van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Building Amendment Bill noting that it's really looking at tidying up some of the legislation creating a set of rules in which we might be able to work more thoroughly more efficiently and more safely after an emergency. Of course in my electorate of the Waikato we're #blessed to not be particularly subject to seismic shocks but there are other regions of course that have been—Canterbury and Kaikōura most notably. So with that it's important to make sure that we have the right rules in place.I didn't sit on this committee for the duration—I was there for the submissions at the start of the first day and then for the final day at the end so I sort of caught both ends of it as it were—but I was also impressed by the submitters through that process. The territorial authorities—Christchurch City Council for example—and also other submitters such as Spark from an infrastructure perspective were very collaborative and very happy to go away work together and provide some input to the committee which was gratefully received as well. So I'd like to acknowledge them for their contribution.There was one aspect that I just wanted to bring to the attention of the House today. It's not a concern as such but perhaps an area that might be tidied up with a Supplementary Order Paper maybe in the committee the whole House stage. Under new section 133BV Works to remove or reduce other risks" inserted by clause 12 it talks about if there is a disruption and a responsible person has to go in and make some changes or create a set of rules or rope off an area as it were—and I think that's under new section 133BR around a safe distance—there's several requirements of them before they can do that such as 10 days before they do that notifying the owners of the building or the occupiers of the damaged building that they're looking to rope off as it were and also owners and occupiers of other buildings and owners and occupiers of critical infrastructure whose use is disrupted by that safety zone being put in place.One aspect there: I just wonder whether that should also include "land or property" rather than being specifically restricted to neighbouring buildings. I use the example of perhaps an urban car-park where it doesn't have significant buildings or critical infrastructure on it but the use of that property right would be impacted by having a safety barrier placed on it in relation to a neighbouring building. I just wonder whether that's perhaps something that might be able to be considered because I note that in previous sections—133BT—it does talk about buildings and land as separate distinctions but then it doesn't include that in 133BV. So I think perhaps that's one area that the Minister might like to consider and determine whether or not it is appropriate. Again I reiterate I didn't sit through the entire process so perhaps I'm missing part of that but that's one area that I would like to see tidied up.Aside from that though I think this is a very good piece of legislation. It looks to put some good rules in place to ensure we can manage emergencies more safely and for everyone's benefit as best as possible. So I commend it to the House."