Mathers Mojo: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMathers Mojo: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10064. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOJO MATHERS (Green): The focus of my talk tonight will be around the improvement that the Local Government and Environment Committee made to the clauses around upgrading fire and disability access. This was absolutely critical to the Green Party for securing our support for this bill. Originally the bill gave a very broad exemption to building owners for providing and upgrading fire safety and disability access when undergoing earthquake strengthening. The exemption was so broad that you could have driven a bus through it and it would have set back the modernisation of our building stock by many decades. This was a major concern not only for us but for many of the submitters on the bill as well.CCS Disability Action and Disabled Persons Assembly did a very strong submission that was endorsed by 15 other disability and community organisations. They really highlighted some key points. The submission highlighted the fact that the Building Act already enables considerable exceptions around fire and disability access requirements. It made the point that the case that had been built for a law change was very unconvincing because there was already flexibility in the law to grant an exemption if it was going to be too financially arduous for building owners to provide these or if it was physically impossible for them to provide the required upgrades. In fact of all the submissions on the bill that I sat through on the select committee there was only ever really one concrete example of a building where the building owner walked away from the building because they did not want to pay the cost of fire safety upgrades. They claimed they were too expensive but actually an exemption could have been provided for in that case. So it seems like the scale of the problem that originally justified the rationale for providing this massive loophole was actually not grounded in reality.The submitters also gave examples of statements being made by many companies that highlighted the misconception that exists out there in the sector around the purpose of providing disability access. They seemed to think that it is all about if you have got a person in a wheelchair then it is solely for the benefit of that person in the wheelchair. They seemed to be failing to recognise that actually if you have universal access then it benefits all the users in the building and not just potentially someone in a wheelchair. It is also about building a society that is genuinely inclusive and genuinely enables equal access to employment and participation in society.One of the major telecommunications companies Chorus was saying: “Oh we’ll never need to provide disability access”. It was failing to recognise that actually as a major employer it should have accessible buildings because then it could ensure accessibility not just for someone who has a permanent disability but if one of its employees became injured and wanted to return to work in a wheelchair they would want to continue to work in the same place. You can enable that continuity of employment if you have undergone earthquake strengthening—you can upgrade disability access at the same time. The New Zealand Institute of Architects made just that very point—that there is a false economy in proposing that you exempt parts of the Building Act when undergoing earthquake strengthening because it represents a lost opportunity not to undergo that work at the same time which would actually streamline costs and save money in the long run as well as building a building stock around the country that is both safe and accessible. Surely that is what we want as a society.What the clause is now has much greatly tightened what was an enormous loophole and basically said that we are going to allow exemptions only on a case by case basis. Basically what happened here is that the committee picked up the wording that was proposed by the Human Rights Commission and the legislation now allows the territorial authorities to grant an exemption from a full upgrade of fire and disability access only on a case by case basis in limited circumstances and in particular the building owner must demonstrate that full compliance with fire and disability upgrades would be unduly onerous.In the commentary we have noted that it is not intended that financially capable building owners will not undertake the disability upgrades because that is what is happening at the moment. We have been seeing this in Christchurch where last year the Green Party was looking for offices. We wanted accessible offices in Christchurch and what we discovered is that there are very few accessible offices in Christchurch and that there are unfortunately building owners and developers who are using every trick in the book to get out of providing full disability access and meeting their obligations under the Act. It was leading to some quite bizarre situations.For example there was one building where all that was required was a simple ramp at the back entrance and we offered to actually pay for that upgrade ourselves. The building owner declined to have his building made accessible because he would lose $30 a week from a car-park that would be taken up in part by the ramp. That was a major property developer.So when I hear stories about “Oh property developers can’t afford that money.” I kind of have to believe that sometimes I am quite cynical because actually we have encountered the opposite where property developers could absolutely afford to provide that upgrade and choose not to. That is why it is very important that the regulations and guidelines that will be developed under this bill absolutely do address and uphold the spirit of what the committee agreed to—that financially viable property developers would be required to be compliant with fire safety and disability upgrades when undergoing earthquake strengthening. There are a number of these developers as well as those who may genuinely not be able to afford that. So the regulation provided for in this bill gives the opportunity to strengthen and tidy up the bit of a dog’s breakfast that is happening in the inconsistency around the country with stipulating what the requirements for upgrades are.I also notice that the Department of Building and Housing is developing a plan to ensure that building owners are better informed about the legal requirements and about what universal access involves—what are the needs of disabled person when entering buildings—and to ensure that there is better information spread around the building owners building developers and designers and all the people involved in ensuring the built environment around us. I understand that work is under way at the moment and it is absolutely critical that that work continues and it gets implemented because it will make a huge difference to the day-to-day lives of people trying to get around the city trying to access employment and trying to access services. They cannot do that if they are treated like second-class citizens. That is why we are very pleased that the committee listened to the submitters and made the appropriate changes in the bill and why it is a pleasure to now be supporting this bill because of these changes that were made. I want to thank the committee for listening to the submitters taking their concerns on board and supporting these changes to be made.