Parker David: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10054. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Could I begin by thanking David Seymour for his contribution on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill because although I might disagree with the way in which he has implemented his intention to properly assess risk and not misallocate precious resources I actually agree with the philosophy. What I would say though in respect of Dunedin which is one of the examples that he points to as being lowest-risk is that—and I am from Dunedin—in my lifetime I have been in earthquakes in Dunedin that have had chimneys fall over. So although it is right that it is lower risk than other parts of the country it is actually not without risk.I would also note that in Dunedin it is an interesting case in point as to how much can be achieved. Some members will know but other members will not that already under the code that is proposed in respect of upgrading for earthquakes lower levels of upgrade—or if you like an upgrade to a lower level—are proposed in respect of areas that are lower risk than areas that are higher risk. For example a building that was in Wellington or Queenstown both of which are high earthquake areas will have to be upgraded to a higher standard than a Dunedin building because the assumption is that the earthquake risk is higher in Wellington and Queenstown. It is true that the costs that have been put upon building owners in Dunedin are lower than they are in Wellington and that is prudent—that is prudent in respect of both Wellington and Dunedin. It is also true that a lot of building owners would like to avoid any cost of upgrading their buildings despite the fact that they have a latent defect that from a public policy point of view it is proper to protect the public from.In Dunedin because of when it was built which was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries there was an incredible building boom following the gold rushes and at that time partly because of civil disturbances in the rest of the country and partly because of geographic location relative to ports Dunedin was the most populous and wealthiest city indeed through to about the 1920s. That building stock is now very old and a lot of it dropped to close to nil value with people claiming that there was no economic use for those buildings. Once those buildings and the owners of those buildings were forced to effectively internalise to that building the future cost of upgrading those buildings to a decent earthquake standard a lot of them dropped to very close to nil value but they were then economic to repair. It is quite pleasing in Dunedin that a very substantial proportion of the buildings that were in need of repair these two or three-storey brick buildings have now been repaired and more of them are being repaired to high standards.The final point I will say before sitting down is that it is really important in the implementation of this legislation that we do not let the Building Act get in the way of sensible outcomes. The cheapest way to do up buildings that are earthquake risks is to allow them to be unpicked and then almost have an iterated process using engineers at the time that they are being unpicked to design the most cost-effective solution. If you try to do it from the plans before the building is unpicked and before all of the defects are uncovered in order to get a consent you drive an outcome that is far more expensive because you have to design against the possibility that there might be a defect rather than the reality that it is.In terms of the implementation of this it is actually the Building Act and the interface between engineers this code and the building processes that we need to get right. Because if we do not allow that process—and I have seen examples of this in Dunedin and indeed I have been involved in some personally—if we do not get the practical engineers who are able to unpick and say “Well actually there are different ways that we could do this but we won’t really be sure until we pull off all of the internal linings and the building is unoccupied and we’ve got all the ceilings and the wall devices off.” you will not get to the most cost-effective solution.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.