Residential building materials permitted in trusted overseas markets will be automatically approved in New Zealand under a legislative “shake up” of the Building Act.
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk announced the regulatory reform with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in Upper Hutt on Thursday morning.
He said the cost of building a home had climbed significantly in the past few years, partly because it was difficult to access alternative building products when supplies ran short.
The approval process for a new material could take up to two years and was blocking competitors from entering the market.
“This red tape entrenches the use of well-known products, which lowers competition, increases the risk of supply chain disruptions like in the recent GIB shortage, and ultimately makes it more expensive to build anything,” Penk said.
The Government will amend the Building Act to recognise product standards used in some overseas jurisdictions and require consent authorities to accept these alternatives.
One example of an overseas certification scheme is Australia’s WaterMark which assures plumbing products are safe and reliable. It alone could add 200,000 products to NZ.
Penk said this was a “major shakeup” that would drive down costs without compromising on standards. The amendments are hoped to be passed before the end of the year.
These changes are partly in response to a Commerce Commission market study into residential building supplies which the previous Government asked for. It recommended making it easier to get building supplies approved in New Zealand and allow for more product substitutions on construction sites.
Penk said the new regulatory scheme may also make it easier for NZ made products to get international approval as they will be benchmarked against approved overseas alternatives.
Some overseas jurisdictions have similar standards but different seismic or climate conditions which may mean some specific products are not suitable in the local market.
115 Comments
Not "the" product, perhaps "a" product.
Leaking homes was an industry system failure, from the govt changed building regs, architects, speciifiers, suppliers builders, council inspectors...all designing installing and signing off on products, building systems & installations unfit for purpose.
Thanks for giving architects the mention ... but here is a perspective often overlooked: less than 5% of residential dwellings in NZ are designed by or have an architect involved in the construction. Notwithstanding that fact, architects cop a lion's share of leaky building press & blame. We can't create and fold a company to skirt liability. On the matter of busting up the oligopoly and cartel behaviour of the well known controllers and manipulators of our marketplace? All for it. This tweak is only a start - fundamental changes in how we build in rhis country is required, and urgently. The construction systems we continue to use and the half-pie ideas about building envelopes that ignore or fail to understand the basic principals of physics and energy transfer are at the root of our inferior buildings. NZ does not need to reinvent the wheel, yet again, and the climate and conditions are not unique here - a ruse that has allowed the monopoly players to hoodwink policy wonks into creating such a beureacratic quagmire so as to discourage entry to our pathetically small marketspace. Simple solutions? No, certainly not. Two things that might get us on a better path? Stop treating houses like investment commodities and break the cycle of doing things on the cheap... so tired of the refrain of 'want' accompanied by the endless refrain of 'we'll beat it by 15%'.
I agree. I have built 2 homes in the last 12 years & our architect (same guy both) was key to achieving a quality result - mainly bec he was experienced & partly bec he listened to & explained carefully to his clients.
He also charged by the hour not a % of the total cost which I understand is rare in the industry, however an obvious driver for professional & customer value.
Reposted from my comment a few days ago:
Building cost
I'm currently in Oz & visited a street of show homes in a new subdivision yesterday
This 255m2 - 4brm, 2 bath, 3 living home was advertised house only price AUD256,100.
$1000/m2
https://coralhomes.com.au/house-and-land/highlands-255q-covella-lot-601…
They are really decent houses in that link. The house and land package prices indicate that the land prices are north of $600,000. That is ridiculous and totally artificial given that Australia is so blessed with enormous areas or cheap and useless land. A young person seeing those new home offerings should quickly realize that they are wasting their time in New Zealand. I must sent that link to our kids.
42km from Brisbane CBD which is at best a large satellite city. The land would be worth $100k max? Then there is the rampant youth crime wave in Greater Brisbane (white youth at that for you KK)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI4JTpCKv78
Here we go again! Follow the saga of Fletchers and the Chinese copper pipes they installed in Wellington's regional hospital. Or how about the toxic Gib we had coming in a few years ago? NZ suppliers have had it too good for too long, but blanket moves like this are just plain dumb!
Good question and I'm not sure whether there is an easy answer. Having some decent homegrown standards and regular testing of materials governed by other standards used to be the answer, but wasn't a lot of this was dismantled in the 80's/90's?
Another is enforcing accountability when things go wrong - including at importer and licensor level - and at Government level if practices it enables result in an inferior built environment. Not the duck for cover rubbish we saw with monoclad.
