Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. A very good morning, everyone. I just wanted to provide a few answers for questions at just the closing hours of last evening, and I’m sure many of you would have slept on those, as did I.

There were questions in regard to the Auckland priority buildings as we ended. Those have not been identified at this point. There were also questions in regard to the ability to change the map. I want to be clear that only Parliament will be able to change the maps. However, on the digital maps, you will be able to zoom in and be able to see the boundaries, which was the question asked last night.

There was also a question in regard to urban centres and what is in and what is out, in effect. That is defined by Stats New Zealand.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s useful for the Minister to have provided those answers, and I thank him. The follow-up question to his answer in relation to new section 133AF is: can there be an Auckland priority building if they haven’t been identified, as his new definition excludes all buildings that would otherwise be a priority building but for the fact that they have been excluded by the decision to exclude Auckland?

I also asked the Minister a question in relation to new section 133AF(3). He was taking advice at the time last night, so he may not have heard me. The current law’s definition of priority buildings in broader. It includes certain hospitals, shelters, emergency response buildings, and specified education buildings. Has he excluded those simply because they have already been remediated, or is it the case that this is a policy decision in which those buildings that will be needed in an emergency response to an earthquake have been left out of the meaning of “priority buildings” under this bill?

Now I turn to new section 133AG. This is the interaction between the councils’ new power to identify any road or footpath which is at risk of having a building or a facade falling on to it. This is a good part of the bill. This is something that we support because in the exercise of identifying the most at-risk buildings, obviously, it’s not just about the foundations or the construction of a particular building; it’s also about the risk to people who are interacting with it. And arguably the most at risk and the most at need of protection are those people who could not have any idea of the risk to the building that is near them because they are outside of it. They’re not owners, they’re not renters; they’re people who are on the street.

So I want to ask him about this provision. Firstly, it seems that he has changed the way that the council will be required to identify the building with the special consultative process to one where they don’t necessarily need to undertake this if there is a reasonable expectation—the word is “no reasonable prospect”—of the kind of risk that is being envisioned here to people who are walking past or using the street frontage.

I asked last night about a situation where, under new section 133AF(1)(b), a territorial authority had the wrong sort of motivation and there was moral hazard here because they might be identifying their own buildings that affected an important transport route of strategic importance to the country. But this is a different question, and it is more concerning here, where, if you have a territorial authority with its own council buildings that might impede or fall on people who are walking past, it is also up to the council to make a decision that they don’t need a consultative process now.

We’re moving from a system which would have required the council to remediate that building, and now it’s up to the council whether they remediate that building. In some situations, you have territorial authorities which are being led by mayors like the Auckland Mayor, Wayne Brown, who has been a vociferous advocate for fewer regulations around earthquake-prone buildings. He has put that case very strongly, but the fact is that he will not have the motivation that is envisioned in this change to lead from the top and to remediate those council buildings which may pose a risk. And it is up to him in the new system.

So my first question is: what is the check and balance at the start to make a council authority begin the consultative process? Surely there should be a positive obligation on councils to at least begin to identify those streets which may be affected very early on.

And in the transitional phase—this is a question about how the transition now works, because all of the transition for Auckland is very different from what it was at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—we’ve gone from a system where there was a positive obligation to remediate to one where the council will now need to take some time before considering what streets are high risk. Minister, are we talking months? Are we talking years? Are we talking decades before people around the country would see their streets registered as streets which will be high risk and anything overhanging them will need to be remediated under this format?

And then my next question is: why will an earthquake-prone unreinforced masonry building that could collapse on to a public footpath also be included in this when the footpath—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Committee of the whole House

Just in regards to the member’s questions related to Auckland, the answer is no because it is a low zone. Priority buildings are defined. The member should reference new section 133AF.

In regards to the questions in regards to transition, it is fair to acknowledge that, while some buildings have already been assessed, there still will be others to do so. There will be a period that’s outlined in the legislation in terms of duration of that. The reality is that, again, in the case of Auckland, this is a low-risk zone. The whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure that those buildings that have a higher risk, in the context of risk to life, are prioritised in the area in which a remediation occurs. Auckland is a low zone.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just actually have a very quick question, and it’s a follow-up from Arena Williams around the priority buildings. As was noted, a number of the buildings that have come—for example, hospitals—are Crown-owned. I’m just wondering: what are the cost savings to the Crown from the removal of all Crown buildings that would have been on the priority list previously?

Committee of the whole House

Look, it is acknowledged that there will be Crown assets, including local government assets, that sit across the country that will be impacted by the legislation that we’re passing this evening. In some instances, as a result of that, the requirement to remediate will be different to what it was previously, before the Act. That may result in a change in cost of works that are under way. However, it will be on a case by case basis.

The prior member also asked a question in regards to new section 133AG(3)(a), around the consultative process. I’d refer the member—that process is outlined in the legislation, which will provide substantive overview in regards to the questions she was asking.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I thank the Minister for Building and Construction for his answers there. I just wanted to pick up on one response that he gave, which was a slight change to the answer that he’d originally given me last night—and then we suspended last night with an answer and he’s clarified that this morning. It’s about the Schedule 2A map, because originally it wasn’t known that Parliament had the only authority to change the map. So I do thank the Minister for that and understand that.

That does raise a question though. I assume that’s because the likelihood of changing the seismic situation is often so rare that that’s why Parliament needs to do it, and the legislation allows for that. But the follow-up question is whether or not the Minister thinks that there was an opportunity, perhaps through this bill, to have a subsequent amendment around the ability of Parliament or, in certain circumstances, for that responsibility to not sit with Parliament but what was the former GNS Science—I think the Minister said last night.

That’s the first part of the question. I’ve got another one, but I think it looks like he wants to answer.

