The Bill replaces the current, broad earthquake‑prone building regime with a risk‑based system that applies only to specified high‑risk building types located in medium and high seismic zones. It removes low seismic‑zone areas (explicitly including Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands) from future earthquake‑prone designations, reclassifies parts of Coastal Otago and Stewart Island to a higher risk band, and requires MBIE to publish a digital seismic‑zone map and an EPB methodology that determines which buildings are in scope.
Rather than using an earthquake rating scale, the Bill prescribes three remediation tracks — façade securing, targeted retrofit, or full retrofit — and narrows the priority‑building category to those that could fall onto or block thoroughfares or emergency routes. Territorial authorities keep notice and enforcement powers, but the Bill narrows when they may identify new earthquake‑prone buildings and requires chief‑executive sign‑off for certain post‑1976 identifications; it also allows up to 15‑year extensions for completing seismic work and relaxes some building‑code triggers for seismic‑only alterations.
The result is a concentrated retrofit programme focused on life‑safety risks in the highest‑exposure buildings and areas, with material consequences for owners, councils, insurers, and the retrofit industry.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Bill redefines which buildings can be designated earthquake‑prone by: (a) tying coverage to a new seismic‑zone map, (b) limiting scope to two building types (multi‑storey heavy construction designed before 1976 and unreinforced masonry), and (c) replacing earthquake ratings with three defined remediation measures (façade securing, targeted retrofit, full retrofit). It also changes identification pathways, requires chief‑executive authorisation for certain post‑1976 designations, and sets timelines and extension rules for completing work.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are owners of multi‑storey concrete/heavy‑material buildings and unreinforced masonry buildings in medium and high seismic zones, territorial authorities that manage EPB registers and consents, MBIE (which sets the EPB methodology and maintains the digital map), the retrofit and construction sector, and insurers and lenders exposed to affected property portfolios.
Why It Matters
The Bill shifts policy from a broadly applied rating system to a narrower, life‑safety focused regime that reduces regulatory obligations for many buildings while concentrating retrofit activity on a smaller, higher‑risk cohort. That changes demand for retrofit services, alters municipal administrative work, and affects property and insurance risk profiles in reclassified areas.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Bill restructures the earthquake‑prone building framework around a new, map‑based seismic zoning system. MBIE must publish and maintain a digital map showing low, medium, and high seismic zones; buildings located in low zones cannot be designated earthquake‑prone under the new regime.
The Bill explicitly reclassifies parts of Coastal Otago (including Dunedin) and part of Stewart Island to medium risk to reflect updated hazard knowledge.
Scope is narrowed to two principal building types. One category is buildings designed before 1 January 1976 that are at least three storeys and constructed of concrete or other heavy materials; the other is buildings of unreinforced masonry.
The chief executive sets an EPB methodology that the territorial authority must use to decide whether a building in scope is earthquake‑prone and which remediation measure applies. That methodology will be more detailed than the current one and is subject to prescribed consultation.Instead of the current earthquake rating system, the Bill defines three remediation outcomes: façade securing, targeted retrofit, and full retrofit.
The EPB methodology determines which outcome applies to a given building based on its type, characteristics, and location — with tighter requirements in urban centres. For buildings already on EPB registers, the Bill creates immediate and staged review obligations: some buildings lose earthquake‑prone status as soon as the relevant provisions commence (for those in low seismic zones), while others are re‑reviewed after 1 July 2027 to confirm scope and construction type.The Bill narrows the priority‑building category so only buildings that could collapse onto or block streets and emergency routes remain prioritised.
Territorial authorities retain powers to issue notices, require seismic work, carry out work at owners’ expense if deadlines are missed, and prosecute offences, but the window for identifying new earthquake‑prone buildings after the initial identification period is narrowed. For certain post‑1976, heavy‑construction buildings that fall into the narrowed category, a territorial authority may designate the building only with the chief executive’s agreement.
The Bill also introduces practical measures to reduce retrofit costs: on a building consent that deals only with seismic work, authorities must not require compliance with building‑code provisions on means of escape from fire or disability access, though they must notify owners of those provisions. Owners can apply for exemptions or extensions — the total extension period a territorial authority may grant is up to 15 years.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Buildings in low seismic zones (named examples: Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands) will cease to be eligible for earthquake‑prone designation, and territorial authorities must remove such buildings from EPB registers the day after Royal assent.
A building is generally within scope only if it is either (a) designed before 1 January 1976, at least three storeys, and built of concrete or other heavy materials, or (b) constructed of unreinforced masonry, as determined by the EPB methodology.
The Bill abolishes earthquake ratings and prescribes three remediation measures — façade securing, targeted retrofit, and full retrofit — with the EPB methodology specifying which measure applies based on building type, characteristics, and location.
After the initial identification period, territorial authorities may identify only a narrow class of post‑1976 heavy buildings as earthquake‑prone, and they must obtain the chief executive’s agreement before designating those buildings.
For building consents that cover only seismic work on an EPB‑notified building, territorial authorities must not require compliance with building‑code provisions relating to means of escape from fire and disability access as a condition of the consent, though they must notify owners about those provisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Rewrites core definitions and removes earthquake ratings
Clause 4 overhauls the Act’s interpretation section: it repeals the definition of earthquake rating, inserts definitions for low/medium/high seismic zones, building within scope, engineering evaluation, and required remediation measure, and replaces the definition of seismic work. The practical effect is that subsequent obligations are anchored to those new terms and to a digital map, rather than a numeric rating framework — a structural shift that changes how buildings are assessed and which rules apply.
