Back to Library
New Zealand’s Building Amendment Bill 2025: Opportunities and Challenges for Overseas Building Products

New Zealand’s Building Amendment Bill 2025: Opportunities and Challenges for Overseas Building Products

16/05/2025

The Building Amendment Bill 2025 promises easier access to overseas-sourced products, but industry experts urge caution to ensure new materials meet New Zealand’s unique standards.

Link to Podcast version of this article

On 2 April 2025, Parliament passed the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill, introducing significant changes to how building materials from abroad can be used in New Zealand. For interiors contractors and product manufacturers, this legislation aims to cut red tape and spur competition, but it also raises important questions. Will cheaper overseas materials truly lower construction costs or simply pad someone’s margins? How will foreign products fit into New Zealand’s performance-based building code and risk environment? This article takes a sceptical but constructive look at the new law – explaining its key provisions, examining the practical challenges, and offering strategic recommendations for overseas suppliers looking to enter the NZ market.

A New Pathway for Overseas Products: Key Changes in the Bill

The 2025 Amendment Bill creates a streamlined pathway for recognising overseas building products and certification schemes. In essence, if a product has been certified as meeting trusted international standards, it may no longer need exhaustive re-testing to satisfy New Zealand’s Building Code. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is empowered to “recognise building products or methods… certified by an overseas product certification scheme” as compliant with the NZ Building Code . This recognition can extend to entire groups of products or even foreign standards themselves. Crucially, Building Consent Authorities (BCAs, typically local councils) must accept the use of products that comply with an MBIE-recognised overseas standard or certification – and they will not be liable for failures of those products so long as they are used as intended . In other words, if MBIE deems an overseas standard “equivalent to or higher than” NZ’s requirements, councils cannot unreasonably refuse consent on the basis of the product, nor be held responsible if that product later proves defective .

To facilitate this, the law provides for a new “building product recognition” instrument. The Building Minister can issue a gazetted notice formally recognizing specified overseas standards and certification schemes for use in NZ . MBIE will maintain a Building Product Specifications document listing approved overseas specifications deemed equivalent to those in current Acceptable Solutions and Verification Methods . In practical terms, this means designers and contractors will be able to cite recognized international standards as evidence of compliance, instead of being limited to New Zealand standards. By July 2025, more than “12,000 essential [building] products – such as plasterboard, cladding and insulation – will be more widely accepted for use by BCAs” under this system . The government even projects that by the end of 2025, tens of thousands of products (initially focusing on Australia) could become available to Kiwi builders via this pathway .

MBIE’s role is central. It will assess overseas schemes and issue recognition notices in consultation with a Building Advisory Panel of industry experts . MBIE will also publish guidance and equivalency tables to help practitioners understand which foreign-certified products map to NZ code requirements . In short, MBIE becomes the gatekeeper translating overseas product approvals into New Zealand compliance. This stronger role aligns with a broader effort to boost innovation and choice in building materials. As MBIE notes, the change “provid[es] assurance that [overseas products] will be accepted by [BCAs] as complying with the Building Code” . The intent is to remove unnecessary duplication – for example, eliminating the “time or cost involved in testing or certification” again in NZ if a product is already certified to a comparable standard abroad .

Potential benefits have been touted enthusiastically by officials. Overseas manufacturers should gain confidence that their certified products can be sold in NZ “without additional tests”, expanding supply choices . Local manufacturers, too, could choose to test their products against widely accepted overseas standards, “opening the door to important export markets” . Builders and designers can more easily access innovative products and “tap into the global building product market” to “pay a fair price” for materials . Ultimately, the Government hopes this will make it “easier and more affordable to build in Aotearoa New Zealand by boosting consumer choice and access to internationally-recognised products” .

While these promises sound encouraging, industry veterans are adopting a cautiously optimistic stance. The sceptical undertone comes from knowing that implementation details will matter greatly. The next sections explore some key challenges and caveats behind the optimistic headlines.

Bridging International Standards and NZ’s Performance-Based Code

One challenge is integrating overseas standards into New Zealand’s unique performance-based regulatory regime. New Zealand’s Building Code is largely performance-based – it specifies the level of performance buildings must achieve (for example, in structure, fire safety, moisture control, etc.), rather than prescribing exact materials or methods. Many other countries use more prescriptive standards or different testing methods. Therefore, even if a product is certified to an overseas standard, demonstrating that it truly meets the intended performance under NZ’s code can be complex. The Amendment Bill addresses this by requiring that only overseas standards “equivalent to or higher than” New Zealand’s will be approved . However, determining equivalence is not always straightforward. For instance, a fire-rated wall panel certified in Europe under EU norms might need additional assessment to prove it satisfies NZ’s fire performance criteria in local building designs.

