The Reforms
The government’s building consent system reforms introduce two significant structural changes: a shift from joint and several liability to proportionate liability, and provision for voluntary consolidation of Building Consent Authority (BCA) functions across territorial authorities. Both changes address longstanding criticisms of a system that has been simultaneously expensive, inconsistent, and risk-averse in ways that have added cost and delay without improving outcomes.
Under joint and several liability, councils that have played even a minor role in a consenting or inspection chain can be held liable for the full cost of a building defect, regardless of their actual contribution to the failure. This exposure has driven risk-averse behaviour — over-inspection, over-documentation, and defensive decision-making — that adds cost and delay without improving the quality of what is built. Proportionate liability aligns risk with responsibility: each party is accountable for their share of a failure, not the entire outcome.
Industry Reception
Property Council CEO Leonie Freeman has described the reforms as designed to “ease pressure on councils and provide greater certainty for the market.” ACT Housing spokesperson Cameron Luxton has framed the proportionate liability shift as addressing the “delays and cost blowouts” that have made it impossible for builders to “operate with clearer expectations.” New Zealand Certified Builders has called the broader building consent reform package “the most significant change for the industry in a generation.”
The warmth of the reception reflects genuine relief that reform is happening — and appropriate caution about whether the changes will translate to the ground-level improvements the industry needs.
The 66-Council Problem
New Zealand has 66 councils, each of which currently interprets the Building Code differently. A builder working across multiple territorial authority jurisdictions faces genuinely different compliance expectations for identical construction details. The inconsistency is not marginal — it creates real cost and uncertainty, particularly for firms that price and plan work across regional boundaries.
BCA consolidation — allowing councils to share functions, inspectors, and IT systems — is the structural mechanism for addressing this inconsistency. But it is voluntary, and the history of voluntary local government coordination in New Zealand does not inspire confidence that it will happen quickly or comprehensively without central guidance or incentive.
The Real Test
The reforms will be judged not by their announcement but by their implementation. If proportionate liability reduces risk-averse behaviour in councils without reducing the quality of their oversight; if BCA consolidation produces genuine consistency in Code interpretation across territorial boundaries; and if the overall result is faster, more predictable, and less expensive consent processing — then the industry’s warm welcome will have been warranted. The test is on the ground, not in Parliament.
