Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14767] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National is opposing this legislation. It has become over-prescriptive. The bill is 358 pages long. It is raising the bar and it does absolutely nothing for consumer confidence or protection. My first reading speech the other day identified some of the reasons why National is opposed to this legislation. Part 1 which we are now debating has some major discrepancies and at the time I brought the Government Administration Committee’s attention to why stopbanks were not included under the definition of “dam”. Members will find a definition of “dam” in clause 6 which mentions artificial barriers flood control dams natural features and canals but paragraph (c) states: “does not include a stopbank designed to control floodwaters”. I would have thought that with the current floods in areas like the southern North Island Rangitikei Manawatu and Wanganui stopbanks would be an integral part of the protection for the surrounding land property and lives that were affected and I argued in the select committee that stopbanks should have been included or covered by this legislation. I have yet to hear any reason why stopbanks should not be included. 
Bearing in mind the floods I have just mentioned and also the recent floods in the Whakatane area—and I have visited both those flood-prone areas—I do not know why stopbanks are excluded especially as there are provisions for the other points I mentioned that are in clause 6. If the Minister is able to tell me why stopbanks are excluded then that would certainly satisfy the interest I have in that particular area. 
I have a press release that is a consequence of what has happened in the Bay of Plenty area and Environment BOP has commissioned an independent investigation to find out why the Rangitikei river stopbank breached during the flooding in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. The chief executive of Environment BOP Jeff Jones said that it needs to know exactly what happened so that it can take steps to make sure that it does not happen again. It is extremely important both to Environment BOP and the communities living in the shadow of its stopbanks. Stopbanks are designed to hold flood water not to fail. The Rangitikei stopbank should not have breached as it did even with the huge amount of pressure on it. It did not fail because water overtopped it as can sometimes happen; it just blew out. 
That is where property and lives have been affected. This is a serious matter and I would like to know from the Minister why stopbanks in this particular case—and I have visited the sites and seen what has happened—are not included under the other measures that refer to constructions to hold back water or other fluids under constant pressure so that they can form a reservoir or whatever. 
A lot of stopbanks have been used as a means to get irrigation water on to farms so in that sense stopbanks are holding water. Canals are included and I would have thought that a canal would have a measure of support around it to stop it from overflowing. That would be a stopbank. Canals are included but stopbanks specifically are not included. It is interesting to note that with the devastation that happened in the Rangitikei area a farmer will be suing the regional council.