Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the benefit of the committee and for understanding how you intend to conduct the remainder of this committee stage, could you please explain the grounds on which that closure motion was agreed to?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Because I received it and put it.

Speaking to that, then, Madam Chair—I was hoping for a bit more of a fulsome response to that. It was a genuine request, and I think it did warrant further explanation, on the basis that our spokesperson indicated that it was her intention and hope to have her back to forth, which is outlined as the desirable approach for committee stages. It was indicated that there were detailed, relevant, and non-repetitious questions to come. My concern is that, given there was, essentially, one question and one follow-up, it serves as a disincentive for members to seek a back and forth when that is indicated. It is not often able to be had in a committee stage, despite that being the stated intention, and that was cut off. So, on the basis that as long as—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand—I understand.

Yeah. I’m just seeking a genuine explanation, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): For your information, in response to that question, there were six parts in that first question, which was, as the Minister pointed out, almost all of them. There was a follow-up question. That area—Part 2—was covered.

Speaking to that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, no, I’m not going to entertain a debate on this. I’ve received the closure motion, I’ve put the closure motion—end of debate.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. I’m not trifling; I have a genuine question. It is related, but it is not trifling with you. Is it your view, as a presiding officer, that if a member asks more than one question in a contribution, that then prevents them from a follow-up?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No.

So, if they were to ask one question per contribution—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): There was a follow-up.

OK. It’s useful to know. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to provide a little bit of a high-level explanation in regards to clauses 1 and 2. The title provided in the bill is the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act, which is representative of the legislation which we’re discussing. In regards to clause 2, around the commencement, a little bit of background: as noted, it provides that, for most of the Act, it comes into force on 1 July 2027.

The Amendment Paper provides that clause 12, which inserts transitional provisions into Schedule 1AA, which we’ve discussed in prior parts, comes into force on the day after Royal assent. Clause 13 and the new Schedule 2A map, which we’ve had discussions in regards, now come into force with the rest of the bill, on 1 July 2027, with early digital map publication, as we’ve also discussed, dealt with in new clause 20C of Schedule 1AA.

Committee of the whole House

I want to ask the Minister for Building and Construction about clause 2, the commencement, particularly subclause (2)—and no other part of clause 2.

The problem we have here is that we have a number of building owners who have complied and done everything that the Government asked them to do. They took on the significance and seriousness of the findings of the royal commission after the Christchurch earthquakes. This applies to most Cantabrian owners, who have now undertaken significant works at their expense. Yet now, the problem is that the Government has provided a regime which is almost never ending, as was established in the committee stage, where owners who drag their heels and do not wish to comply with the legislation, because they think that they can get away with it under this new Government’s formulation, will continuously not spend the money that is required to be spent in order to protect life and limb of the public, who, in some cases, do not know the risk to them.

My question on clause 2(2) is about the political tension here. On one side, we also have owners who, by the Minister’s extension of the rules that apply to Auckland, have immediate relief. Let it be on the record that this Government chose a group of owners who, almost immediately after Royal assent, will not be subject to any of these rules. There is a special group of building owners who are completely exempt, and that special group of building owners is completely exempt because, in the opinion of the Minister and the Mayor of Auckland, they should be completely exempt. Then, there is another group of owners, who from 1 July will need to start complying with the new set of timing obligations. This set of owners are not special and are not exempt, because they are not as politically important to the Minister’s decision making. That group will, also, then be subject to a system where they can apply to their council, and potentially convince their council, that there should be a specialness applied to them—that they should be considered special by their local representatives. These extensions and revocations should take their remediations into 2030 or 2032. That is also, then, a special category. And then we have another set of owners, who have done everything that’s been asked for them and they already comply with the highest standards, because that is what was asked of them six years ago. Do you get the point, Minister?

