We speak to Hon Chris Penk, Minister for Building and Construction, about the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill and its potential implications for the architecture industry.
Can you give us background on the original bill?
Following the Canterbury earthquakes and the Royal Commission of Inquiry, the original earthquake-prone building system was brought about, with the best of intentions, to reduce life safety risk to people in and around existing buildings during an earthquake.
The bill introduced a nationally consistent system for identifying and upgrading earthquake-prone buildings, along with a national register and time frames for remediation, typically between 15 and 35 years.
Why is the amendment needed, and what are the main problems it is trying to address with the current bill?
We commissioned an independent MBIE-led (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) review, which confirmed that both building owners and councils are struggling with the current framework. Remediation can be disruptive and is often unaffordable for owners, while enforcement is complex and costly for councils.
The new system will focus on specific high-risk building types, particularly certain concrete buildings that are three storeys or higher, and unreinforced masonry buildings. Around 55 per cent of buildings currently classified as earthquake-prone will be removed from the system.
Strengthening requirements will be tiered, based on seismic risk, building type and height, and the number of people in the surrounding area.
Why does this matter, and why now?
The goal of the earthquake-prone building system is to reduce risk to life. However, the current cost of remediation or demolition is so high that the review found it unlikely all earthquake-prone buildings will be strengthened or demolished under the existing settings.
There is also a clear need to act now. Nearly 500 remediation deadlines are due to expire over the next four years, and many buildings are unlikely to meet them because of cost and complexity. To address this, the Government brought forward a review that had been scheduled for 2027.
What are the sticking points and opposing opinions?
While the proposal has been well-received across Parliament, industry, and by building owners, it is important we keep in mind those Kiwis affected by past quakes who may feel anxious about changes, and continue to reassure them that safety remains at the heart of the system.
Another ‘sticking point’ raised is the desire for direct financial support for remediation. Grants are not being considered in the current fiscal environment. Instead, the focus is on reducing cost barriers, including options such as consent exemptions for certain types of work, like façade securing.
How is it likely to affect the building industry and architecture in the short-, medium-, and long-term?
In the short term, once the new system is in place, architects will need to review their existing projects to confirm whether buildings in their portfolio are still classified as earthquake prone.
In the medium-term, more affordable remediation requirements should mean the work that needs to be done can go ahead, which is a positive productivity boost for both builders and architects. Removing the need to upgrade fire safety and accessibility when carrying out seismic work will also reduce complexity.
In the longer term, the ability for territorial authorities to extend deadlines by up to 15 years will allow for better planning and staging of work. Altogether, we will have a system that is more workable, targeted, and better aligned with real-world risks.
This article originally appeared in Architecture Aotearoa Issue 01.