Committee of the whole House

Just in response to that question, the assessment the member has outlined is correct in the context of the map. The purpose here is that the movement, potentially, of that boundary does have very significant implications, and so it was deemed that that scale of potential change needs to be through a change in the law to ensure that all parties—including in this House but outside—have the mechanism to be able to be involved with that consultation process. That is a conservative position, and I think it’s a reasonable position.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Building and Construction about new section 133AH, inserted by clause 7 of Amendment Paper 702. I’m at the bottom of page 16. My question there is around the council’s powers now that they have a narrower scope of buildings to consider. Really, the thrust of the question is: if they include buildings which were previously included within the definition wrongly, arguably—according to the building owner reporting to the developer who is in charge of, say, the street frontage or the precinct that the building is within—is that now open to legal challenge?

I ask because the formulation of this one is pretty different from the old situation, where that couldn’t have arisen. You couldn’t have had a legal challenge to council for identifying what was in and out wrongly, but of course there is a real motivation, and it is financial, for developers to have their buildings excluded from the list of buildings that a territorial authority considers to be potentially earthquake-prone.

That’s the first question, and whether there are challenges, then, that also arise from the special consultative process. That’s a process which, as the Minister knows, is for gathering the public’s views and is a pretty prescribed set of public input requirements. It’s not designed, necessarily, for what would be a reasonably litigious and evidence-based inquiry into whether or not a building did meet a certain engineering threshold via the earthquake-prone buildings methodology to be included by the council.

That relates to the previous point around new section 133AG. What I’m really asking is: now that the council has a new discretion to begin the consultative process or not under section 133AG, how many people is few enough for the Minister to consider it appropriate for the council to not begin that consultative process? Under the old system, that wasn’t really what was at issue—you wouldn’t have had the beginning of a consultative process in this way. But what we might see here—and I gave the example of the Mayor of Auckland, because he is the highest-profile mayor with views that called for liberalisation of these rules, but there are others: high-profile councillors in Dunedin come to mind, who ran a very outspoken public campaign on these issues. There will be councils around the country—territorial authorities around the country here—that do not want to engage in a consultative process where the outcome might be the protection of more streets and more roads, and yet that seems to be a carefully designed mechanism within this Act for the Government to assure itself that there is a reasonable amount of protection where we have liberalised the rules around which buildings are in.

A key protection for ensuring that the risk is spread sensibly is that, if you’re going to have higher-risk buildings which do not require remediation, we must catch the ones in that category that might be falling on a large number of people—or, indeed, one or two people—because the risk in that situation is different for a church on the West Coast, where people are walking past outside and might be affected, to one building that is far from anywhere, where only the landowner or only the building owner is affected by the risk. Yes, in both situations there is a risk to life and limb, but one represents a situation where people cannot know, and could not even find out, if they proactively wanted to, about the risk. This is why I’m asking the Minister what sort of risk he anticipates he is introducing into a system with those territorial authorities that we already know will not begin a consultative process unless there is something in the system which motivates them to do so beyond their electoral mandate.

Committee of the whole House

Just in regards to the question around key protections, particularly around section 133A—anyway, the answer to the question around what the challenge or review process is: if the member goes forward to page 29, the answer to her question is in new section 133AZB. Again, I know the member has read the bill, but for the question she’s asking, the answer is further ahead of where we’re talking at the moment.

In regards to the question on new section 133AG, it’s always been the case and up to territorial authorities to decide on using that special process.

Also the question in regards to—oh, no; I’ve answered that. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Building and Construction some questions on proposed new section 133AI—this starts at the bottom of page 17 of his Amendment Paper. This is around the territorial authority potentially identifying buildings after the applicable time frame has expired. Now, this is, I think, very relevant to a number of areas. I know my colleague the MP for Rangitīkei over there, Suze Redmayne, knows that the Manawatū District Council are very active, actually, in this space, and they have been very active through the select committee process as well. This is about the steps that need to be taken by authorities like them who actually have a number of buildings that fall within this particular remit.

One of the changes, Minister, that you are making is you are, effectively, striking out and replacing subsection (1), which is around identifying what that section applies to. Now, what the select committee did have was a component there that related to the design of buildings on or after 1 January 1976. Now, your Amendment Paper has, effectively, removed that requirement, which is a new change. What has been replaced there is just simply around the buildings and construction completed before 1 July 2027. The construction component still exists, but the design one doesn’t, so it would be very interesting to understand why it is that the design component is no longer part and parcel of that particular section, given we’re looking at this section by section.

What you’ve also done is you have introduced a new subsection (1A) that was not there previously, and this is actually where the section doesn’t apply. Originally, as it stands at the moment, the select committee sent this back saying, “Well, let’s actually look at the circumstances within which this applicability outside of the expired time frame would apply”, and that was it. You’ve modified that slightly around the construction—sorry, the Minister has modified. You yourself, Madam Chair, will be very familiar with this sort of stuff as well. I should have acknowledged that. The Minister has also included where the section will not apply. He has been very specific around that. That’s not something—

💬 Arena Williams: I’ve got questions about that.

OK, my colleague has questions around that. I am just very interested in—the first part is amending the design brief; the second part is introducing a whole new section where it is quite specific as to where the section would not apply.

Committee of the whole House

In short, it goes back to the additional protections, which I know we in this House are all concerned about, and we want to make sure that the protections are in place. Some buildings inadvertently could be overlooked, and that’s why the definition is being widened slightly to preserve the safety in that regard.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question on new section 133AI is a bit broader than that. I can see what the Minister for Building and Construction is doing here. I think this is a sensible change in some respects—to give us a provision which is “We missed one and we want to include it”—because there will always be a risk, when you’re talking about the built environment, that you cannot know every single building. Even though we have been going through a period of identification publicly and raising awareness about these issues since the Christchurch earthquakes, there is still a chance you will need to identify a building which does pose risk to life and limb. The problem—the problem—is: why did he limit this power to those buildings?

