Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill was first introduced in December 2013. Since that time it has been through a rigorous select committee process, which has resulted in several important changes. I want to thank both the Committee of the whole House and the Local Government and Environment Committee for their diligence in what is a pretty complex public policy issue.

The Canterbury earthquakes highlighted the vulnerability of some of our older buildings to earthquakes and the fatal consequences of that vulnerability: 185 people lost their lives and many more people were injured in the 22 February 2011 earthquake, which I think will be etched in the minds of all parliamentarians and New Zealanders for many days hence. Major earthquakes stand out from other hazards. As a single event earthquakes can have a very large impact—and 22 February 2011 provided such a dramatic example. I also note that, prior to the Canterbury earthquakes, Christchurch was not considered to be an area of high seismic risk, and it is a reminder that all of New Zealand carries some level of seismic hazard.

The Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission and the Government reviewed our current system for managing earthquake-prone buildings after the Canterbury earthquakes. Both reviews found that many earthquake-prone buildings in New Zealand were not being managed in a consistent, timely, and cost-effective way. Problems identified included too much variability in local practice, poor-quality information about the location of earthquake-prone buildings across the country, and local government on its own not having the capacity to be able to deal with this challenging issue. It requires a balance to be struck between the risk posed by these earthquake-prone buildings and the cost of upgrading and the impacts on heritage. If we are too soft we may risk the lives of hundreds of our fellow citizens whenever the next major quake occurs. If we go too hard, the impacts of costs on communities—particularly rural and provincial New Zealand, as well as our heritage buildings—would be too great. This bill avoids a one-size-fits-all approach, prioritising those geographic areas, buildings, and parts of buildings that pose the greatest risk. This ensures that our response is proportionate to those risks, that costs are minimised, and that we retain as much of New Zealand’s built heritage as possible.

Given the nature and impact of this bill, the bill has rightly been subject to a thorough and rigorous examination by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I have also worked hard to refine the proposals to make them as practical as possible. A key change is that the bill now varies the time frames for earthquake-prone building identification and strengthening relative to seismic risk. New Zealand will be categorised into areas of low, medium, and high seismic risk, and time frames for identification will be 5, 10, and 15 years, and time frames for strengthening of 15, 25, and 35 years.

A second major change is the bill now prioritises the identification and strengthening of earthquake-prone education and emergency buildings. Schools, universities, and hospitals in high and medium seismic risk areas will need to be identified and upgraded within half the time frames of other buildings. Following strong submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee, particularly from Canterbury, in high and medium seismic risk areas the bill prioritises those parts of an unreinforced masonry building, like a parapet, a facade, or a verandah, that could fall on to a public road or footpath, or other thoroughfare, that a council has identified as having sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritisation. I acknowledge the points made by Ann Brower that highlighted the need for this particular change to the bill.

The third significant change is that the bill now excludes buildings like farm sheds, retaining walls, fences, monuments, wharves, bridges, tunnels, and storage tanks from the earthquake building provisions. Applying the provisions to these structures would in many cases be impractical and in others be unnecessary because of other legislative requirements. Most residential buildings will continue to be excluded, as they are now. The methodology for identifying earthquake-prone buildings is to be set down in regulations once the bill has been passed.

The bill also adds new measures to encourage timely upgrades. If a building is to be engaged in significant alteration, earthquake strengthening will need to be done at that time. The bill seeks to incentivise building owners to strengthen buildings in a timely manner through enhanced information and disclosure requirements: there will be a publicly available register listing all earthquake-prone buildings; and owners will be required to attach notices in a prominent place stating the degree to which the buildings go below the minimum standard. These changes are intended to help tenants and the public better differentiate between earthquake-prone buildings and to encourage and motivate building owners to strengthen those buildings in a timely way.

The bill clarifies the current definition of an earthquake-prone building—in practice often referred to as 34 percent of the new building standard—including that it applies to parts of buildings. I note that seismic risk around New Zealand explicitly takes into account that earthquake building threshold.

The bill continues to provide for an extension of up to 10 years to remediate category 1 listed heritage buildings, and exemptions from strengthening of some buildings. Exemptions from strengthening are intended to apply where the consequence of failure is low. Regulations will be made under the bill to clarify the granting of those exemptions.

I want to conclude by saying that no building Minister will be able to give an absolute assurance of total safety of all buildings and structures to withstand the ferocious forces of nature that come from living in a seismically active country like New Zealand. I would put this bill in this context: in 1931 in Napier 256 people were killed from a population of 26,000—that is 1 in 100 people; in Christchurch, 185 people were killed from a population of 370,000—or 1 in 2,000. This difference of 95 percent improvement in survivability can largely be put down to the—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.