New Zealand’s building and construction sector is currently facing a structural upheaval that has largely flown under the radar of the average homeowner.
The proposed repeal of the Building Research Levy Act and the subsequent folding of research funding into a centralised Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) pot is being sold as a win for efficiency and competition. On the surface, who could argue with a streamlined system?
However, as industry leaders at the coalface warn, competition that forces long‑term public‑interest research into short funding cycles is a recipe for disaster.
Competition often rewards short‑term projects focused on immediate, visible problems. Without secure, long‑term funding, that bias risks crowding out the kind of longitudinal work that only pays off over decades - work needed to prevent failures such as leaky buildings or seismic instability.
In speaking with industry leaders, one core concern has emerged – the potential loss of independent, essential (but perhaps non-sexy) research that underpins our national safety.
"We can’t risk trading long term independent innovation for short term simplification," says Nick Leggett, CEO of Infrastructure NZ.
This sentiment highlights a brewing industry anxiety: that a fully contestable model managed by a government agency could prioritise the "flavour of the month" over essential, unglamorous building science.
One observer noted that when research funding is contestable and politically directed, it can drift toward what fits a three-year electoral cycle or the policy direction of the government agency.
“… building science doesn’t work to a political timeline. It’s always looking to the next horizon to see what’s coming. So it stands to reason you need the funding in place to ensure it can be done.”
Without an independent body like BRANZ to provide a system-wide view, New Zealand could lose the objective evidence base required to challenge current regulations or advocate for safer standards.
"The idea that there is an organisation that... doesn’t have a commercial imperative and that is for the industry good... is a key tenet," explains Malcolm Fleming, Chief Executive of New Zealand Certified Builders.
“Their (BRANZ) independence is critical because it ensures that research is material-agnostic and free from industry capture,” he said.
While independence is valued, industry professionals also emphasise how BRANZ’s focus on applied science builds confidence among practitioners, the sector and New Zealand homeowners.
As Richard Templer, CEO of Engineering New Zealand noted, verification of what actually works involves applied research – and that takes time and certainty of funding.
"We need to understand how products and whole building systems perform. That is the backbone of safety and innovation. It’s about building things, sticking them in a specialised chamber and setting them on fire or doing rigorous seismic testing. Someone has to pay for that.”
He argues that the "boring" R&D that ensures our houses don’t burn down or rot – is precisely what risks being hollowed out if there is no permanent ring-fenced protection for longitudinal research and analysis that’s in the public good. “Who will fund it if there’s no commercial benefit?”
Another recurring theme among sector leaders is the "church and state" or wall of separation conflict potentially created by having a policy-maker also act as the fund distributor.
One industry observer points out that if MBIE controls both policy and funding, "… you could end up with perverse outcomes because... your policy making could then drive the funding allocation.”
There are a raft of international cautionary tales where the commercialisation of building research and consequent loss of public good research has led to tragedy. The 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster in the UK is frequently cited by experts as a chilling example of what happens when a system prioritises speed and cost over independent integrity.
One source noted: “If we move to a model where research must pander to commercial or political interests, we are potentially setting the stage for the next systemic building failure.”
The consensus was that while competition can be a healthy catalyst, it must exist within a framework that recognises some research is too important to be left to the market.
“Efficiency is a noble goal, but it should not come at the cost of the public good that ensures New Zealanders can trust the roofs over their heads,” said Andrew Eagles, CEO of the New Zealand Green Building Council.
As the legislation moves forward, industry leaders that BRANZ spoke to sought clarity from the government on how it will protect the long-term, independent innovation that has kept New Zealand’s built environment resilient.
Many cautioned that the devil is always in the detail and there were still many unknowns in how the new funding system would operate.
“I’m still unclear about exactly how the new system would operate and what specific benefits it would provide New Zealand Inc. That’s a red flag. I believe we should be very careful about dismantling a system that – while perhaps in need of a refresh – has provided a critical safeguard for the New Zealand public for six decades,” Nick Leggett said.