Government changes to the earthquake-prone building system will remove nearly 3000 buildings from the classification.
Following the Seismic Risk Management Review, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says the system is being refocused to reduce repair costs and prevent buildings from being left empty and derelict.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.
Dr Lauren Vinnell, Senior Lecturer of Emergency Management, Joint Centre for Disaster Research, Massey University, comments:
“This review of the earthquake prone building system presents a good step forward, with the important disclaimer that further work and decisions will be necessary. In particular, the removal of %NBS makes sense as this was leading to much of the confusion. Hopefully when (or if) this is replaced, it will be with something that helps everyone involved to make good decisions.
“Under the current system, much of the work that was needed has not been happening. The idea of the option recommended in the review to move from an “all or nothing” perspective to something more incremental is a good change, as a way to ensure the highest risks are addressed rather than being put in the too-hard basket.
“There are still some questions to be answered, for example around exposure categories. In particular, it is important to not entirely discount areas such as Auckland where the seismic hazard may be lower, but if because of that we don’t take steps to prepare, the risk can still be considerable, as seen for example by moderately-sized earthquakes causing property damage in Australia.
“The focus on life safety is understandable, especially when it allows for targeted retrofits which will have the most bang-for-buck. However, the proposed “savings” resulting from the change in the system may be less when considering the additional benefits of strengthening buildings including lower repair costs, better community outcomes, and reduced environmental impact. It is important that this work remains a first (necessary) step towards greater earthquake resilience rather than being an end-point.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Megan Boston, Senior Lecturer & Programme Leader for Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Waikato, comments:
“The changes to the Earthquake-Prone Building system are a welcome improvement. The original approach cast the net too wide, meaning many buildings were classified as earthquake-prone even when they posed little real risk to life. The use of the %NBS score added to this confusion, with many people assuming it was a direct measure of safety, when in fact it was a blunt tool used to estimate relative risk. This placed a heavy financial and social burden on owners and communities, and in some cases led to the unnecessary abandonment or demolition of valued heritage buildings.
“The updated system strikes a better balance by targeting the buildings that pose the greatest risk while easing requirements for those where the actual risk is low. The new system removes reliance on %NBS and instead takes a more targeted approach, focusing on buildings that genuinely pose a life-safety risk. It better accounts for vulnerability and the consequences of failure, recognising that not all earthquake-prone buildings are equal. This will make retrofits more practical and affordable, especially for rural communities and places of worship, and it gives us a better chance to preserve the heritage and character that define our towns and cities. Children will still grow up surrounded by these buildings, while safety is improved where it matters most. Overall, the new approach brings New Zealand closer to international best practice by better aligning risk reduction with the preservation of our built environment.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have no conflicts of interest related to the content of this work or the changes to the Earthquake-Prone Building system. For full transparency, I have previously co-published with David Burnston of the steering group on an unrelated topic, but this does not influence my comment on these changes.”
Associate Professor Olga Filippova, Department of Property, University of Auckland, comments:
“Our report (QuakeCoRE report – mentioned in the Report of Seismic Risk Management Review) earlier this year looked at how other countries deal with older, earthquake-prone buildings. We found that the most effective programmes overseas share a few features. They focus on the building types known to be most dangerous, especially unreinforced masonry and older concrete structures. They use simple, targeted retrofit standards that fix the parts most likely to fail. And they avoid broad, one-size-fits-all measures like percentage NBS ratings. Instead, buildings are categorised by their actual risk profile.
“The changes now planned in New Zealand move us closer to the international practices. By focusing on the worst risks, simplifying retrofit requirements, and giving owners more workable pathways, the new system should improve public safety while cutting unnecessary costs and disruption. It is a step towards a more balanced, evidence-based way of managing seismic risk.
“But one area still needs attention: clear and reliable financial support. Our international analysis shows this is critical. In Japan and Taiwan, voluntary retrofit programmes only worked because they were backed by large government subsidies, low-interest loans, and tax breaks. In California, measures such as limits on property rates increases, tax credits, and development incentives helped owners carry out upgrades.
“The direction signalled for New Zealand will be welcomed by building owners. But coupling it with the right mix of incentives will make the difference between action and inaction. A clear package of grants (such as Heritage EQUIP), tax relief, or rates measures would improve compliance and deliver stronger life-safety outcomes for our communities.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Led MBIE-commissioned report on the review of seismic risk mitigation in overseas jurisdiction as part of the EPB system review.”
Dr Esther Aigwi, Senior Lecturer – Built Environment Engineering, AUT, comments:
“The new earthquake prone building system significantly advances building resilience by encouraging owners to invest in their properties. The ‘4-option’ framework offers flexible pathways, allowing for incremental improvements or opting out of regulations, while prioritising life safety and addressing potential building failures.
“By redefining ‘priority buildings’ and introducing change-of-use requirements, the new system encourages more owners to strengthen their structures. This presents an important opportunity to enhance safety and durability instead of disengaging. Overall, these changes promote a constructive mindset towards building resilience and safety, benefiting both owners and the community.