MBIE’s forthcoming Building Product Equivalency Specifications are meant to fast-track this comparison process . Initial efforts are concentrating on core building elements like internal linings, external claddings, windows, plumbing fittings and insulation – products that “contribute heavily to the cost of building” and where alternatives are eagerly sought . By mapping foreign standards to NZ requirements, officials hope to give BCAs and designers confidence that “Product X certified to Standard Y” is acceptable. Even so, professionals will need to get up to speed on the nuances. Overseas certification schemes may focus on different aspects or testing conditions. Contractors and consent officers must ensure the product is used exactly as intended under the recognized certification. As MBIE cautions, the products must be “used as intended” in order to rely on the overseas certification . Misapplying a product (for example, using it in a higher-risk situation than it was tested for) could void the very compliance shortcut the new law provides.

There’s also the matter of New Zealand’s environment and building practices, which can differ from those overseas. The legislation’s underlying assumption is that many overseas products are as good as or better than what NZ already uses . Yet NZ’s high seismic activity, strong UV exposure, and unique moisture conditions (as seen in past weathertightness failures) mean not all “high-quality” foreign products will perform well here. Industry experts emphasize the need for due diligence: “proceed with caution, ensuring that all imported products can withstand New Zealand’s unique environmental conditions”, as one construction law analysis noted . This might involve additional weathering tests or adapting installation details to local conditions, even for a certified product. In summary, bridging the gap between an overseas-standard product and NZ Building Code compliance is feasible but demands careful technical assessment – a process now shifting from individual projects to MBIE’s centralized recognition framework.

Incumbent Products, Industry Habits and “GIB Dependence”

Regulatory changes alone may not overcome the market dominance of certain incumbent products in New Zealand. A prime example is plasterboard. “GIB” plasterboard (a proprietary brand) has long held an overwhelming share of the interiors lining market, to the point that “GIB” is colloquially synonymous with drywall in NZ. This dominance isn’t just a quirk of branding – it’s built into the very fabric of NZ construction methods. Proprietary systems like GIB’s bracing and fire-rated wall assemblies are referenced in many designers’ plans and even some Acceptable Solutions. Over the decades, architects, engineers, builders, and BCAs have developed a high degree of familiarity (some call it “technical entanglement”) with these established products and their approved uses.

Introducing a new overseas plasterboard, for instance, is not as simple as swapping one sheet for another. Alternative brands (some tried during the 2022 plasterboard shortage) often needed case-by-case approval, special engineering for bracing, or additional fire testing, because NZ standards and construction details were so closely tied to GIB’s specifications. The Commerce Commission’s recent market study into building supplies highlighted how the “building regulatory system reinforces the market position of established products and methods”, creating a slow and costly road for newcomers . In highly concentrated product markets, even if the rules are opened up, entrenched practices can still favor the familiar . Designers might hesitate to specify an unfamiliar foreign product without ample supporting data and a track record in NZ conditions. Builders, too, may prefer the “devil they know,” rather than risk using a new material that could complicate their build or inspections.

The Bill’s success in breaking these habits will depend on industry acceptance and training. MBIE recognizes this, noting that guidance will be produced to help owners, designers and builders gain confidence in specifying “unfamiliar building products” . It’s one thing to legally permit a German flooring system or an American insulation material; it’s another to get it widely adopted on Kiwi job sites. Overseas suppliers should be prepared to invest in education and support – for example, providing technical manuals tailored to NZ codes, helplines for installers, and stocking spare parts locally. The history of NZ’s leaky building crisis showed that even well-intentioned product innovations (like certain monolithic cladding systems in the 1990s) failed partly due to misuse or lack of understanding, with disastrous results. To avoid repeating such mistakes, new entrants must integrate into the construction ecosystem, not just the rulebook. Industry culture and supply chain relationships also play a role. The Commerce Commission found that established suppliers often have rebate agreements and loyalties with distributors that make it hard for new products to gain shelf space . Over time, the reforms aim to loosen these binds (e.g. by spotlighting anti-competitive rebate practices), but change may be gradual. For interior contractors and manufacturers, this means the practical uptake of overseas products could lag behind the legal changes – a factor to consider in market strategy.

Liability and Insurance: Who Bears the Risk?

