After interviewing more than twenty industry leaders, spanning insurance, engineering, architecture, building supplies, and iwi, not one could identify the problem this change is supposed to solve. What they can articulate, with striking clarity, are the potential unintended consequences and risks: a loss of independence, short-term funding cycles that stifle long-term research, and a centralisation of power that could marginalise industry expertise.
They have compelling concerns that the proposed repeal risks dismantling 60 years of institutional knowledge that has made New Zealand a world leader in building safety, resilience, and innovation all for no clear benefit.
CEO of Infrastructure New Zealand, Nick Leggett neatly summed up the position that BRANZ finds itself in:
"[This repeal proposal] is difficult because the problem with BRANZ is that its work is taken for granted. It is also kind of a hidden treasure ... It’s hard stuff to communicate, especially to the general public. But the industry knows the benefits and it also knows their work is more than a nice-to-have - it is vital.”
A solution looking for a problem
The most jarring takeaway from these conversations has been the absence of a well-articulated rationale for the change. Nick Leggett bluntly stated:
"I don’t know what the problem is that they’re trying to solve with this [repeal]... It’s just not clear. It’s not like it will save the taxpayer much, if anything... It’s where the government is spending that money that’s going to change and I think you would struggle to find an example where people have said, ‘we need to get more from our money, put central Government in charge!’”
A leading engineer, echoed this sentiment asking: "What problem are you trying to solve here? Because maybe things need updating, but there’s nothing broken that I can see."
This isn’t to suggest the current system is flawless. Many leaders, including BRANZ itself, acknowledge that any 60-year-old act deserves review. Richard Templer, CEO of Engineering New Zealand perhaps expressed it best:
“I haven’t seen a case for change. I haven’t seen anything that says the research is going in the wrong direction. What this repeal risks is undermining funding for trusted, applied science that as engineers, we rely upon.
“What I would say is yes, review the Act, that makes sense but we think direct, widespread engagement with industry is by far and away the best way to have that happen," he said.
Higher premiums … or no coverage at all
The insurance sector also has concerns With Kris Faafoi, CEO of the Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) delivering a clear message:
"If you have materials that are more hazardous or not appropriately tested for NZ conditions... then we could have Grenfell Towers-type situation on our hands. And if that becomes systemic, the probability of a full-loss event becomes higher and reinsurers will look at New Zealand and say, ‘Hold on, you guys are building all these apartments with materials we don’t like.’ That can lead to higher premiums to meet higher reinsurance costs.”
This isn’t theoretical. Many commentators have pointed to the Grenfell inquiry, which found that the privatisation of BRE (the UK’s equivalent of BRANZ) was a key factor in the tragedy. For insurers, poor standards equal more potential claims, which equal higher premiums or worse, no coverage at all.
Rushed process
Another concern in some quarters is the speed and opacity of the process, marked by limited consultation and a rushed timeline, which some suggest speaks to a political imperative rather than a policy necessity.
Registered Master Builder, Stuart Shutt of Sentinel Homes said that while a review of the Act is welcome and overdue, he would like to see more detail.
“Where’s the burning platform? And perhaps more importantly, what does better look like? There are a lot of unknowns here.”
Grant Fraser, CEO of Mitre 10 captured the building supplies sector’s surprise:
"It [the proposal to repeal the Building Research Levy Act] seems to have been introduced extraordinarily fast. There’s so much happening in the building industry regulatory space. Is this a priority?"
Mark Abbot, CEO of the NZ Institute of Architects agreed:
"The decision appears to have come out of left field and it’s extraordinary and incredibly fast. I’m surprised we, and others in the wider building sector, haven’t been consulted. I’m concerned we don’t know what the new system will really deliver."
Cross-sector consensus
What’s perhaps most remarkable is the breadth of concern across a broad and diverse sector that rarely agrees on anything. Yet on this issue, leaders from every corner of the construction sector are aligned in their unease for a range of reasons.
For builders, BRANZ’s independence is critical in ensuring the research is trusted. One Registered Master Builder who chose to remain anonymous warned:
"If you go out to any building site, I know who they’re going to talk to and who they’re going to believe. It’s not MBIE. It’s BRANZ. There’s an outreach, an industry acceptance, and trust. I don’t think NZ Inc should give that away lightly."