Indeed. Give BRANZ back some clout as the logical choice to interface and monitor materials & systems from the 'approved' jurisdiction authorities might be a start. Remove building from the behomouth MBIE too. Finally, actually fund the important and relevent work undertaken by BRANZ and especially remove the commercial viability aspect imposed back in the 1990s - forcing reliance on advertising, sponsorship and financial contributions from industry players casts a taint on the impartiality, at least in perception...
Looks like aiming to place greater responsibility and accountability in the common ground of the contract between builder/constructor and buyer/owner. That in turn puts the onus on either party to properly cover themselves by way of that contract being adequately detailed, rather than thinking to fall back on local and/or central government regulations. For instance builders may require to provide personal guarantees behind their operative company and they may need similar guarantees themselves from suppliers of materials. Experience of late in our family of a new build over a several faults the builder blamed the supplier’s product and the supplier blamed the builder’s work.
Sounds like you have experience here, what would you do to qualify these new products without making compliance too expensive or delay their entrance to the market unreasonably? Genuine question.
Just remove any guarantee or warranty.
Granted I'm only talking about exterior products, but unless they're tested over a long period of time in NZ, there's no way to ensure something from overseas is fit for purpose.
Drive out to Muriwai, to the north of the golf course are fields of products being tested in our environment. And other places around NZ. If you don't do that, you will be testing them in the market instead.
Often the problem is not the product itself but how the product is used in conjunction with other products and what building regulations say is acceptable in NZ.
A good example of this is kiln dried timber. It's used successfully all over the world. BUT ... the rest of the world has different building regulations that have more stringent rules in moisture protection & removal. (Or they don't need the more stringent rules because the location never has a problem because they get far less rain, and wind driven rain.) Thus a like-for-like use of kiln-dried timber to replace treated timber in NZ with our building regulations was a disaster waiting to happen.
Are they talking about letting in cheap rubbish from any low grade country or products from first world countries that meet recognized international standards like ISO, JIS, BS, ASA, NIST, ICC .........? Looking at the disasters that our building code has allowed, I think that I would prefer products that conform with these other standards. I strongly suspect that our own building standards are developed by a group of not overly bright NZ building industry interests who are more strongly motivated in developing standards that make it difficult to import competing products.
Having said that can someone explain how overseas the external walls of houses can be constructed with what looks like strand board with not a lot more than building paper to keep the moisture out? Am I missing something? Is there something special about the strand board and or the protective membrane?
Here's an example of a WaterMark certificate of conformity. Note the Brand Name in the Product Schedule.
https://www.iplex.com.au/assets/Uploads/542dac1159/Iplex-Profit-Fitting…
Building and Energy has carried out testing on pipe samples taken from affected properties. Findings so far show the leaks are principally from Pro-fit pipes manufactured by Iplex Australia between mid-2017 to mid-2022
https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/announcements/update-pipe-leaks-new-homes
From another article:
The party proposed allowing any material or system approved for use in the American, European, British, and Australian markets to be automatically approved in New Zealand
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/127121/zoning-housing-regulations-a…
If a product or system is given acceptable solution status then yes installed to manufacturers standards. If it’s not then to use it you need to prove it meets the building code. As far as I know that’s not an easy process. It’s a very different code to what it was 30 years ago.
Never rains in California? Dont take geography lessons from song lyrics. Northern California (San Francisco, Sacramento etc) get plenty of rain.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/weather/california-rain-totals/
...architects? or perhaps you mean architectural designer, or architectural draughts... or any of the myriad of names and descriptors that imply architect but don't specifically call a person an architect. When they are not. Because clearly that is against the law... and clearly the informed NZ consumer understands the difference. 🤣😂 Sorry Tui, but Yeah, Right.
Some of these people are registered architects. If not an architect, I don't know what to call them.
Even yourself, call yourself an architect, and say there's nothing specifically unique about NZ - there's a reason we've one of the highest skin cancer rates in the world.
Architects definitely have their place and for me its in house design greater than $750k, that's the house only not including land. Architectural designers and draughtsman have their place and provided they are LBP registered are suitable for run of the mill houses at a lower value. I've always had the perception that architects are good for doing pretty when most of the design, even for a residential house is related to structural engineering. Case in point. I'm looking at a small project, value wise, where the design is 90% structural and SED, 10% doing pretty. I'd have the structural engineer as principal with an architectural designer do the layout. Fortunately I have an engineering background and house design is a hobby. Average Joe Blogs would not see it this way.
You need to think wider - which will put you ahead of many....
Councils, like health, universities, and central governments, are in trouble. They presumed endless growth - and in that, they were factually mistaken. We are up against the global limits now, and as the quality of the remaining resource/energy decreases, rates, taxes and costs must rise - until the system implodes.
