The government wants to streamline the current system, which involves 67 Building Consent Authorities across the motu.
The options under consideration include reducing the number of Consent Authorities, as well as allowing building inspections to be done by private companies.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Dr Stuart Donovan, Senior Fellow, Motu Economic & Public Policy Research, comments:
“I welcome these policy reforms that seek to improve the efficiency and consistency of New Zealand’s building consents system, which are much needed and long overdue.
“Of the three options proposed by the government, I see considerable merit in establishing a single point of contact for builders to submit plans to. This model would result in the creation of an entity that could ensure consistent application of the building code nationwide and create a system that had sufficient scale to justify investment in processes and support. As the building code is applied nationally, it makes sense to manage its implementation nationally, too.
“Importantly, I expect this entity would manage contracts with Building Consent Authorities and private consenting providers to undertake monitoring and compliance activities, rather than these contracts being managed by the builders themselves. Local and international experience, e.g. with leaky buildings in NZ and the Grenfell Tower fire in the UK, suggests there are significant conflicts of interests and risks involved in systems where builders can directly contract private consenting providers themselves.
“I’m also encouraged to see the work on these reforms will consider liability settings across the whole building system, which are an essential consideration. The lines of financial responsibility would hopefully clearly define, for example, where insurance companies submit claims for refunds due to content failure. Again, the single point of contact would seem to provide a useful model that supports the efficient pooling of risks such that liability rests in the appropriate place.
“If we get these policy reforms right, then I am optimistic that they will – along with other policy reforms, like Going for Housing Growth – help to improve housing affordability in New Zealand.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have been appointed to a Housing Expert Advisory Group, which is advising the government on its Going for Housing Growth programme.”
Carolyn Hill, Lecturer in Environmental Planning, University of Waikato, comments:
“This reform centres on two key questions – how construction (and housing in particular) can be made more affordable, and who is going to carry the liability.
“Reform of the building consent system is critical to address one aspect of unaffordability – being the costs associated with long processing times and inconsistency between Building Consent Authorities. But if Aotearoa New Zealand is going to take housing seriously, it needs to address tax reform and commit to public sector housing provision as well.
“It’s one thing to say liability can be carried by the private sector, and another to actually make that happen – especially as problems only rear their heads decades down the line. Lessons from the 1990s leaky buildings saga will be critical here if we are to avoid serious adverse outcomes for future taxpayers.
“Finally, what’s the opportunity here? This proposed regulatory reform is not in isolation – it’s the latest iteration of long political wrestling with questions of development, infrastructure and environment. This work must happen together with Resource Management Act reform, with new thinking about what needs to be regulated, how, and where to frame it up in legislation. A holistic approach is critical for genuine efficiencies – and actually good outcomes – for New Zealand and New Zealanders.”
No conflict of interest.
Dr Richard Templer, Chief Executive, Engineering New Zealand Te Ao Rangahau, comments:
“Engineering New Zealand Te Ao Rangahau agrees the building consents system needs to be reformed, and it’s encouraging to see the Government address this issue.
“An efficient and effective building consent system with appropriate checks and balances – underpinned by principles of accountability, clarity as to who is qualified for different kinds of work, and public safety – should be the goal of any reform in this area. There are a number of ways to achieve this, but Engineering New Zealand is concerned that introducing private companies into the system could compromise outcomes of public safety, quality and liability, as happened previously.
“Minister Penk has observed there is variation in consenting processes. An option here is for producer statements to be formalised within consenting processes. Building and fire design work – which have a clear degree of complexity – should also require a producer statement from a Chartered Professional Engineer. Combined, these measures could easily serve to improve quality, accountability and standardisation.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Engineering New Zealand is a non-profit membership organisation dedicated to promoting the interests of engineers and engineering, and does so by having a voice on topical issues.”