The bill extends earthquake-prone building remediation deadlines that had not lapsed before 2 April 2024 by four years and creates a one-off power to extend deadlines by up to two further years by Order in Council. It also makes changes to the building warrant of fitness scheme and several minor and technical amendments to the Building Act.
These are claims MPs made in Parliament’s debate — not verified facts.
The bill amends the Building Act 2004 to give owners of earthquake-prone buildings more time to strengthen or demolish them. Under the current system, a building identified as earthquake-prone is issued a notice setting a firm deadline to complete remediation. This bill extends those existing deadlines by four years, and allows a further extension of up to two years to be granted by Order in Council. It applies to owners who already hold an earthquake-prone building notice where the deadline had not yet expired; territorial authorities (councils) would reissue affected notices with the new dates. The government's stated reason is that more than 5,000 buildings nationwide carry these notices and many are not being fixed because compliance is proving too complex and costly. The extra time is intended as relief while a broader review of the seismic-risk regime is carried out. Those affected include commercial and residential building owners, councils, and tenants.
The change forms part of a wider government review of how New Zealand manages seismic risk in existing buildings, prompted by concern that current rules impose costs out of proportion to the actual life-safety benefit, especially in lower-risk regions. Supporters argue the deadlines were unrealistic: strengthening work is expensive and specialist capacity is scarce, many owners face bills they cannot meet, and rigid timeframes risk buildings being abandoned or needlessly demolished; extra time allows a smarter, risk-based approach. Critics counter that delay leaves people occupying buildings that could collapse in a major earthquake, that the original deadlines were set after the Canterbury earthquakes for good reason, and that repeatedly pushing back remediation weakens the incentive to ever complete it. The debate turns on balancing the real financial burden on owners against public safety in a country with significant earthquake hazard.
See the Parliament.nz ↗ site for the full bill.