The point here is that the timing is critically important and that your commencement at subclause (2) allows for certain types of owners who can game the system, who can approach their elected representatives, who can approach the most experienced engineers, and argue against their council’s determinations, to perpetually fail to undertake remediations that everybody knows need to happen. That is unfair, and that is a feature of the timing provisions in this commencement part of the bill. What should have happened is a clear outline of the 7½ years as the extension, and then by that time, because of the risk of moral hazard, it should have come into effect. Instead, we have a Government that has elected to kick the can down the road, not only in the primary legislation but at the regulatory level, and with councils too. It is a shame that there is no single date which the Minister could tell me—no single operation or process which would set out the date which people needed to comply by—and we now have a system which incentivises the most well-resourced business owners and the most well-resourced engineering companies to perpetually play out the clock and make sure that they do not need to comply.

Those costs of compliance are high, but the costs of not complying are high too. The reason why we have these rules is that the potential for loss of life in our town centres—where people could not know, and do not know, that there is a risk—is very high. That is unfair, that is not the right decision, and that is not the right decision for the commencement date provision.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member Arena Williams for the question. I do not agree with the underlying premise that the member is making: that this legislation is about owners. This legislation is about the buildings. That is the focus of the legislation, and the risk of those buildings in terms of risk to life. The ownership of that—and we talked about that in regards to apartments—is not the defining point. The point is in regards to the building, and the structure of the building, and we’ve talked extensively around that.

The purpose of what we are doing around the commencement is to give the buildings the certainty in regards to what requirements are required. The intention of the overarching bill is, obviously, that buildings, in areas of risk to life, are required to be remediated to prevent and reduce that risk. There is a degree of priority given to high risk, medium risk, and low risk across the country, and that by no means takes away or provides some sort of benefit to the owner. The building defines that. That is the substance of where the legislation is targeted.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with the commencement, and then I will move on to the title afterwards. I’m hearing what my colleague Arena Williams is saying, and what the Minister is saying as well.

I do think that, in terms of the commencement, while there is this transitional measure which is in clause 12, and it does make sense to have a transitional measure, I do want to acknowledge and also support my colleague Arena Williams’ concern around the fact that what that conditional measure would also mean is that the day after Royal assent—as soon as this gets Royal assent, which could be Monday, at the latest Tuesday—there will be a group of buildings and owners of buildings that are immediately exempted. If this is what the Government is referring to when they said it is beneficial for the economy, that is of genuine concern, because it’s actually not so much a benefit; it’s allowing those people who are able to have that kind of connection or close relationship or who are able to have a conversation with either the Minister or local council to be exempted. It’s not so much a benefit for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand; it allows them to alleviate or remove some of their liabilities, which they themselves should rightfully address in order to prevent the loss of lives. This is the concern that we’re seeing as we go through the Minister’s Amendment Paper 702.

This is where I want to come down to the title. The title is “Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill”. I’m deeply concerned that that is quite misleading now, because they’re not actually about buildings that are genuinely earthquake prone, but buildings that get special carve-outs, that gets special designated powers. The Minister talks about how this allows the designation of “high risk”, “medium risk”, and “low risk”. The Minister’s Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 702, changes the very criteria that designates whether they are going to be high risk, medium risk, or low risk.

I want to draw attention, again, back to new section 133AB(6)(c), where “unreinforced masonry building” has had its scope and criteria narrowed, which means that more buildings will be exempted as a result. I do worry that the title of this bill, with “(Earthquake-prone Buildings)” no longer represents buildings that are genuinely earthquake prone.

💬 Dan Bidois: Frivolous.

If the loss of our lives, Mr Dan Bidois, is considered “frivolous”, I have genuine concerns for the priorities of the current Government.

The things is, as we’ve heard as a part of this debate—the example that my colleague Arena Williams gave, in terms of a Wellington cinema and actually experiencing an earthquake and being there with her kids. I want to check with the Minister—and the question to the Minister is: I want to ensure, in those kinds of instances, that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, when they step into a building, whether it is a private building or it is a public, Government-owned building, they can be assured that that building is going to stand up in the event of an earthquake because that building has ticked all of the boxes in considering what is considered an earthquake building.

What we don’t want to do is come back in a year’s time and then be like, “Oh well, we could have done better. Thoughts and prayers.” We could have actually made those genuine changes right here—to be able to have things that strengthen the legislation in a way that doesn’t allow these sorts of exemptions and doesn’t change the rules on the spot—because we are the people who are making the rules right here.