My oft-told example is that it once took the removal of ten tons of 'overburden', to get at one ton of copper (think: plumbing). That was done with 100:1 EROEI oil. Now we're down to 400 tons removed, to get at a ton - and the EROEI is down to 15:1, probably less. Don't blame the Councils - that's just small-thinking 'otherising'.
I'm not sure that this will make much difference. Framing timber, wood cladding, concrete, roofing iron no change. The high cost of labour and contractor margins will not change.
Will this go down as another National party disaster.
Leaky homes Bolger/ Shipley government.
Heavy trucks destroying our roads Key government.
A brand new disaster Luxon government.
You need to look at the exchange rate for one, the cost of living and the the cost of tools. Can buy a good brand bench saw over there for $300 on special. Same saw here is $1500 including gst on special last month
Perhaps you are another one of those people that believe carpenters should be living in cardboard boxes for the privilege of building you a mansion
I agree, it's great news. However I still think an element of caution is needed before we open the flood gates to allow any product with a Standards Mark approval to be used.
Local Councils adopt an inhouse product approvals list in 3 waters, why not the Government for building materials? It usually includes "Manufacturer" and "Supplier/Distributor" for which there's an established, reputable supplier in New Zealand that can front liability. Otherwise you risk unscrupulous businessmen flying into the country with a briefcase of Standards Mark certs to arrange drop shipping of their manufacturer's reject products.
It will be the councils that get smashed, National seem to have a vendetta. They won't be allowed to prevent a material that is certified overseas, then they will get the bill when it fails and the builder and supplier have fled.
Its a good idea if there are just a few issues a year, but if an entire decade's housing stock gets affected its a really bad idea. I also have my doubts that it will save that much anyway.
Surely if people buy from a reputable builder with a watertight third party quality guarantee. Then the issue of ensuring quality lies with the builder/guatantor to select and competently install products as needed...or they won't be able to offer guarentees again... where they choose to source materials from shouldnt be a concern for the buyer who will be covered..
If there is an issue with the third party guarentees then we should look there.... ideally it would all be market driven with government control on the stability and adwquate funds over the guarantor?
You can get guarantees, but often these preclude lack of maintenance.
Much of the leakers were relying on silicon or other perishable membranes for water tightness. Which work fine on the day of completion, but in 10 years, if not maintained, your weather tightness is disappearing.
This will only work for the low cost and volume builders.
Any builder that is willing to stand behind his product, hasn't got 10s of thousands in a fund to defend themselves and doesn't want loose their own house will just refuse to use imported products that have no testing or comprehensive warranty.
Gee kiwi are naive.
The building supply industry has been a cartel for ever in this country there is margin on margin on margin.
Been in the game for years its a joke.
Hopefully this will help.
Remember the word Cartel there is a lot of them running in this country.
This needs to stop to get the country back on track
In most cases there is no comparable NZ standard. Cladding for example, the standard is that it must survive NZ conditions for a minimum of 15 years, how does an overseas product adhere to that? Even Gib, it’s used for bracing in NZ and has been tested to meet the strength requirements, but foreign Gib is not used for bracing or tested for it.
Any overseas product can currently be consented if it proves it’s up to those standards, but that’s expensive to do.
Keep drinking the GIB coolade - of course a dfferent colour paper face and sometimes a mesh in the mix of your 9.5/10/12&13 mm gypsum composition panel, with the array of different prices for said 'differences' is superior to all the other gypsum based wallboard products everywhere else in the world. Look how they saved Christchurch buildings... oh. That's right. Of course our local special conditions and superior marketing - oops I mean manufacturing - is unrivaled and that is why Knauf* realised there was no chance to gain marketshare from the superior player well established and dominating here. At least until the unexpected hiccup with production...
PS gypsom based wallboards are not used so predominantly as bracing in other countries because, gosh, somehow those countries have figured out such products aren't actually so great to be relied upon for seismic resistence. Or maybe our manufacturer has cornered the international supply of magic coloured papers that mitigate seismic forces.
No, there is no requirement for them to actually test here in NZ, only that the NZ authorities like BRANZ or other product certifiers confirm that it meets NZ requirements, which they can easily do if the imported products have used certain overseas testing authorities.
In many cases, the NZ testing standard is a watered-down version of the overseas standard, but with legislation and a near monopoly on who you can use NZ, then it has stopped many great products from being imported.
As one overseas supplier of Passive quality materials told me, they had never seen a first-world country with such poor building standards and yet certification costs that were the most expensive of any of the 40 countries they export to.
