O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Again I will take a short call just to state once again that Labour will support this piece of legislation. It is not very often in this House that anyone can stand up and say that perhaps we have had a visionary and timely piece of legislation that has not been in some way retrospective. But indeed the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 was very timely. What we are doing of course is just making some adjustments so that it can be implemented in a shorter time frame than was originally proposed in the bill that was literally just passed in this House on 10 November. So it is kind of sensible and some of the discussions have been had but like everything improvements can be made and that is what we are talking about here.It is hard to have arguments with anything in here but I cannot help in going through the particular provisions but ask a few questions as to why and point out as has been said in the House before the human realities and commercial realities that do not always exist when we assume that people would check their buildings after such a large quake. We would assume that people would ensure they are safe after a quake. In fact that does not always occur. There are a whole lot of I guess in some cases desperate situations and in some cases presumptive situations where they might think the building is new and it should stand up to an earthquake. But as we have seen with the Statistics New Zealand building and the Defence Force building they are indeed very very new but have ended up being quite unsafe. Yet we can walk around Wellington here and see some very very old buildings that at this point anyway we assume are safe. What we do need to know is that they have all been properly assessed. As has been pointed out here owners can appeal if an assessment is done because as we have seen from the Christchurch disaster engineers are not all the same. We need to ensure that there is an ability to check their capability I guess in their assessments themselves.Clause 7 did raise an interesting issue for me. It says that during a state of emergency or a transitional period of course a direction can be given to prevent risk of injury or risk to safety of life or safety of property. It does not add risk to health. But we would assume that risk to health is another one of those things that should be assessed. Doing that of course in a state of emergency or in transitional periods would beg the question: what about at other times?Indeed there are a lot of other times when risk to health and indeed risk of injury which is often the same thing are not assessed because this Government refuses to implement a warrant of fitness on many many houses and buildings throughout this country that are quite frankly unhealthy to live in. Is that unsafe? I do not know. I guess people listening could make that judgment themselves. I think unsafe is unhealthy and I would like the Government to pick up what it is doing here in this piece of legislation and later on over the next 6 to 9 months that it might be in Government before we get in there implement a warrant of fitness regime for all tenancy arrangements throughout New Zealand. I think that would be real progress.I would just like to say once again that Labour will be supporting the legislation. I think the technical things that should always have been included in the original legislation—the question of why not; that it is an offence to withhold information or give false or misleading information. We would just assume that that would be in place already. But anyway a tidy-up and a hurry-up which is what we are doing for the main piece of civil defence emergency management legislation is something that Labour supports because we want to help the people who have been affected by this earthquake. Kia ora.