I want to check with the Minister if the Minister genuinely believes that, with this title, “(Earthquake-prone Buildings)”, every building that is earthquake-prone will be covered by that—that the Government has done everything they can to ensure that, in the event that something like this happens, there will be no loss of lives, or it will be kept to a minimum; that they are not going to be marginalising or further punishing particularly those who are disabled communities, as a result. Again, we’ve heard some of the changes there.

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, just to provide assurance to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I do believe the title of the bill is an appropriate title for the bill, and I have no intention to change that.

In regards to the questions around the commencement date and the fact that these changes, when they come into effect, will have impacts in regards to particular buildings, and as a result of that there may be circumstances where a building will not be required to have remediation undertaken to it, versus the status quo—as a result of that, the outcome will be, in effect, the non-requirement of undertaking investment, and that will therefore provide a benefit versus the status quo—I am comfortable that that will happen immediately. The reason for that is certainty, and certainty in regards to what people are required to do and not required to do under the law, without compromising the safety of the buildings in the context of earthquakes.

Taking into account that we are taking a proportionate, risk-based approach, based on the best available science and data, it gives me confidence and assurance that New Zealanders should and will be in a position where this legislation protects them in regards to the risks that they face.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Building and Construction questions just on clause 2. The commencement opportunities here—they’re effectively a dual commencement but at different dates, so they’re not in parallel. One of the interesting things is that one change that he has made relates specifically to Schedule 2 not actually coming into force on the day after Royal assent. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee did suggest and recommend that actually Schedule 2, amongst a few others, would come into effect on the day after Royal assent. What the Minister is, effectively, doing with his Amendment Paper change—Amendment Paper 702—is he is suggesting that Schedule 2 would actually not come into effect then, but with the rest of the Act on 1 July 2027.

Now, Schedule 2 is related to the new map that we have become familiar with. My question is that the Minister has already today said that the only way in which this map will change is if Parliament chooses to change it. I just don’t see the logic of needing to delay the ability for this map in Schedule 2 to come into force on 1 July next year when there is no expectation that the Parliament is going to change the map between now and then, necessarily. There’s been nothing today that has indicated that there will be a need for Parliament to change the map. Actually, the Minister himself has indicated that it is highly unlikely that changes will occur, because it is around the seismic risk to the country, and that’s based on the information.

The select committee reported back that, really, there’s no reason why this map—which, in static form, is not going to change unless the Parliament determines that it will—should be delayed in terms of its implementation. The insertion of the map is the only thing here, in terms of Schedule 2; there’s nothing else that’s contained in the Minister’s Amendment Paper. He has referred to the existence of a digital map being stood up. The digital map that is referenced—and I’d need to check if that’s in terms of Schedule 2 or not, but it might be that it’s trying to align the two—from what we’ve understood in the last few hours, is still going to be exactly the same as the static map; it’s just that the level of granularity is going to be much more specific, because you’re able to zoom in and have a look at your own property. That’s what we’ve heard from the Minister.

I know that there have been a number of other changes in terms of the commencement, but the one that really did jump out to me, given that we’ve spent a little bit of time looking at the map, is why it is that there needs to be a delay when the threshold for changing that map—there is, really, no higher threshold in this country. It would require, as we understand it, an Act of Parliament or a change of the Parliament in order to do that. Given that that threshold is so high, why can the map not simply, through Schedule 2, come into force the day after Royal assent?

Committee of the whole House

In effect, the map does come into force after Royal assent. The point on the date, around 1 July 2027, relates to when the map will go into the Building Act.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, I wish to take a call on clause 1—the title. This Act should be called the “Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings that are Everywhere Except Auckland) Amendment Act 2025”. I take issue with the Minister for Building and Construction saying in his answer to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan that these distinctions were made on the basis of science and evidence—that’s not right.