Effectively, he’s prevented a council from reconsidering a building under this pathway if it has had previous consideration. The problem with that is that he’s completely missed a group of buildings; not only those that could have been genuinely missed since the Christchurch earthquakes—that’s one—but there’s a second category in there, which is that the understanding does change. We are changing this bill on the premise that the science and the understanding of the engineering has also moved forward and that we have a better way of identifying, through science advice not only to the Government but to building owners—and the availability and the cost and affordability of that engineering assessment has also come down. Why wouldn’t it be the case that not only would this extra information allow building owners and councils to downgrade the remediation that’s required but, in some cases, there would be upgrades to the remediation that is required? Why is it that, in a case where even the building owners are going to the council and saying, “Look, we’ve had another look. With the better information that is available to us, we think there is a higher need for remediation, and we would like to update the information that the council holds about this building”, they cannot then do that? They seem to be prevented from that.

That is a very real concern, because it’s not just up to the building owners; the point of having a public register is that, if that building owner who has taken a long-term view of the risk to the people who are in the building—and this is happening all around the country, by the way. This is not just the most publicly minded building owners. There are plenty of, say, employers who want to make sure that the people who come to work every day in their buildings leave safely. What if they then sell the building? The whole point of the Government’s interest in their building’s remediation is that the next owner is also held to the same standards and is required to observe the same information that they have gathered, at their expense, about the building—for the preservation of life and limb, not only for those people who come to work every day but for the people who use the building and do not know and cannot know the information about that. Is there a pathway for those buildings where the information changes and they go up in risk?

Committee of the whole House

Hopefully, this works, in terms of back and forth. In regards to the question on transition, it’s the period of time it takes to do the transition. Just to be clear, everything will be in force on 1 July 2027—so, from Royal assent until that point. In regards to the question around the design date, it has been removed to open up slightly—to identify at any time what that pathway will be, and so that was the purpose in regards to the design date change.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think there’s a little bit more that we could explore.

Committee of the whole House

I wanted to ask a question around—[Interruption] Goodness me!—section 133AH, just because this wasn’t addressed when we were speaking about this section. It’s about the applicable time frame and the territorial authority identifying that applicable time frame.

I’m specifically looking at subsection (4), paragraphs (aa), (a), and (b), and I have just a couple of questions for the Minister for Building and Construction around the advice that he received around these time frames. Why is it “3 years”, “2 years”, and “every year” for the different levels of seismic zone that were applied in subsection (4)—those three paragraphs (aa), (a), and (b)?

Then, a second question, just around the change the Minister has made to paragraph (aa), from “new medium seismic zone” to “medium seismic zone that was previously an area of low seismic risk”: could he please explain why that change was made, and why it will now only apply to medium seismic zones that were previously an area of low seismic risk, as opposed to others, and whether he looked at what other areas could be taken into account to have the three-year applicable time frame in that space. Thanks.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister for Building and Construction on section 133AJ. He’s getting the vibe that I am very nervous about unreinforced masonry (URM), not so much the tall buildings. My question about this one is: why doesn’t it apply to the URM buildings?

In this section, the council identifies a pre-1976 tall heavy material building as potentially earthquake-prone under the previous section, and then it must require the owner to provide an engineering evaluation. The corresponding requirement for the URM buildings is “evidence of the information”—so you don’t have to give it over to the council if you’re that kind of building owner. I want to ask him whether he considered making both requirements the same. I think this is an exclusion for smaller-building owners, but then that’s what it should say. In the situation with the tall buildings, they will be large office blocks, civic buildings, and hotels, all things that have an owner who should be large and sophisticated enough to provide that kind of reporting in a fast way for council if they are identified—and probably to already have it, to be honest. Pretty much every building that’s a tall building that we’re talking about here will be able to provide that to council, but is the exclusion because the URM buildings are a bit different, where they might not be able to provide that to council?

Then we get into a situation where not only is there no motivation for the public disclosure to the council, which is not to everyone, but this is meant to now be a system where the information disclosure and information transparency does some of the heavy lifting of the risk management. We don’t even require the URM building owners who are caught by the council’s new regulatory net to make that information public to the council, so it does seem to be either an oversight or an exclusion for certain types of building owners, who don’t necessarily fall into a risk management sense, in that their buildings are any lower, but they will be smaller and less commercial operators. Is that the case? Shouldn’t we be making an amendment to make section 133AJ also apply to URM buildings?

Committee of the whole House

In regards to the question on section 133AI, on page 18, the question was in regards to whether there is a process to challenge an assessment. Yes, owners can challenge whether a territorial authority has correctly identified buildings in scope. Again, if the member Arena Williams goes further into the Act, the answer is there in new section 133AZB(1)(a).

Committee of the whole House

I’m going to move along to new section 133AK—this is on page 20—and I’m going to touch on new section 133AM, on page 21, as well.

In terms of new section 133AK, on the obligation of owners on receiving requests for engineering evaluation, I’ve got two questions for the Minister for Building and Construction. It says over here: “If a territorial authority asks the owner of a building …”. What happens if the buildings are apartments? Are they treating each individual owner of their apartment unit as individuals, or is there someone who owns the entirety of the building? And, if the owner may apply for an extension in those kinds of circumstances, again, how would apartments work in this case?

My second question is: if the building itself is owned by the Government, who then is the owner of that building, and who will be responsible for responding? Is that the chief executive or is that the Minister responsible for that particular building? I think my colleague Arena Williams yesterday mentioned Stats NZ being one example.

