1. Building Standards—Earthquake SafetyPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and HousingORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSBuilding Standards—Earthquake Safety1. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he believe there needs to be a review of the Building Code given the damage sustained by modern buildings such as Statistics House in this week's earthquakes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I raised with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the idea of doing a review of the seismic standards on Tuesday in light of modern buildings like Statistics House suffering unexpected structural damage. The issue is not the building code but the more detailed standards. I expect to finalise the details of that review later today. The overall performance of most buildings in the quake was good but there may be others like Statistics House that require further investigation as more information comes to hand with the hundreds of assessments that are currently taking place across Wellington. Phil Twyford: What does he make of the fact that none of the damaged buildings that are now closed featured in a Wellington City Council list of 663 earthquake-prone buildings published on 3 November?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I assume the member is referring to a very detailed issue in respect of the ductility of columns of a range of buildings and the first thing is I would make the point that that is just one of many issues that relate to the seismic performance of a building. Councils have followed up and ensured the vast bulk of those buildings have had new assessments. The information that I saw in the media which was that the Molesworth Street building was one of those is incorrect. Phil Twyford: Does he think that the standard of compliance with the building code should be reviewed in relation to the modern buildings that have sustained significant damage?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I said in the answer to the primary question I am satisfied with the overall performance of buildings. Seismic engineering is actually a very complex field such that Monday's earthquake focused in the spectra of those buildings between five and 10 storeys. So those building owners who are sitting and thinking Hey my building's a one-storey or a two-storey building and it is earthquake-prone but I don't have a problem with it because it survived Monday." are mistaken because we could equally have an aftershock or another earthquake that is in a different part of the spectrum in which those buildings would be very vulnerable. That is why I would urge members of the public building owners and the Parliament to ensure that they use the very best seismic engineering expertise in making these technical judgments about building safety.Phil Twyford: What advice has he received on whether the siting of multi-storey buildings on reclaimed land was appropriately taken into account in the consenting process?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: One of the most important learnings from the Christchurch earthquake that is internationally significant is that the level of shaking experienced by a building does vary significantly with foundation type. That was not understood well prior to Christchurch because for most earthquake events there has been only a single seismograph record. The uniqueness of Christchurch is that there were over a hundred seismographs installed in the 1990s which enabled that information. So with that there have been changes in engineering practice and standards so that today the type of foundations that a building is sitting on impacts on those loadings. The member may be aware that the Government adopted a new earthquake loading standard in September which took on board those learnings.Tim Macindoe: What advice has the Minister had about why many earthquake-prone buildings in areas like Cuba Street suffered relatively light damage whereas other larger buildings suffered significant damage? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is very much a function not just of the strength of the earthquake but about the frequency of the shaking. Each building has a different natural frequency and Monday's earthquake meant that buildings between six and 10 storeys tall were particularly vulnerable but any subsequent aftershock could be in quite a different spectrum. For instance if it was for a very short period then it would be those one- and two-storey buildings that would be more vulnerable. That is again why I stress that building owners need to take good seismic engineering advice and not draw simplistic conclusions about how strong their buildings are.Grant Robertson: Has he received any specific advice about Statistics House and the impact of the earthquake on it and does he believe that CentrePort the owner of the building could be more helpful in being more open about what has happened to the building?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yesterday I visited the Statistics New Zealand building and was briefed both by CentrePort and by its engineers about what they thought were the difficulties in the corner where some of the tee slabs have collapsed. The advice was that it was because of the very long nature of the earthquake. Remember the major earthquake in Christchurch was about 12 seconds—this was a 90-second-long earthquake and as a consequence the number of cycles that the building experienced was higher. Having said that there does need to be more detailed thorough investigation into whether there are learnings from the building standards to ensure that we have the very best science and standards applied to new building construction.Phil Twyford: Is he satisfied that public safety is being adequately protected with around 60 buildings in Wellington not in use because of earthquake damage and with the risk of how those damaged buildings might behave in the event of another large quake given that GNS Science says that there is a 30 percent chance of another quake of magnitude 7 to 7.8 in the next 30 days?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new earthquake-prone buildings legislation that this Parliament passed in May and which some members of this House chose to criticise as an overreaction—I would suggest that members of this House actually say that this Government was absolutely right to take a national approach to requiring older buildings to be upgraded. The additional challenge we have now is that there are buildings such as those on Molesworth Street that have suffered significant damage from Monday's quake and in my view the Wellington City Council is taking a proper approach of cautiousness with cordons around those. A further issue which I have discussed with the Acting Minister of Civil Defence which may require additional measures is ensuring that those buildings that do pose a risk are brought down as quickly as possible and we may need additional legislation in that regard. Ironically earlier this month I took a paper to Cabinet to approve policy changes around improvements in the Building Act from the Christchurch learnings. We may need to bring forward those legislative changes to be able to react more quickly given this week's events.Marama Fox: Is the Minister aware of any dangers posed to parts of Parliament Buildings that specifically house the press gallery; if so are there any immediate plans to strengthen that area keeping the members of the press gallery safe? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The specific responsibility for buildings lies with the buildings' owners. In this case the Speaker may not be pleased but he is responsible for the buildings on the site. I would however say firstly that Parliament House is base-isolated with internationally leading technology and is one of the safest buildings—equally so is the Beehive. It is correct that the annexe in which the press gallery is located is not up to the full 100 percent standard of code. It is not identified—as in being under 33 percent—as an earthquake-prone building but I would commend both the Speaker and the Leader of the House on the work that they are doing to upgrade these buildings and make them safer for all their occupants.Tim Macindoe: Further to the Minister's answers to some of the previous questions what changes have been made since the Christchurch earthquakes to improve our systems for managing seismic risk?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly there have been the significant changes to the Building Act that were passed earlier this year and the Government is currently consulting on the detailed regulations to implement them. The big change there is that we have always in this country left it to councils to determine the issues around earthquake-prone buildings; now we have a national approach. Secondly a big gain since Christchurch has been a new field guide for assessments and the training after an earthquake event. This gives me far more confidence about the quality and the consistency of the initial assessments being done on buildings in those areas impacted by Monday's quakes. Thirdly there have been over a dozen changes through new standards new practice notes and new guidelines—learning from Christchurch to make sure that our earthquake systems are the very very best."