Perhaps the thorniest issues lie in risk allocation when something goes wrong. New Zealand’s construction liability settings have long been a point of contention. The country currently operates under a joint and several liability regime – meaning each party involved in a build (builder, designer, BCA, etc.) can be held liable for the full amount of damage if others are insolvent. In practice, this has made councils (BCAs) a “deep pocket” target in defect cases, since they are insured and can’t easily disappear. One motivation behind allowing certified overseas products is to relieve councils from having to play gatekeeper on every unfamiliar product. Notably, the Amendment Bill explicitly shields BCAs from liability for products used under a recognized overseas standard or certification . If a council approves a foreign-made building panel that MBIE has recognized, and that panel later fails, the council should not be liable for that failure (assuming it was installed as per intended use). This is a significant shift in risk: liability is effectively reallocated to the product’s supplier and/or the builder.

For overseas manufacturers, this raises the stakes. They cannot assume that NZ’s traditional approach will protect them (in the past, an overseas supplier might avoid direct liability because plaintiffs would sue the local builder or council instead). Now, with BCAs off the hook for approved products, an injured homeowner’s recourse will squarely include the product manufacturer or importer. Indeed, recent court cases underscore that NZ is willing to hold building product makers accountable. In Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education (2016), the Supreme Court indicated it was at least “arguable” that a manufacturer of allegedly defective cladding owed a duty of care to building owners – opening the door to such claims . That case settled before a full trial, leaving the law uncertain, but subsequent litigation has confirmed manufacturer duties in principle. In the landmark “James Hardie” class action (Cridge v Studorp Ltd), a group of homeowners sued the Australian manufacturer of Harditex cladding, claiming it was inherently defective. The courts held for the first time that a “manufacturer of a building product intended to be a key component in a building owes a duty of care to the building’s owner” to ensure the product is fit for its purpose . (Ultimately, James Hardie was found not negligent in that case – the High Court and Court of Appeal decided the product was not proven defective, and poor installation was the more likely cause of the leaks . But the legal duty and exposure were established nonetheless.)

Other proceedings – the “White and Metlifcare” cases – saw large groups of homeowners and a retirement village operator pursue claims against James Hardie for weathertightness issues. Those cases were long and complex, with one 17-week trial halted by settlement and another resolved confidentially before trial . The saga demonstrates both the appetite of plaintiffs to go after product manufacturers and the massive litigation costs and risks involved. A foreign supplier coming into New Zealand must be aware that if their product fails and causes loss (e.g. widespread defects in homes), they could face similar class actions or joined claims. New Zealand’s courts have signaled that they will treat such manufacturers akin to other building professionals in terms of duty of care . Moreover, the courts have emphasized a “duty to warn” – if a manufacturer discovers a problem with its product, it must warn users or withdraw the product, or else risk liability for negligence . In short, legal exposure for overseas suppliers is very real. It spans not only contract law (warranties made to buyers) and consumer law (fair trading requirements), but also tort law (negligence) which can extend to parties who never directly signed a contract with the end-user.

Compounding this, New Zealand lacks the kind of comprehensive builder’s warranty insurance or product liability insurance schemes that some other countries have. There is no mandatory “decennial” insurance backing up building work here, and the only warranties on new homes are the implied ones in the Building Act (and optional private guarantees). In fact, after an insurer exodus, “there are currently no third-party building warranty insurance products” in the NZ market, aside from limited private guarantees by builder associations . This means if an overseas manufacturer’s product causes defects, there is no automatic insurance fund to pay claims – the liability falls on the parties themselves (and their insurers, if any). Under the new regime, a council can point the finger at the recognized product and avoid liability . The builder or developer might then be left carrying the can alongside the manufacturer. If New Zealand eventually moves toward a proportionate liability framework (a possibility often debated ), each party would only pay their share of the fault – but that offers cold comfort to a homeowner if the foreign manufacturer’s share cannot be recovered because the company has no assets or presence in NZ. As one legal commentary observed, under proportionate liability the plaintiff “must bear the risk of a missing defendant” . Even without a formal switch to proportionate liability, the Bill is effectively creating a targeted form of it: BCAs are excused from paying for someone else’s product failure, so liability for that portion either falls on the maker or becomes an uncovered loss.

The insurance concern here is two-fold: Will overseas suppliers have adequate insurance to cover NZ claims? And will builders or importers seek indemnities to manage this risk? Currently, many overseas manufacturers likely do not carry NZ-specific product liability cover – something they will need to consider obtaining through global insurers or local underwriters. Contractors might also start insisting on proof of product liability coverage (or a local warranty bond) for using a new foreign product, especially for large projects. In the absence of an industry-wide insurance scheme or guarantee fund, each player must protect themselves. As the Government’s own panel on risk noted, if New Zealand isn’t changing joint/several rules, alternative measures like insurance schemes, guarantee schemes, and levies should be considered to fill the gap . For now, though, such measures are not in place, putting the onus on suppliers and construction professionals to contractually manage their risk. Who will ultimately bear the cost of that risk (manufacturers with higher insurance premiums, builders with higher contingency allowances, or consumers with higher prices) is an open question.

