Korako Nuk: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKorako Nuk: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9278. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. I stand to take a short call on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill and agree with the previous speaker Poto Williams.In Christchurch we have just had the fifth anniversary. The latest earthquake was on Monday morning early about 3 o’clock and it was right under my house because that is where the epicentre was in Cashmere View Street. What we are seeing here is that there is a continuous flow of aftershocks even after 5 years. So I want to congratulate the Minister for Building and Housing because at least we are being very very considered here in this bill. It is not just in Christchurch. New Zealand is a young country; there is a lot of seismic risk right across Aotearoa. This bill does address something that people from Christchurch—those who are here now from Christchurch would never want to see anything like what happened in our city. So this bill really is a catalyst in a lot of ways to address the whole situation of earthquake-prone buildings across New Zealand.During the submissions process we heard from a lot of submitters a lot of local bodies and a lot of councils. We even heard from people like Ann Brower who was injured during the earthquakes. Listening to these submissions explains why there were a number of changes that were made. I think one of the main changes is actually about the varying timetables for strengthening the relative earthquake-risk buildings from high to medium to low. The reason for that is that we heard from councils right across New Zealand during the submissions process the fact that we needed to categorise these high-risk areas medium and low. It is in all fairness because there are obviously huge costs that are related to identifying these buildings. We had to do it and put a system in place that was really related to the various risk factors right across the country. So that was the first one.The next change was that looking at the bill before we then came up with a situation again from listening to the submissions about the prioritisation of public buildings particularly buildings used for education hospitals and emergency services. The one thing too that came out of this—and this was particularly from Ann Brower’s submission—is that there are those buildings that had facades and parapets that were dangerous and that did cause a lot of injury and in some cases death. So it was during that prioritisation part of the bill that we thought it was important to make that change. The other change was the fact that we needed to categorise also other buildings right across particularly by reducing the number of buildings covered—farms retaining walls monuments walls and all of that.Looking at this bill I say it is very timely. It is a bill that I and all my colleagues particularly on this side of the House recommend and support. Hopefully this bill can go through and become legislation. Kia ora.