Keryn Davis, CEO of Architectural Designers New Zealand believes that 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.
“The proposed funding changes raise legitimate concerns about the future of specialist facilities, highly skilled researchers, and the long-term research programmes that help us understand how buildings and materials actually perform over time in New Zealand's unique conditions. These capabilities are a national asset,” she said.
This isn’t just about funding—it’s about preserving institutional knowledge, sustaining PhD pipelines, and ensuring that the lessons of the past continue to inform the buildings of the future. Without stable, ring-fenced funding, we risk losing the very foundation that has made New Zealand a leader in building science.
What’s at stake
Long-term research isn’t glamorous. It doesn’t make headlines or deliver instant wins. But it is the backbone of progress in building science. Longitudinal studies—such as those on weathertightness, seismic resilience, and fire safety—require decades of consistent data collection, testing, and refinement.
These studies don’t just answer today’s questions; they anticipate tomorrow’s challenges, ensuring that New Zealand’s buildings remain safe, durable, and adaptable in the face of climate change, population growth, and evolving construction practices.
The BRANZ model has enabled this work by providing stable, predictable funding that allows researchers to commit to multi-year projects without the fear of sudden funding cuts.
As Richard Templer, CEO of Engineering New Zealand explained, "We need long-term research. For example, weathertightness issues are generally not something you notice in the first year. To study it and find solutions, you’re talking about projects that take years, not months."
Funding stability is not a luxury—it’s a necessity. Without it, researchers are forced to abandon projects mid-stream, wasting years of work and losing critical insights that could prevent future disasters.
The threat extends beyond individual projects. Institutional knowledge—the cumulative expertise built up over generations—is at risk of being lost or dispersed.
Pamela Bell, Professor of Practice for Advanced Construction at Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington warns: "If BRANZ ceases to exist as that knowledge hub, what happens with all that intergenerational knowledge? Who looks after it?"
And the risk isn’t just about data; it’s about the people who understand it.
The Save Science Coalition says that New Zealand has already lost more than 700 scientists since 2023, many of whom have taken their expertise overseas. If BRANZ’s funding model is destabilised, more will likely follow, leaving gaps in our national building science capability that could take decades to rebuild.
The consequences of short-termism
The shift to a fully contestable, politically driven funding model potentially risks prioritising short-term, commercially viable projects over the long-term, public-good research that underpins New Zealand’s building standards.
Helmut Modlik, CEO of Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira framed this as a fundamental conflict between public good and commercial imperatives:
"Public good research, where they’re able to look at what is and what might be, as opposed to always narrowly chasing a monetisable outcome, is the right framework for something as fundamental as the well-being of our society."
The stakes are even higher when you consider the unique challenges facing our built environment. New Zealand’s seismic activity, extreme weather, and varied climate zones demand specialised, long-term research that cannot be outsourced or improvised.
Nick Hill, CEO of the Building Officials Institute of New Zealand (BOINZ) underscored this:
"New Zealand has a unique climate... We need to test products for hundreds of years. You don’t do that on the cheap. You need time, models, and different scenarios. Without stable funding, this critical work simply won’t happen.”
A chorus of concern
The concern about losing long-term research capability is not confined to one corner of the industry. It is a cross-sector issue that has united leaders from engineering, insurance, architecture, and iwi in their unease.
Kris Faafoi, CEO of the Insurance Council highlighted the insurance and reinsurance risks of undermining long-term research:
"If we don’t have the long-term research capability, then the things we want to make sure we’re looking at around building codes... no one else is going to do it."
Without this research, insurers may refuse to cover New Zealand buildings, or premiums could skyrocket due to increased risk.
Pamela Bell spoke to the loss of continuity and accumulated knowledge: "Research is cumulative. It has to tie back to existing research. Someone’s going to have to maintain that body of knowledge."
This is not just about data—it’s about the people and systems that make sense of it.
"We’re not just losing momentum; we’re losing the opportunity to be as productive as possible," she said.
Richard Templer provided a stark example of what’s at risk: "The Natural Hazards Platform was funded for 10 years because we recognised that to attract the best people, you need continuity."
This long-term commitment is what allows New Zealand to retain top researchers and compete globally. Without it, we risk falling behind in areas like seismic engineering and climate adaptation—fields where New Zealand has traditionally punched above its weight.
Nick Leggett, CEO of Infrastructure NZ connected the dots between long-term research and economic resilience:
"Any weakening of a long-term evidence base is bizarrely counterintuitive... We’re moving into a period where asset renewal, resilience, and adaptation matter more, not less."
And, in a world where climate change and extreme weather are increasing the pressure on our built environment, now is definitely not the time to abandon the research that keeps us safe.
A call to preserve what works
The proposed repeal of the BRLA is not just a policy change—it’s an existential threat to New Zealand’s ability to conduct the long-term research that keeps our buildings safe and our construction sector competitive. The hidden, ‘grunt’ work of longitudinal studies, institutional knowledge, and intergenerational expertise doesn’t make headlines, but it saves lives, prevents disasters, and secures our future.
As Helmut Modlik eloquently put it, "My ancestors were extraordinary scientists... Long term, public good research where observations are cumulative is the wisest way to go."
New Zealand’s construction sector deserves a system that values this wisdom.