Robertson GrantClauses 1 to 11GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I am sure my colleague David Parker will take a call in a moment. I just wanted to make reference to two specific points in the legislation. There has been a lot of discussion around the general policy objectives of the bill and the importance that I think all parties in the House put on making sure that we tighten up the rules around the assessment of buildings and that we bring into force the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act at a faster pace so that we can make that transition to recovery in the Kaikōura and Wellington areas as soon as possible. The two specific matters I wanted to raise were around the extension of the powers and addressing the issue that was raised initially by I think New Zealand First during the discussions. Although we all want to make sure that for example a multi-storey apartment building here in Wellington is assessed and if the building owner is not assessing that or if the council has a reason to believe that an assessment is necessary then it should be able to do that. But on the other hand we do not want to create a situation of unnecessary compliance for perhaps a single-storey dwelling. The example that has been used throughout is the sort of voluntary trust that owns a community hall. The discussion went backwards and forwards in the cross-party talks and we have ended up with what appears in various places in the bill but in particular in clause 7 which inserts new section 26A. The wording of that now reads: (3) A person may not give a direction [for there to be an assessment] under subsection (2) unless the person has had regard to whether the structure or type of structure may in the circumstances pose a risk of injury or a risk to the safety of life or the safety of other property."I think we all feel that that actually does capture what we are trying to say here particularly by the insertion of the phrase "type of structure" because that allows us to break out those small halls and so on where there actually would be an undue burden or an unnecessary examination.My own view is that I think it is highly unlikely that any local authority would do that. I think for the most part local authorities know exactly the kinds of buildings they want to get here but it is better to be absolutely clear about that as we go through this. I am particularly pleased about the reference in there to the "safety of other property" because that has been an issue within the Wellington area where there is concern from people who are adjacent to buildings as to whether or not those buildings have actually been assessed. So it is important to be able to have that within the assessment that is being made. So we are very pleased to see that included in here and we want to support that.The other matter that I will just mention in this brief call is around emphasising again that the bringing forward of the implementation of the Act is for those areas affected by the earthquake sequence and that it is open to other local authorities and other territorial authorities to also bring the Act into force at an earlier date if they so choose but it is not compulsory. I think a number of local authorities will choose to do that. I think we have got ourselves in a position now where a lot of people around New Zealand are very seized of the need to be better prepared to be in a position to make that transition out from the immediate emergency stage and into the recovery stage and have the coordination that needs to take place between central government and local government. I am pleased that we have got the flexibility built into the law and I do believe a number of others will do that. I will let Mr Parker now have his moment to discuss his proposed amendment which I warmly endorse."