Remote Inspections and Self-Certification: A Changing Compliance Landscape

Adding to the regulatory mix are parallel reforms in how building work is inspected and certified. The Government has been piloting remote inspections and developing a self-certification scheme for certain low-risk work . These initiatives are not directly part of the overseas products bill, but they influence the context in which overseas products will be used and approved.

Remote virtual inspections – accelerated during COVID-19 disruptions – allow a BCA inspector to verify work via video call or photos, rather than physically on-site for every check. By mid-2024, MBIE observed that remote inspections were “gaining further acceptance as a way to save time and cost”, with guidance issued to standardize approaches . If an interior fit-out uses a newly-approved overseas product, there’s a chance some compliance aspects might be signed off remotely. While this can improve efficiency, it also relies on clear product information and installer competence. A remote inspector might not catch subtle installation errors of an unfamiliar product through a camera lens. Thus, the margin for error could increase if builders are not well-educated on the new product’s requirements. On the flip side, remote inspections can involve specialists from anywhere in the country (or potentially overseas) looking at the work. This could be useful if, say, an overseas manufacturer provides expert support during installation and inspection via live video – a new way of ensuring correct use.

The self-certification scheme under development aims to allow accredited, competent builders to “sign off their own work” for certain low-risk projects, bypassing some BCA inspections . This shifts more responsibility onto builders to get things right. The scheme is still in the policy stage (targeted at simple residential dwellings initially) , but it reflects a trend: trusted practitioners may gain more autonomy in the consent process. For overseas product suppliers, this means they might be dealing with a future where a certified builder can choose to use their product and self-certify its installation. That could speed up adoption of new materials – but it also means the product must be foolproof for builders to use correctly, as the safety net of third-party inspection is reduced. As officials note, the aim is to “shift accountability to those who are doing the work” under self-certification . Manufacturers should be prepared to support those builders with training and clear documentation, because if something does fail, the liability trail will lead to the builder and perhaps back to the product supplier, not the council.

Another aspect is that BCAs, freed from some routine tasks, may focus more on complex areas – potentially including vetting the use of novel products in building consent applications. Even with recognition in place, a consent application must specify that the product will be used as per the intended scope. We might see BCAs developing internal guidelines for handling overseas product consents, to ensure they remain compliant with MBIE’s recognition instruments. Given BCAs’ historical risk aversion (partly due to liability concerns), their culture may take time to adjust to this new openness. Some councils could still impose extra proof or conditions for using an overseas product, at least initially, until confidence builds. However, the Government’s push for mandatory BCA performance timelines (e.g. maximum waiting times for inspections and consents) suggests councils will be under pressure not to introduce new delays.

In summary, the regulatory environment is evolving toward more flexibility and trust in skilled practitioners. This should complement the overseas products regime by reducing bottlenecks. Yet it also means that oversight is moving in new directions – digital tools and professional accountability – which have their own learning curve. Interiors contractors will need to stay updated on how their local BCA is implementing remote inspections and whether they or their subcontractors might qualify for self-certification in the future. Combining new products with new compliance methods could be a recipe for efficiency or for unintended gaps, depending on execution. A healthy dose of scepticism – testing these processes in pilot projects, seeking peer reviews, and communicating early with regulators – will go a long way to ensure that “faster and easier to build” does not come at the cost of quality.

Will Cheaper Materials Lower Construction Costs, or Just Boost Margins?

A driving political motivation behind the Amendment Bill was the promise of more affordable construction. Building materials in New Zealand are estimated to account for roughly 25% of the cost of a new build (with the rest being land, labour, design, regulatory fees, etc.). Intuitively, if you increase competition and allow cheaper imported materials, the cost of those materials should drop – and one might expect overall build costs to drop correspondingly (all else being equal). The government has explicitly framed the reform as a way to “pay a fair price” for building products and make housing more affordable .

