SOME POINTS NOT TO MISS IN EARTHQUAKE REVIEWS

As the only architect to travel with the NZ surveillance teams to Kobe (Japan) and Bagio (Phillipines) earthquakes, I was part of a team that identified some key issues - which any review of NZ Regulations should be aware of.
It's fine to reveiw the Codes - but I suggest they are not the main issue.  Like Japan and California, NZ has refined and reviewed earthquake regulations - and they are by and large good.  They should withstand a Royal Commission interrogation.
But if the Commission wants to achieve some relevance I suggest the following be included:
1.  Quality controll of construction:  A large building is made up of a many junctions - beams to cols, slabs to beams etc etc.  The failure of one under seismic load is likely to precipitate a major failure of that building (like the Grand Chancellor).  The need is for comprehensive quality control of the building process, especially in critical points such as junctions.  The most effective way would be to require Registered Engineers to inspect and certify the quality of junctions (not another TA inspection regime!). 
2.  Infill panels:  After the building is completed and signed of (Code Compliance), the interior fitout begins.  Being non-structural, much of this can be done without a Building Consent.  Installing rigid walls in structural bays can change the seismic performance of a building, leading to failure.  I am not proposing more regulatory controlls - but a Code of Practice adopted by Building Owners, ensuring that fitouts do not change the sesimic performance of the building would be valuable. 
3. Fittings, furniture etc:  In an earthquake, desk top computers, bok shelves appliances and furniture become lethal missiles.  They will cause considrable damage, injury and even death.  Making simple restraints  available with reccomendations on use would minimise this.
There is a lot of information and knowledge on the performance of modern buildings in earthquakes - the Govt, in establishing Commissions etc should make use of it rather than 'reinventing the wheel'.