My final question for the time being is on new section 133AM, and I’ll start by this: must request information—the request must be in writing. Can I just double-check that writing can be electronic as well as physical. What happens if the owner of a building is overseas or is an overseas owner of a building? I want to check those three questions with the Minister.

Committee of the whole House

In regards to the question on section 133AK, on page 21, the assessment of the risk is on the building, not on the owners of the building—in regards to the question around apartments by the member. And, yes, as consistent with other aspects of legislation, the means in which digital is available, in the context, in addition to written form.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question really applies to several of the new sections, 133AH, 133AI, and so on. I’ll be very interested in the Minister’s understanding of the relationship between the requirement for territorial authorities—there’s a lot of “territorial authority must identify”, which I don’t have any disagreement with, I think it’s important—but what I want to know is: how is this Government going to either help or ensure that it’s done? Do you see there being a process of audit? Supposing they just picked the obvious buildings and miss out several others because of financial constraints, or maybe they have other priorities, how do we actually make sure that all of the buildings are identified by local government? I mean, back in the day, after 2010, we made a big push to identify all the buildings in Wellington and it’s not cheap to inspect buildings and to arrange inspections and so on. Some of it’s going to be pretty quick, you know, for those high seismic zones—the two years and six months. I’m just trying to think about how that ties in with the term of local government. Is this something that you would expect to be reported on or is it going to be legal change that local government must report on these things? Because some are great, some are not so great at these things.

Committee of the whole House

Just again, the question previously, from the member of the Greens, in regards to the apartments and “do persons with an interest in a building” and that process, the answer to that is in new section 133AU(3). So it’s, again, ahead in this section, but the answers to the questions are in the legislation. So I’m not sure I’m adding value by reading out the legislation that is in this part that we just haven’t got to in the sequence of this committee of the Whole House stage. But again, I’ll just say that for the last time, that’s where the answer to that question is at.

Committee of the whole House

I understand that it is late in the urgency, but this is one of the most significant pieces of reform which has achieved cross-partisan support because of the way that we have been able to access officials to understand the impact that this will have on people. There are a number of members in this House who have given speeches representing their local communities—Christchurch and Canterbury, for instance—who represent families of hundreds of people who have been affected by serious earthquakes. And so it is important that we move through clause 7, in a reasonably careful way, to understand the impact on people’s lives, and that is what we are attempting to do by moving forward methodically.

I’ll bring the Minister’s attention to new section 133AL and 133AM. My first question is about how two councils could conceivably treat identical circumstances differently with regard to an application for an extension of time for the information being required by councils. I pitched the Minister before a question around whether this is in here simply because we actually think that all of the tall buildings that he is trying to identify, in this case, have already got that information, but he’s allowed for a pathway, here, where there’s a 12-month requirement to provide the information and then councils get to extend for another 12 months.

So essentially, what we’re talking about here is once the information comes into effect, then the council goes through the consultative process—that’s a special consultative procedure and they have to nominate to do that; so that might add another six months and then another 12 months—then notifies a building owner that they have to provide the information. Even if they already have that, they can have up to 12 months, and then the council can give them another 12 months. So we’re talking about sort of 2030 as the ballpark time frame for an owner of a tall building in a public place to need to provide their engineering evidence to council.

My question isn’t whether that’s the appropriate policy decision—that is the Minister’s prerogative to make the decision—what I’m testing here is whether, across the country, those time frames will be very different. Two councils might decide, under his provision, that, say there is qualified engineer shortage, which was the case in the example that the former mayor of Wellington outlined in her term as mayor; if an owner might need that extension because of a delay in the availability of engineers, why is it that one council might take an approach which takes us out to 2030 or 2032 and another council, in the same seismic sone, might demand that information be provided in 2027. I’m asking him about what his message to councils is, in the sort of relativity here, because that’s not a part of the old law; it wasn’t the case that councils would have been able to extend time frames of that sort of provision of information to such an extent as he is proposing in his amendments today.

Committee of the whole House

I mean, the simple answer to that is because we want to ensure that there is appropriate protections for the specific buildings that are being assessed—there may be circumstances where additional time is required to get a further assurance to get comfort that the decision is accurate. So you’re not going to have a situation where two councils are necessarily dealing with the same building, because the building sits in either one boundary or the other. So that’s not a scenario that is going to be the reality, but the timing allows flexibility.

In regards to the question around new section 133AJ, it was around the notice around tall buildings: territorial authorities can issue a notice that a tall building might be an earthquake-prone building—this was around how that assessment process works—and then the owner evaluates that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your response, Minister. I wasn’t sure that if a new section 133AU was applicable 133AK, because 133AU was talking about territory authorities giving earthquake-prone building (EPB) notice to a owner, whereas 133AK was around the request for engineering evaluation. But it’s good to know that regardless of what kind of document is being given, that the relationship between the territorial authority and the owner—and if it’s an apartment, multiple owners—or anyone with an interest in that, that is applied consistently. That’s helpful to know. Thank you, Minister.

I want to move on to 133AO—this is 133AO, new subsection (3). This is something that, I know, seems pedantic, but it’s not something we often see being drafted in legislation in this way, which says the “territorial authority must promptly”—normally we see the phrase “must immediately”, and I just want to check if, in this case, and I think it’s also for the clarity of territorial authorities when they are determining EPBs, that “promptly” has the same meaning and as “immediately”. So that would be helpful just to clarify.

Now, Minister, my final question for this contribution is around the deletions that we see in your Amendment Paper 702. I just want some clarifications on why clauses 133AP, 133AQ, 133AR, 133AS, and 133ASA have been deleted in the Amendment Paper. I’m just checking to see and I can’t, at least at this stage, see that it’s being moved to other locations, unless I’m wrong. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind just clarifying the deletion of those four new sections.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in regards to new section 133AO(3)—the member asked around the word “promptly”—“promptly” is defined as “as soon as reasonably practical.”