However, industry economists and contractors know that cost savings don’t always reach the consumer’s pocket. The construction sector’s dynamics determine who ultimately benefits from cheaper inputs. One concern is that New Zealand’s building industry has historically seen low levels of price competition on materials at the builder level. In many residential builds, especially during boom times, builders pass on material costs to the client with a markup, rather than competing by trimming material expenses. In fact, a market study submission noted that builders (as the purchaser’s agent) often do not aggressively shop for lower-cost supplies – they may even be incented by supplier rebates or convenience to stick with familiar brands . A review by Castalia for the Affordable Building Coalition argued that “builders do not compete on building supplies prices” and tend to pass costs through to clients, meaning any savings on materials could just as easily translate into higher builder margins if final prices are not negotiated down in a competitive market . The Commerce Commission found evidence of “growing margins in the building sector” contributing to the housing affordability problem in recent years . In plain terms, when material costs went up, builders and developers were often able to maintain or increase their profit margins by raising house prices. By the same token, if material costs come down, there is a risk that those prices won’t fall equivalently – instead, the difference could be captured as profit by someone along the supply chain.

Whether savings get passed on will likely depend on the level of competition at the construction services level and end-consumer awareness. In a tight market with more demand than supply (as NZ experienced during the housing boom), builders had long waitlists and could charge what the market would bear, relatively insensitive to small input cost changes. Now, with building activity cooling slightly and interest rates dampening demand, we may see more competitive tendering. In a competitive bid situation, if one builder can source a certified offshore product that is, say, 20% cheaper than the local alternative, they could undercut rivals or win more projects – thereby pressuring others to follow suit on pricing. Over time, a truly open market for materials could restrain cost inflation. But initially, builders or importers might use cheaper inputs to pad their margins or offset other rising costs (like labour). The experience of other sectors suggests that without transparency, cost reductions are not automatically passed through.

To actually achieve the Bill’s goal of lower building costs for consumers, a few things may help:

  • Transparency in pricing: If developers/builders openly show clients the cost benefits of using an overseas product (perhaps in a cost-plus contract scenario), clients can insist on sharing in the savings. The Building Product Information Requirements, which mandate that suppliers disclose certain product info and performance, could also include pricing information in the future to improve market knowledge (currently they focus on technical data).
  • Competition among builders and merchants: If only one or two firms import a new product and keep prices just below the incumbent’s high price, the market might not truly reset. Encouraging multiple importers and parallel importation could avoid a single gatekeeper simply taking high margins on a new foreign product. The Commerce Commission’s recommendations to curb restrictive merchant rebate schemes and exclusive distribution should help more players enter the supply chain .
  • Monitoring and pressure: The Government may need to monitor building costs after these changes. If material prices drop but home prices do not reflect any reduction, there could be political pressure or additional measures (for example, requiring developers to justify price increases, or facilitating prefab/offsite manufacturing competition which could incorporate cheaper materials).

Ultimately, 25% of construction cost is material – even a 10% reduction in material cost (if fully passed on) would cut total build cost by about 2.5%. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not a silver bullet for housing affordability. Some skeptics note that factors like land prices, regulatory delays, and labour productivity have larger impacts on final cost. Nonetheless, in a tight-margin project, shaving costs on materials could make the difference in feasibility, and in a competitive market it should eventually benefit consumers. The key word is “eventually.” In the near term, builders, suppliers, or merchants might enjoy better margins until competition equilibrates. As one construction analyst dryly observed, improving the cost of inputs might just improve someone’s profit unless the whole market is structured to pass it on. The new law removes barriers and excuses for high material prices; it’s then up to industry and market forces to ensure those benefits flow through.

Learning from Case Law: Exposure of Manufacturers (Carter Holt, James Hardie & Others)

The legal landscape in New Zealand is littered with cautionary tales for building product manufacturers – important context for any overseas supplier eyeing this market. We’ve touched on the James Hardie cases in the liability discussion; here we distill the key lessons from those and similar cases:

