to support this bill and see it come into effect so that in future instances we can one protect people as best as possible and also protect their rights and lastly make sure we can learn from such situations as well. So National commends this bill to the House. Thank you."