Chris Penk: Minister for Building and Construction on the Government's planned review into earthquake-prone buildings

The Government has launched a new review designed to ensure earthquake-prone buildings are up to standard.

The current NBS system has run into controversy, with the inadequate review of a Wellington hospital unit sparking concerns.

Minister for Building and Construction Chris Penk says the current standards are very complicated - and he aims to make it easier for people.

"In a lot of cases, people simply can't afford to remediate, they're not necessarily allowed to do that in the way that they want or need, sometimes they can't even demolish it because of heritage status."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now the government has launched a review into how we
manage earthquake prone buildings. The NBS system we currently use
is run into controversy in recent years. For example, you
may remember when a block at Hut Hospital was found
a couple of years ago to be earthquake prone, so
all the patients had to move out, and then it
was apparently just the cladding panels that were earthquake prone,
and then it turned out that even the panels were
probably fine and the patient's wall allowed to move back in.

(00:21):
Chris pink is the Minister for Building and Construction and
joins us. Now, hey, Chris Braving, the fact that you're
doing this review says to me that you think the
law is too onerous. Is that fair?

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Short answer? Yes, people have told us it's unworkable. A
lot of cases, people simply can't afford to remediate, but
not necessarily allowed to do that in the way that
they want or need. Sometimes they can't even demolish if
there's a heritaged status so complicated such a situation needs
to changeing we're keen to make it easier for people.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
Is it, I mean, is it too complicated, too inflexible,
or is it too onerous or is it both?

Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yeah, look, it might be both. I think the complicated
nature of it is a major piece of week that
we need to attaction. You referred to that situation of
uncertainty with the city hospital. Lots of other I get
playing out all around New Zealand, and that's when you've
got a bit of a dispute or misunderstanding about where
things lie. But even just on the terms of the

(01:20):
current measuring system, you've got a percentage and it's something
like it seven percent. You know, it's just barely on
that top third. But then you've got people who say, well,
that's not good enough for us to do because they're
nervous about health and safety. What does that mean to
their liability? And you've got other ones which might be
say thirty five and that's above the line. And actually
it's oftensibly okay, but doesn't sound too fless. So we

(01:43):
maybe need a bit of a cleaner, more straightforward system.
So we're seeing if we can come up with something
it's a bit more stateful for people to grapple with.

Speaker 1 (01:50):
Okay, something straightforward, But also would you consider lowering the
standard of weaders?

Speaker 2 (01:56):
Yeah, Well, I think what we've got to approach is
the question from a cost benefit ratio perspective, which I
know will sound challenging for people who ask whether we're
going to make it less safe, But I think at
the moment we've got a scenario where we're very cautious,
very conservative, and while we all love that idea, and

(02:16):
the reality is what we're probably doing is protecting against
buildings from being damaged. We need to protect against lives
being lost. But below that we've got to accept that,
you know, unless we want to pay you know, the
million dollar per life saved or per building saved, then
it's simply not stacking up, you know if you think
about other things that we could spend that money on
and save more orights. So just the Narali conversation that

(02:36):
we've got to have, but the review set up to
take into account everyone's views who wants to contribute, you know,
along those lines, as well as getting into that detail
around the technical stuff too.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
Do you think, just like on another note, but related,
do you think that you need to do something about
the empty buildings that are sitting around places like Wellington
basically abandoned because the owners just can't be faft doing
the earth quake strengthening.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
Yeah, I think it's a very fair question. There's an
earthquake prone element to that is also brought a question
about you know, we're heavy handed if people leave buildings
derialic because they can't be bothered sometimes overseas owners, but
not necessarily. So that's all going to be within the
scope of the review. So we're quite ambitious in terms
of asking all those kind of hard questions. So we'll

(03:21):
see what the review comes up with, but hopefully we
can come up with something sensible because you know, the
whole city and the whole community and the whole provincial town,
as the case may be, deserved better than just to
have these derelict buildings in xty lots and parts fromining else.
You know, an I saw in a danger in themselves.
But the irony, of course is that you have heritage protection,
end up with something that you can't do anything with

(03:42):
and it ends up becoming quite an I saw in
the opposite of what we're trying to achieve with them.

Speaker 1 (03:47):
A very good point, actually, Chris, Thank you very much.
Chris Pink, Minister for Building and Construction in case in point.
Just what Chris was talking about was that building I
forget the name of it on Welling in Wellington that's
next to the old Ama Hotel where the reason that
that to shut is because it's earthquake prone. So what
happens Some homeless guy makes his way in and falls
down three flights of stairs and gets hurt. So even

(04:07):
the fact that it's just sitting there abandoned is now
a dangerous thing as well. For more from Hither Duplessy
Allen Drive, listen live to news talks it'd be from
four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.