Parliament passes earthquake-prone building changes: what leaves the system

Parliament has passed the Earthquake-prone Building Amendment Bill. Nearly 3,000 buildings will be deemed no longer earthquake-prone as a result, according to 1News. That is about half of all buildings currently listed as earthquake-prone.

Building and Construction Minister Simon Watts said the reform will save building owners and the economy $8.2 billion, according to RNZ. The final vote was unanimous. Watts hailed the unanimous passing of the legislation. Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown said "common sense has prevailed".

The system will no longer apply in Auckland, the Chatham Islands and the low-seismic zone in the upper North Island. A seismic zone is a band on the national hazard map based on earthquake risk. That change takes effect within a matter of days. The Bill brings an end to earthquake-prone building rules in Auckland altogether.

The map also moves the other way in the south. Parts of coastal Otago and Stewart Island previously in a low seismic zone will move to a medium seismic zone. An earthquake-prone building is one assessed as likely to fail in a moderate quake, and remediation means strengthening it or demolishing it.

The committee stage of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill was completed on 15 September 2026, according to Parliament. That is the detailed clause-by-clause debate before the final vote. It cleared the way for the third reading and passage in the week ending 19 September 2026.

The stated policy intent is to establish a more risk-based and proportionate system, according to Parliament. In practice, low-risk areas and low-risk buildings sit outside the national system. Councils, the territorial authorities that implement the Act locally, will follow the new zone boundaries rather than a single national deadline structure.

The carve-out for unreinforced masonry is specific. Unreinforced masonry means older brick buildings without steel reinforcement. Those buildings under three storeys in small and rural towns will no longer require remediation under the reforms. The minister said that group has faced high cost and compliance pressure outside the main centres, where strengthening costs often outweigh rental returns and resale values.

The passage follows a longer sequence. The current system was brought into effect by the Building Amendment Act 2016. The Government later passed legislation to extend the remediation deadline while its review progressed, according to the Beehive. An earlier amendment Bill that passed its first reading extended the deadline for all non-lapsed earthquake-prone buildings. The reform Bill itself was notified as the Building (Earthquake-prone Building System Reform) Amendment Bill.

Councils that administer the Act face immediate operational questions. Councils in Auckland, the upper North Island low-seismic zone and the Chatham Islands will need to withdraw or lapse existing earthquake-prone notices and advise owners that national remediation duties no longer apply. Councils covering coastal Otago and Stewart Island face the reverse task, applying medium-zone timeframes and assessment rules to buildings that were previously low-zone.

The broader context here is the rarity of unanimity on building regulation with large fiscal effects. A unanimous third reading gives councils, banks, insurers and owners a clear compliance signal. It also limits the scope for a future Parliament to relitigate the zone boundaries without reopening primary legislation. For owners removed from the system, the $8.2 billion figure cited by the minister will be tested in avoided engineering, consenting and construction costs rather than in Crown savings.

Looking at what this means for the Beehive's regulatory programme, the reform shifts earthquake risk management away from a universal remediation model. Risk is now expressed through the hazard map and building type. Owners remaining inside the system, particularly of higher-risk unreinforced masonry and older commercial stock in medium and high zones, will carry a more concentrated share of attention from officials, engineers and insurers. That concentration is the point of a proportionate system. Whether it holds will depend on how consistently the new boundaries are applied street by street.