In regards to the question on 133AX, which is probably page 31, maybe further—32, 33; I’ll keep going higher—owners can request an extension if reasonable progress has been made—up to 15 years. And so it’s just acknowledging that there may be circumstances where the complexity of the building assessment requires more time to do that work.

Committee of the whole House

Just a quick question about the new section 133AM rules, inserted by clause 7 of the bill. Why is the engineering evaluation mandatory but this evidence only requires the information, and why is it six months, when those two things seem to be relatively similar?

And a question for the Minister; I’m genuinely wondering what happens when both requirements are put on to a building owner? If they have a tall building and a suspected unreinforced masonry building, are they required to give an indication that the information does exist about the unreinforced masonry? Why wouldn’t they also be required to provide the information, in the same way that they are required to provide the information about the tall building?

I want to ask him about new section 133AM. This is also another discretion for unreinforced masonry buildings to spin out the timing for councils. And where you have a situation of unreinforced masonry buildings, this is even more acute, because councils that are in the same seismic zone—like, say, your main street in Feilding versus Cuba St—are going to get very different treatment from the councils around the provision of information, because the sorts of building owners in one situation are highly commercial, and are able to provision themselves with expensive and timely engineering advice, and in the other situation they’re not.

So you will definitely get a difference in timing and a difference in approach between those two, but the risks are the same. What is the justification in terms of the unreinforced masonry buildings for that delay in small towns, where you have business owners who will not be able to comply in that timely way, in an affordable way, but there is still the same sort of risk to loss of life?

Then my question about new section 133AO: this is a provision which punishes owners of buildings for not providing information. It was always going to be a necessary part of the regime, but, really, the thrust of my question to the Minister is: can he confirm that an owner cannot avoid having their building determined earthquake-prone, simply by failing to provide the engineering evaluation or the other information that’s required by council?

It seems that there is no end point to the information-gathering powers that council has. So if you have a building owner who is obstinate in that way, it is worth having a power where the council can also provision their own information. It’s one thing where the council is not going to implement those kind of consultation rules, and that we’ve discussed with the Minister first. Be it on them. They will face the ballot box because of that. But it’s a completely different thing where there is no recourse for the public, if a building owner who poses risk to the public will not provide information to the council. It’s a different question. I’m not saying they’re avoiding that, or they’re avoiding their legal obligations here, but the Minister has created a pathway, it seems to me, that can go on indefinitely, and that will be in a grey area of legality. That’s a question which is reasonable for this committee to ask: can things go on and on but there be no punishments associated with that?

Committee of the whole House

Thanks, members. I just want to provide some feedback in regards to a number of amendments that are on the Table in the name of Celia Wade-Brown, particularly Amendment Paper (AP) 656. The Government will not be proceeding with these amendments; I’ll give you a brief explanation on why.

In particular, I will provide feedback on AP 656, which relates to fire access. In effect, what is being proposed here is to revert back to old obligations relating to fire and access. The new information available, based on events that have occurred subsequently, indicate that those changes of reverting back to the old obligations would be significantly too costly, and would not deal with or address the underlying risks which are available in the context of what is being proposed here in the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take another call, can I just say we can have scenarios about consultation provision of information, but we can explore those ad infinitum, so I’m encouraging members to move on from that phase of the bill.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that guidance, and I think, certainly, the approach—I’ve been here from when we started this last night—has been to work through the provisions section by section, given the alphabetical approach. I’m up to new section 133AO, inserted by clause 7, in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 702. This is about the nature of the information and the broad brush of information—not just the evaluation of evidence but, basically, any information.

My question is around subsections (2) and (3), which identify the time frame or the expectations around which the territorial authority must notify the building owner. I’m just reflecting on the earlier question to the Minister about it not spanning more than one authority. There are circumstances where provision through regional councils will—well, they do—overlay into other areas as well, so there is that context. But the word used here is “promptly”.

So I’m interested to understand from the Minister what his expectation is. It’s very clear, and I think it’s correct, that what we have in this provision is: once information, evidence, or the evaluation is received, that then leads to a council determining that they must act. There is a duty to act on behalf of the local territorial authority. The question therein lies: what is the expectation from the Minister around “promptly”? What is going to guide that decision? This is a process of considering the information that’s placed before the decision makers—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I interrupt the member and say that question has just been answered.

Well, I think the answer was around the assessment, rather than actually the requirement—we have not touched on this element of the word “promptly” in terms of the council’s response.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We just did it. It was a question from Lawrence Xu-Nan.

In terms of 133AO?

💬 Tim Costley: It was the first one of the day.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes.

The issue here is around the Minister’s expectations around response, but I’ll leave it there.

Committee of the whole House

Just closing off the Amendment Paper (AP) tabled by the member Tamatha Paul in regards to new section 133ASB, inserted by clause 7. That AP, particularly, is looking at and considering financial assistance. As noted last night, financial assistance is outside of the scope, and therefore we will not be proceeding with that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions are around clause 7, inserting new section 133ASB, “Territorial authorities must determine and update earthquake status of buildings in medium and high seismic zones”. I just wanted to ask, again, around the timing of this. There’s a requirement under subsection 1—133ASB(1): “As soon as is reasonably practical after, and within three months of, 1 July 2027,”. However, over the page at subsection (7), it details what happens if a territorial authority runs out of time, and says that they “must finish doing those things as soon as possible after 1 October 2027.”

