Borrows ChesterMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Damien O'Connor. I was expecting someone—Ron Mark: Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ah there we go. Ron Mark. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon Damien O'Connor: I'm just keen. RON MARK: Well he is very keen and that is the thing about the West Coast: you have really got to stay alert—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As long as you did not think I had forgotten your name.RON MARK: —because they get the jump on you do they not? So that is why he is the dynamic MP he is and he does so well on the Coast we continue to hear. I am very very conscious and aware that the second reading always follows on from a select committee hearing and a select committee report to the House and this bill has not been to a select committee. I guess we could say though that it has had its select committee hearing at the cross-party discussions chaired by the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I am going to start by saying: if only all legislation was as easily managed into the Chamber. What we saw in that process was all of us coming together around the table with the officials and advisers there a narrowly focused bill and some clear statements from the Minister that it was not the Government's intention to introduce legislation such as we had seen in Christchurch and that the bill requirements were narrow and focused and hence we have already had the bill read a first time. The Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill which focuses on Resource Management Act matters was read. This bill focuses specifically on a matter that has clearly fallen through the gaps when it comes to civil defence legislation and empowering territorial authorities or local government. Of course it is clear that when earthquakes of such magnitude hit as this one has—and this one is quite unique in that it did not affect just the Kaikōura area; it has hit us here in Wellington. It raised some interesting issues which were discussed in those two cross-party meetings. New Zealand First—being as we are very focused on rural and provincial New Zealand and also very aware of the realities that face us in metropolitan New Zealand such as here in Wellington—did take the opportunity to express to the Minister a couple of concerns and we are very pleased that those concerns have been accepted and have been catered for in this legislation. I will touch on a couple of them. Firstly some of the phraseology the wording that was used in sections 26A and 26B in clause 7 we did not believe was definitive enough and specific enough and you know how we in New Zealand First like to be quite specific. We are very happy that words such as obtain" were—or I will go back to the original wording. What was there—"arrange". They are words that were used in section 26A(2)(a) and (b) in the first and second drafts. The Minister and his staff decided that we were correct and so that wording was changed to the word "obtain" which makes it much clearer as to what the owner or the owner's agent is required to do under that section. But the one area where we had some discussions—and I have got to say at the outset that people were maybe just a little dismissive of our concern but as this conversation has moved on so too did the understanding of what New Zealand First was trying to express. Our concern—and I do need to put it into the Hansard so that those who might be engaged in litigious action down the line who wish to then refer back to the readings and the Hansard might have an understanding. New Zealand First was a little bit worried about the conversation around ordering assessments to be done. It is fair to say that the notion of a zealous inspector requiring a wide-ranging number of buildings to be assessed particularly in rural New Zealand where those buildings might be one or two storeys might be wooden might be on piles might be on ground that is not prone to liquefaction and might have actually withstood the 1942 earthquake in the Wairarapa and withstood the 1855 earthquake and indeed have come through this November 2016 earthquake totally unscathed—I guess our concern is about what the position would be for that landlord that owner if a zealous officer was to demand that an assessment be done. When we started looking at some of the buildings that are affected out in places like Culverden and Waiau out in the hinterland of rural New Zealand there are many such halls and I can relate them specifically—Akitio to community halls out at Tīnui. These halls are single-storey wooden and on piles and as we said to the Minister it would seem incomprehensible if a community was asked to have an assessment done on that building because a zealous controller or officer decided that that was what should happen. We had the conversation and I am very pleased that the clauses now have changes. We have new section 26A(3) which as amended—I am just looking for the latest version—reads quite differently now. It requires that "A person may not give a direction 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." We are very very pleased that that change was accepted by the Minister and the staff and was specifically written in there because that does establish some criteria and guidance for the controller the constable or the territorial authority that is issuing this instruction that an assessment be done. So we would like to think that local government in outlying areas in particular would pay mind to that specific clause and would think cautiously about identifying what the specific risk of injury or risk to the safety of life might be. I mean a hall stuck out at Akitio that has no one living in it has no high-rise buildings around it and is not threatened by smaller buildings beside it might be deemed to not pose a risk of injury and not pose a risk to the safety of life of other people and therefore might not be required to have an assessment. I say these things because we in New Zealand First are very pleased with the way in which the cross-party discussions happened. We saw numerous changes made as a result of points raised by other political parties and we saw the Minister force discussion on those where he initially believed that they were not justified and concede and instruct officials to go back and have a rethink and a relook at the wording. Hence we have a bill here that we are perfectly happy to be supporting. We believe that there are serious risks posed by buildings in metropolitan New Zealand and that some building owners probably need to be more proactive themselves. Given the size of their buildings and given the structures of their buildings they need to be stepping forward themselves and initiating those assessments. On the occasions where they are not prepared to do that and have not done that then it is absolutely essential in terms of preventing risk of injury or the loss of life to innocent New Zealanders that the territorial authorities—local government—have the ability and the powers that this legislation gives them which is to order such assessments to be made."