McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to support this bill the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Like most of the speakers before me I will be focusing mainly on the earthquake side of this rather than the other matters. This is a very important bill because it's going to help give us time to address some issues that have been building up for a while but always at the heart of this we've just got to remember that we're talking about buildings and earthquakes and the potential damage that can come from it. We've all seen in recent times what can happen and we must always keep that in our minds which is that it's a delicate balance at times to get between building something that's going to protect us in a disaster and the actual costs of strengthening the existing buildings. So we always must acknowledge that.I'd like to acknowledge my fellow committee members on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee: our great chair Andy Foster my other members Tom Rutherford and Cam Luxton who's sitting up there and Julie Anne Genter is still here in the House. I acknowledge also the speaker before from Labour Arena Williams and it's interesting I'm pleased to see that we have almost got unanimity within the House to support this bill through to select committee with the one exception being Labour which I find rather unusual given that so far their speeches have pretty much been in support of what the goals of the bill are—to give us more time to do a better job—and yet they're going to vote against it. I just find that interesting it'd be fair to say.So the main reason we're giving more time is because I know the Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Chris Penk—who's doing a great job in a number of areas I might add—wants to try and bring some clarity to what is at times a confusing situation and I'll use my own province of Northland as an example. We are not renowned for our earthquake risk and yet the current legislation is unclear as to where we stand on what we have to do in that space. So I want to bring clarity as to what Northlanders have to do to make their buildings safer versus other parts of the country which are more earthquake-prone.It's interesting. There's been quite a bit of commentary on the fact that the proposal for this extension of time until the whole review came from for example the Mayor of Wellington Tory Whanau when she said that she welcomed this review and as she welcomed the extension of the deadline. This is an extremely complex issue. It's important that New Zealand has a system for strengthening buildings that is fit for purpose. The closure of earthquake-prone buildings come with significant social and economic costs resulting in an often unaffordable and unsustainable position for building owners." said Mayor Tory Whanau. Then I also have another quote here from another mayor—a deputy mayor in this case—from the Manawatū. Michael Ford said that the building and construction Minister Chris Penk had "listened to councils by providing a timeframe extension which has helped take some pressure off. … There is not a one-size-fits all solution to this important issue facing our regions" Ford said "The review will need to answer some fundamental questions about how this system could work better" in the future. As a final comment I would just note that the exceptionally outstanding MP for Napier Katie Nimon is quoted in her local paper as saying that the earthquake-prone buildings review being brought forward is "good news for Napier".So I just think what this highlights is that this is an issue that needs addressing. We have a Minister that is listening and I think that is what this Government is doing a great job of. We're listening to what the people of New Zealand want. They want us to review this give us time to do it properly and I commend this bill to the House."