So my question is, really, around “as soon as possible.” That seems to give an infinite amount of time in order to conclude that. I wanted to know from the Minister why that decision was made. There was quite a specific one as to when the question needs to be asked initially about determining the earthquake status of buildings in medium and high seismic zones, but if they run out of time, “as soon as possible” seems like a very loose term as far as timing and getting that done. My concern would be that that could be interpreted as: any length of time that it might take to fulfil that obligation.

Committee of the whole House

As I noted in a prior question in regards to this, there is a process for extensions which is outlined in the legislation.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to move ahead, just on new sections 133ASB and then 133ATA. The only question I have for 133ASB is—again, for a lot of this I’m mainly looking at the Minister’s Amendment Paper 702—on the new insertion, subsection (8A), in Amendment Paper 702. This is at the top of page 27. It states, “While a building’s status as an earthquake-prone building is continued under subsection (8), the building’s existing deadline for completion …[would] continue to apply.” I want to check with the Minister if that means that if the seismic work continues to apply and the work is completed—does that mean that the building now will meet the requirement, and what happens then when there is a notice of an EPB but then it exceeds the requirement for the current seismic work that is still ongoing? In that case, would that also be notified to the person asking how the seismic work is going? I just want to check how one should interpret new section 133ASB(8A) in clause 7.

On to new section 133ATA, and, actually, also new section 133ATB. Noting that both of these are new insertions, as well, I want to check this with the Minister. This comes down to some of the conversations we have had previously around areas that are designated low-seismic zones, which is Auckland—let’s use that as an example. In those kinds of cases, if there is any other seismic-zoned building that is not considered an EPB, would there be any notice that has been given with what’s in new sections 133ATA and 133ATB? Would that notice potentially be changed, and, if it is changed, how would the territorial authority then notify it? If a building is not a priority building, you would have that as a notice, but would that notice itself include things like a caveat that just because it’s not an EPB now, that doesn’t mean that they’re not going to come back and check it in a couple of years’ time or a couple of months’ time? I just wanted to check from a building owner’s perspective what reassurance it has for the duration of a notice if it’s not a priority building, or if it’s deemed not to be in scope.

Committee of the whole House

Just in regard to a prior question on new section 133AO, in clause 7, this was a question in regard to where the person or the individual does not provide information, and whether that provides them with a mechanism not to be able to comply. The answer is no; the building owner could, technically, not provide the information. However, if that was the circumstance, then by default it would be considered to be an earthquake-prone building and, therefore, it would be within the requirements.

Committee of the whole House

That’s helpful. I’m just wanting to clarify with the Minister for Building and Construction that his answer applies to the unreinforced masonry buildings and not the tall buildings, because I think that that is the only one that requires the council to, basically, have a guess. It has to guess whether there’s unreinforced masonry and then ask them within six months, and so I just wanted to clarify that.

At new section 133AT in clause 7, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan has identified that that section is interacting with the previous section new section 133AO(8A) and (4). Basically, you’ve got the substantive decision already in new section 133ASB in clause 7, and new section 133AT is meant to operationalise it. The question in simple terms for the Minister is: where a building ceases to be an earthquake-prone building (EPB) solely because it no longer is within the new statutory scope, will the public register contain any record that the building was previously assessed as being earthquake-prone and it hasn’t been strengthened, in this case?

I also want to ask him specifically: what happens if a council like Auckland Council wants to retain a degree of public information about those buildings which were deemed to be earthquake-prone by an engineer? I’m not talking about the statutory scope; I’m talking about those buildings where there is an engineering report from professionals where they found and identified a risk to life, not within the EPB rating, but within their commentary or their professional findings which recommended remediation for specific parts—like, say, bridges between two tower buildings, or malls where one parapet might pose a specific risk of falling on to a civic space.

Those will now be excluded from the statutory regime, but the question is: if a council wants to maintain a public register of those buildings which have a specific risk that the council has been at odds with the building owner over, will they be able to retain that or will they run foul of the Act? Is it open to, say, judicial review for the council to publish the information with regard to the building owners that they are specifically pursuing right now for remediation because it affects a civic space, and, if they disclose that, is it defamation? Is it defamation if the council says that a developer has been at odds with the council for the last six years over the remediation which it has required from them, and, but for the Minister’s decision to exclude Auckland, it would still be going after them?

Committee of the whole House

In regard to the question on new section 133ATA in clause 7, once a building is deemed not to be within the scope, it cannot re-enter the earthquake-prone building system. The purpose of that, at the end of the day, is to ensure certainty in the context of the classification.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m very tempted to take a closure motion. We’re not making a lot of progress here, but I will take another question from Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just noting that my colleague Celia Wade-Brown has an amendment for much later in this section that she would like to speak on, but I am going to move on and—

💬 Tim Costley: Pay attention, Tangi.

Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Don’t debate across the Chamber.

OK. I am going to move on and just check this. The Minister for Building and Construction has just mentioned the certainty, and, thank you, Minister for that clarification around the certainly. I think that is really important.

I just wanted to check in terms of the relationship between something that is deemed, under new sections 133ATA and 133ATB in clause 7, no longer a priority building, or it’s not within scope. But I wanted to check that in terms of how that interacts with, for example, a building that has been exempted. We do see that there are exemptions for a requirement to carry out seismic activities, but in new section 133AWA and also new section 133AZ, can I just check this with the Minister? For example, when you have the exemption for carrying out a seismic work and the exemption is revoked, unlike what we saw before in terms of the priority buildings and out-of-scope buildings, which have the certainty—I’m assuming that the owner of, let’s just say, a particular building will be notified in the initial notice that there is the likelihood or the possibility of an exemption being revoked. Would that also be on the notice as part of the exemption in—I just want to double-check—in new section 133AWA? I can’t see it there, and so if the Minister wouldn’t mind elaborating on new section 133AWA.