  • Carter Holt Harvey v Minister of Education (2016): In this prominent case, the Ministry sued a major NZ manufacturer (Carter Holt) over an allegedly defective cladding (“Shadowclad”) used in leaky school buildings. The Supreme Court’s interlocutory decision did not definitively find liability, but it set a precedent by refusing to strike out the claim, holding that it was at least arguable that a product manufacturer owes a duty of care to end-users . The case signaled that manufacturers cannot assume they are beyond the reach of negligence claims simply because they don’t directly build the house. It also raised issues of the 10-year limitation (“longstop”) in the Building Act – the court hinted that for manufacturers, the clock might run from when the building was completed, not from product manufacture, meaning they could be sued within 10 years of the build’s sign-off. Carter Holt ultimately settled, so no final ruling ensued, but the risk was made clear: if you supply a faulty product, you could be held accountable in NZ.
  • James Hardie Class Actions (2015–2024): These include the White and Cridge (homeowners) proceedings and the Waitakere/Metlifcare (commercial) proceeding, all against James Hardie entities over Harditex cladding. Outcome: The High Court in Cridge (2021) confirmed James Hardie did owe a duty of care, as noted, but found the product was not proven defective – essentially exonerating the company on the facts . The Court of Appeal in 2024 upheld that result, dismissing the homeowners’ appeal . However, importantly, these cases firmly established the legal duty of manufacturers in NZ law. The High Court’s finding (upheld on appeal) was that a cladding manufacturer must “exercise reasonable care and skill in the design, manufacture and supply” of the product to prevent foreseeable damage from water ingress . This duty was not limited to residential homes; commercial buildings could also be covered . The cases highlighted that if a manufacturer provides technical instructions (as James Hardie did), how the product is installed can be pivotal – the courts noted the product performed when installed as instructed, and failures occurred when instructions weren’t followed . But manufacturers were also warned: if you know of a hazard with your product and fail to warn or withdraw it, you can be found negligent . The White case settlement (after 8 years of litigation and mid-way through trial) and the Metlifcare settlement (before trial) also illustrate the pragmatic reality – facing potentially massive liability, manufacturers might choose to settle with plaintiffs confidentially. This suggests that even winning in court (as James Hardie eventually did in Cridge) comes at enormous cost and reputational damage. An overseas supplier should aim to avoid ever getting to that point by ensuring product quality and prompt remediation if issues arise.
  • Building Consent Authority (Council) Liability Cases: Alongside product cases, NZ has a history of cases like Body Corporate v North Shore City Council (the “Byron Ave” case) and others which established councils’ liability for negligent building inspections. The relevance here is that councils have often been the last resort to pay for others’ mistakes under joint liability. The new law’s removal of council liability for recognized products is a direct reaction to this history. It’s effectively saying: if MBIE and a foreign certification said this product was fine, the council won’t be later faulted for approving it. That puts more onus on the product certifiers and suppliers. So, a manufacturer can’t rely on the old dynamic where the council might pay and then possibly chase the manufacturer – now the focus can come straight to the source.
  • Proportionate Liability Debates: Though not a case, it’s worth noting the ongoing discourse (Law Commission reports, etc.) about changing NZ’s liability rule to proportionate liability. So far, the law remains joint & several for building cases . But if a shift happens (a government could resurrect this idea to alleviate council and consultant exposure), it would mean a plaintiff must pursue each liable party for their share. In such a scenario, having a local presence or assets in NZ could become even more crucial for a claimant seeking recovery from an overseas manufacturer. This has been a barrier in some cases – if the manufacturer has no subsidiary or representative in NZ, serving legal proceedings and enforcing judgments can be challenging. Strategic plaintiffs might instead target the local importer or distributor as a proxy for the manufacturer. Thus, foreign suppliers should be mindful of how they structure their NZ market entry (more on this in the next section).

The big-picture lesson from NZ case law is that this jurisdiction takes building failures seriously, whoever caused them. Courts are willing to extend duties to new players (like product makers) if it’s needed to achieve a fair allocation of responsibility and consumer protection . As the Amendment Bill encourages more overseas products into the market, one can expect close scrutiny on how those products perform. If failures occur, foreign companies should not expect leniency for being “new” or “approved overseas” – they will be held to account just as strictly as domestic players, if not more so. Proactively managing legal risk is therefore a key part of market strategy for new entrants.

Strategic Recommendations for Overseas Manufacturers

For overseas building product suppliers looking to enter New Zealand under this new regime, the opportunities are exciting – but success will require strategy and care. Here are some recommendations based on the foregoing analysis:

1. Navigate the Recognition Pathway Proactively: Don’t wait for MBIE to maybe include your product by chance in a recognition notice. Engage early with MBIE’s process. This means identifying which overseas standard or certification your product relies on, and ensuring that standard is on MBIE’s radar. If you are certified under, say, an EU harmonized standard or an Australian CodeMark scheme, prepare a case for why that should be recognized as equivalent or superior to NZ’s requirements. Provide data and invite NZ officials to observe tests if needed. Remember that regulations by late 2025 will set out how the Minister recognizes standards – aim to be in the first wave of approvals. If a formal application route is offered, use it. If not, consider partnering with a local industry body or trusted consultant who can advocate on your behalf to MBIE. Once your product’s standard is recognized, ensure that designers and BCAs know it. Market your inclusion: for example, “Product X is compliant with NZ Building Code via recognition of Standard Y – see MBIE Building Product Specs.” Essentially, treat regulatory recognition as a deliverable in your market entry plan, on par with sales and distribution.

