Earthquake rating system scrapped in massive overhaul

Monday, 29 September 2025

The Government is scrapping the earthquake-prone building standards system, replacing it with a new regime while ditching seismic rules for whole cities and regions.

The significant changes will mean about 2900 buildings stickered as earthquake prone will no longer be considered a risk by the Government - about 55% of the buildings in the system.

To achieve this, the New Building Standard (NBS) rating system will be replaced with a new scheme by the end of the year.

Only concrete buildings three storeys or higher or those constructed with unreinforced masonry - brick walls and the like - will be included in that system, which will focus on buildings that pose a “genuine risk to human life in medium and high seismic zones,” Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk said.

Want to stay in the know? Sign up for the latest news alerts here

Auckland will be removed from the system entirely. In smaller centres, only risky facades will need strengthening on most main streets, rather than whole buildings.

The changes give effect to recommendations from an independent review led by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

The changes do not strictly follow MBIE’s recommendations, with MBIE’s preferred option not including a full excision of Auckland from the system.

The Government expects 840 buildings will remain in the system but not require any remediation, while 1440 will face less costly remediation. About 80 buildings will still require a full retrofit.

The announcement could be seen as a life-line for building owners who have struggled with crippling remediation costs that have seen their buildings left empty and unused for years.

But it is also likely to court some controversy from those who remember the lives lost in collapsed buildings during the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch.

The changes are only applied to older buildings - any new builds will comply with the current seismic standards.

Penk said the “fairer, risk-based” system would save building owners a huge amount of money but still keep Kiwis safe.

“While well intentioned, the current system for assessing and managing seismic risk in buildings places an overwhelming financial burden on building owners,” Penk said.

He said the current method had proven “too broad and inconsistent” because buildings’ overall NBS rating is determined by its weakest part, and even a small defect could see an entire building classified as earthquake-prone.

“For many buildings, the price of strengthening runs from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars. As a result, these buildings are often left empty and become derelict, making them even more dangerous to bystanders in an earthquake.

“On top of this, apartment and small business owners who cannot afford the fixes demanded by the current laws have faced years of stress and sleepless nights, as their most valuable asset has become unsaleable through no fault of their own.

“The review confirmed what has always been clear: protecting human life must remain our top priority.”

What the changes mean for Wellington

Wellington mayor Tory Whanau said it was a “huge win” for the city known for its issues with earthquake prone buildings, both residential and commercial. Whanau believed the new system would have hundreds of owners from expensive repairs.

The number of earthquake-prone buildings in Wellington will decrease from 540 to 269.

“Officers will review what these proposed changes mean for the Capital E building, which forms part of the City to Sea Bridge, and whether its earthquake-prone status would be removed under the new rules.”

The pause on the bridge’s demolition demolition will be extended until officers reported back in the new Council term on what options the new rules could give Capital E and the bridge.

“The rule changes may also impact other Council-owned buildings; officers will review the implications for these buildings and present advice in the new Council term.”

The overhaul is expected to slash more than $8 billion of remediation costs nationally and The Post understands Wellington building owners are expected to save about $1 billion.

As well as Capital E, other known major sites in Wellington with earthquake prone status include the Amora Hotel, the Michael Fowler Centre, the Embassy and Reading Cinemas.

A Wellington City Council spokesperson said it would be working through the changes and what they would mean as the regulator, and what it would mean for council-owned property.

“In the meantime, it is important that owners of earthquake-prone buildings leave their notices in place until any changes have been confirmed by legislation.”

Auckland and other areas removed entirely

Auckland, Northland and the Chatham Islands will be removed from the regime entirely.

The Government considers that the estimated $4.5 billion cost required for buildings in the region to meet the requirements of the NBS system was disproportionate to the benefits, considering the region’s low seismic risk.

“There is considerably less need to spend significant amounts of money on strengthening in regions with very low seismic risk,” Penk said.

Around 37% of Kiwis live in Auckland and Northland.

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, who has previously questioned why the super city was included in the scheme despite the low risk from earthquakes, said the city could now plan “with confidence knowing we don’t have to adhere to silly rules that should never have applied to Auckland in the first place”.

“It has been a 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.”

Meanwhile, Coastal Otago including Dunedin will shift from 'low' to 'medium' risk.

The moves were made independent of the change, due to the latest scientific understanding of seismic risk along fault lines.

Where did the NBS come from?

The NBS rating system came into effect in 2017.

It is used nationwide by engineers to determine the risk of life compared to a newly built building in the event of an average earthquake.

Any building rated below 34% can be considered earthquake prone, while any building rated less than 67% is considered an earthquake risk.

Property Council chief executive Leoni Freeman said the “rigid” NBS system was “confusing, disproportionate, and damaging” to towns and cities.

She said the system was arbitrary, with small variations creating major consequences for owners.

“The difference between 66% and 67% NBS could mean whether a building was occupied or left vacant, even though it sits within the margin of error. The system became fixated on numbers that didn’t reflect real safety, while ratings swung every time the rules shifted.

“It’s no wonder tenants started demanding 80-100% NBS, despite the law only defining earthquake-prone as below 34%.”

Sweeping overhaul includes considerations to heritage rules

The Government is also removing requirements for building owners to upgrade fire safety and disability access at the same time as strengthening, with Penk saying the added cost discouraged owners from undertaking essential seismic work.

Local councils will be given the authority to grant extensions to remediation deadlines up to 15 years, giving building owners time to secure funding, plan and carry out any major work still required.

Further regulatory relief is being considered, including changes to resource management and heritage rules.

Penk said enforcing remediation obligations was costly and time consuming for local councils, and heritage restrictions were creating barriers to practical solutions.

Some rural town buildings given exemption

Unreinforced masonry buildings under three storeys in small and rural towns will no longer require strengthening or warning notices, but owners must secure the façade before the building can be removed from the earthquake-prone register.

Penk said the change recognised that the risk of a façade falling on a pedestrian was lower in communities with fewer than 10,000 residents than it is in larger urban centres, because there are fewer people on the streets.