BUILDING (EARTHQUAKE-PRONE BUILDINGS) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I present a legislative statement on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.
The earthquake-prone buildings system aims to prevent loss of life, and injuries, by requiring earthquake-prone buildings — or EPBs — to be identified and remediated within set time frames. However, the system has failed to target the nation’s resources, both public and private funds, to target the most truly high-risk buildings, with over 8,000 buildings caught up in the regime since its inception in 2017. However well intended those changes were at the time, following, of course, the tragedy that was the earthquakes in Canterbury, with significant loss of life, nevertheless it’s appropriate for us to observe in 2025 that the rules have placed significant costs on to building owners and communities.
Before I proceed further with a bit of the detail of the bill, by way of its explanation at the first reading, I do want to acknowledge a very pleasing level of bipartisanship within this House. Obviously, I don’t prejudge what the other parties will say, but certainly up until this point we’ve had really good dialogue with interested parties, by which I mean political parties in central government, but also local government has been a really important partner in changes. Indeed, the idea of reforming the system, and certainly to have legislated a pause in the enforcement of the current regime, actually came from local government first of all. So, as territorial authorities and as the regulator but also, of course, oftentimes its owners of many of these buildings throughout New Zealand, both the large cities and rural, regional communities, alike, I do want to acknowledge their work and their partnership, along with the expert review panel with a broad range of interests, stakeholders, experts, and affected parties such as owners.
The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill will refine the existing earthquake-prone building provisions in the Building Act 2004. This bill replaces what is known as Subpart 6A, currently, in Part 2, and it updates relevant and related parts of the Act, making consequential changes to the regulations to ensure a more consistent and effective system. These amendments support the Government’s wider goals of improving regulatory quality and helping to deliver more affordable housing to Kiwis in the case of residential-type structures.
I will now outline the key changes contained in the bill, which cover four areas: one, refocusing the EPB system on high-risk buildings in medium- and high-risk zones; two, removing the use of earthquake ratings, the current percentage new building standard — or NBS — system, and detailed engineering assessments; three, reducing barriers to remediation; and, four, providing more flexibility for building owners.
In terms of that first category, which is to focus the EPB system on high-risk buildings in medium- and high-risk zones, I’ll point out, as members would expect from that description, that we’re narrowing the scope of the system. Only two types of buildings will remain within the system, and that’s buildings designed before 1976 that are three storeys or higher and are built from heavy materials like concrete, and unreinforced masonry buildings, such as those made of brick. These are the buildings most likely to cause harm in an earthquake and they must be in medium- or high-risk seismic zones, and, of course, “high risk” and “medium”, for that matter, are relative terms, but of course there are many dangers to the built environment in the hazard-exposed nation in which we live.
The “identify at any time” pathway, as it’s known, is also being narrowed because, currently, too many buildings have been identified as EPBs using this avenue or pathway, but there will still be an ability to capture buildings akin to the CTV Building in Christchurch. Obviously, we’re familiar with the tragic consequences of a collapse of a building that would not necessarily be captured by the rules in the traditional way. These are newer, heavy material buildings — those designed after 1976, but completed before 2027 — that pose a high risk. These can be designated as earthquake-prone only with the approval of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Buildings of this type that have already been designated as earthquake-prone will retain that status.
The bill also updates the seismic hazard zones. Coastal Otago, including Dunedin and Stewart Island, will become a medium seismic zone, updating our understanding of the current scientific reality regarding our seismic risk. But existing remediation deadlines and identified, identify — identification time frames will not change. I’m updating my time frame to complete that sentence, Madam Speaker! Meanwhile, buildings in lower-risk areas — again, emphasising that’s a relative term — such as Auckland, Northland, and Chatham Islands will no longer be considered earthquake-prone from the day of Royal assent. These areas are farther from plate boundaries or major faults, and the faults that do exist often move very slowly or haven’t ruptured in a long time, making strong earthquakes much less likely to occur. I’ve heard Auckland’s volcanic field mentioned by some stakeholders, but studies do show that the rate of seismicity there is still low compared to other volcanic regions in New Zealand.
Other out-of-scope buildings that are not the required or specified building types will be identified by territorial authorities, with help from MBIE, and removed from the system from 1 July 2027. For buildings that remain earthquake-prone, on the other hand, territorial authorities — basically, your councils — will determine their required remediation measures in accordance with the updated EPB methodology, issue updated EPB notices, and keep the register up to date.
Finally, we’re tightening the definition of “priority buildings”. From now on, only those that could fall on to a busy street or block a strategic transport route will qualify. Buildings that were previously priority simply because of their use, such as hospitals or fire stations, will lose that status, and their deadlines will be updated accordingly. These changes mean clearer rules and a stronger focus on the buildings that matter most for public safety.
Moving now to the second category — removing the earthquake ratings and detailed engineering assessments — we’ll also be changing how we assess earthquake-prone buildings to make the process more streamlined. We’re removing earthquake ratings — commonly known as the percentage of new building standard, or NBS — and detailed seismic assessment. The process for identifying new EPBs will be simpler and, therefore, less expensive, with either an engineering evaluation or evidence and information to be provided by the building owner. This approach also disincentivises repeated seismic assessments in search of a different, more favourable NBS percentage rating. Once the territorial authority has the necessary information, it will decide whether the building is earthquake-prone, determine any remediation requirements, issue an updated EPB notice, and update the register. These changes mean faster decisions, less complexity, and a stronger focus on public safety.
Moving now to reducing barriers to remediation. We’re introducing a tiered approach to remediation measures. Requirements will range from risk notification only, through to targeted retrofits for heavy construction buildings, to façade securing, or full retrofits for unreinforced masonry buildings — again, think brick buildings. For smaller unreinforced masonry buildings, those of one or two storeys outside urban centres, no remediation will be required and they won’t need to display an EPB notice, either. However, they must undergo façade securing if they wish to have their EPB status removed.
Moving now, finally, to the subject of flexibility for building owners, we’re introducing more flexibility in terms of deadlines. Owners can apply for extensions of up to 15 years, even if their original deadline had already expired before commencement. Territorial authorities must have regard to factors like ownership of structure, the type of remediation required, steps already taken, and whether the building is a priority building. Conditions can be imposed to manage risk, and failure to comply with those conditions could mean that the extension is revoked.
This bill is also making it easier to get a consent for seismic work and helping to reduce the cost of that work. The royal commission of inquiry into the Canterbury earthquakes, as referenced previously, recommended that the Building Act be amended to enable building consents to be issued for strengthening works, without requiring compliance with disability access and facilities provisions as nearly as is reasonably practicable. If the work relates to only the necessary seismic work, authorities must allow it without requiring full compliance with fire safety or accessibility provisions, provided that the building remains at least as compliant as it was before. Similarly, if a building changes its use, it will need to meet only its earthquake-prone remediation measure, not a higher requirement. These changes mean more practicable and cost-effective solutions, more time to comply, and fewer barriers for owners committed to making their buildings safer and thereby saving lives.
In summary, because of the significance and interest in this bill, I am looking forward to a full six-month select committee process. The measures in this bill will reduce the number of the current EPBs by around 55 percent and ensure that the remaining buildings require moe cost-effective remediation. By prioritising highest-risk buildings and adopting more efficient approaches, remediation will be able to be completed faster than under the previous regime. Overall, then, these changes are expected to deliver around $8.2 billion worth of savings to the economy — and the community, more importantly — and will ensure that the most dangerous buildings can be strengthened to protect New Zealanders. Accordingly, and with due appreciation for the cooperation around the House already seen in relation to this legislation, I commend it to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour — Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take this short call on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. This is one bill that Labour will support and is really interested to follow through very carefully in the submissions at the select committee room because we know just how this will affect many people’s lives very deeply. A number of the stakeholders will be financially impacted by this, either because they are owners of commercial buildings or because they are owners of apartments and homes that are affected by either the old rules or the new. We are also interested in hearing from councils about how these rules will impact regionally, and I’ll raise some of those concerns about regional rules specifically with the House later, but I just want to explain for the House this decision that Labour wants to support an effective and efficient regime for improving the situation that we have currently. A useful earthquake-prone buildings regime would mean that there was an incentive for buildings to be remediated quickly and to the highest possible standards that building owners can afford, and that is not necessarily what’s happening now.