2. Localize Technical Documentation and Compliance Materials: Even with recognition in hand, you must address any compliance gaps between the overseas documentation and NZ expectations. This might include producing an NZ-specific technical manual, design tables, or installation instructions that explicitly tie your product’s use to NZ Building Code clauses. If your product will be used in an alternative solution context (outside pre-approved Acceptable Solutions), be ready to supply the verifications or test reports engineers here will need. Also, ensure your product information meets the Building Product Information Requirements introduced by earlier reforms – disclose performance, maintenance, durability, etc., in English, and make it accessible online . Overseas manufacturers should not underestimate the importance of clear contractual terms and warranty representations as well. Who in NZ will purchasers turn to if something goes wrong? If you sell through a distributor, clarify how warranty claims will be handled. If you sell directly, consider having a local agent or office that can respond to issues promptly. NZ builders and owners will expect reasonable warranty periods (often at least 10 years for structural components, to align with the Building Act’s implied warranties). Make sure your contracts and product literature don’t promise anything you can’t back up – but also know that NZ law implies certain guarantees automatically, especially for residential work, regardless of your terms. For example, there’s an implied warranty that building materials will be fit for purpose and meet the Building Code . You cannot contract out of this for residential projects. Therefore, ensure your product truly can live up to NZ’s performance needs, and avoid marketing claims that overreach.

3. Establish a NZ Presence or Partner: While not strictly required by law, having a New Zealand presence can greatly enhance trust and provide legal insulation. This could be through setting up a subsidiary company, appointing a local distributor, or partnering with a well-regarded NZ manufacturer under a joint venture or licensing deal. A local entity can register with NZ companies office, making it easier to be sued if need be – which may sound like a negative, but it assures customers and BCAs that someone domestically is accountable. It also makes it easier for you to obtain local insurance (as many insurers want a NZ-based policyholder). Choose partners carefully: if you go the distributor route, pick a firm with strong technical service capability, not just sales. They will be your front line in training builders, dealing with any defects, and handling returns or repairs. Under the new regime, your product might be approved on paper, but if an issue arises on site, a BCA or builder will want to quickly reach someone in NZ who can provide answers or corrective measures. That leads to…

4. Prioritize Quality Control and Risk Management: Managing risk in the absence of a broad insurance safety net means doubling down on preventing failures. Implement rigorous QA for any products shipped to NZ – even if that means a special batch testing for NZ-bound goods. The last thing you want is a recall or systemic defect in your first impression on the market. If your product is an integral component (cladding, for example), consider offering a warranty or guarantee backed by insurance. While NZ doesn’t mandate product liability insurance, you can voluntarily provide a bonded warranty which might give you a market edge. For example, providing a 15-year warranty insured by a reputable insurer (or re-insurer) could allay building owner and council concerns. Just be sure you can honour it; if claims arise and you fail to pay, the reputational damage could be irreversible. Additionally, pay attention to the duty to warn: monitor how your product performs over time. Solicit feedback from early NZ projects and have a plan to quickly address any emerging issues. If you discover something like “when installed in NZ’s colder southern climate, our panels need extra moisture protection,” then update your instructions and broadcast the guidance to all users. Taking the initiative can also help mitigate liability – courts look favorably on manufacturers who act responsibly when issues emerge .

5. Integrate with NZ’s Building Community: Gaining market traction and avoiding pitfalls often comes down to relationships and education. Engage with professional bodies – for instance, present seminars via Engineering New Zealand or the Registered Master Builders Association about your product. Provide samples for trial projects under supervision, maybe as part of a pilot with a council or large construction firm, to build a case study of successful use. Also, be prepared for the insurance question: some local contractors or developers might ask you directly, “Do you carry insurance for this product if it fails?” Be ready to show a Certificate of Insurance for product liability covering NZ, or explain your company’s resources and commitment to stand behind the product. Given that no government-backed warranty exists, large clients in NZ (like government housing programs or commercial developers) may require evidence of financial backing – which could be a surety bond or parent company guarantee if not insurance.

