Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

I think this debate will be something of a change of pace after that heartfelt and intensely debated third reading of the legislation around social housing, or what we would call the “State House Sell-off Bill”. This is a whole different kettle of fish, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, and I am glad to have the chance to make a few comments on it this afternoon. I want to add to remarks that colleagues have already made about this bill and acknowledge and pay tribute to the work of both the Hon Dr Nick Smith, the Minister for Building and Housing, and the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, because this bill is a bill that the House can together, I think, take some satisfaction in passing.

The legislative story of this bill goes back to the former Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Maurice Williamson, who brought a bill to this House to upgrade and reform the whole system for the assessment and strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings. It became pretty clear soon after the bill was publicly aired that there was a lot of concern around the country that it was going to have some pretty drastic effects on many businesses, particularly those in older buildings, that it would have a very negative impact on some small towns that have big heritage sectors—I am thinking particular of Wanganui, which is a good example, or Ōāmaru, another one—that saw the impracticability of meeting the new standards. There were genuine fears, I think, that the bill, as it stood then, could have resulted in large swaths of New Zealand’s built heritage going under the hammer, and no one wanted to see that happen.

On the other hand, Canterbury and, to a large extent, really, the whole country is still really feeling the kind of psychic aftershocks of the Canterbury earthquakes and are determined—and I think every member of this House is determined—that we have to do everything that we possibly can to minimise the future risk to life and limb and property caused by quakes in these Shaky Isles. Mayor Lianne Dalziel was interviewed on National Radio very shortly after the Valentine’s Day quakes took place and made the comment that it appeared that the damage to property and risk to life and limb were pretty limited, even though that was a significant shake on Valentine’s Day, because there had been so much change and repair and strengthening. So that, I think, was a good metaphor, if you like, for efforts that have been made to put the country on a much sounder footing after the quakes.

The problem with the original bill here was that it was, essentially, a one-size-fits-all approach. There was public clamour, and then, I think, Nick Smith took over from Maurice Williamson as the Minister responsible for this bill, pledging to really go back to the drawing board—

💬 Dr Megan Woods: He did.

—and that is what happened. The select committee really deserves credit. The difference between the original bill and the bill that has been reported back by the select committee is substantial. It is substantial. A lot of thought has gone into it, and we have seen a risk-based system, which breaks the country down into different areas and then applies a new formula for determining the time frames for earthquake-strengthening work to be done.

The 15,000 to 25,000 earthquake-prone buildings nationwide will still all have to be upgraded, but the country is split into zones according to the assessed risk of a big quake, and then the time frames for assessment and strengthening are varied accordingly. What that means is that affected buildings in areas of relatively low risk—Auckland, Northland, and Dunedin, for example—will now need to be identified and assessed within 15 years, and strengthened within a further 35 years. That is a 50-year time frame. Heritage buildings, which were one of the big concerns—the original bill could have seen the loss of many heritage buildings—can get a further 10-year extension. That means that we are looking at the possibility that a heritage building in those low-risk areas could get a 60-year time frame. In medium-risk areas like Hamilton and Tauranga, the time frame will be 10 years for assessment, and 25 years for the strengthening to actually take place. High-risk zones like Wellington and Christchurch will keep the existing time frame for strengthening of 20 years.

I think the other thing that deserves special mention is this new category of priority buildings. I want to, as my colleague Megan Woods did, pay tribute to Ann Brower, who was the survivor of the unreinforced masonry and parapets and facades that fell on to the red bus and led to the deaths of 35—sorry, not of 35 people on the bus; of a number of other passengers on the bus she was the only survivor, but 35 people died from falling masonry, facades, and parapets on the day of the big quake in February. Ann Brower appeared before the select committee. She really made the case, in a very, very effective way. As a result of that, this new category of priority buildings has been incorporated into the bill, which covers all the buildings with unreinforced masonry, parapets, verandahs, and so on that could fall on to the footpath, streets, or public spaces and be such a grave threat. I think that those are the main comments that I want to make.

The other thing that I think is worth mentioning—and the Minister commented on this in his opening remarks—is that educational facilities that are regularly occupied by 20 people, such as hospitals and emergency services, also get special treatment here, and are required to be fixed up within the shorter time frame. Thank you.

I rise to speak to the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, and echo the sentiment of Mr Twyford. I think this is going to be quite a different debate, but I do want to acknowledge his comment around the passions that everyone brought their own perspectives to in the previous debate. Perhaps just in starting—I was reflecting, as Mr Twyford spoke, that everyone in this House will recall where they were on the day of the February earthquake those years ago. Apart from the horror of what we saw, I think deep down we knew that this was going to be something that would stay with us for the rest of our lives, but it would also be an event that would ripple out to impact the whole country over a raft of different areas. As often is the case when you have tragedies of this moment, life changes for ever, in a sometimes not subtle way.

