Smith Nick: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9136. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I move That the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. After the further quake in Christchurch on Valentine’s Day last Sunday we have had a harsh reminder of the vulnerability of both Christchurch and our country to the risks of earthquakes. It is entirely appropriate as we approach the fifth anniversary of the Christchurch earthquakes next Monday for us to be debating this bill and to be taking very seriously the risks to life and the risk of injury from our system of regulation for buildings.I think every member in this House will have etched in their memories the experience of 22 February—when for most of us it was actually the worst tragedy for New Zealand with the loss of 185 people and the injuries of 164—and the very serious responsibility this Parliament has to learn from that experience and to have good building law in this area.I want to acknowledge the considerable effort that has been made by the Local Government and Environment Committee particularly by the chair Scott Simpson. But I also want to acknowledge the Opposition members who have played a very constructive role in the refinement of this complex bill and for it being reported back to Parliament with unanimous support. This broad support is important because the laws we pass in the area of requiring the upgrade of buildings are going to span many Governments. I think it gives a level of security for both building owners and for councils that work in its implementation if there is some consistency of public policy in this area.The bill seeks to balance the risk posed by earthquake-prone buildings with the very significant costs associated with their upgrading and the impacts on heritage. The select committee listened very intently to the large number of submissions that were made on the bill and in this second reading speech I want to comment on some of the significant improvements that have been made to this proposed new law.I want to acknowledge the quality of the submissions that were made to the select committee—121 were received on the original bill a further 51 were made in response to the committee’s interim report—and a number of members of the House have commented to me that they have been some of the highest-quality submissions that they have ever seen before a select committee which is entirely appropriate for a bill that is so important to our country.Although many of those submitters supported the intent of the bill especially having a national framework compared with the previous law which said each council takes its own approach there was also a perception that a one-size-fits-all approach as recommended by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission needed to be refined and that we need to take a more risk-based approach. In May last year I announced a revised approach to that policy and the bill as reported back includes many of those changes as well as some other important improvements and clarifications.As introduced the bill required territorial authorities to undertake assessments on earthquake-prone buildings within 5 years and for building owners to strengthen those within 15 years of assessment. The bill now varies the time frames relative to the level of seismic risk. New Zealand is to be categorised into areas of low risk of medium risk and of high risk. I have to say even though I have a background in civil engineering I was quite surprised by the GNS evidence about the degree of variability in the level of earthquake risk across New Zealand and the fact that even within relatively small distances it varies significantly.If you take a council like the Southland district actually there is very low earthquake risk on the coast in areas like Balclutha medium levels of risk around Invercargill and actually very high levels of risk in a community like Te Ānau. That reinforces the importance of taking this risk-based approach.The time frames of identification relative to those low medium and high levels will be varied from 5 years to 10 and to 15 and then the time frames for strengthening those buildings will be varied from 15 to 25 and out to 35 years for those low-risk areas. Those variations in time frames have a huge impact on the costs for communities to be able to strengthen the buildings. I do not think people necessarily appreciate that there is actually a constant upgrade of buildings for other reasons and there is also a significant number of our older buildings that are being continuously replaced. So as a consequence of varying those time frames for a community like Auckland where it is now 50 years for an upgrade and if it is a heritage building a further 10 years that has a huge impact on the cost-benefit analysis and actually makes it far less costly for those areas.A second change in the bill is that it now prioritises the identification and strengthening of earthquake-prone education and emergency buildings. Schools universities and hospitals in those medium and high-risk areas will have to be identified and upgraded within half the time frame of other buildings.The first reason for that associated with education buildings is actually that those buildings have a far greater density of people in them and I think we all look tragically at that CTV Building and whether it was indeed appropriate for a building that has high earthquake risk to have had very high densities of people who are associated with classrooms or for that matter a facility that hosted overseas education students. The reason for the prioritisation of buildings like hospitals or emergency facilities is somewhat obvious in that we think that there is a real need to make sure that those sorts of buildings are functioning post-earthquake and so they have half the time frame.The select committee received very strong submissions from Canterbury earthquake survivor Ann Brower and the bill particularly prioritises those areas of an unreinforced masonry building like a parapet a façade or veranda that could fall on to a public road a footpath or other thoroughfare that has been identified by a council as having sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritisation.A third significant change is that a large number of buildings have been exempted from the legislation because they pose low risk or because it would be impractical. I dealt with issues like statues like fences like wharves like bridges like tunnels and storage tanks that would not necessarily meet the common-sense definition of a building but were included in the original bill. I also note that the changes in respect of giving a longer period for category 1 heritage buildings is because through this process we do want to be able to retain some of our heritage and there is also an exemption for low-risk builds.Again I want to pay tribute to the select committee and to the officials who have worked closely with its members in getting this bill into better shape. I think it is appropriate that this Parliament gets on and gets law in this area clear. I look forward to working with other members of this House as we take this bill through the Committee stage and ensure that New Zealand building stock is safer for whenever nature chooses that next earthquake that may strike one of our communities.