Submission on the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill 2025

 

In support, with recommendations

​

Introduction

I support the overall intent of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill 2025.
The move toward a more proportionate, risk-based, and life-safety-focused framework is sensible and overdue. Narrowing the scope to genuinely higher-risk buildings, providing greater flexibility in remediation pathways, and reducing unnecessary regulatory coupling are all positive reforms that, if well implemented, should improve public safety while reducing unintended social and economic harm.

However, I recommend several refinements to strengthen the Bill’s practical effectiveness, maintain continuity for communities and professionals, and reduce secondary safety risks during retrofit works.

​

Recommendation 1: Retain %NBS as a parallel reference measure during transition

The removal of earthquake ratings and %NBS from the statutory framework represents a significant shift. While I understand the policy intent to move away from a single headline number, %NBS has served both engineers and communities well over many years as:

• A common language between technical experts, owners, lenders, insurers, tenants, and the public

• A comparative benchmark for understanding relative risk

• A transparency tool that helped demystify engineering advice for non-experts

Recommendation:
Retain %NBS (or an equivalent strength-based indicator) in parallel with the new tiered remediation system for a defined transition period (for example, 3–5 years). This would:

• Preserve continuity and public understanding

• Avoid confusion during the bedding-in of the new methodology

• Allow evidence-based evaluation of whether the new system fully replaces the communicative value of %NBS

This parallel approach would not undermine the new framework, but rather support its legitimacy and uptake.

​

Recommendation 2: Require fire safety assessment before and after seismic retrofit

While decoupling seismic work from mandatory fire and accessibility upgrades reduces cost barriers, it introduces a real technical risk: seismic retrofit interventions can unintentionally alter fire ratings, compartmentation, or escape routes.

Examples include:

• Structural strengthening that penetrates fire-rated elements

• Added bracing or walls that change egress paths

• Changes in stiffness or deformation demands affecting fire separations

Recommendation:
Require, at minimum, a formal fire safety assessment:

• Prior to seismic retrofit design approval, and

• After completion of seismic works

This need not mandate full upgrades, but would ensure that life safety is not inadvertently reduced by otherwise well-intentioned seismic improvements.

​

Recommendation 3: Explicitly enable staged retrofit under a single consent

Many seismic retrofits are best delivered in stages, for reasons of cost, tenant continuity, or technical sequencing. The current consent framework can unintentionally discourage staged delivery.

Recommendation:
Explicitly allow:

• A single, overarching building consent for an engineered staged retrofit plan, certified upfront by a suitably qualified engineer; and

• Separate Code Compliance Certificates (CCCs) to be issued at the completion of each defined stage.

This approach would:

• Improve affordability and feasibility

• Reduce disruption to building use

• Encourage earlier commencement of risk-reduction works rather than delay

​

Recommendation 4: Strengthen communication obligations to building users

Earthquake-prone buildings are often used by tenants, employees, students, customers, or community groups who are not owners but bear the daily risk.

Recommendation:
Require building owners to keep key stakeholders and regular user groups informed of:

• Earthquake-prone status

• Required remediation measures

• Staging plans and timelines

• Any interim risk-management measures

Clear communication builds trust, supports informed decision-making, and aligns with the Bill’s life-safety objectives.

​

Conclusion

I support the Bill’s direction and intent. With the refinements outlined above, the legislation would better balance:

• Technical rigour and public understanding

• Cost control and secondary safety risks

• Flexibility and accountability

These recommendations aim to strengthen implementation, not dilute reform. I encourage the Committee to consider them as constructive enhancements to an otherwise well-targeted reset of the earthquake-prone buildings regime.

​