Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you very, very much. This is a relatively simple bill, so I don’t propose to speak too long on it, and I think it’s really important that it’s recognised that it’s going in tandem with the other work that the Minister is doing in this space. There is a real risk that we defer making tough decisions almost indefinitely and we focus on the real hardships that bringing buildings to a safe standard impose on homeowners and others. At the same time, the risk may be small, but it is far from zero that a very significant earthquake or other seismic event could hit, and the first and most primary job of any building is to keep its occupants safe.

I think we need to face up very clearly to the fact that if, whilst we are sorting things out and helping people make arrangements to make their buildings safe and reviewing the rules around the Building Code, there is a very significant event, there will be catastrophic consequences to pay. I would say to those people who are in buildings which have had their deadlines extended: don’t see the deadline as a target. Absolutely take what steps you can, within the means that you can get together, to make your buildings safe because, by bitter experience, we know that buildings do fall over and bits of them come off and the consequences are tragic and fatal.

Labour had a programme in place and was supporting homeowners, particularly apartment building owners, who faced these issues, helping them financially by a concessionary loan arrangement. That was working; that had some uptake. This Government has taken a different approach. We do want to get the earthquake building standards right, and I accept there’s room for that. That’s why we’re supporting this bill, but, for myself, I do so with a really sincere hope that this delay doesn’t cost us more than time. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, it was a really valuable opportunity for us to listen—

Hon Chris Penk: It must be the hardest-working committee.

TOM RUTHERFORD: It is one of the hardest-working select committees, without a doubt. It was a really good opportunity for us to listen to the submissions that were given to the select committee at the time when we were out for consultation on the bill. We did make two changes at the select committee, which the Minister in charge accepted, to the piece of legislation.

There are a couple of reasons why this legislation is really important. It is valuable to have the support from across the House, as well. The current earthquake-prone building system was put in place in 2017 and required buildings that are earthquake-prone to be fixed or remediated before set dates, with nearly 500 deadlines setting to expire in the next four years—500 buildings set to expire within the next four years. The biggest worry about that: number one always has to be the safety component—has to be the safety component. Secondly, think about the major impact that having 500 buildings around New Zealand would have on our local economy. Think about the significant amount of buildings that would just be simply sitting empty, and the devastating impact they would have on places, particularly like Wellington and other provincial towns. My colleague James Meager says, “Plenty in Timaru”. Think about other regional towns that would have similar situations and the devastating impact that having those buildings empty would have.

Also, the feedback that we received from many councils and other building owners told us that many of their buildings won’t meet their deadlines due to the high costs that are particularly involved with getting them up to standard, further complicated by the heritage rules and complicated ownership structures.

This legislation, led by the Minister with other work taking place alongside it at the same time, really comes to a vital piece in the cog. It’s fantastic work by the Minister. He’s done a great job. It’s been great to listen to the really well-written and presented feedback to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I commend the bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call the Hon Phil Twyford.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too will keep my call short on this. I just wanted to make a couple of points. The first is that, for those members of the public who might be watching or listening to this debate, who despair sometimes at the partisan argument that is such a feature of political life in this Parliament, the process and the collaborative work on this bill and the work that has been done at select committee, the engagement by parties across the House, I think is a refreshing case study in the way that colleagues in the House here can from time to time come together and work in a very collegial way.

I think it’s fair to say that, going back to the Christchurch quakes and the aftermath there, this problem has spanned now three different Governments and the best part of a decade, and the Parliament hasn’t really covered itself in glory in dealing effectively and decisively with the problem at hand, about how to transition the building stock in a regulatory regime that gets us to a place of safety without inflicting unnecessary economic and personal damage on the owners of those buildings, or the people who use those buildings, putting them at an unacceptable risk. There have been a number of cracks at it and, as my colleague Arena Williams outlined in her contribution early in this debate, on the question of supporting building owners to meet the new earthquake standards, Labour had a scheme in place that provided concessionary loan finance up to $250,000. We are not dying in the ditch to protect that policy. Having taken feedback from the sector and from building owners, Labour colleagues on the committee have taken an open-minded approach to how we can improve the regulatory framework and come up with something better and something that works.

I would also note that it’s great to read and to hear that the question—the very vexed question—of liability in the building regulatory system, which has been around the tracks a couple of times over the last decade, is on the agenda for the review that the Minister for Building and Construction has undertaken within the four-year extended deadline that is included in this bill. Personally, I welcome that. The problems around the liability system in our building control system in New Zealand have been such a problem for so long. They have created so much hardship for homeowners and building owners and, actually, I think inflicted quite a lot of economic damage on our system. There has to be a better way, and I’m really glad to hear that the issue around joint and several liability will be considered as part of this review, and I thank the Minister for taking that on board. I’ll leave it there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to take the second half of this split call on this important amendment bill, the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

The current earthquake-prone buildings system aims to reduce the safety risk to life and limb by requiring New Zealand’s most vulnerable buildings during a moderate earthquake to be remediated to a safe level within set time frames, and the Government has been told, as a former speaker just said, that about 150 buildings have already missed their deadlines, with approximately another 500 buildings soon to be hitting their deadlines. These non-compliances by building owners necessitate what territorial authorities describe as potentially substantial enforcement burden being placed on them.

What is intended by the enactment of this bill? This bill’s key purpose is to extend the remediation time frames by four years, with a limited power to extend the deadlines by a further two years by Order in Council. The reason is clear: there are many buildings, the length of New Zealand, that would not meet the current deadlines, and they would simply be sitting there empty, much to the disappointment of tenants, of communities, and, indeed, of councils, who all want vibrant-looking towns and cities, not derelict ones portrayed by the sight of empty shops and buildings.

Both councils and building owners have told the Government that there are challenges with the current regime. Some examples given were, as has been expressed earlier, the high costs involved in the remediations that are required. The difficulty that heritage orders place on building alternations, and even sometimes the ownership structures, can also add to the complexity. The extension provided by this bill’s enactment will provide clarity and certainty as to the statutory obligations of building owners and territorial authorities while a review takes place.

The review will cover the management of seismic risk in existing buildings and any subsequent legislative amendments to provide a more practical and acceptable outcome for all. This bill is a pragmatic approach to the current and looming situation, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak this afternoon on the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It has been a concern of mine—and of Labour, of course—the challenges that many vulnerable people and property owners face, which I guess the Minister for Building and Construction, who—I appreciate the work that he’s done on this bill. It is minor, so I don’t intend to speak on this bill for too long today, but it does affect the 808 earthquake-prone buildings that were registered in Wellington on the earthquake-prone buildings register as of 30 April 2024. It is particularly a concern for us, an issue that is live and something that any Government has to work on.

I know that Arena Williams, Labour’s spokesperson in this area, did have some concerns in the first reading. I appreciate the work that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did on this piece of work, and I know that feedback from community owners and, particularly, councils were taken on board. Without further ado, I do offer Labour’s support in the second reading of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to thank the Minister for bringing some pragmatic legislation to the House that is going to have a big impact on a lot of the small communities, particularly in the Waitaki. Towns like Waimate, Fairlie, and Oamaru are struggling with how are they going to deal with the earthquake regulations in these buildings that are really hard to generate income to pay for it. The community I’ve been talking to are very ecstatic that these changes are being made to give them a bit of time to plan for the future.

I guess the smaller communities are the ones that are impacted the most because those buildings are the ones that have less ability to generate the income. Because they have less ability to generate the income, I guess, a lot of these buildings are falling into disrepair, and because they’re falling into disrepair—well, there’s also the added complication that a lot of these have been listed as heritage buildings and it’s really put those building owners in a difficult position. Thanks to the Minister and, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.