The risk remains the same to New Zealand and we have to be comfortable that the only sorts of rules that will work here and the only sorts of rules that will be ethical to impose on people are those which can be followed and that the financial cost makes sense for people to comply with. The rules, as they currently are, which were set by the National Government in 2014 do not adequately do that, because there are buildings right now on main streets and towns and cities in New Zealand that are not used and still pose a risk not only to the lives of people around them but to buildings that they are next to. If we don’t have a regime that supports the remediation of those and the redevelopment of those, then we don’t have a regime that works for everyone and works for the communities who have to deal with those buildings.
That’s why this is something that we hope to work through carefully because we want that stronger, fairer, and more risk-based earthquake-prone building system. Focusing the regulation on the buildings and regions that present genuine life safety risk is sensible, and that is something that everyone in this House can agree with: that we must have a regime where we can pick the most risky things that have been identified and have kept up with not only our understanding of the building sites but the seismic risk around the country, and that we are correctly identifying the things which need to go first. If there’s something that we have learnt since 2014, it’s that the things which are causing the most risk to people are not necessarily the things that are being remediated first.
In those areas like Christchurch, which have been able to sort of go first and take these issues really seriously, that has been incredibly useful for the region and really good for the region. Some other regions have lagged behind that and we need to fix that issue in terms of sequencing the timing for this remediation.
The current system has also created costs for some owners and councils that haven’t been brought out in the actual risk. This is a positive step to reduce those burdens while still addressing those high risk structures that we all know we need to deal with because the underlying risk doesn’t go away.
One thing that we will be listening very carefully to in the select committee submissions on this is the Government’s decision to fully remove Auckland from the regime. This is something that is no surprise to the Minister that I disagree with and no surprise to the Mayor that I disagree with it. Auckland is the country’s largest city and the highest population exposure and therefore has critical economic infrastructure that is impacted by this. Seismic risk is low, but we have built our largest city on an active volcanic field. Seven hundred years ago there was a major eruption, compared to the last major earthquake, which was 70,000 years ago. When we have major volcanic eruptions, buildings move. People’s lives are in danger because of the buildings and the standards.
I’m not proposing that we need to deal with every possible risk to buildings in this bill, but this was a proxy for dealing with some of those risks presented by the earth literally moving under foot and engineering standards not being able to keep up with that. If we don’t have seismic risks to stand in for those risks, then what do we have? It’s up to the Government to make sure that we have the appropriate kind of regulation which deals with that underlying risk, which does not go away, because our regulations no longer deal with it.
We support the more proportionate remediation rules. That’s a given. We need to listen to the science around how this will affect our cities. This is a useful position for many of those regions who will go through it. We look forward to working alongside the Government to make sure that we’ve got the rules and settings right for this.
MIKE DAVIDSON (Green): Thank you. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to take this call. We will be supporting this bill to the select committee stage. Having been raised in Christchurch, we always believed that Wellington was going to be the city that was going to be hit by an earthquake, and obviously we had the September 2010 earthquake and there was no loss of life or buildings that collapsed.
Following that, there was a series of stickers that were placed on buildings that some did find confusing and also people were encouraged to go back into the CBD. Then the 22 February earthquake hit and obviously we saw the resulting collapse of buildings and the tragic loss of 185 lives. Following that, over 1,000 buildings were demolished in the CBD, including a large percentage of our heritage buildings. Having myself worked on the ground at the Earthquake Commission, including being inside the CBD cordon in Christchurch, I’m fully aware of the destruction an earthquake can have and the impact on a city for many years afterwards.
Coming to Wellington post-earthquake, just looking up actually created a bit of fear. However, I no longer look up and the fear is gone, and I guess it concerns me slightly that as time does progress, we start to relax. So while this bill does make some very sensible amendments to the Act and it is really important that we focus on the high-risk buildings in the medium-to-high-risk seismic zones, I really hope that we don’t look back in hindsight in the future and regret the relaxing of some of these regulations.
In Christchurch, we did lose a lot of heritage, however it was actually thanks a lot to some of the grants that the Christchurch City Council made that we were able to stop a lot more from being demolished. So it does concern me that under this Government, with a rates cap and with councils having been told to stick to what this Government believe is core business, councils will struggle to help save heritage buildings into the future as we look to strengthen many around this country.