I’m also noting that we—Madam Chair, I’m just checking, because we’ve also got the schedules, as well, but I’m happy to kind of wrap up a few other things. I know that my colleague has a few remaining things on clause 7, but I think I’m happy to move on. So I’ll wait until others finish with clause 7, and then I’ll move on to the schedules.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is also about new section 133AW in clause 7, though, just drawing on what the Minister for Building and Construction said in response to my question in the last part, I want to ask him this in relation to new section 133AW. Will an earthquake-prone building notice tell the public what type of a seismic risk is being disclosed there: either an unreinforced masonry or a tall building risk?

On new section 133AW, the revocations regime wasn’t a big part of the old rules because it didn’t need to be, but under his new regime it probably will be a more operative part, and there seem to be two very different outcomes, depending on when the revocation happens. In the first situation, if the original seismic work deadline has not expired and the owner falls back on the ordinary regime, they can then apply under new section 133AX in clause 7 for the extension, but I want to ask him about the situation where it has already expired, and that’s covered by the new section 133AZ in clause 7, which we’ve talked about a little bit.

It will ordinarily give the owner a fresh five years to complete the seismic work. That’s the five-year period that can’t be extended, but the exception seems to be that if it was revoked because of an act or omission of the owner—the Amendment Paper gives failure to maintain the risk mitigation measures as an example—then they don’t get the extra five years. In the other situation, where the owner is not at fault, is the revocation going to then give you a pathway to the full five years? Is that because we’re allowing for situations where the council is at fault, or are we also allowing for situations where the information has changed—in which case, it seems to be better to let your exemption run out its time and then apply, which doesn’t seem to be the right way round for that to be formulated?

Committee of the whole House

In effect, that’s providing flexibility to allow certainty for both sides of the equation to know where they stand and to be able to make assessments and plans in regards to that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d also like to thank the Minister for addressing my amendment about disability access and fire escape. I understand that the Minister’s amendment, as also came from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, did add, at least, “as nearly as reasonably practicable”, but I wondered if the Minister would give his interpretation of “as nearly as reasonably practical”. Is that if the cost is 1 percent more or 10 percent more or what?

The evidence that I’ve heard is that the disruption to adding those things later—I mean, you’ve just done the earthquake strengthening, you’ve painted the building, you’ve added whatever embellishments you want to that suit the purpose of that building, but you have chosen not to do the accessibility. Then it won’t happen until the whole building needs some more refurbishment 20 years down the line or something like that.

We heard that usually the extra cost is around about 5 percent, and sometimes it’s not very much at all. I think we had one of the Wellington developers, Eyal Aharoni, stating that, well, of course he’s going to do it anyway, because he wants his buildings to be for all people, and I thought that was a really excellent response.

If the Minister could address that matter. We will still be putting forward the amendment that says it should comply, because I think there is already an exception in the existing legislation which says something along the lines of “unless it’s unduly onerous”.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I just want to say that we are so far in the weeds on this. This has had a full select committee process, and the detail—I would imagine, because I have faith in the select committee process—has been explored. I’m looking for substantive questions for the Minister.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was a member of the select committee that explored this, but what we have in front of us is an Amendment Paper with changes that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did not explore and did not have any information for.

I want to look at one of the issues which hasn’t been touched on yet, and that is around the warning signs—the actual physical placement of signs that will be placed on the buildings. This is not something that has been touched on. It’s on page 39 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 702. There are really only two reasons as to why an earthquake-prone building sign would be affixed to a property. One is it doesn’t have one and so it needs to have one. The other is that, actually, the circumstances have changed, and there is a sign, but it needs to be updated.

My question for the Minister is—the first one of that, OK, that seems to me to be very clear. It didn’t have a sign; now it does. The alternative option is where there is a change in circumstances. Does the Minister believe that the nature of that signage, though, for the second part needs to incorporate the fact that there has been a change in circumstances? That’s actually not clear in the Amendment Paper. It just says that if circumstances have changed that now lead to a change in, effectively, the rating, then there needs to be a sign affixed.

But the purpose of the sign—and this was discussed at select committee, Madam Chair—was a very clear signal to anyone who is using that building as to the status of the building. Now, someone who might be visiting from a different part of the country may not know that there’s a change in the criteria there. My question, very directly, to the Minister is: does he believe that the notice itself should, for the second part, indicate that there is a change of circumstances?

Committee of the whole House

In regards to the questions around the notices in section 133AU, the notice includes all details set out—again, the member will refer to subsection (2), which has all the details about everything that the owner will need to know in regards to that.

In regards to section 133AZ, and this was in relation to the five-year period, in effect, you can imagine a circumstance in which a building owner has a seismic work exemption, that exemption is therefore revoked, they haven’t done any work to remediate because they’ve got an exemption, and then technically they are in breach. The five-year period then comes into play to practically give them time to do that work because their circumstances have changed.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister about his changes. This is a bill where the Opposition have worked closely with the Minister and his officials on the detail of this, and it’s something we support. But the reason for going through the changes is that we have not had a chance to ask officials what they mean. Some of these changes are big policy decisions.

At section 133AX, for example, at the bottom of page 3, the change here is to the longest period an earthquake-prone building could legally remain unremediated once the extensions available under section 133AX are taken into account. This was a matter which the Regulations Review Committee wrote a letter and an opinion to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on—about the number of extensions that were available in the legislation and in the regulations. There are “Henry VIII” powers that arise here because of the way that the extensions work in regulation. This is another extension period, and when we’re talking about the timing, that materially impacts the costs and the risks to the building owners themselves and to councils.

