Fire consultation raises concerns

New Zealand’s Building Code fire safety provisions are failing to keep up with modern risks, according to a consultation that reveals deep dissatisfaction with the current framework 

Fewer than 10% of respondents to a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) consultation on Building Code fire safety provisions said the Code was performing “very well” in achieving clear, effective and fit‑for‑purpose fire safety outcomes. Most said it was only “somewhat well,” while 39% said it was performing “not very well” or “not at all well”. 

The consultation was launched in response to increasing concerns about the adequacy of fire protections in modern buildings. The 2023 Loafers Lodge tragedy in Wellington, which claimed five lives, further accelerated the review. The blaze exposed gaps in transitional housing safety, particularly around evacuation, fire spread and building maintenance. 

MBIE received 112 responses to the consultation – the most submissions received on a fire safety topic in the past 10 years. The consultation was designed to assess whether New Zealand’s Building Code rules – last significantly updated in 2012 – still reflect how we design, build and use structures in today’s environment. 

Broad agreement on what needs to change 

As part of the consultation, MBIE sought feedback on four high‑level outcomes it wants to embed in a revised fire safety system: 

• Clear protection levels tailored to building types and users. 

• Fire safety rules that keep pace with modern construction and usage. 

• Fit‑for‑purpose, cost‑effective regulations. 

• Fewer gaps and inconsistencies across the Code. 

More than 80% of respondents supported each of these goals, while 92% agreed on the need to close regulatory gaps and improve consistency. 

Six key themes  

The consultation revealed six major areas, where current fire safety regulations are falling short – each with direct implications for builders and those managing compliance on site: 

1. Evacuation design doesn’t cover everyone

Respondents said evacuation systems must work for all users – including people with disabilities, older adults and children. Suggestions included mandatory visual alerts, accessible exits and consideration of fire‑rated lifts, as used in other parts of the world. 

2. Fire risk doesn’t match building complexity

Submitters said the Code does not adequately differentiate between buildings of different risk profiles. High‑risk or complex buildings – such as schools, hospitals, transient accommodation and large warehouses – often require more targeted provisions. 

3. Building protection and firefighter safety

While life safety is the Code’s core goal, many noted that it provides little protection for the building itself or responding firefighters. Submitters recommended better structural integrity provisions and more emphasis on containing fire to limit long‑term damage. 

“Those who supported stated that protecting a building in a fire has flow on effects that can limit the impact of the fire on the community from disruptions of services, limit the impact on the environment by reducing pollution to the air and water run-off, and reduce the carbon impact of rebuilding or repairing the building,” said the consultation document. 

4. Firefighting access is inconsistent

Builders and designers often encounter inconsistent interpretations of access and fire response requirements. Misalignment with Fire and Emergency New Zealand protocols and urban access issues were highlighted as barriers to compliance. 

5. Innovation outpaces the rules

Three‑quarters of respondents agreed the Code does not keep pace with new technologies – including solar panels, EV charging systems, and large‑scale battery storage. Some said fire provisions limit the use of engineered timber or overseas‑sourced building systems. 

6. Fragmented and confusing documentation

Confusion about the relationship between the Code, Acceptable Solutions and Verification Methods was a recurring concern. Respondents called for streamlined language, consistent interpretation across councils and better alignment with the Health and Safety at Work Act and other regulatory frameworks. 

What’s next? 

MBIE said it will use gathered feedback to inform the next phase of the fire safety review, including the development of potential options for regulatory change.