At last, a triumph of common sense over well-meaning legislation designed to protect every life, everywhere, no matter how much the cost. The “every sperm is sacred” approach to lawmaking has been in place for about eight years, where every life matters, no matter the cost to business, to taxpayers, to everybody else.  

The Government announced yesterday that earthquake strengthening legislation will only capture buildings deemed to pose a genuine risk to human life in medium and high seismic zones. The Building and Construction Minister, Chris Penk, said the current new building standard used by engineers was too broad, too inconsistent, and will be scrapped. The rules were brought in under 2017 changes following the Canterbury earthquakes and the subsequent Royal Commission of Inquiry.  

Penk said the current system is well-intentioned, but had led to an overwhelming financial burden on building owners. He said the price of strengthening buildings often ran from hundreds of thousands of dollars to well into the millions. He said, as a result, these buildings are often left empty and become derelict, making them even more dangerous to bystanders in an earthquake.  

Buildings need to be lived in. You have to have people in homes and commercial buildings, otherwise they become derelict very, very quickly. Cities and regions, he says, are losing the businesses, churches, town halls, and classrooms that are essential to their local economies and community spirit. And you'll have seen it everywhere and every town, no matter how big or small. Beautiful buildings that have been left abandoned, for all intents and purposes, because their owners cannot afford to modernise them to the level that has been required under legislation, without any kind of purpose, to what point? It has to be at this level. Why? Because we say so. Is it because it's especially risky? No, these are the rules.  

So what they've done now is say, okay, well, let's look at where there is danger, and buildings must be fortified there. Where there is a limited risk —you can never rule out risk altogether, otherwise you might as well stop living— the changes don't have to be made to such an extent. Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands will be made exempt from earthquake rules due to low seismic risk. And that makes sense. Auckland is at risk of a volcanic eruption, not earthquakes. That's not the main risk. It's not to say they won't happen – we're not called the Shaky Isles for nothing. But the risk isn't considered as high as that of a volcanic eruption.  

The response to the overhaul has been positive. Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau says the news was a huge win for her city. She said the number of earthquake-prone buildings in Wellington will roughly halve, saving building owners a billion dollars. Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown also welcomed the changes. He too points out the risk of an earthquake for Auckland and Northland is less than that of a volcanic eruption. He said we can't expect Aucklanders to be lumped with unnecessary costs, especially now. The previous requirements were expensive and unnecessary. He said it's been a very stressful time, and these changes will be a game changer for example, for apartment owners who will now be spared the cost and financial pain of making upgrades that didn't make sense.  

And I get it. After you've had a tragic loss of life, and a loss of life that could have been prevented had proper building standards been followed, had more been done —it's a crisis in the country— the pain is very, very real. You see the numbers of grieving families in a country as small as ours, you don't want that to happen again. But what we've seen is Governments overreact. We saw that with the health and safety legislation as well after Cave Creek. There is always going to be a certain amount of risk in life, but you can't legislate away all of that risk.  

There have to be sensible protocols in place, really sensible. Is have to be dotted, Ts crossed. You have to make sure that the job is done properly.  

But a massive overreaction to a country's heartfelt pain causes more pain in the long term. Where there is risk, try and mitigate it. Where there are buildings that are deemed to be dangerous, retrofit them, fix them, or tear them down. But in areas of the country where there is minimal risk —still risk, nobody's ruling it out— then you don't have to conform to the most strict legislation.  

If you take all risk out of life, then you're not really living. 

At last, a triumph of common sense over well-meaning legislation designed to protect every life, everywhere, no matter how much the cost. The “every sperm is sacred” approach to lawmaking has been in place for about eight years, where every life matters, no matter the cost to business, to taxpayers, to everybody else. &nbsp;
The Government announced yesterday that earthquake strengthening legislation will only capture buildings deemed to pose a genuine risk to human life in medium and high seismic zones. The Building and Construction Minister, Chris Penk, said the current new building standard used by engineers was too broad, too inconsistent, and will be scrapped. The rules were brought in under 2017 changes following the Canterbury earthquakes and the subsequent Royal Commission of Inquiry. &nbsp;
Penk said the current system is well-intentioned, but had led to an overwhelming financial burden on building owners. He said the price of strengthening buildings often ran from hundreds of thousands of dollars to well into the millions. He said, as a result, these buildings are often left empty and become derelict, making them even more dangerous to bystanders in an earthquake. &nbsp;
Buildings need to be lived in. You have to have people in homes and commercial buildings, otherwise they become derelict very, very quickly. Cities and regions, he says, are losing the businesses, churches, town halls, and classrooms that are essential to their local economies and community spirit. And you'll have seen it everywhere and every town, no matter how big or small. Beautiful buildings that have been left abandoned, for all intents and purposes, because their owners cannot afford to modernise them to the level that has been required under legislation, without any kind of purpose, to what point? It has to be at this level. Why? Because we say so. Is it because it's especially risky? No, these are the rules. &nbsp;
So what they've done now is say, okay, well, let's look at where there is danger, and buildings must be fortified there. Where there is a limited risk —you can never rule out risk altogether, otherwise you might as well stop living— the changes don't have to be made to such an extent. Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands will be made exempt from earthquake rules due to low seismic risk. And that makes sense. Auckland is at risk of a volcanic eruption, not earthquakes. That's not the main risk. It's not to say they won't happen – we're not called the Shaky Isles for nothing. But the risk isn't considered as high as that of a volcanic eruption. &nbsp;
The response to the overhaul has been positive. Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau says the news was a huge win for her city. She said the number of earthquake-prone buildings in Wellington will roughly halve, saving building owners a billion dollars. Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown also welcomed the changes. He too points out the risk of an earthquake for Auckland and Northland is less than that of a volcanic eruption. He said we can't expect Aucklanders to be lumped with unnecessary costs, especially now. The previous requirements were expensive and unnecessary. He said it's been a very stressful time, and these changes will be a game changer for example, for apartment owners who will now be spared the cost and financial pain of making upgrades that didn't make sense. &nbsp;
And I get it. After you've had a tragic loss of life, and a loss of life that could have been prevented had proper building standards been followed, had more been done —it's a crisis in the country— the pain is very, very real. You see the numbers of grieving families in a country as small as ours, you don't want that to happen again. But what we've seen is Governments overreact. We saw that with the health and safety legislation as well after Cave Creek. There is always going to be a certain amount of risk in life, but you can't legislate away all of that risk. &nbsp;
There have to be sensible protocols in place, really sensible. Is have to be dotted, Ts crossed. You have to make sure that the job is done properly. &nbsp;
But a massive overreaction to a country's heartfelt pain causes more pain in the long term. Where there is risk, try and mitigate it. Where there are buildings that are deemed to be dangerous, retrofit them, fix them, or tear them down. But in areas of the country where there is minimal risk —still risk, nobody's ruling it out— then you don't have to conform to the most strict legislation. &nbsp;
If you take all risk out of life, then you're not really living.&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Kerre Woodham: An overreaction that caused more pain in the long run

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/247dd117-4499-4873-b2cd-b3670186c14f/transcript

Advertisement