Mark Ron: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take what will be a short call to just confirm that we are supporting this bill through. I think pretty much every comment that could be made about this bill has already been made; I am not going to rotary hoe the same paddock a second time. Suffice it to say that I would like to continue from where the last speaker Eugenie Sage finished off on the taxation issue. I have got to say Dr Smith and I have had some differences of views and opinions in the past about differing pieces of legislation particularly around the super-city legislation and the amalgamation but on this one you have got to take your hat off to Dr Smith. We in New Zealand First think that what has essentially been a rewrite of the original legislation and the process that the Local Government and Environment Committee which was ably chaired by Scott Simpson agreed with to allow a second set of submissions to be heard have really enhanced this legislation quite some.I guess the only disappointment New Zealand First has is that our Supplementary Order Paper 160 did not get the support of the Government. That Supplementary Order Paper would have allowed for the remediation work carried out in the strengthening of buildings to be treated as repairs and maintenance by the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) and would have made those costs tax deductible. I get a sense from having kept my ear to the ground that a large number of people who traditionally support the National Party are probably a little bit disappointed that the Government did not move on that. Property Council New Zealand which quite clearly is not known for getting in behind New Zealand First in large droves has been to see us and has itself said that that is something that it would like to advance with the Government going forward as a later amendment to this legislation.Whether that would be able to be picked up in a Statutes Amendment Bill or whether it could be picked up in an overall look as Eugenie Sage from the Greens has just said needs to happen in terms of tax reform around buildings earthquake strengthening and everything associated with this legislation—if that was picked up by the Government it would get our support.We struggle to understand the IRD’s ruling. To us if a building is not repaired because the costs are too high for that individual owner—something that is going to happen in rural provincial New Zealand a lot—then there are probably only going to be a couple of outcomes: (1) the building will sit there vacant and deteriorate and eventually get bulldozed; or (2) it will probably just get onsold to somebody else who has got the ability to do it and who may or may not keep the building in its current state. Why is that important in rural provincial New Zealand? Because many of the buildings that we are talking about have a particular character and history that connects those rural towns to their past.I have been quite happy—well I was very pleased with the statements made by Councillor Brent Goodwin of the Masterton District Council who himself owns commercial buildings in Masterton. When he was interviewed by the Wairarapa Times-Age editor he confirmed the view that New Zealand First has that there are a lot of buildings in rural provincial New Zealand that are not classified as heritage buildings but are buildings of significant note to those communities—they are buildings that hold a character appeal and aesthetic value.There is something that we can do to alleviate their plight and quite legitimately so: by simply reinforcing or clarifying to the IRD that this work is remedial work; it is not capital.If one strengthens a shop in the middle of Masterton one does not increase the square metreage that it has one does not increase the height of it and one does not enhance or change the characteristics of that building such that it has improved capacity or increased capability; it is the same building. Therefore how could it possibly be considered by the IRD to be capital improvement or capital expenditure or capital works? We would ask that the Government thinks about that. If there is another opportunity to introduce that Supplementary Order Paper into another piece of legislation—taxation legislation—we most certainly are going to do so. But it would be really cool it would be really great and it would be really nice if given the high level of agreement within the House the Government would pick that up and do it itself and give the IRD if not an instruction then a piece of legislation that makes it very clear that its interpretation is not what the House wants.I want to extend our thanks to the Green Party which immediately upon seeing our Supplementary Order Paper said that it supported it; to the Labour Party which said it was keen to see the numbers crunched down but in principle also supported it; and to the Māori Party which said that it needed the time to have a discussion around it and was not going to support it because of its confidence and supply agreement with the Government and its “no surprises” agreement with the Government—we understand that. But the Māori Party has intimated that it would relook at such a Supplementary Order Paper and an amendment to the taxation laws that would allow this work to be considered repairs and maintenance and thereby tax deductible.In conclusion I simply say: excellent work from the Local Government and Environment Committee. I thoroughly enjoyed working through this legislation. I do not know actually if some of the members realise just how much concern and angst there was in the community when this piece of legislation first hit the ground. We could almost see landlords and commercial property owners in rural provincial New Zealand sweating blood at the thought of what the costs were going to be to them. This is a victory for common sense. This is a victory for rationality. This is a victory for parties that can find common ground and work together. It is in fact a victory for Parliament. Thank you.