The regulatory response—the policy response—to earthquake-prone buildings reflected, I think, the public mood. Initially, there was an understanding—Mr Twyford used the word “clamour”, and I think that is fair—and an expectation by the public that this would never happen again, and that we would do everything we could to minimise the risk to people should an earthquake of that severity strike. Of course, invariably, that took the form of an initial bill that was very comprehensive—arguably, a one-size-fits-all. As the Local Government and Environment Committee began to reflect on the submissions from New Zealanders, I think we saw that it was indeed not an appropriate and commensurate response to that age-old question of how you balance safety to people with the sheer cost of compliance to do that, and what the impact would be to individual families and businesses and communities around the country.

I think I would echo the sentiment that has been expressed thus far. I think with this bill, through the very good work of chairman Scott Simpson—but everybody across the committee, from all sides, has contributed to a bill that is thoughtful, that is considered, and that I think lands at the right balance between protecting life and limb and enabling economies and individual families to be able to fund the changing requirements that this bill sets. As I said, this is all about balance.

I would like now to perhaps give a couple of examples of where I think the balance has been landed in the right place. Firstly, we included a new section 133AA into clause 23, which looked to exclude certain buildings from the framework of earthquake improvement: certain residential housing, farm buildings, retaining walls that are not integral to the structure, fences, monuments, bridges, wharves, and the like. Those are some examples of where we reflected on the various submissions and decided to pull those out of the obligation. But to counter that, an example of where we tightened it, in new section 133AA(2), we clarified that hostels, boarding houses, and residences of two or more storeys of specialised accommodation should be included, because of the nature of the businesses that are provided in those structures and the increased potential risk to people.

As has already been discussed by previous speakers, informed by good data we were enabled to develop a risk-based approach that split the country into three, from a high-hazard factor, to a medium sized risk factor, and a lower sized risk factor. For those listening in Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty—or at least the western Bay of Plenty where I come from—our area has been landed at the medium sized seismic risk, and, of course, as you would expect, Wellington, Christchurch, Gisborne, and Napier are higher. We now have time frames to mediate, from 15 through to 35 years, depending on the particular time frame.

We have, of course, the priority buildings across the country identified, and if you are responsible for a priority building—a hospital, or if you provide emergency services, or educational facilities are a great example—and you are in those medium or high seismic risks, your time frame to be able to get this all remediated is halved, as it should be. I think if you are a priority building, as listed, it is important that the investment goes in sooner rather than later, to ensure that your risk profile is reduced. So in conclusion, this is a good bill, and I think it reflects the best of our angels, when we can collectively as a House and as a select committee circle round something important, and deliver an outcome that is good for New Zealand. Thank you.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. He mihi nui ki a koutou. I am very pleased to take a call on the Building (Earthquake-prone Earthquake Buildings) Amendment Bill for the Green Party, and I would certainly like to acknowledge the 185 individuals who died 5 years ago on Monday. I think we were certainly very conscious of them in all of the work that we have done on this bill. It is certainly a bill, as Todd Muller said, that is a good bill. It improves the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings, it defines them, and it establishes national time frames and procedures for strengthening them. We in the Green Party originally opposed the bill as introduced, and that was primarily because of the provisions in it around unreinforced masonry buildings and the exemptions in relation to access provisions for people with a disability, when building owners were strengthening their buildings. There have been some quite major changes in both those areas, so we are very pleased, now, to be able to support the bill.

As an MP, I am certainly very grateful to the members of the royal commission on the Canterbury earthquakes. The commission did a very in-depth review and a very substantive report, which provided the basis for this legislation. I particularly acknowledge everybody who appeared before the commission, particularly the families, friends, and workmates of people who died or who were injured in the quakes. The commission, in its report, identified some quite significant problems in the Building Act, both in the way it was drafted and in the way it was being implemented. It highlighted that there were some gaps in information, quite big inconsistencies and variability in local practice with the way the Act was applied, and that there was very poor understanding of risk across the country. It was the commission that provided options for reform, and some quite detailed recommendations for change.

This bill was introduced to Parliament in December 2013, and it has been before Parliament for over 2 years. That has enabled a very thorough, comprehensive, and consultative process by a select committee, and I think it is a process—because it enabled two opportunities for public submissions, both on the bill as introduced and then on the interim report of the select committee, and the recommendations that officials were bringing back to change the bill—that has resulted in these significant changes. I think it is a process, with these two opportunities for submissions and the consultative approach that the Ministers took—both the Hon Maurice Williamson and the Hon Nick Smith—that other legislation in this Parliament would benefit from.

The committee heard some 121 submissions. We were able to hold hearings in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, and then issue that interim report. I particularly acknowledge the number of submitters who put a huge amount of work into very detailed, constructive, and informed submissions—they had a major impact in changing this bill. They were from earthquake survivors, local authorities, property owners, engineers, scientists, and GNS. The Green Party would particularly like to acknowledge the role of the science community and earthquake engineers. I think it would benefit legislation if we heard more from Crown research institutes like GNS when we were developing legislation. In the Green Party we were very pleased that the Government rejected the approach that the employers and manufacturers association and the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce were recommending. They were saying that the market was already pricing the risk posed by earthquakes, so there was not any need to regulate. We certainly believe there is a need to regulate.

