The Government will automatically recognise overseas building products standards to allow a wider range of residential building materials to be used in New Zealand

I think the product associated with leaky NZ houses originated in Australia...

Plus which, cost of components isn't the problem. Clipping of the ticket, combined with arse-covering, is ti problem. 

Time to break down this building surpply cartel.

Cost me $5k the other day for 200sqm of steel for commercail concrete drive what a rip off.

I'm really surprised (and impressed), they did it. Nice!

Fletchers must not have have upped their National Party donations to the same amount as the roading and landlord lobbies. 

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.

Australian - Crane enfield metals not China. Also looks like a proper filter which was present elsewhere where no copper pipe issues occured wouldve prevented the issue.

Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water yet.

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?

Perhaps read the article 

"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."

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…

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'. 

She'll be right mate

"high cost of labour" - yeah, I never understood why a builder per hour in NZ costs 3x what a builder in the US does. 

If only those US carpenters knew of this earning  differential we'd never have a builder shortage.

Nowhere builds the best house in the world, because the world's a diverse place. 

The Scandanavians make wonderful timber products, but many of them fail here.

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 may have missed this 'recognise product standards used in some overseas jurisdictions' and they gave an example of Australian Watermark. 

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

They are not saying 'no testing,' they are saying products that have the equivalent or greater testing than the NZ standard (which isn't that hard to meet) will be allowed.

If it is just Australian standards then it is probably fine, but the devil is in the detail and we don't have that yet.

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. 

It will be NZ native timber framing not pine.

My parents house build in the 60's. Rimu joists and tawa flooring.

Asian builders don’t knock off at lunchtime Friday and go to the pub,and they work weekends.

Depends which builder will spend every moment they can talking to you about how they're going to make a killing in Riverhead.  

Doesn't really matter the nationality of the builder. If they're managed and overseen professionally, not really a problem.

Big "If" though. Project management in 2024 has little to do with building knowledge.

Yeah, so a lot, let’s say 90% of the standards, is just wasted.

Our standards need to be by exception.