Simpson Scott: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10920. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It has been just over 5 years since the very tragic earthquakes in Canterbury. We have learnt an awful lot as a nation and as a Parliament in those 5 years. I guess one of the great learnings to have come out of the tragedy that took place in Canterbury 5 years ago is a recognition that so many other parts of New Zealand are in fact vulnerable to earthquakes and so many of our older buildings around the country are at risk—not only the buildings but the people who live work and spend time in those buildings are at risk as well. This piece of legislation goes to the root of what it is to try to ensure that at some stage in the future if we as a nation are to be hit again by a tragic earthquake our buildings and work spaces are in a better state than some of those were in Christchurch 5 years ago.The bill as originally introduced back in December 2013 has been significantly and radically changed. The bill that we are considering here today in its third reading is a much-changed piece of legislation. I guess that reflects that this is a very complex policy area. It is a policy area that is fraught with difficulty because it involves land property rights buildings money heritage buildings and a whole range of other risks. Overlaid across those components are the relative seismic risks from different parts of the country: the geographic seismic risk varies from part to part around our nation.This bill now very importantly removes the one-size-fits-all approach that was present in the original legislation. The bill now provides a proportionate response to the risks that I have been talking about. It minimises the cost to property owners it spreads out the time frames involved for remediating properties and it seeks to retain as many of New Zealand’s heritage buildings as possible. This varying of time frames and measuring against that seismic risk is very important. The time frames now for the identification of buildings will be 5 10 and 15 years depending on the seismic risk; and then the time frames for the actual strengthening of the buildings will be 15 25 and 35 years. This is a complete change from what was originally introduced in the bill.Another major change has been that the bill now prioritises and gives special status to educational buildings and emergency buildings such as schools universities and hospitals. Those buildings in high seismic risk areas will need to be identified and upgraded within half the time frames for other buildings. I think that is a very pragmatic and sensible approach to be taken for buildings that house people at greatest risk.The Local Government and Environment Committee was impressed as previous speakers have said by the compelling submission from Ann Brower. She was the only survivor of the bus tragedy in Christchurch. She highlighted the very real and important extra risks associated with unreinforced masonry on buildings—things like parapets facades verandahs and the like. The committee on the basis of her compelling submission changed a piece of the legislation to include unreinforced masonry. I think that if nothing else that highlights the importance and the value of a good rational well-made submission at a select committee and how important that process is to our legislative processes of Parliament.The provisions of the bill relating to structures such as farm sheds retaining walls fences monuments wharves bridges tunnels and storage tanks have been removed. They have been removed on the basis that those structures are all required to comply with other codes which means that it would not be necessary for this bill to be partly focused on those sorts of structures.This is a very pragmatic sensible piece of legislation now. It is radically changed from the bill that was originally introduced and I am very pleased that it has been changed. This is because the select committee and Parliament have I think given it due consideration in a way that has produced what will now be a good piece of legislation that gives certainty and a time frame that building owners and property owners can work to. I commend it to the House.