Who is in scope and how authorities identify and assess buildings
This cluster of sections defines which buildings may be treated as earthquake‑prone, sets out identification obligations for territorial authorities, and creates the engineering evaluation and evidence‑gathering process. The Bill keeps the requirement for authorities to consult owners, but narrows post‑deadline identification to specific post‑1976 heavy buildings and requires chief‑executive agreement for those designations. Practically, councils retain investigation powers but face narrower triggers and a more prescriptive assessment methodology set by MBIE.
Automatic removals and staged reviews of EPB status
These provisions order immediate and staged cleanses of the EPB register: buildings in low seismic zones cease to be earthquake‑prone from the day after Royal assent (133P), and territorial authorities must reassess EPB‑listed buildings in medium/high zones as soon as practicable after 1 July 2027 (133S). The clauses require notification to owners and removal of EPB notices where status ceases, forcing councils to update registers and property records promptly.
Remediation measures, deadlines, exemptions, and extensions
These sections create the practical remediation framework: authorities must issue EPB notices where required, set deadlines for seismic work, and may grant exemptions or extensions (cumulative extensions up to 15 years). The Bill also allows limited retrospective extension applications and sets the matters a council must consider when deciding on an extension (ownership structure, remediation measure, prior planning). This package formalises a more flexible compliance timetable coupled with clearer remediation categories.
Enforcement, offences, and EPB methodology
Territorial authorities keep enforcement and safety‑requirement powers, including the ability to carry out work at owners’ expense and to impose offences for non‑compliance. Critically, section 133ZI requires the chief executive to set a more detailed EPB methodology (and section 133ZJ prescribes consultation) that determines scope, evaluation criteria, and which remediation measure applies. That centralised methodology will drive consistency but concentrates technical decision‑making at MBIE.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Owners of buildings located in low seismic zones (for example, many properties in Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands): the Bill removes the possibility of future earthquake‑prone designation and requires removal from EPB registers, reducing regulatory uncertainty and potential retrofit costs.
- Owners of lower‑risk buildings outside urban centres: the EPB methodology generally assigns less onerous remediation measures to non‑urban buildings, lowering compliance burdens and avoiding full retrofits for many structures.
- Territorial authorities with large low‑risk portfolios: fewer buildings to assess long‑term means lower ongoing identification and enforcement workloads once registers are updated.
- MBIE and national policymakers: the Bill centralises technical decisions in an EPB methodology and a digital seismic‑zone map, providing a single reference point for consistent national application.
- Retrofit contractors focusing on high‑risk urban buildings: demand concentrates on a more predictable subset of high‑risk buildings, allowing firms to specialise and bid for larger, higher‑value projects.
Who Bears the Cost
- Owners of multi‑storey concrete/heavy material buildings and owners of unreinforced masonry in medium and high seismic zones: these owners will be the primary targets for remediation and may face targeted or full retrofits, potentially at significant cost.
- Territorial authorities: they must re‑review EPB registers, remove records for ineligible buildings, manage consultation and owner notifications, and handle extension and exemption applications — all administrative tasks with budgetary implications.
- Property developers and asset owners in reclassified areas (e.g., Coastal Otago): reclassification to medium risk increases the pool of buildings subject to EPB rules, with consequent compliance and valuation impacts.
- MBIE and the central government: centralised methodology development, ongoing map maintenance, and the chief executive’s authorisation role create resourcing and implementation responsibilities at the national level.
- Insurers and lenders holding portfolios with concentrated exposure: the concentrated remedial programme and area reclassifications may change loss‑expectation modelling and premiums, at least during the transitional period.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritise regulatory simplicity and concentrate limited resources on the highest life‑safety risks, or to preserve a broader, precautionary safety net that captures more buildings and hazards; the Bill decisively favors concentration and central technical control, but that choice increases the stakes of mapping, methodology design, and extension policies — and creates winners and losers across regions, owners, and insurers.
The Bill trades breadth for focus: by excluding whole geographic areas and narrowing building types, it reduces the number of buildings subject to remediation but concentrates remaining risk and costs in a smaller set of properties. That concentration changes market dynamics — demand for skilled retrofit capacity will cluster in urban/high‑risk areas, while owners in excluded zones gain regulatory relief that may affect property values and insurance pricing.
The shift to a centrally set EPB methodology promotes consistency but places heavy reliance on MBIE’s technical choices and on the accuracy of the seismic‑zone map. If the map or methodology lags evolving scientific understanding, buildings that should be protected may fall outside the regime or vice versa.
Several operational tensions are unresolved in the Bill. Allowing up to 15 years of extensions provides owners more time but delays life‑safety improvements and can create intergenerational fairness issues for future owners or tenants.
The provision that building consents for seismic‑only work need not require compliance with fire escape or disability access code provisions reduces upgrade costs but raises multi‑hazard safety questions: seismic strengthening that leaves other hazards unaddressed could complicate emergency response or lifecycle accessibility. Finally, the chief‑executive authorisation requirement for certain post‑1976 identifications centralises a gatekeeping function; while that curbs over‑identification by councils, it risks becoming a bottleneck and blurs accountability between national and local government.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.