We would also like to acknowledge—as others have done—Dr Ann Brower, because it was her advocacy on unreinforced masonry buildings and, in particular, parapets, facades, verandahs, and the like that was quite compelling in influencing the select committee at that interim report stage to then go on and change the provisions in the original bill. In the bill as introduced there was a failure to give sufficient priority to reducing the risk of loss of life and of serious injury from these features of unreinforced masonry buildings like parapets and verandahs.

That was really disappointing to the Green Party, and we had to work quite hard with others in the select committee to get that changed, because the royal commission had already noted in its report: “the majority of deaths due to the collapse of [unreinforced masonry buildings] in the February earthquake occurred in public places outside the buildings that failed, due to the out-of-plane collapse of facades, gable ends and parapets.” So it was disappointing that officials did not recognise that in the bill as introduced. It was Dr Brower and others such as GNS who argued, of course, that it was much cheaper and more cost-effective if building owners focused on repairing these features, like verandahs and parapets, as a priority, given that that would be cheaper than repairing and strengthening the building as a whole.

We are very pleased that that has been changed, but there is still a shortfall here. This is that the provisions in new sections 133AC and 133AD, inserted by clause 23 of the bill, require councils to use the special consultative procedures of the Local Government Act to consult their communities on which thoroughfares—whether they be roads or footpaths—and which unreinforced masonry buildings should be priority buildings for the purposes of having the faster time frame for strengthening them. In our view, and also in view of the royal commission, it is an engineering and a technical exercise as to whether unreinforced masonry features should be strengthened. It should not require councils to consult with their communities using those quite detailed procedures under the Local Government Act. It should be an engineering and a structural assessment rather than a consultative process.

It is interesting that these unreinforced masonry buildings are a special category of priority buildings, because for the rest of the priority buildings the councils just get on and do this assessment; they do not require consultation, and we think the unreinforced masonry buildings and their features should be in that same category. I guess one of the other issues, in terms of the consultative requirements, is that it imposes more cost on councils. That is ironic given that the Minister who is in charge of this bill, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, has also been very critical of councils for their cost regimes. So we think that these unreinforced masonry buildings and their features should have a similar status to the other priority buildings that the bill sets out.

The other issue that we are very pleased has been amended is in relation to the provisions requiring the provision of facilities for people with a disability when buildings are strengthened—but my colleague Mojo Mathers will discuss that issue in more detail. The only other remaining issue that we have some concern around is the methodology that is going to be used to identify earthquake-prone buildings and how that has been left to subsequent regulations. That methodology, I think, is of interest to councils around the country. There has been quite a lot of discussion about it. Councils such as Hamilton have already done quite a lot of work and developed a methodology to identify these buildings, and it would be good if officials had been able to produce the regulations before the actual bill is passed.

But I think, in conclusion, that the way the select committee dealt with the bill—and I congratulate the chair, Scott Simpson, on his chairing in a consultative and cross-party way—did significantly improve the legislation. We are very pleased to be part of a Parliament that has worked hard to significantly change and improve the bill and, I hope, provided a policy basis for work to strengthen buildings so that we are not again in the position that people were in in Christchurch. Thank you.

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 committee that 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.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. I think in the light of the cross-party support—in fact, the universal support—in this House for this piece of legislation, I will not add too much to what has already been said, other than to perhaps add my voice to the congratulations to the Minister for Building and Housing, the Hon Nick Smith, who has arrived at a very practical and sensible and pragmatic solution that successfully balances the need to maintain the safety of the citizens of this wonderful Realm of New Zealand against the costs that can come with earthquake strengthening.

I particularly welcome the assignment of different time frames for strengthening to the different areas, based on risk. We here in the capital—and we need to bear in mind that Wellington is the second-most seismically active capital in the world—have the shortest period of time to reinforce our buildings. That will impose some pressures, particularly on inner-city apartment owners, who have made representations to me. But I am certain that measures such as the prioritisation of buildings that lie on essential routes to the airport, for instance, or to hospitals—prioritising those buildings for strengthening is important. It may well save lives. It may save lives even during the lifespan of members of this House. It is an important measure. It is very sensible. I think also that exclusions for farm buildings, wharves, monuments, and war memorials—those buildings that are not regularly and frequently inhabited—are very sensible. For this reason, and for the others that have been mentioned by members, I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I am calling Mojo Mathers—5 minutes.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, and I wish to start, as others have done, by acknowledging the immense destructiveness of the Canterbury earthquakes nearly 5 years ago, which caused such a huge loss of life. I also note that last week’s significant aftershock was both an unwanted reminder of the trauma of the original earthquakes and a very timely prompt of the importance and urgency of getting on with strengthening our buildings across the country. We are now pleased to be voting in support of this bill. The bill is a testament to the value of good process, genuine collaboration, and cross-party cooperation, and I am pleased to have been involved in that process. I believe that this bill is a better bill because of it. It is a more workable bill that will get better results as a consequence of the decisions taken. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.