I think one of the things that I do find rather concerning, I guess, in this bill is the ability to grant extensions of up to 15 years. We all know that the alpine fault is overdue and time delayed is a risk. I don’t know if it’s worth risking people’s lives on. So while we need to work through this through the select committee stage, I really hope that we look at this and we make sure that the priorities are put in place to ensure that those that are the most high risk, that will create loss of life if there is a severe earthquake, are prioritised and do not get extensions that will take up to 15 years.
We do have concerns about the removal of the provisions for fire escape and disability access. However, we do understand that the provision does add cost and therefore does slow down the strengthening of buildings, and we want to work through this issue during the select committee stage to work out actually what is that extra cost and time that is created from the inclusion of the fire escape and disability access provisions.
It is very interesting, when you do look at that provision that on one hand, we want to ensure that we do provide buildings that are accessible that you can escape, but then we want to ensure that they’re also strengthened in a timely manner. It also does not make sense that just because the building needs to have that earthquake strengthening done, they have to fulfil those obligations where buildings that do not and still don’t have those provisions do not have to meet those provisions. There’s obviously an issue within our current system that is allowing a lot of buildings not to fulfil the right type of fire egress and disability access that we should expect from buildings today. So the Green Party will support this bill to the select committee, but we believe there’s a lot of work to do to make it currently better than what it is.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, and what a journey it has been. If I can take members back to the tragic events in Canterbury 15 years ago, it is understandable that members of this House would want to pass a law to protect people and to say that never again will we see that kind of tragic destruction. I stood here in 2016 and watched members of this House pass such a law, but I was the only person to vote against it, in a vote of 119 to one, with the reason being that I had read the evidence.
I read that it predicted that we might save three lives in Auckland over 10,000 years, or at least that’s the best statistics that they could come up with. It was as though the lunatics had taken over the asylum. It was clear that the earthquake-strengthening laws of 2016 would devastate communities, would devastate individuals, and would devastate the New Zealand economy for no benefits whatsoever, and, sadly, it is exactly that that has come to pass. Billions of dollars have been spent strengthening buildings, provincial streets have been empty as buildings were deemed earthquake-prone and could not be used, and people have been personally devastated.
There was a story I shared recently of a constituent who visited me and who insisted on reading out a letter from top to bottom, with tears in her eyes as she did it, explaining that she’d lost her livelihood and her life-savings while she was in her early 70s because when her body corporate decided to do some routine maintenance on her apartment — which she’d saved up for her life to own freehold — she was told that they had to do earthquake-strengthening, and the cost of that ate up all of her savings.
There hasn’t been just personal destruction; there has also been destruction at a national level, with all those billions of dollars. These changes today will save $9 billion, and there are a few things we can learn about it. The first thing is that we must be proportional in our response, even when things are emotional and even when things are difficult. This House has the power to impose costs on New Zealand that are devastating. We only need to look at the evidence. Wayne Brown, our mayor in Auckland — a city that will now be exempt from these earthquake rules — says that there hasn’t been an earthquake in Auckland for 200,000 years, and, by the looks of it, Wayne Brown would know if there hadn’t been an earthquake for 200,000 years!
There have been fewer than 500 people lost to earthquakes in the history of our country, and yet we lose that many people to heart disease every single month. When bad things happen, we must respond in proportion. We must do proper cost-benefit analysis and we must understand the imposition that we’re putting on people and their property before we can make rules that can be so devastating.
None the less, after nine years of waste and of people being devastated and having their houses and life-savings run down, Chris Penk and this coalition Government have returned to exactly the things that we need: cost-benefit analysis, proportionality, and common sense. Auckland and Northland are out, we will no longer have the new building standard that has been so complicated and expensive to calculate, and the focus will be on unreinforced masonry buildings and concrete buildings designed before 1976 that are more than three storeys high and are in earthquake-prone zones — i.e., not the top of the country, where a third of us live.
These are the kinds of sensible changes that I said that we should have made nine years ago. It is a tragedy that we did not do that, but the only thing we can do today is restore common sense. As I look across the House at Duncan Webb and see him wailing and raving, he leaves this House having achieved so little, and to see his frustration —
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Look, this legislation is long awaited. It’s also been well consulted on — and, actually, that’s not the norm in this place. It’s really good, actually, that we do have a piece of legislation where the previous piece of legislation was effectively put on hold for a while to say, “Hey, we’re going to consult on this new piece of legislation, or the wrap-around around that, and then come up with a bill.” That’s actually a really good way of doing business, and we should do that much more often.