Well last time deregulation went wrong it cost the country between $11 and $23 billion to remedy depending on who you ask. As a ratepayer and taxpayer I helped pay for it, but most of the cost fell on the building owners it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis#:~:text=Overview%20Gro….
The 15 year durability requirement for cladding is an excellent limitation. We recently tore off all the old hardiplank on our house that was installed circa 1991, and replaced with new lineaboard. Would have preferred to go with weatherboard, but schedule 1 building act requires like for like without needing consent. If we sell, and it had weatherboard without consent, would have been an issue.
However, I note that Auckland Council is acting ultra vires in requiring ALL recladding (even where it is more than 15 years old and has not leaked) to be consented, even where new cladding is like for like.
I asked AC for the legal provision on which they are overriding Schedule 1, but nobody was able to give that information.
would be good for an enterprising journalist to investigate and ask if AC are illegally charging for reclad consents in those situations.
I'm not sure if that's completely correct. You can replace steel tiles with longrun, both classified as light roof. In older houses , around mid seventies there was no roof underlay under the tiles. Replacing with longrun requires roof underlay and you need an LBP roofer to do the install, but no building consent.
Hardiplank certainly doesn’t look the best after 30 years. It also wasn’t the best for keeping paint adhered to the surface in its later years. Nothing wrong with replacing it with the much more durable, and advanced, lineaboard that can be painted satisfactorily. We did this outside of Auckland, but if it was in Auckland, AC would have (illegally) asked us to obtain consent which the Building Act explicitly states is not required for a reclad of like for like exterior which has satisfied the 15 year durability requirement.
Schedule 1 of the Building Act does limit the application of the 'like for like' provision:
"However, subclauses (1) and (2) do not include the following building work:
(a) complete or substantial replacement of a specified system; or
(b) complete or substantial replacement of a building product or an assembly contributing to the building’s structural behaviour or fire-safety properties; or
(c) repair or replacement (other than maintenance) of a building product or an assembly incorporated in or associated with a building that has failed to satisfy the provisions of the building code for durability, for example, through a failure to comply with the external moisture requirements of the building code; or
(d) sanitary plumbing or drainlaying under the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006."
So Auckland Council sees a complete recladding as covered by clause (a), and thus needs a building consent.
People seem to be conflating more choices and more supply of individual items with somehow that will result in better design, better assembly of the individual items as a system, and better installation of said items and systems.
I suspect councils will counter this by asking for complete systems verification eg full wall assemblies tested as one unit.
After all, leaky homes and the Grenfell Tower all used approved individual items that failed as a complete system.
This move by the Govt. is good news, but is just one small step on the many that are needed.
In electrical, they kind of act as a summary , saves having to look up several iec standards or whatever.
The difference in cost between say Marley conduit, and imported product stamped with the nz standard is huge. I don't know what hoops they had to jump through to be able to bring the imported stuff in, wether it had to be tested here, or just cross referencing standards.
Well, new materials aren't necessarily the problem
They need to fit a few fundamental requirements including:
1) Must be fit for purpose, and exceed any design life requirements - which are surprisingly short in NZ
2) Must be safe to use and install and dispose of at end of life (i.e. non toxic - not asbestos)
3) Be cost effective and increase competitiveness in the industry
The real issue is around design principals, 'weather tightness' is a stupid concept - as these typically rely on correctly installed flashing or sealants which deteriorate over time. I have seen too many industrial buildings that are 50+yrs old with internal gutters and not one of them has not had leaky gutters or water damage issues
Most external cladding systems are 'weather/ water deflection systems' which is why internal gutters are such a stupid idea and ultimately lead to failure... either through sealants failing or drains blocking and having nowhere to go but inside the building causing massive damage and repair costs
Likewise keeping water away from your foundation is important too, and often overlooked which can lead to differential settlement - uneven floors/ cracks in walls/ doors jamming etc
There are reason that 100yr old homes lasted so long, they had good ventilation, deflected water outside of the building envelope, never had internal gutters and were made from quality timber, insulation/ electrical/ pile foundations were rubbish in hindsight and led to issues later but the bones and core design principals were robust, excluding insulation, wiring, plumbing and other systems which were just poor at the time
We need design principals in play which can mitigate product failures, such as we implemented post leaky home with having to have a cavity between cladding and frames so even if water got past the first cladding barrier then there is a physical gap and a second weather barrier (wrap) to protect the frames - and having airflow between them dries out any water so they do not rot the frame
Unfortunately what looks good/ sharp and what's practical are not always on the same end of the design principal spectrum
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.