When we’re talking about the timing here, I want the Minister to answer, under section 133AX, is it the case that it’s the 7.5 years plus the 7.5 years plus six months for the consultative period plus 12 months for the extension, then an unidentified time period of the extensions, which might be five years? His answer to me was that this is proportional to the risk—as I understand it, and I hope I’m not paraphrasing him incorrectly—and that his policy rationale is for flexibility. But, Minister, what you’ve allowed here is, in some cases, a 15-year remediation period for buildings which, under the current regime, needed to be remediated two years ago.

The problem here is that the timing is everything. We have a Government that has already kicked the can down the road and an Opposition that has supported that because of the need for flexibility and affordability in the system, but another 15-year extension is not something we would have supported. So I’m asking the Minister: does section 133AX, under his new formulation, first, include those buildings which are being remediated now and are the ones we all know about and are the ones we know that need to be remediated, and then what is the longest period that those buildings could legally remain unremediated under the new formulation under section 133AX?

Committee of the whole House

In regards to the question that’s just been asked around section 133AX, as noted, the owners can request that extension, and the test here is that if reasonable progress has been made in regards to that remediation. One has to envisage a complex building which has, potentially, a large degree of heritage—you know, just look outside around this building; you’ll see a number. The time it takes to remediate does take a long period, so the time period is up to 15 years.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I said before, I am moving to the two schedules, so this is clauses 12 and 13. I want to start with a question on clause 13, which inserts Schedule 2A. This is the map of the zones. I thank the Minister for Building and Construction for his response on how those seismic zones are determined and who determines them, but I just want to check something. In here everything above Waikato is considered to be a low-seismic zone, but I know there have been changes. But since the reporting back from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, there has been new data and new evidence to say that Auckland is on a fault line that has the potential for seismic activity. So with that information emerging, is this seismic zone map still current? That is my first question.

I am going to move on to Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 12, and this is about transitional arrangements. I think a lot of the things from the bulk of the bill, in clause 7, have now been moved to here. My understanding is that everything we see between is looking at the transitional period between when this bill comes into force, the day after Royal assent, and 1 July 2027. So we’re looking at potentially an eight-month period.

Can I just check with the Minister that in relation to 20A to 20—actually, not even 20A to 20D; 20A. So I want to check that in relation to 20A those transitional provisions would be able to be met by territorial authorities before 1 July; and for 20B would be able to be met within three months of the start of the transitional period, which I presume is three months from the day of Royal assent, if that is the correct interpretation. So I just have those few questions on Schedules 1 and 2.

Committee of the whole House

In terms of the question in regards to the impact on Auckland, Earth Sciences New Zealand, which is the new name for GNS Science, has prepared that information. It doesn’t change the overall zone, which remains low.

The member asked a question around new sections 133AZA and 133AZB, in clause 7. It was around signage. Signs applying to all earthquake-prone buildings are required to be in plain language and therefore easily read. There was also a question in regard to Schedule 1 as well—clause 25. This lets the owners complete existing seismic improvements so that they can carry on whatever relevant work has started before the bill, and the member can see that within the legislation.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to new section 133AZF, in clause 7. Just in relation to the Minister for Building and Construction’s answer, though, about Schedule 2 and the way the transitional provisions work for Auckland, it would be really helpful if the Minister would just explain what the main difference is between having those provisions come into effect on day one under the Act versus the new transitional provisions which weren’t examined by the select committee. That would be really helpful.

Section 133AZ is about—the select committee examined this carefully—the provision that earthquake remediation work itself shouldn’t trigger the usual requirement to upgrade the building in terms of fire and disability provisions. The Greens disagree with that. I’m asking the Minister, because Labour supports that—that is a sensible change but it is a controversial change, and what he seems to have done between us having some tolerance for this approach, which doesn’t put a developer who’s trying to do all the right things for seismic remediation on the backfoot because they then have to comply with other parts of the code, is that at subsection (3) since the select committee considered it, he has made an alteration to the effect that instead of alterations that are only necessary for seismic work, he has gone to alterations that include building work.

I think that the Minister here has gone from a relatively narrow category of buildings where the developer through no fault of their own has a building where they need to remediate, say, masonry, and so they are diligently spending perhaps $100,000 on masonry changes and at the same time would be hit with, say, the upgrades to the lift, ensuring that there is a second fire escape that complies with the rules, and new source of smoke and fire prevention would perhaps add on more coasts, and we didn’t want that. But what he now seems to have changed in one simple word is that anyone who had an earthquake-prone building and is also doing any other sorts of alterations will not need to comply with fire and disability changes. That is not the point of this bill. The change shouldn’t be that if you have an earthquake-prone building and you’re doing any alterations, you get a special pass not to comply with the disability requirements and the fire requirements. The intention was not to speed up alterations to buildings.

Many of them we would think favourably upon, like conversions from commercial buildings to apartment buildings, because the requirements to upgrade fire systems and disability systems are onerous, but that is not the point of this bill. The bill that we have debated and considered carefully he considerations around how and when those applications should be made, were about the remediations to earthquake features. Why has he extended it out like this? You can hear me being nervous about it.

Committee of the whole House

I appreciate the member’s question. The answer to the member’s question is outlined in our explanatory note on Amendment Paper 702, page 9, paragraphs (2) and (3). There is a detailed explanation on exactly the question the member has asked.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 702 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 133AF, inserting a new subsection is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 133ASB(3), inserting new paragraphs (c) and (ca) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 133AY(1), inserting new paragraphs (aa) to (ac) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 133AY, inserting new subsection (2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 133AZE, inserting new subsection (2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 133AZF(2)(a), deleting “as nearly as reasonably practicable” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments to clause 7 new section 133AZF deleting the crossheadings above subsections (3) and (3A) set out on Amendment Paper 656 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s remaining amendments to clause 7 set out on Amendment Paper 656 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 41

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 16 to 24, “Amendments to other legislation.” The question is that Part 2 stand part.