Penk ChrisBUILDING (EARTHQUAKE-PRONE BUILDING DEADLINES AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.Hon CHRIS PENK: I move That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2024 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196. I would now like to outline the key changes contained in the bill. They cover three areas: earthquake-prone buildings most obviously as the name suggests; the building warrant of fitness scheme; and changes that could be characterised as minor or technical in nature.The first is extending earthquake-prone building deadlines. I am delighted that today the Government is taking steps to provide more certainty and clarity to New Zealanders about the earthquake-prone building system. This is an issue that affects New Zealanders up and down the country in large cities and small regional towns alike. Collectively there are approximately 5000 earthquake-prone buildings in New Zealand and unfortunately in many cases these are sitting empty and derelict sometimes for up to years at a time. Empty derelict buildings can be dangerous but they are also a handbrake on growth and development and can suck the life out of a town or city.The Government is focused on reinvigorating our cities and regions to support economic growth. To do this we need an earthquake system that balances the safety of life with the real-world costs and barriers of remediating earthquake-prone buildings. That is why we have commenced a review into the earthquake-prone building system. The review aims to provide building owners with more certainty and better incentivisation to remediate or demolish their earthquake-prone buildings so that Kiwis can safely live work and play in vibrant towns and cities. I do want to acknowledge the history of the legislation that is being amended and most particularly to acknowledge the tragedy of the lives lost in the Canterbury earthquakes. Of course earthquakes in this country prior to that time and of course those that have happened since and no doubt will continue to afflict our shaky isles.These are not easy matters and of course we need to take a balanced nuanced approach. I acknowledge all those in this House who in previous capacities and those in the communities who have worked hard to provide as much assurance and comfort and of course worked diligently in good faith to provide the best possible system that we could have in this regard. I acknowledge those who already have constructively engaged on the subject be it in central government including across the aisle and local government too and of course building owners and other players key players in civil society throughout this land.Having said all that the current system attempts to manage risk and in some cases successfully does manage risk by requiring earthquake-prone buildings to be remediated before set deadlines. However in some cases the system is not working as well as it had been hoped and the reality then is that many buildings are not able to be remediated. Around 150 buildings have already failed to meet their remediation deadlines and many more are unlikely to be remediated I'm told due to high seismic strengthening costs and other barriers. The Government's review into managing seismic risk will take a fresh look at the system but in the meantime there are nearly 500 buildings with deadlines rapidly approaching. While this review is under way it seems to me sure only fair that we extend the remediation deadline for these buildings.I'd like to provide clarity and certainty to building owners and territorial authorities about the obligations—local councils themselves often being owners of such buildings of course—while the review and any subsequent changes take place. Of course we don't prejudge the result of that review but we hope of course that we will receive many sensible suggestions for change that might be made as a result of the review. To achieve this in the meantime the bill once it is passed into law I hasten to add will extend by four years all earthquake-prone building remediation deadlines that had not lapsed before 2 April 2024 being the date at which the Cabinet decision was made that this measure should be brought to the House. The extension will provide temporary relief from legal compliance and the threat of enforcement while we work through the review. That being said of course building owners who are able to carry out remediation work are encouraged to get on and do this. And of course we acknowledge there are motivations that outside the remit of Government be it insurance requirements or the obligations on a landlord in relation to tenants and of course the health and safety legislation and so on that would encourage people to get on and do work that they are able to do. The bill also introduces a one-off power to extend deadlines by up to two years a further two years by Order in Council. However there are some controls around the use of this power.I acknowledge that the extension means that it is theoretically possible that life-safety risk in some buildings won't be addressed as quickly as originally intended. However I do think it is very important to stress in the same breath that in many cases these buildings are not being remediated anyway. The simple fact is that building owners face difficulties that for some are so great that even under the existing time frames building users would likely have been exposed to some of those exact same risks in any case. Once the amendment Act comes into effect the extension will apply automatically to eligible buildings. I should qualify that point around automatic status by adding that territorial authorities will be required to reissue earthquake-prone building notices to all eligible buildings and to update the register of earthquake-prone buildings.Passing to the other matters in the bill for the remainder of my time: strengthening the building warrant of fitness system or scheme. Following last year's devastating fatal Loafers Lodge fire—again acknowledging the human tragedy of those lives lost—the previous Cabinet agreed to a set of no regrets actions to improve fire safety in buildings. This means that some changes that could be agreed relatively readily would be made but of course without suggesting that there should not be other changes contemplated as well and I'll touch on those briefly if I may within the time available.In the meantime though this bill will implement sensible changes to help protect the safety of building occupants including in an emergency. Some of these occupants will be vulnerable people living in temporary or low-cost boarding house - type accommodation. A building warrant of fitness (BWOF) must include a certificate issued by an independent qualified person (IQP)—I'll just say IQP going forward—known as a form 12A.There are many good people working hard and diligently in the space and I want to acknowledge the Association of Building Compliance which gathers together many such people and the work that they are doing to help educate advocate and ensure certainty and consistency for that system. I commit to working closely with all those who share the aims of ensuring we have good robust qualifications and recognition of people who have that level of expertise important as it is.People within the building industry therefore have raised concerns about instances where forms were issued without the procedures in the building compliance schedule being fully complied with. This may mean that issues with specified systems such as fire and smoke control systems go undetected which could place building occupants at risk and historically that is exactly what we have found sadly not only with Loafers Lodge itself but of course in the subsequent investigation known as Operation Magazine.The Building Act does not currently state the duties of independently qualified persons and there are no specific offences for wrongly issued certificates. This bill fills that gap and introduces an offence for breaching the duty with a fine of up to $50000 for an individual and up to $150000 for a body corporate. This is a strict liability offence but nevertheless I think I'm right in saying that there are defences available—in any case I'm not able to go into that today. The new offence will also provide territorial authorities with tools to discipline and deter this misconduct. It will also help to ensure that IQPs are fulfilling their obligations under the BWOF scheme. The bill also increases the infringement fees to promote compliance with these obligations and better protect the safety of building users. Some minor and technical changes now. Finally there are some changes along the lines that stand-alone building consent authorities currently just the one being Consentium which does the work for Kainga Ora do not need to pay their fee directly to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment at the moment; indeed they can't. They have to go through their irrelevant territorial authority. We are removing that anomaly. We'll also remove the obligation for dam owners—that is owners of water storage facilities—to display a copy of the compliance certificate in a prominent place on the dam which is physically impracticable to do in many cases but instead must simply forward the relevant certificate to the regional authority.Then finally to clarify or meet the intent of the Building (Pools) Amendment Act 2016 we will exempt small heated pools such as a spa from the requirement for periodic inspection if they have a safety cover that complies with the building code. And finally—finally finally; my second finally"—a certificate of acceptance for building work that's issued by territorial authority need not also attract a building consent to regularise that retrospectively.I commend this bill to the House."