Seymour David: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10062. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would just like to briefly address some of the comments made about the amendment I have on the Table Supplementary Order Paper 156 and also Mr Mark’s proposed amendment Supplementary Order Paper 160. Can I preface these comments by saying that the simplicity of New Zealand’s broad based - low rate taxation system is one of the best pieces of public policy that our country has. I understand that on measures of revenue raised versus the rates imposed it is in the top three in the developed world. We should be very very cautious about any proposal that will erode the tax base and therefore erode that great competitive advantage that our country has.However when it comes to the definition of whether or not a particular piece of expenditure is capital expenditure we find ourselves in a position where either this House or the Inland Revenue Department has to make a positive decision and define it one way or the other. As Mr Mark said the person who brings their building up to standard has not had an increase in capital unless you assume that the purpose of this legislation is to lower the capital stock right across New Zealand and I do not think for a moment that that was the Minister for Building and Housing’s intention. Therefore I think that I am very inclined to support Mr Mark’s amendment in particular because we have not had the opportunity in this whole Committee stage to hear from the Minister in charge of the bill and hear what his rebuttals might be whether this proposal been considered before and if it was why it was rejected so that members might consider those issues as well. It is unparliamentary to speak of the absence of a member—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Then do not.DAVID SEYMOUR: —but hypothetically if the member were present he might have done a number of things. He might have addressed the debate that many people around this Chamber tonight would like to have. He might have demonstrated empathy and a genuine concern for the imposts that this Government puts on New Zealanders and their property through regulation. That would have been a very positive contribution to make but I digress.In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 156 Poto Williams raised a very good question about how that particular amendment would function in the case where there are multiple buildings. The scenario she may have had in mind was the scenario where there are two adjacent buildings one of which is very seldom used but somewhat earthquake-prone and is next to another building that may be more frequently used and the collapse of the former building may mean that it had additional impact on life risk by collapsing on the latter building. I think there was an implicit assumption in what the member had to say which was that the life risk calculated for a particular building pertains only to people within that building.Upon reviewing the amendment I can give a much better answer than I did before the dinner break which I have to say was uncharacteristically stilted. It is very clear that in new section 133AZAA(2)(f) on my Supplementary Order Paper we have the reference to the “location in relation to other buildings or building types;” being part of the methodology used to estimate the probability of injury or death referred to in this amendment. So there is an explicit reference to that concern that Poto Williams had and I apologise that I did not point it out earlier. But it was a very good objection which certainly stumped me for a second.Finally in the beginning of the proposed amendment—and actually in several places throughout the Supplementary Order Paper—it talks very clearly about the potential risk to life; never expressing life in a particular building that is being assessed. So I believe that that objection although very plausible is well answered within this amendment. In closing I am mindful that this is—