Nick Hill, CEO of the Building Officials Institute (BOINZ) reinforced this view:
"BRANZ has been the backbone of independent building research. What it looks like we’ll have is a fractured and uncoordinated research approach. We’re no longer going to have a backbone."
BRANZ has been seen as a trusted source of evidence to support a cohesive building standards regime and championing innovation. Given that New Zealand continues to face significant challenges in the building sector, the potential to lose that vision and generational thinking is worrying. Grant Fraser noted:
"If we’re losing a mechanism that clearly supports innovation, we run the risk of falling behind as a nation. That’s something we can ill-afford to do."
Building Industry Federation CEO, Julien Leys raised another issue, warning that without BRANZ’s unifying role, the construction sector risks splintering into competing factions, each with different standards, priorities, and agendas.
"It’s very hard to get multiple competing bodies to agree on anything, let alone this [minimum building standards]," he said.
Sara Johnson, CEO of ITM agreed, saying:
"BRANZ’s work reduces fragmentation and ensures that standards are applied consistently across the sector. We want and need better homes in New Zealand. It sounds really basic, but my concern is that that’s not going to happen if we lose the sharp, practical and cohesive focus of BRANZ’s research."
Malcolm Fleming, CEO of Certified Builders went further, highlighting a specific example of the practical benefits of BRANZ’s work that – on the face of it – would be difficult to replicate under the proposed new approach. Citing the H1 Hub, an online tool providing critical guidance as insulation and energy-efficiency rules rapidly evolve, he said:
"That’s an example of doing industry good that no other organisation could perform. Without BRANZ, who will step in to provide trusted, independent guidance?”
Engineers and architects fear impact on quality and loss of innovation
For engineers and architects, the loss of independent, industry-led research potentially means fewer options, less innovation, and higher risks—all of which could ultimately compromise the quality of New Zealand’s built environment.
Engineers and architects rely on BRANZ’s research to design safe, resilient buildings.
Richard Templer of Engineering New Zealand stressed:
"We rely heavily on BRANZ long-term research and it is trusted, largely because there is such a high level of direct engagement with the industry through the Building Research Advisory Council (BRAC) about the challenges that need solving. It is not clear how or if this will continue to happen long-term.”
Without it, he warned, "… the importance of this research, which is not huge in dollar terms, could easily get dismissed or missed."
Mark Abbot of the NZ Institute of Architects added:
"BRANZ have done a very good job in managing the levy distribution... I don’t think there’s been sufficient detail in the government’s proposal to give me confidence that it will be as astutely cared for [by MBIE]."
The human cost
For academia, the loss of stable, long-term funding potentially means work for fewer PhD students, less innovation, and a brain drain that will take decades to reverse.
“We’ve lost so many scientists in the past few years. They go to countries where there’s consistency in funding and value placed on science," Pamela Bell Professor of Practice for Advanced Construction at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington said.
"And, if by chance BRANZ ceases to exist, what happens with all that intergenerational knowledge? Who looks after it?" she added.
A Te Ao Māori view
The CEO of Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira, Helmut Modlik’s insights were particularly striking. He drew a parallel between Māori mātauranga and BRANZ’s work:
"When my tūpuna came to Aotearoa, they were from Hawaiki, with a tropical climate... They changed themselves to live sustainably in this land. By contrast, when European settlers came, they changed the environment to what they were familiar with—and we live with that legacy today."
For Ngati Toa, BRANZ’s long-term, independent research aligns with Māori values of intergenerational thinking. "The potential shift to a commercialised model is a serious and fundamental mistake," Modlik said. "Inevitably it will prioritise short-term monetisation over wider and enduring benefits. It would be a grave step backwards."
Take a pause
Industry leaders and stakeholders are speaking out, not out of self-interest, but out of concern for the future of New Zealand’s built environment. Their message is clear and consistent:
- There is no obvious burning platform for this repeal.
- The potential risks far outweigh potential benefits.
- BRANZ’s independence, expertise, and long-term focus are irreplaceable.
The ask is that the government pause to ensure that any changes to the Building Research Levy Act are designed to protect what works.
A final word of caution comes from Keryn Davis, CEO of Architectural Designers New Zealand.
“BRANZ's value lies not just in the research it produces today, but in the capability, expertise and knowledge it has built over many decades…. Once that capability is lost, whether through reduced testing capability, disrupted longitudinal research or gradual loss of specialist expertise, it’s extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. Rebuilding that knowledge can take years, if it can be rebuilt at all,” she said.