Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will take the Minister through all of my questions to the changes to the regulations at once because I do not want him to miss the questions. Regulations 7 and 8 are being revoked by his changes. That takes out the definitions for moderate earthquake and ultimate capacity in the earthquake rating categories. I assume that’s because they’re no longer operative because of the change away from the existing new building standard percentage and rating framework, but particularly around moderate earthquake. Surely, that is still part of the methodology, and is he otherwise defining that, is the first question.

Regulation 9 is being revoked. That’s the prescribed earthquake-prone building (EPB) notice forms. Is that just because the new regime merged to the simpler warning sign and plain language definitions, which he has spoken about, or is he comfortable with the select committee’s findings that the existing notices that contained the legal information, that legal information was publicly available still elsewhere? It seems to me that with some of these situations like revocations and where the council has asked for unreinforced masonry information that what the select committee was considering is no longer the case. So why the select committee recommended that regulation 9 be revoked was that that dense information that was being currently provided on the notices—I think this was a change which was suggested by Andy Foster, the chair of that committee—was that it was being held by councils anyway, but under the new formulation and the changes that information might be nowhere. So can he assure the committee that regulation 9 is being revoked but that information doesn’t leave the public record?

Regulation 10, the exemptions: the existing exemptions regulations are meant to now work under the new section 133AW that I was asking him about moments ago, including removing the references to earthquake-prone parts. But that is something that I want to return to as a more substantive question about how the interacts with the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Regulation 11, substantial alterations: I’m annoyed about this. It is the fire and disability access issue in new section 133AZF, and the formula has changed from referring to the cost of seismic work to the broader “building work [that is] necessary to complete the building’s remediation”. So there is his protection around “necessary to complete the remediation”. But I am still unclear; it is not set out in his explanatory note whether a developer can undertake work that is tangential to the remediation of masonry and still get away with not applying the standards of the fire and disability access work. I disagreed when I heard the contribution by the member Celia Wade-Brown the first time, but now I think that assessment is right, that we will have developers here who are investing significant amounts of money in building work, not remediation work, and yet will get a free pass through the system to not do the fire and disability work. That will be on this House. That will be on every member of this House when we change the legislation, because of this Parliament, that there will be developers out there who have done significant remediations, but when it came to a fire that might result in the loss of life, they haven’t needed to upgrade it because of this provision.

Schedule 3 being revoked is another one that I would like to seek the Minister’s justification for. Is that simply because we are moving away from the EPB notice forms, or is it the case that that information is now not public information?

Finally, the substantive question I have is about the Health and Safety at Work Act’s change, and so does the amendment that has an effect on section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act from an earthquake-prone building to what it was under the old formula, which was building or a part of the building, to now just an earthquake-prone building, reduce the existing health and safety duties in relation to the dangerous part. So where you have a bridge like the Christchurch City Council example, where the council had to move its workers out of a part of its building because the bridge was the part that was deemed by its engineers to be a problem—have we now got a situation where if the building as a whole is identified as not meeting the criteria, the Christchurch City Council wouldn’t have done that? That seems to be the wrong outcome from a Health and Safety at Work Act point of view. It seemed to be the right outcome to leave the obligations for employers, even when the building owners were getting a different obligation.

Committee of the whole House

Well firstly, I want to thank the member for asking questions in all but 4 clauses in this part. I will work my way through answers on all of those clauses. Starting with clause 13A and B relating to health and safety, the updates that are in there reflect a carve-out position, particularly around ensuring that the definitions within the earthquake-prone buildings Act are the same as the meanings within section 7(1) of the Building Act 2004.

In regards to clause 19—specifically, this was around regulation 7 being revoked—these are consequential amendments to remove, as the member noted, the new building standard - related concepts from legislation. Those regulations are now redundant.

The member asked a question in regards to “moderate earthquake”. The word “moderate earthquake” was part of the prior old regime and is no longer relevant, so that’s now being revoked. In regards to the member’s question on clause 20, again, in select committee, changes relating to that were the revoking of the earthquake rating category, because the replacement regime no longer uses earthquake ratings for the statutory system.

In regards to the member’s question on clause 21, again, the purpose of those changes—again, by the select committee—removes prescribed forms of the earthquake-prone building notices from regulation. The member asked about plain language: that is correct. I answered that in the prior part, with the replacement regime instead providing for earthquake-prone building notices and warning signs in the Building Act.

In regards to the member’s question on clause 22, which was revoking regulation 10, again, that is in regards to updating exemption-related references so the regulation aligns with the new provisions and the priority-building framework.

In regards to the member’s question on clause 23, regulation 11, the committee changes were consequential updates in regards to aligning the “substantial alteration” regulation with the new alteration provisions, the earthquake-prone buildings Act, and the removal of parts of the building references. The Amendment Paper 702 that I have on the Table, in regards to new subclauses (2A) and (2B), updates the definitions of that and also replace references to “seismic work” with “building work that is necessary to complete the building’s remediation”.

Lastly, in regards to the question asked by the member on clause 24, revoking Schedule 3, committee changes are again noted here, revoking Schedule 3 rather than replacing it, reflecting the removal of prescribed earthquake-prone building notice forms from the regulations.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): There is not a lot of room left for questions, but I will entertain one more.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, I’m seeking a back and forth with the Minister for Building and Construction on his excellent answers. Regulation 11, which relates to new section 133AZF—he knows I am passionate about this. I have two questions for him. Can the Minister confirm that an owner cannot add unrelated renovation work to an earthquake remediation project and thereby obtain the fire safety and disability access exemptions in section 133AZF for that additional work, on his new wording?

Secondly, why? What is the policy rationale for the Government changing regulation 11 from seismic work to the broader building work? My question isn’t whether he has changed that; my question is, has he consulted on that? Has he been asked by developers to provide that in this bill? What sorts of buildings are intended to be covered by this? This is something we support that is unusual for us. It is not within the scope of ordinary Labour politics to allow developers a faster way to enable them to do developments cheaper at the expense of people’s safety in a fire, or people with disabilities who live and work in those buildings. I want to ask him what the rationale is, and who has asked for this change.

Committee of the whole House

The rationale in regards to clause 23, regulation 11, is primarily to ensure that regulation and the alterations in the provisions align with the new section in the prior part, new section 133AZF. As I noted before, the new subclauses in the Amendment Paper that we have tabled, clause 23(2A) and (2B), include the updating of definitions in regards to regulation 11 and replace references to “seismic work” with “building work that is necessary to complete the building’s remediation”. There will be points of difference in regards to seismic work versus building work. This is allowing for a mechanism for that work to be undertaken on a practical basis.

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 2 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.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come now to the schedules.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 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 92

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 25; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 16

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

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.