Tirikatene Rino: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTirikatene Rino: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10072. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill—my first call. As a member representing my constituency in the Canterbury region I know how very important this piece of legislation is. Can I acknowledge all of the work that has been undertaken by the Local Government and Environment Committee and all the work done prior that has led up to this piece of legislation.With this legislation we are dealing with buildings we are dealing with earthquake-prone building assessments and the like and it is very lifeless. We are dealing with inanimate objects. The bill talks about structures and buildings and the like and I just really wanted to add another dimension to the buildings.If we look at the Christchurch earthquakes and in particular the role that the marae played in the immediate aftermath of the big earthquake in February 2011 especially. The marae—in Christchurchespecially—were a focal point were a refuge and were a rallying point for the whole community. A lot of emergency services were based out of those marae. Two in particular that come to mind are Rehua Marae right there in the heart of Christchurch and also Ngā Hau e Whā out in the east. Those marae withstood the full force of the rū—of the earthquake. Not only that they withstood the earthquakes and then also provided a valuable service to the communities. And they are still doing so.It is the reference to buildings—in Te Ao Māori a wharenui is more than just a building. It is representative of our tūpuna. If we look at all the various parts of a marae they are the parts of the body of our tūpuna so there is more than just a bare-boned inanimate-type object that we are referring to in this legislation. I think that is what this legislation fails to do—it fails to address the extra spiritual meaning that is applied to buildings.Every building I suppose has a blessing to open it and the like. No matter what culture you are from that is a very important part of the life force—of the mauri—of the house. When we look at wharenui in particular in all their respective parts in the kōrero every part of the wharenui has a story—it signifies a tupuna an ancestor. It is all very very important. Likewise if we look around this House of Parliament this House is a war memorial and this House obviously is representative of the supreme lawmaking body of the land and it has its own history and tikanga in itself. What I am saying is that that dimension of buildings is not captured within this piece of legislation.As an example I mentioned the role that the marae played—so much so that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management reached out to the marae post the earthquakes and said: “What a remarkable job you have done. We want to include you in our emergency management plans.” That is all well and good but always the quid pro quo is what extra additional responsibilities and what extra cost will that impose on the proprietors of the marae.So if we take all that background and we look at the critical section where the select committee has created some exclusions to which the earthquake-prone assessments will apply—if we look at the buildings that have been excluded obviously there are residential buildings. But there is an exclusion for farm buildings and farm sheds. Well arguably we could also include wharenui—we could include marae if—[Bell rung] Thank you Mr Chair this is a very important point I am making.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s taking a long time to get there.RINO TIRIKATENE: It is going to be good. [Interruption] See? We are experiencing the life force of this House right now. As I was saying if a farm building or a shed that is located on a farm and used primarily for farming activities or even an ancillary purpose has been excluded from this part then why should a wharenui—a marae—and its ancillary buildings not be excluded within that part? That does impose additional obligations additional cost and an additional burden on the proprietors of every marae up and down the country. As we know it is not cheap running a marae these days—it is not very cheap at all. There are a lot of mouths to feed in each tribe—a lot of mouths to feed.In all seriousness I believe that consideration should be given to marae to wharenui in all building legislation to encompass more than just the two-dimensional aspect to it but also the extra dimensions that I have mentioned and also to give consideration for their exclusion from having to go through the earthquake-prone processes. If it is good enough for an ancillary-purpose farm building then surely it should be good enough for a marae particularly when those marae have withstood the most powerful earthquakes that this country has faced in recent times and have served a very important purpose in looking after the needs of not only the whānau but also the wider community. Thank you.