Five Million Voices

Should earthquake-prone building rules apply only to high-risk building types in medium and high seismic zones?

This Government bill replaces the earthquake-prone building system with what its policy statement calls a more proportionate, risk-based one that regulates only high-risk building types in medium and high seismic zones. Buildings in low seismic zones — Auckland, Northland and the Chatham Islands — could no longer be designated earthquake-prone, while Coastal Otago (including Dunedin) and part of Stewart Island would be reclassified from low to medium seismic risk. The bill is before Parliament; its second reading was agreed on 30 June 2026.

⚡ Taken under urgency

Parliament advanced this bill under urgency (second reading) — moving it through faster than usual, with less time than normal for public submissions.

Full bill summary & link to official bill page

A Government bill that overhauls the earthquake-prone building system — the rules requiring owners to strengthen or demolish buildings judged likely to fail in a quake. It replaces the current approach with a narrower, risk-based one, requiring work only on higher-risk building types (such as taller concrete buildings and unreinforced masonry) in medium and high seismic zones. Some areas are reclassified: Auckland, Northland and the Chatham Islands leave the regime, while Coastal Otago, including Dunedin, moves up to medium risk.

Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says the current system is too broad and costly — sometimes running to millions of dollars per building — and estimates the changes could save owners more than $8 billion; councils could also grant remediation extensions of up to 15 years. Supporters say it targets genuine life-safety risk and revives stranded buildings. Critics caution that a narrower net could leave some risks unaddressed.

See the Parliament.nz ↗ site for the full bill.

Oppose (No) Support (Yes)

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill · Second Reading, 30 Jun 2026
Agreed on the voices — no counted division. (Provisional — from Hansard’s uncorrected transcript.)