Korako Nuk: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKorako Nuk: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10068. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Kaiwhakahaere. It is my pleasure to make a contribution on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. It is really interesting when we hear a lot of the talk from people who do not come from Christchurch but are speaking. I think that what I am hearing is something that we have seen a lot of in Christchurch ever since 2010 and it is called cherry-picking. It is about taking different points or facts and then trying to contribute to changing this legislation. If we go back to the Christchurch earthquakes we will remember that the first one was back on 4 September 2010—and these are the major ones the major events. The main event as we know was on 22 February 2011. The next one was on 13 June 2011 and the next one was on 23 December 2011. Then of course this year there was another major one which we call the Valentine’s Day earthquake or event.What I am talking about here is looking at the pathway of this bill right from the Local Government and Environment Committee. There were so many specialists engineers and victims who came to submit and so when we look at this legislation we see that there was a lot of work done by the select committee. I hear different speakers talking about trying to change the balance. The main change is a varying timetable that is used for strengthening relative to earthquake risk. So then we are looking at the high the medium or the low risk. Then there was the prioritisation of public buildings—schools emergency services and all of that. That was well-thought-out and this was part of the balance. Then there was a reducing of the number of buildings that were covered and Kris Faafoi went through the list of those buildings that were exempt.If you were at the select committee you would have heard the reasons why these buildings were exempt. When you talk about a tunnel what you have got to understand is that the epicentre of the February 2011 earthquake was at the Port of Lyttelton and the Lyttelton Tunnel was probably one of the safest places to be in. Two or 3 days later the tunnel reopened. So I am just looking at those sorts of reasons for exemption—the situation with these exempted buildings.Let me come to where I am based in the Port Hills. When we look at the Port Hills we have got Halswell to the western side which was hit in the Darfield earthquake which was in 2010. Then from there if we keep moving east what we are seeing is we get to Somerfield and Lower Cashmere and then we continue through heading east to where 20 percent of the buildings are still looking for resolutions. Those buildings were damaged or destroyed and come under this legislation because of the fact that they were in the February 2011 earthquake and events after that.What I am saying here is that we have got to manage the actual safety factor and then balance it with the actual costs. What is being said here even around the amendments is that it is not conducive to the information that we received as a select committee and this is the reason. What you are seeing is a reflection here in this legislation in terms of why we have done what we have done. The situation is that we have got to manage the cost of strengthening. The other part of it is when we bring in the facts around historic buildings or heritage buildings. That is another difficult part. But right throughout this whole thing the thing that we did not have at the beginning was an information database around these heritage buildings these historic buildings.It is really interesting when you talk about the fact that a lot of those buildings are not used much. We are talking about racecourses farm buildings and all of that. If a racecourse is used only five times a year—and someone has quoted that usage time—what has been found is that the upkeep and the maintenance has not happened. You will find that a lot of those buildings are probably a bit more dangerous than we think.Finally I come back to the cherry-picking. We talk about Auckland and we talk about Wellington. When you look at Wellington you see that Christchurch was never in that really high seismic risk area—Wellington was the one. People can say that Auckland is not going to get hit and that such-and-such a place is not going to get hit but you actually have to come back and listen to the experts listen to the scientists and they will tell you exactly and bring you back to this bill. A lot of work has been done on this bill. This bill should suffice and go through. It is common sense. Kia ora.