We do not want a Grenfell disaster in NZ
The rapid increase in imported products into New Zealand in recent years, combined with growing concerns around aluminium composite panels after the Grenfell disaster, shows the need for a product register listing all building products.
The CodeMark product certification scheme is in disarray after three companies left so there needs to be a more robust way to demonstrate that a building product meets the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code. When building consent authorities (BCAs) such as councils no longer accept a CodeMark product certificate as evidence of compliance with the Building Code then it is surely time that a product register was created.
A National Product Catalogue already exists in New Zealand, which helps validate, store, maintain and share product data in a single location. It is used by more than 500 organisations and holds more than 250,000 product records. Therefore, we already have a basis for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the building
industry to establish a national product register.
Widespread industry concern over the problem should concern consumers and deserves stronger measures from authorities to address it.
The Building Industry Federation (BIF) believes the reform measures proposed by MBIE to ensure compliant products and materials will strengthen the system, but we are disappointed that the proposals do not provide for a register for products.
As far back as March 2016, media reported New Zealand was a “dumping ground” for dodgy building products. The report estimated that 50 per cent of new houses in New Zealand could have plumbing products that would fail Australian standards.
On May 25, 2016, the NZ Herald reported that a third of Auckland Council inspections in a year failed. Since then, counterfeit imported aerated concrete panels have been the subject of punitive action by the courts; non-compliant electrical wiring has been installed in schools and apartment blocks in Auckland and BIF has been made aware of non-compliant electrical tools being sold throughout the country. Reports of sub-quality steel imports and plumbing materials regularly appeared in 2018.
A Branz report has stated that wrong product could be installed to meet the needs of an application or documentation may be inaccurate, fraudulent or counterfeit. It has been estimated as far back as 2011 that China is the primary source of counterfeit construction goods that are part of a global counterfeit product market with a value of US$1 trillion annually.
Branz, using published construction cost information, estimated costs of repair or replacement were estimated at $92 million a year.
Using a survey of Australian suppliers and manufacturers and assuming the two countries are quite similar, a 30 per cent ratio of non-compliant products to compliant products, put the cost to New Zealand at $232m a year. Loss of sales by New Zealand manufacturers was estimated at about $116m and labour costs for installing product, demolition and disposal at about 50 per cent of the total. Additional costs include redesign costs, extra council fees, loss of reputation and disruption to business.
MBIE officials have consistently claimed that there is insufficient “evidence” to justify measures other than those proposed to protect New Zealand consumers, but the building industry believes much more importance should be attached to its concerns.
New Zealand industry practitioners are, like their Australian counterparts, unwilling to “dob in” examples they encounter because of a reluctance to implicate individuals and tend to put NCPs down to being “an occupational hazard”. However, widespread industry concern over the problem should, in our view, be of concern to consumers and deserve stronger measures from authorities to address it.
All manufacturers and importers having to declare the compliance of their products, which would be listed in a products register, will enhance confidence of designers, builders and ultimately consumers.