The focus of this bill is about risk to life. I’ll just pick up the points that were made about the new building standard (NBS), which has been a bit of a bane of both property owners but also councils, because it seemed to be so arbitrary. I think there really was a loss of confidence in the NBS standard. I mean, you could have a building that, one day, was 85 percent of the new building standard, and the next day, somebody else did an assessment and it’s suddenly down to 15 percent, and you went from being “I’m absolutely fine; the market loves it.” to “People want to get out of my building, and I’ve got to strengthen it at great cost.” That didn’t give people any confidence whatsoever.
The other thing was around the insurance industry. Now, the insurance industry was quite clear: they said that you could do all the strengthening you like to save lives, but if it doesn’t make sure the building’s not going to be damaged, it doesn’t give you any benefit whatsoever. I can remember, in this city, a brand-new building — a base-isolated building — and the developers of that building, who are probably one of the best developers in the country, saying that the insurance companies gave them absolutely no credit whatsoever for building a building of that standard. The insurance price was still the same, so it didn’t give them any benefit whatsoever.
This bill is about removing some of the lower-risk areas. Wayne Brown’s already been mentioned — he’ll be pleased that Auckland is excluded, as well as Northland and the Chatham Islands. Removing some of the smaller centres: I see that the number there is 10,000 a population. I think there might be some submissions for some places. I think Feilding, for example, which is a population of 17,500 — I can remember the Manawatū District Council being most distressed about the cost of having to fix those buildings, because it’s a community that just cannot afford to do it. There might be some arguments about what a “small centre” represents, but removing some of the small centres. Also, removing lower-risk buildings. I mean, the idea that you can have an earthquake-prone wooden building of a single storey and you have to go and strengthen that seems, to me, to be slightly nuts. It is focusing, now, on the most high-risk buildings, and that’s the sensible way to go.
But, having said all that, changing the rules — as we’ve already heard from, I think, Arena Williams — does not change the risk. The risk is a real risk, whatever level it might be. Regardless of what rules we make, the risk remains. The question is about: what is the acceptable risk? We’ve already heard the argument that says that, you know, we haven’t had a death in Auckland from an earthquake for 70,000 years-plus — and there weren’t any people there at that point, anyway. But the question is: what is an acceptable risk? Is low risk acceptable risk? We accept risks all across our lives in all sorts of different areas. Is the cost of fixing these things in some places an acceptable cost? What this bill is proposing — it says, actually, no, it’s not, and some of those costs of fixing those risks — and the risk is real, but the risk may be low — but if the cost is too high, then perhaps we shouldn’t be incurring the cost.
We’ve heard the comments around the Canterbury earthquakes, which is obviously a huge tragedy for people — also a huge amount of damage done to the city itself. Wellington’s always taken earthquake strengthening very seriously, because we’ve expected to have a major quake in this place. How you model how many people will die in a quake like that, I have no idea, because we’re guessing. That’s the reality; we will be guessing. But you think about that, and you look at the National Emergency Management Agency numbers that we’ve been given — I think the Wellington Fault has a 5 percent chance of going the next 50 years; the AF8, the Alpine Fault, has a 75 percent chance of going in that period of time. So you think about what the risks might be in different parts of the country and respond to those risks.
Just to finish off, there are huge costs in the existing regime, and I wanted to reflect the comments that the Hon David Seymour said. I’ve dealt quite a lot over the years with inner-city Wellington, which represents inner-city businesses and residents in Wellington. The stories are about people literally trapped in their houses. They cannot strengthen. The cost of strengthening those buildings is as much as the value of the house in the first place. In other words, effectively, they are left with something that is worthless, but they can’t get out of it, and that is absolutely tragic.
There’s also the issue they raise about retrospectivity. The current model says that if somebody goes and reassesses or you change the rules, suddenly my building, which yesterday you said was fine, no longer is. Usually, we would say that’s retrospective, and that’s, effectively, what those people have been exposed to. Just to finish off, what this also does is it will make the strengthening process less expensive. It will remove the requirement for disability access of fire codes to be triggered by that process.
