Committee Debates Earthquake-prone Building Amendments

In a pivotal committee session held recently, lawmakers examined the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, focusing on Part 1 involving amendments to the principal Building Act of 2004. The discussion highlighted the intricate balance between ensuring public safety in earthquake-prone areas and addressing practical challenges for building owners and government bodies.

Retrospective Legislation and Ministerial Powers

The debate commenced with Hon Chris Penk, Minister for Building and Construction, acknowledging the retrospective nature of the bill's provisions. These changes originate from a Cabinet decision announced on April 2, extending deadlines by four years to allow building owners adequate time to comply with existing earthquake-prone building standards. This extension is intended as a necessary period for conducting reviews and providing legal certainty.

Concerns were raised by Hon David Parker regarding "Henry VIII" clauses within the bill, which grant additional powers to the Minister. These clauses have historically been contentious due to their potential to alter primary legislation without full parliamentary debate. Parker sought assurances that such powers would only be exercised if absolutely necessary following comprehensive reviews, a promise Penk was keen to provide.

Balancing Safety and Practicality

The discussion underscored the delicate balance between ensuring safety in earthquake-prone buildings and addressing practical challenges faced by building owners and government bodies. Arena Williams highlighted the importance of equipping the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) with adequate resources for conducting reviews and engaging stakeholders effectively.

Clarification was sought by Hon Rachel Brooking regarding terminology related to territorial authorities. Her inquiries prompted Penk to clarify legislative language concerning building consent authorities (BCAs), ensuring clarity in how these amendments would function within the broader legal framework.

Financial Implications and Direct Payments

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan raised questions about financial implications stemming from amendments that shift levy payments directly from BCAs to MBIE. He sought clarity on whether local governments might be disadvantaged by this change, prompting Penk to highlight the efficiency and necessity of direct payments under current legislative constraints.

Risk Management for Infrequently Used Buildings

A significant discussion focused on differentiated approaches to managing rarely used buildings with high earthquake risks. Hon David Parker advocated for a more flexible approach, suggesting that informed consent might allow communities to accept certain risks where appropriate. Penk acknowledged the complexity of risk assessments and mentioned ongoing reviews exploring these nuanced issues.

Building Warrants of Fitness and Independent Qualified Persons (IQPs)

The committee addressed concerns about new amendments impacting building warrants of fitness. Arena Williams highlighted potential unintended consequences for independently qualified persons (IQPs), emphasizing the need for supportive policy work alongside regulatory changes. Penk reassured that education and enforcement are both critical, highlighting defenses against false statements provided in legislation as a safeguard.

Extensions and Incentives for Remediation

Parker expressed concerns about potential incentives for delaying building remediations due to extended deadlines. He stressed the importance of ensuring owners do not defer necessary actions. Penk countered by arguing that market forces, legal obligations, and informed decision-making would continue to incentivize timely remediation despite the extension.

Provincial Towns and Funding Needs

Celia Wade-Brown raised issues about financial constraints faced by provincial towns dealing with earthquake-prone buildings. She questioned whether additional central government funding or scientific advancements could facilitate more cost-effective solutions. Penk indicated that while the review aims to make remediation more affordable under new standards, immediate commitments for additional funding beyond existing resources were not specified.

Building Sector Capacity Concerns

Arena Williams also raised concerns about whether the building sector has sufficient capacity to meet increased demand within the four-year extension period. She questioned if infrastructure and workforce are adequately prepared. Penk expressed confidence in a staggered approach based on seismic risk, suggesting it would help manage capacity issues effectively while maintaining safety standards.

Conclusion of Debate

The motion to close debate on Part 1 was moved by Tom Rutherford and passed without opposition, concluding the discussion for this section of the bill. The session highlighted diverse perspectives on legislative amendments, enforcement mechanisms, and financial implications related to earthquake-prone buildings, underscoring the need for a balanced approach that considers both public safety and practical challenges in implementation.

The debate reflects ongoing efforts by New Zealand's lawmakers to navigate complex issues surrounding building safety in earthquake-prone areas, striving to protect citizens while addressing logistical and economic realities faced by property owners and local governments.