Muller Todd: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9188. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to speak to the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill and echo the sentiment of Mr Twyford. I think this is going to be quite a different debate but I do want to acknowledge his comment around the passions that everyone brought their own perspectives to in the previous debate. Perhaps just in starting—I was reflecting as Mr Twyford spoke that everyone in this House will recall where they were on the day of the February earthquake those years ago. Apart from the horror of what we saw I think deep down we knew that this was going to be something that would stay with us for the rest of our lives but it would also be an event that would ripple out to impact the whole country over a raft of different areas. As often is the case when you have tragedies of this moment life changes for ever in a sometimes not subtle way.The regulatory response—the policy response—to earthquake-prone buildings reflected I think the public mood. Initially there was an understanding—Mr Twyford used the word “clamour” and I think that is fair—and an expectation by the public that this would never happen again and that we would do everything we could to minimise the risk to people should an earthquake of that severity strike. Of course invariably that took the form of an initial bill that was very comprehensive—arguably a one-size-fits-all. As the Local Government and Environment Committee began to reflect on the submissions from New Zealanders I think we saw that it was indeed not an appropriate and commensurate response to that age-old question of how you balance safety to people with the sheer cost of compliance to do that and what the impact would be to individual families and businesses and communities around the country.I think I would echo the sentiment that has been expressed thus far. I think with this bill through the very good work of chairman Scott Simpson—but everybody across the committee from all sides has contributed to a bill that is thoughtful that is considered and that I think lands at the right balance between protecting life and limb and enabling economies and individual families to be able to fund the changing requirements that this bill sets. As I said this is all about balance.I would like now to perhaps give a couple of examples of where I think the balance has been landed in the right place. Firstly we included a new section 133AA into clause 23 which looked to exclude certain buildings from the framework of earthquake improvement: certain residential housing farm buildings retaining walls that are not integral to the structure fences monuments bridges wharves and the like. Those are some examples of where we reflected on the various submissions and decided to pull those out of the obligation. But to counter that an example of where we tightened it in new section 133AA(2) we clarified that hostels boarding houses and residences of two or more storeys of specialised accommodation should be included because of the nature of the businesses that are provided in those structures and the increased potential risk to people.As has already been discussed by previous speakers informed by good data we were enabled to develop a risk-based approach that split the country into three from a high-hazard factor to a medium sized risk factor and a lower sized risk factor. For those listening in Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty—or at least the western Bay of Plenty where I come from—our area has been landed at the medium sized seismic risk and of course as you would expect Wellington Christchurch Gisborne and Napier are higher. We now have time frames to mediate from 15 through to 35 years depending on the particular time frame.We have of course the priority buildings across the country identified and if you are responsible for a priority building—a hospital or if you provide emergency services or educational facilities are a great example—and you are in those medium or high seismic risks your time frame to be able to get this all remediated is halved as it should be. I think if you are a priority building as listed it is important that the investment goes in sooner rather than later to ensure that your risk profile is reduced. So in conclusion this is a good bill and I think it reflects the best of our angels when we can collectively as a House and as a select committee circle round something important and deliver an outcome that is good for New Zealand. Thank you.