But I do have a couple of quick questions to finish with. Can councils rely on existing assessments? That’s an expensive process to go through — many have done that. Can councils rely on existing consultations on priority routes? Again, some of them have done that. And can councils — the issue of extensions? I will finish there. I look forward to considering the bill at select committee.
DAN BIDOIS (National — Northcote): This is a good bill that makes pragmatic changes to the legislation. This bill makes sure that the risk is proportional to the real risk for earthquakes across this country. It’s going to make a huge difference for cities like Auckland, producing billions of dollars’ worth of savings. I look forward to hearing about this bill in select committee from submitters. I commend this bill to the House.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to take a call on this bill, which is a very tricky bill, I have to say. The reason I’m taking a call on this bill is because I am Labour’s emergency management spokesperson. However, this is not an emergency management bill. It’s coming from a very different perspective, and it’s looking at how we assess risk and the very difficult decisions that we make in this House as legislators around what type of risk is acceptable for our people. I do think this is very tricky. Like my colleague Arena Williams said, we will support this bill to select committee, but I don’t think that means that there aren’t outstanding questions in relation to this bill.
I echo the comments of my colleague in the Greens who mentioned looking back at this day and these decisions that we make in retrospect. I think that that responsibility should fall heavily on all of us in this House. The decisions that we make today around changing these requirements may or may not have impacts on the lives of others in the future. It may impact on people losing their lives or their livelihoods. These are tough — very tough — choices and I think the debate today has not perhaps reflected the gravity of that as much as it could have. I think the statement that David Seymour made was regretful. I think it is very, very difficult to speak to those who have lived through things like the Canterbury earthquakes, like my colleague Dr Duncan Webb, who have fought for people who have suffered the terrible life-changing consequences of the natural disasters which New Zealand is susceptible to, and to make comments around the fact that those perspectives are not valid. They are valid and we must take into account the seismic history of our country and the potential risks for the future.
There is no choice which is no risk. Every choice we make in relation to these particular standards has a risk associated with it. But there is one certainty when we look at seismic activity in New Zealand, one certainty that we can be absolutely 100 percent sure of when we look at the history of our country, when we look at the science, when we look at the evidence, and that is that New Zealand will have significant seismic events in the future. That is absolutely a 100 percent certain. So, when we look at changing these particular rules, we must do so knowing that the optimism bias that many of us have as humans, which is such a magical thing about humanity, must be balanced with the clear evidence that the reason we have this amazing geography in New Zealand — we have these beautiful high mountains and hills and lakes, and everything that we see around us that we love so much about New Zealand — is because of the fact that we are living in a country which is filled with fault lines. We can sometimes predict where those fault lines might activate, and sometimes we’re right about that and sometimes we’re wrong.
It’s probably a bit of a longer introduction than I was expecting to make on this short five-minute call, Madam Speaker, but I do think it’s important that in this House we recognise the gravity of our decisions in relation to these very, very important tasks. I think, you know, the Minister has had a very tough task with this. I certainly think there can be improvements made at select committee. I think the situation Auckland is very tricky, but I don’t think the decision that he has come to is correct in the sense that excluding it entirely is, from my view, problematic. The reason I say that is because although we don’t have, as far as we know, the fault lines that other places in New Zealand have, we do obviously have a volcanic field. We know that there’s a 10 percent chance of a volcano or some activity in the volcanic field in the next 50 years, which is a relatively short period of time. That comes along with ground deformation. Now, that is not shaking in the normal sense, but it is something which has an impact on the structures that we build upon. And so these are important decisions.
I’m not a member of the select committee that this bill is being sent to, but I encourage all colleagues that are on it to try and make this bill the best bill it can possibly be because this is something that we will have to live with in years to come. I hope that all of us take the necessary efforts to make sure that the decisions we make in this House and the select committee are ones we can live with long term, not just for our children but for our children’s children and our children’s children’s children, because that is the reality of these types of bills.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National — Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaking on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill is an emotional thing for me. On the day of the 22 February earthquake, I stood in the PGC building, clutching a vial of ketamine and a makeshift saw, ready to climb into that building to amputate a limb from one of the survivors if I needed to. Thankfully, I didn’t have to do that, but I stood there, surrounded by other first responders, as the building shook with aftershocks, looking at the twisted metal and hunks of concrete that are forever etched in my memory.
