Why we need to get our safety priorities right

The weather has been so good during my summer staycation that the last thing I considered doing was going to the cinema. For anyone in their 20s or 30s reading this, a cinema is a big building where old people and young people pay to watch a movie, together, on a big screen – sometimes even before it has screened on Netflix.

However, if Monday morning’s drizzly weather continues, you’ll be out of luck if you want to watch the latest blockbuster at Reading Cinemas. Late last week, after receiving a draft report from independent engineers that found the inside of the building might not be safe in the event of an earthquake, Reading exercised an ‘‘abundance of caution’’ and closed its cinema and the shops inside the building. I suspect it is also looking at losing an abundance of money.

This was the decent and responsible thing to do. Reading Cinemas realised punters could be at risk if it did not close its doors. After all, this building has form. It was damaged in the 2016 Kaiko¯ ura earthquake and was closed for about five months as repairs were made. The adjoining car park was so badly damaged that it had to be demolished.

However, the closure has raised some questions about transparency and the role of local and central government in earthquake safety. According to Reading Cinemas, the risks are limited to the inside of the building. That’s why, even though you’re not allowed to enter the building, you can still walk past the front entrance.

I suspect anyone who has seen the scary footage of shop awnings and fronts of buildings collapsing during the Christchurch earthquake will now skip a little faster past the Reading building. If I was a busker, I would try somewhere else.

Nicola Willis wants more information. ‘‘I think what Wellingtonians want to know,’’ said the city’s ubiquitous National list MP, ‘‘is if it is not safe to go to a movie inside this building, is it safe to walk on the street outside this building?’’

Good point. However, city councillor Iona Pannett points out that the independent engineers have said the outside is safe. They’re the experts. ‘‘If we had concerns, we would do something about it,’’ said the council’s infrastructure portfolio leader. Good point, also. And it is only a draft report. The council and Reading Cinemas will soon be meeting about the closure.

However, while I’m sure the engineers employed by Reading Cinemas are competent and impartial, it’s a tricky situation. Though owners of private buildings are subject to time limits to get their buildings up to standard, they are not legally obliged to make earthquake safety information available to the council.

Though Reading did the decent thing to inform the council, it didn’t have to, and it hasn’t publicly released the draft report, so it’s hard for other experts to judge whether the exterior is a risk or not. And what happens if building owners with less integrity than Reading sit on a damning report, so they don’t lose an abundance of money?

Surely it would be nice to get a second opinion on larger buildings declared safe? Councils don’t employ engineers, though they do contract them, and clearly want to avoid being liable themselves by saying yea or nay on building safety.

This could be an area where central government could look at sitting down with councils and getting more involved. No, one doesn’t want to spook private building owners, and there are nearly 700 buildings in Wellington not yet up to standard that we happily visit, work or live in every day. But surely ratepayers and taxpayers should have the right to know more details about the safety of a large, possibly deadly, structure they might be entering?

Though people died in smaller buildings and from falling masonry during the Christchurch earthquake, it was larger buildings that were the major killers. And let’s not forget that, after the September 2010 Canterbury earthquake, the CTV building was green-stickered by a council inspection team, with no engineer present.

How big a priority is earthquake safety for our local bodies? Go into a bowling or croquet club and the chances are that councils have already liaised with police and taken time-consuming steps to make sure the septuagenarians and octogenarians there aren’t drinking too much. And we all know that hairdressers offering clients a Christmas tipple is one of the major health and safety risks of our time. That’s why council officers spent valuable time and money last year warning hairdressers about the issue.

Let’s hope Wellington City Council and the Government make it easier for citizens to know more about the safety of big buildings that might be earthquake risks. After all, it’s a far bigger risk than lawn bowlers, croquet players and hairdressers having one sherry too many.

We all know that hairdressers offering clients a Christmas tipple is one of the major health and safety risks of our time.