Mark Ron: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9191. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I think I have said it before and I will probably end up saying it for the rest of the time I am here in Parliament for this term anyway that it is difficult coming in at No. 7 to speak on a piece of legislation that you are supporting where pretty much all of the speakers before you have capped and hit all the main issues that we have dealt with. But I think I will not absorb all of the House’s time I simply wish to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we have appreciated the way in which the Local Government and Environment Committee was able to function through the submissions process on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill.We recognise that this piece of legislation unfortunately has come to the House on the back of the Christchurch earthquakes. Those are something that those of us who lived outside of Christchurch may well be forgiven for not comprehending how seriously these issues impacted on the people of Christchurch but that we do know did result in some deaths that arguably in hindsight—with the benefit of hindsight—might well have been avoided had we had some different regulations in place at the time and something that more resembled the piece of legislation that we are passing now.We recognise that the bill was introduced in 2013 that what is now before the House is substantially different from that piece of legislation that was proposed and we are very thankful for that—thankful to all of those people those organisations and entities that took time to submit and to make known their views to the select committee. We are thankful to the select committee members that they looked at this dispassionately without any political views and perceptions or objectives at all and that the Government took those recommendations and pretty much has enshrined them into the legislation.I think for myself I come from local government and was in local government at the time this bill was introduced into the House also as one who had family who lived in Christchurch who were very much caught up in the earthquakes: a son who was first on the scene and as a police officer dealt with three fatalities within 10 to 15 minutes; a son-in-law who was a squad leader in an urban search and rescue team—Scott Shadbolt firefighter who was subsequently awarded the highest valour award that the Fire Service is able to give anyone. In fact he is one of only three firefighters ever to receive that award for his actions in the Christchurch earthquake and in fact is the first recipient for 103 years. With a brother-in-law who is also a team leader in urban search and rescue I guess I am privileged to get a very good first-hand understanding of what occurred that day and the subsequent days and the reasons behind some of those fatalities. So it is in a funny sort of way satisfying to be able to stand here in the House and see a piece of legislation go through the House that redresses those issues.I have got to say I have got to hand it to the urban search and rescue teams. Those teams are made up of a large number of professional engineers tradespeople who are also firefighters and those who are not necessarily firefighters but who are members of urban search and rescue because it is their desire to serve our people in times of need such as this and they bring their professional skills to bear. Many of those people were able to see first-hand the impact of unreinforced masonry of high facades that had no support and the consequences of them being shaken loose from those parapets and left to fall. Those firefighters and police officers will live with those memories for the rest of their lives so I hope it will be satisfying to them to know that the House has seriously considered the consequences and has done its very best to move legislation that prevents these things ever happening again.I also want to compliment those who submitted and made it very clear to the select committeethat the first priority had to be dealing with that issue. The select committee listened and thankfully so did the Minister and the Government. There were also submissions that came through from the rural community that resonated very well with New Zealand First particularly with myself because at the time that this legislation was introduced into the House there was a bit of panic out there. There were all sorts of views developed as to what the costs were going to be and in rural provincial New Zealand people were saying: “We simply cannot afford to strengthen these old buildings; we’d be better off driving a bulldozer straight through the centre of them and starting again.”You had to accept that but one of the problems was that for many rural provincial towns those very buildings that we were talking about were part of the nature and the character of the town. They were historic. They may not have had an historic rating by Heritage New Zealand but they certainly were historic and of importance to those small rural communities. We had some very good presentations from rural communities and Local Government New Zealand which pointed out that if you applied zealous building standards in rural provincial New Zealand it might well be that a facade could fall but for golly’s sake! The impact of a facade falling in Pongaroa at 2 o’clock in the morning would be somewhat different to the impact of a façade falling at 2 o’clock in the morning in Courtenay Place—the number of people on the street and the traffic and the risk of injury in those outlying rural areas. When one also considers that many of the buildings in outlying rural New Zealand—and we had this sort of conversation with the Racing Board as well about the racecourses the buildings and facilities and the grandstands out in places like Woodville and other rural provincial towns—the risk posed to those people out there given the frequency of occupation and the frequency of use compared with the risk posed to metropolitan New Zealand was quite quite different and the committee had to consider that.I think recognition needs to be given to the Minister and Cabinet had to consider that as well. It is pleasing that all of those concerns were factored in. It is pleasing and I think it speaks well of Parliament and of the select committee that those factors were given recognition and that some rationale and common sense were brought to bear. The cost to some of the property owners in rural provincial New Zealand when the legislation was first introduced—the costs that they thought they were going to have to bear—were thought to be astronomical. Some of them did go ahead and strengthen to the standards which subsequently we may look back on and say well that was a bit of overkill in the light of this legislation.But the focus on cost and risk and a pragmatic view has at the end of the day prevailed and for that I think the select committee can rightly be very very proud. I will just conclude by saying that New Zealand First does support the passage of this legislation. We are very pleased with the way in which it moved through the select committee process and very pleased with the way that it has been represented in the House here today. Thank you.