There are people in this House who experienced those earthquakes as well, and I just want to acknowledge the families and all of those who were affected and impacted, which is thousands of people in Christchurch, and let them know and let them be assured that this bill is not about reducing safety; it’s actually about improving safety. There is no safety if nobody does any of the remediation because it’s not practical. That’s what we’re addressing with this bill, and we will take every opportunity to hear from everyone, and this bill will come back to this House in a better shape. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour — Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank Vanessa Weenink for that thoughtful speech, and it was a lot more thoughtful than some of the other speeches we’ve heard tonight. I do want to comment on the heartlessness of David Seymour’s speech. He used words such as “devastation” and “terrible things” when he was talking about repair costs, and he’s talking about devastation in a House where we have a number of people, like Vanessa Weenink and myself, who were in Christchurch on that fateful day.
We are supporting this because we agree that earthquake regulations do need another look and they can be improved. I’m always up for that, but let’s be clear: when you walk into a building or when you walk past a building, you should be able to walk out of it or past it alive. That didn’t happen in a whole lot of buildings in Christchurch.
I am concerned about the three-storey – plus rule for buildings designed after 1976, because we know that the CTV building was designed in 1984. I’ve read the papers. I know that territorial authorities can identify buildings designed afterwards, but why would that have happened in this case? Why would that risk have been identified? That was the building where 115 people died, which quite probably would not have been captured by this regime. If we’re going to change these rules — and we clearly are — we need to work out how we can make sure not that a territorial authority can capture that but that they will capture that.
Let’s also be clear about one thing: I take the point that an unrepaired building is not an improvement in safety, and that was Vanessa Weenink’s main point, I think. There are two negative consequences of this — two costs — in terms of the regulatory impact statement (RIS): one is one that perhaps David Seymour will understand, and that is that when an earthquake comes, the losses will be much greater because of these lower standards. That’s what they are — they are lower standards — and, in fact, it gives a number: the avoided losses will be reduced by $105 billion. That is the increased costs when the inevitable earthquake comes.
But that’s not the most important thing. The most important thing, which no one yet has actually said out loud, is that more people will die, and there’s a number. It’s not a cardinal number, but there’s a figure. This is a 30 percent increase in the dangerousness of buildings, and that’s set out at paragraph 146 of the regulatory impact statement (RIS). I stand to be corrected, but does that mean that there will be 30 percent more dead people? Well, we need to know that, but what we do know is there will be more dead people, and we can’t avoid that consequence.
So when David Seymour stands up and speaks of the devastation of an earthquake repair bill for a homeowner, I get it. But we had friends and families in those buildings and the devastation of a family whose parent doesn’t come home is a different thing again, and so let us exercise great caution.
I appreciate the Minister for Building and Construction’s speech — I listened to it — and I know that this is going to get a full process through the select committee. The RIS didn’t meet the quality standards because all options weren’t consulted on — which I was surprised to see, to be perfectly honest, because the Minister is usually so diligent — but let us make sure that we turn over every stone. I get that everything is a balance, but let’s not have this mantra of risk-based regulation, which really is code for deregulating things so that we don’t have to spend as much money, in the name of efficiency and at the cost of lives.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National — Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m incredibly pleased to stand up here and speak in support of this bill. I also acknowledge our very diligent Minister Chris Penk for all his good work. In the Wairarapa electorate, which includes Tararua and Central Hawke’s Bay, the current rules were literally destroying our towns, one stickered building at a time, one after another. We had complete inertia. Our towns were falling into a state of literally go nowhere, cannot make a decision. This bill will provide clarity and confidence while balancing the risk. Just an example of the impact for some of our towns, and these are projected potential savings: Carterton was $14 million; Dannevirke, $67 million; Eketāhuna, $3 million; Featherston, $2 million; Greytown, $1 million; Martinborough, $7 million; Masterton, $80 million; Pahīatua, $29 million; Waipawa, $10 million; Waipukurau, $15 million; Woodville, a town of 1,600 or 1,700 people, $22 million — $250 million savings potential over 229 buildings. I commend this bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
