Twyford Phil: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I think this debate will be something of a change of pace after that heartfelt and intensely debated third reading of the legislation around social housing or what we would call the “State House Sell-off Bill”. This is a whole different kettle of fish the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill and I am glad to have the chance to make a few comments on it this afternoon. I want to add to remarks that colleagues have already made about this bill and acknowledge and pay tribute to the work of both the Hon Dr Nick Smith the Minister for Building and Housing and the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee because this bill is a bill that the House can together I think take some satisfaction in passing.The legislative story of this bill goes back to the former Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Maurice Williamson who brought a bill to this House to upgrade and reform the whole system for the assessment and strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings. It became pretty clear soon after the bill was publicly aired that there was a lot of concern around the country that it was going to have some pretty drastic effects on many businesses particularly those in older buildings that it would have a very negative impact on some small towns that have big heritage sectors—I am thinking particular of Wanganui which is a good example or Ōāmaru another one—that saw the impracticability of meeting the new standards. There were genuine fears I think that the bill as it stood then could have resulted in large swaths of New Zealand’s built heritage going under the hammer and no one wanted to see that happen.On the other hand Canterbury and to a large extent really the whole country is still really feeling the kind of psychic aftershocks of the Canterbury earthquakes and are determined—and I think every member of this House is determined—that we have to do everything that we possibly can to minimise the future risk to life and limb and property caused by quakes in these Shaky Isles. Mayor Lianne Dalziel was interviewed on National Radio very shortly after the Valentine’s Day quakes took place and made the comment that it appeared that the damage to property and risk to life and limb were pretty limited even though that was a significant shake on Valentine’s Day because there had been so much change and repair and strengthening. So that I think was a good metaphor if you like for efforts that have been made to put the country on a much sounder footing after the quakes.The problem with the original bill here was that it was essentially a one-size-fits-all approach. There was public clamour and then I think Nick Smith took over from Maurice Williamson as the Minister responsible for this bill pledging to really go back to the drawing board—Dr Megan Woods: He did.PHIL TWYFORD: —and that is what happened. The select committee really deserves credit. The difference between the original bill and the bill that has been reported back by the select committee is substantial. It is substantial. A lot of thought has gone into it and we have seen a risk-based system which breaks the country down into different areas and then applies a new formula for determining the time frames for earthquake-strengthening work to be done.The 15000 to 25000 earthquake-prone buildings nationwide will still all have to be upgraded but the country is split into zones according to the assessed risk of a big quake and then the time frames for assessment and strengthening are varied accordingly. What that means is that affected buildings in areas of relatively low risk—Auckland Northland and Dunedin for example—will now need to be identified and assessed within 15 years and strengthened within a further 35 years. That is a 50-year time frame. Heritage buildings which were one of the big concerns—the original bill could have seen the loss of many heritage buildings—can get a further 10-year extension. That means that we are looking at the possibility that a heritage building in those low-risk areas could get a 60-year time frame. In medium-risk areas like Hamilton and Tauranga the time frame will be 10 years for assessment and 25 years for the strengthening to actually take place. High-risk zones like Wellington and Christchurch will keep the existing time frame for strengthening of 20 years.I think the other thing that deserves special mention is this new category of priority buildings. I want to as my colleague Megan Woods did pay tribute to Ann Brower who was the survivor of the unreinforced masonry and parapets and facades that fell on to the red bus and led to the deaths of 35—sorry not of 35 people on the bus; of a number of other passengers on the bus she was the only survivor but 35 people died from falling masonry facades and parapets on the day of the big quake in February. Ann Brower appeared before the select committee. She really made the case in a very very effective way. As a result of that this new category of priority buildings has been incorporated into the bill which covers all the buildings with unreinforced masonry parapets verandahs and so on that could fall on to the footpath streets or public spaces and be such a grave threat. I think that those are the main comments that I want to make.The other thing that I think is worth mentioning—and the Minister commented on this in his opening remarks—is that educational facilities that are regularly occupied by 20 people such as hospitals and emergency services also get special treatment here and are required to be fixed up within the shorter time frame. Thank you.