"It's a test for where, as a country, our priorities exist," CCS Disability Action chief executive David Matthews said. "Is it about safety per se, or it is about a more inclusive society as well?"
The Government has sought feedback on the recommendation in the Building Seismic Performance discussion paper, and Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson stressed that it was far from settled.
At present, councils cannot issue consents for strengthening works unless the owner upgrades the building's disabled access and fire escapes in line with the building code.
The royal commission said this rule could impose additional costs on owners of earthquake-prone buildings, and recommended that it should be removed.
Mr Williamson told the Herald: "One of the big concerns about this whole earthquake-prone policy is that we will make some buildings uneconomic. A lot of landlords are saying if they have to spend a lot of money bringing it up to standard, this building may not be viable and we may actually be better to leave it barren."
He said it was a "double-whammy" to impose strengthening costs on these owners and also new costs for fire safety and disabled access. "In principle, I'm a bit reluctant to enforce a building owner to spend a lot more money on their building that they didn't have to at the time when it was built."
Mr Matthews felt that the commission's recommendation had focused too narrowly on costs to property owners.
He noted that the Government spent $2 billion on sickness and invalid-related welfare, but many of these beneficiaries were prevented or discouraged from working because of accessibility barriers.
The commission did not do a cost-benefit analysis of upgrading disabled facilities to the current building code. One estimate of the cost of installing modern fire escapes and mobility access was around 1 per cent of the total cost of a new building or renovation.
Mr Williamson said a thorough analysis would have to be done before any amendment to the Building Act was approved.
He also said there could be a significant pay-off in earthquake-proofing buildings, in particular lower insurance premiums and the ability to charge higher rent.
"In some cases, where public access is important, it will dramatically improve the value of your property."
Mr Matthews said the commission's recommendation had also presumed that only disabled people required special access to buildings.
He felt that the upgrade of building stock was a golden opportunity to prepare for an ageing population. By the time all earthquake-prone buildings had been strengthened, 20 per cent of Kiwis would be 65 years or older.
Seismic performance
Proposed:
*193,000 buildings assessed within five years
*15,000 to 20,000 buildings earthquake strengthened within 10 years of assessment
Being considered:
*Amending the Building Act to allow owners of earthquake-prone buildings to strengthen them without upgrading fire escapes or disabled access