6. Contractual Protections and Dispute Resolution: When drafting contracts with local distributors or large purchasers, consider choice of law and forum. New Zealand law will likely apply to construction projects here, but you can still stipulate how disputes involving your product are resolved. For example, arbitration clauses could be used to handle technical disputes out of court, which might be faster and more private. However, note that when consumers are involved (homeowners), statutory protections limit how much you can avoid courts. Another aspect is indemnities – your NZ distributor or the builder using your product might seek an indemnity from you if they get sued due to your product. Be cautious but realistic: refusing all such indemnities might make others reluctant to use your product, whereas a reasonable indemnity (perhaps capped or limited to defects caused by product failure as opposed to install error) could be part of a commercial compromise. And remember, under the joint/several framework, a plaintiff might sue everyone and let them fight it out. So your agreements with partners should address how to handle such scenarios, including cooperation in defense and cost-sharing.

In essence, entering the NZ market under this new regime is not “plug and play,” but it is navigable with diligence. The successful overseas manufacturers will be those who treat New Zealand not as a dumping ground for cheap goods, but as a sophisticated market with high standards (literally and figuratively). Those who invest in understanding NZ’s building code, engage with its regulators, and build trust with its industry will find a niche – perhaps even loosening the grip of the incumbents and offering genuine value. The more sceptical observers, including many seasoned contractors, will need to see proof that these new products perform and that their use can genuinely save time or money without creating future problems. By following the above strategies, overseas suppliers can provide that proof and reap the rewards of New Zealand’s more open door.

Conclusion

The Building Amendment Bill passed in April 2025 represents a pivotal shift for New Zealand’s construction sector. It breaks down long-standing barriers that kept overseas building products at bay, promising greater choice and possibly better pricing for materials. For interiors contractors and manufacturers, it could mean access to a world of alternatives – from innovative acoustic panels from Europe, to cost-effective cabinetry and linings from Asia, to advanced fire-rated systems from North America or Australia. The potential benefits are clear: more competition, less bureaucracy, and maybe a dent in the infamous “Kiwi Building Cost” over time .

Yet, as we’ve explored, healthy scepticism is warranted. New Zealand’s building ecosystem has its own intricacies – from performance-based codes and liability nuances to deeply ingrained product loyalties – that don’t change overnight. The Amendment Bill is a bold enabler, but it is not a panacea. Whether it genuinely lowers construction costs will depend on market behavior and enforcement of the Bill’s intent. It will also depend on overseas suppliers stepping up to the plate: complying with NZ’s standards in spirit, not just letter; standing behind their products; and engaging with the local industry to ensure smooth integration.

Contractors and designers, on their part, should approach the new possibilities neither with blind enthusiasm nor undue fear. A pragmatic approach is to pilot new products on smaller projects, keep records of performance, and share feedback – thereby building a knowledge base. BCAs will need to train their staff to recognize when an overseas product is legitimately approved and cannot be unreasonably questioned, and conversely, to spot if someone tries to misuse the system (e.g. claiming a product is covered by a certification when it’s not). MBIE’s stewardship will be critical in monitoring outcomes and updating the recognized standards list, possibly removing any that don’t live up to expectations.

In the years ahead, we may well see a more diverse range of building interiors and systems in New Zealand – perhaps an end to the days of one dominant wallboard or one brand of insulation. That should ultimately benefit consumers and the construction sector’s resilience. But as with any reform, the devil is in the details. By learning from past lessons (the leaky homes crisis, monopoly-driven shortages, protracted legal battles) and applying common-sense risk management, New Zealand can capture the gains of this reform while mitigating the downsides. The Bill is now law ; the onus is on all stakeholders – government, industry, and overseas partners – to make it work as intended. The message to overseas manufacturers is: “Welcome, we need you, but understand our system and be prepared to hold up your end of the bargain.”

We know you're busy so let's get straight to it - How can we help you today?

Sources:

  • MBIE Building Performance: “Using overseas building products set to be easier”, news release (3 April 2025) ; Overseas products and standards overview ; Consumer protection guidance (30 May 2024) .
  • MinterEllisonRuddWatts legal update: “New legislation to cut red tape for overseas building products” (8 April 2025) ; conference discussion on liability settings (2023) .
  • Simpson Grierson case update: “Building owners’ class action against James Hardie dismissed” (3 Oct 2024) .
  • Court of Appeal – Cridge v Studorp Ltd [2024] NZCA 483 (via MinterEllison summary) .
  • Commerce Commission residential building supplies market study findings (2022) ; Castalia/ABC submission excerpt .
  • NZ Building Code & Regulations: Building Act 2004 (as amended 2025) provisions on product certification ; Building (Product Information Requirements) Regulations 2022 .
  • Building Performance guidance on remote inspections (2024) and self-certification scheme announcement (2024) .
  • Law Commission and MBIE policy references on liability and insurance (2020–2022) .

We know you're busy so let's get straight to it — How can we help you today?