“However, after reading the terms of reference document for this review, released in May 2024, I noticed some gaps, particularly regarding questions related to ‘Regulatory responses.’ It would be beneficial for the review to explore how social connections and community ties to earthquake-prone heritage buildings may affect compliance with the current earthquake-prone building legislation. Research indicates that New Zealand communities with a ‘stronger attachment to place’ are likely to value their heritage buildings and prioritise their conservation efforts. The social cohesion that exists within such communities would make them more willing to invest in mandated repairs.
“Another significant gap is that the terms of reference did not explore questions regarding diverse challenges faced by urban vs regional areas under the scope of ‘Barriers to remediation.’ Research has shown that regional centres in New Zealand, which often contain a higher density of unique earthquake-prone heritage buildings per capita, frequently receive less financial support than their urban counterparts, where fewer of these buildings exist. This discrepancy can result in the abandonment of vital heritage structures in regional centres as an unintended consequence of the legislation, ultimately leading to a decline in the overall vitality of regional inner-cities.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Shahab Ramhormozian, Associate Professor in Structural and Earthquake Engineering, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), comments:
“Developing an effective system for managing earthquake-prone buildings (EPBs) is a complex task due to the multifactorial nature of the problem and the inherent uncertainties involved. While the original EPB framework was a commendable effort, its implementation over time, and ongoing engagement among industry professionals, academics and researchers, clients, building owners, and policymakers, highlighted the need for refinement.
“The original system classified New Zealand into three seismic risk zones (low, medium, high) and set timeframes for identifying, retrofitting, or demolishing EPBs. Buildings were assessed based on their percentage of compliance with the New Building Standard (%NBS), with those scoring 34% or less deemed earthquake-prone and subject to mandatory action. This led to many buildings falling under the EPB category.
“The recently reviewed system addresses the challenges of the original framework and appears to be a significant improvement. It introduces two EPB categories:
- Unreinforced masonry buildings with unsecured facades or walls facing public areas or neighbouring properties to be automatically considered EPBs.
- Concrete buildings of three storeys or more to be assessed using a new targeted retrofit methodology, replacing the %NBS approach.
“Additionally, the revised system introduces four levels of mitigation requirements depending on each building’s specific needs, type, and location rather than enforcing a uniform %NBS threshold. These changes make the system more risk-based, realistic, and effective in practice.
“Although I am an academic who typically favours detailed numerical assessments, I found the %NBS system not ideal given the uncertainties involved. The revised approach seems to prioritise high-risk buildings and to offer a simpler, more targeted retrofit process and plan. It is expected to be more cost-effective and practical than its predecessor.”
No conflicts of interest.
Professor John Tookey, School of Future Environments, AUT, comments:
“The changes introduced around earthquake prone building (EPB) legislation is an inevitable consequence of the original policy introduced in 2017. The intention at the time was to identify and prioritise buildings that may present a risk to the general public – particularly in highly trafficked situations such as schools, hospitals etc. This is entirely the right thing to do. But while the effect on the private sector was problematic for individual building owners, the problem to address in the public sector was substantially greater. Construction engineering ultimately is focussed on ensuring public safety. However the methodology adopted in EPB identification and prioritisation inadvertently identified more EPB than may have been originally considered. This presented a significant problem to both the previous government – who introduced it – as well as the current government. Once a building has been identified as EPB, there is not an unreasonable expectation of government entities having a plan in place to rectify the problem and preserve public safety. Under the previous government, developing a rectification plan was largely avoidable since buildings were still in the process of being assessed and evaluated for EPB status. However, under the new government, the evaluation period has largely passed. Hence commitments to construction and upgrade expenditure needs to be more explicit.
“The current government response has been to further kick the can down the road. On the one hand, the government’s budgetary austerity measures preclude wide ranging investment in public building stock. On the other hand, no government wishes to be accused of disregard for public safety. Hence the policy approach as outlined in today’s announcements has been twofold. Firstly to substantially extend the assessment period for EPB. Secondly to move the goal posts for what counts as an EPB to reduce the expectation of remediation measures in current and future budgets. A cynic may observe that the extension of 4 years introduced in November 2024 is coincidentally sufficient to push any funding decision out to the next but one parliament – making the problem potentially someone else’s politically.
“In fairness to all players involved, the new measures of assessment for EPB make a lot of sense in how they are structured. Unreinforced masonry structures, parapets on buildings and similar are significant public risk factors presenting an obvious priority to work on. Similarly the requirement to prioritise structures in built up areas with high levels of public access makes a lot of sense. These measures are to be commended. Overall the changes in policy represent a pragmatic understanding of the requirements for upgrade presenting a significant strain on the private sector, as well as a huge drain on the public purse. Notwithstanding which, none of these measures will ultimately change the eventual need to refit and strengthen buildings to ensure public safety. It is something of a shame that the opportunity, in the current difficulties that the construction industry faces, to introduce industry stimulation measures was missed. Providing partial grants and preferential loans to undertake such works could have had a significant stimulation effect on the economy. Stimulating this sort of work has huge benefits. Firstly in the form of public safety. Secondly in that none of it is ever going to get any cheaper for clients or government to undertake – no matter how frequently the rules are changed and how far down the road the can is kicked.”
No conflicts of interest.