Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Work smarter with a Pro licence Learn More
Parliament

Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | Video | Questions Of the Day | Search

 

New rules will hurt more than they will help

Earthquake-prone buildings rules will hurt more than they will help

Press release: ACT New Zealand
March 30, 2016. 1:15pm

Earthquake-prone buildings legislation will hurt regional New Zealand unless changes are made, says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“The government’s own analysis shows the new rules will have little impact on public safety and will waste three quarters of a billion dollars. The real costs are likely to be much higher – in the billions,” says Mr Seymour.

“Regional communities, which have older building stocks, will be especially hard hit and could become ghost towns as people are forced to undertake expensive engineering assessments and abandon buildings that pose minimal risk to human life.

“The best way to honour the tragedy of the Canterbury earthquakes is to actually make good policy that protects people according to their actual risks.

“I have put forward two common-sense changes to the bill and call on the government and opposition parties to set up.

“First, low risk areas should be exempt. Does it really make sense to waste hundreds of millions in Auckland, Northland, and Southland on strengthening when the chance of a severe earthquake is extremely low? As an Aucklander I have a one in 120,000 chance of being in a severe earthquake this year (with a much lower risk of dying in one). Meanwhile I have a one in 10,000 chance of dying in a car crash, and a one in 500 chance of dying of cancer. Yet the government is imposing huge costs on my city to deal with small earthquake risks. The money is better spent making a real difference elsewhere.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

“Next, it makes sense that the occupancy of a building should be taken into account when assessing its risk, as well as location and build type. For example, a rural wooden church only used once a week by a small congregation is unlikely to pose risk as it’s empty most of the time. This approach, supported by the earthquake experts at crown research organisation GNS Science, would address the real risks faced by people, rather than just imposing a blanket standard across all buildings.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels


 
 
 
 

Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.