His own regulatory impact statement, evidence provided by officials to the select committee, and numerous submitters all said that the exemption to Auckland is something that has called for but it is not something that could be based on science and evidence around risk. There are earthquake-prone buildings in Auckland. We accept that as a Parliament, and we should be told as such. The distinction between the earthquake-prone buildings in Auckland and the earthquake-prone buildings in other places is that some are included in the regulatory net and some are not, and that distinction is based on whether they are in Auckland or not.

Every electorate MP in this House should appreciate that, if you represent an area outside of Auckland, your buildings’ owners are not being treated as special in the way that the special building owners in Auckland are being treated. The Auckland impact of the regulatory change that the Government is introducing is big; within the billions of dollars that they like to champion. That is something we have supported, but we should be clear that the regulatory relief being offered to the Cantabrian building owners who are affected by this that Vanessa Weenink represents, that the building owners represented by Stuart Smith in his electorate at the top of the South Island, are not considered special enough to get the regulatory relief from day one that this Government has opted to give Auckland.

That is why it should be a part of the title of this bill that we could alternatively name it “Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings (Auckland is Special)) Amendment Act 2025”, because I believe that, but do the members in this House realise how the Government is treating the building owners in their areas who are affected by this and who cannot afford to remediate —that when they approach their local MP and they say, “Thank you for changing these rules. I have heard you on the news say that there will be billions of dollars of regulatory relief available to us.”, it doesn’t apply to them; it only applies to people within a certain geographic catchment.

The Minister says that it is based on science and evidence and that there are buildings that are much more earthquake prone and risky to the public, because Auckland is a populated place with urban centres where cars, buses, trains, and people are much more prevalent than those streets in Feilding’s town centre, but Auckland gets a special exemption not because of the life and limb that is at risk, not because their buildings are lower risk, but because the Government has decided on a special carve-out for Auckland.

They cannot be doing it in regulations, and they cannot change the regulatory map here that my colleague Tangi Utikere has been talking about. They could not do this in regulations, because there is no science and evidence which the Parliament could have delegated to officials to draw a special line around Auckland. We had to do this in this Chamber because this is a decision which is only available to the House, because it is a political decision. When the Government presents this as something which is based on science and evidence, we have to look at what kind of science and evidence they have relied upon. When we compare our regime to something like Sacramento, California, that is a regime which is entirely built around information. This is not a regime that is built around information or disclosure; this is a regime which is built around actual regulationary effect, which requires some building owners to make remediations which are costly to private property for public benefit.

That is a different way of designing the regime. It is not comparable to the science which has been used in those cases, so that is wrong, but we should be very clear eyed about what we are being asked to do here. This is no longer a regime which singles out the most earthquake-prone buildings, puts them on a list, and requires remediation and priority order. It is a regime which does that but excludes some because they are in a zone which is deemed to be less seismically active than others, a zone which is in the middle of the Pacific Ring of Fire with more than 20 volcanoes and an active volcano less than 700 years ago. It’s unwise for a Minister to stand in this Chamber and say that that is based on science and evidence, when we all accept that there is some degree of science here and some degree of woo-woo to go along with the plan advocated by the Mayor of Auckland and property developers who will benefit from this change. I am advocating for a change in the name, Minister. Will you accept it?

Committee of the whole House

No, I won’t, but I’ll give a little bit of background just to finish this off in regards to the seismic risk, because it is an important aspect, considering a significant portion of New Zealanders live in Auckland. Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands are further from plate boundaries or major faults, and the faults that do exist often move very slowly or haven’t ruptured in a very long time, with the last significant earthquake in Auckland being in 1891. While strong earthquakes can happen, they are much less likely to give in any given year. The media reports relating to a new study in regards to one of the fault lines south east of Auckland City say that it is considered active because it ruptured within the past 10,000 years and could create an earthquake as a result. However, any fault that has moved within the past 125,000 years is considered active within our model. On that basis, we believe that the cost-benefit analysis shows that Auckland has a low risk in regards to earthquake and, therefore, the requirements and intentions under this legislation are targeted and that we are proportionate and focused on the areas of New Zealand which have the highest risk to loss of life, and that is what this legislation will deliver.

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.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 702 be agreed to.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment, retitled the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. The committee has also considered the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement