National consent before self-certification

Analysis: The Government is exploring the concept of self-certification within the building consent process – a move aimed at reducing costs and speeding up approvals by allowing individual trades to certify their own work. This may seem an attractive solution to the longstanding frustrations around building consents, but self-certification raises significant concerns, especially regarding quality control and accountability.

Without a robust framework for oversight, this approach risks compromising construction standards, potentially resulting in costly defects and safety problems for end consumers.

The risks of self-certification

Self-certification essentially allows licensed practitioners, rather than local councils or independent third parties, to certify that their work complies with building standards. On paper, this could reduce the administrative load and speed up processes by cutting out layers of inspection. However, the potential downsides are substantial. By placing certification in the hands of those directly responsible for the work, the system introduces an inherent conflict of interest. Without regular oversight, some may be tempted to cut corners to save time and money, risking the quality and durability of buildings.

The leaky homes crisis is a reminder of what can go wrong when quality assurance is compromised. In that case, inadequate oversight and poor construction standards led to widespread structural problems, costing the country billions in repairs and undermining public confidence in the building industry. Adopting self-certification without adequate checks could invite similar problems, with potentially far-reaching financial and safety impacts.

A national system with built-in checks

To counterbalance these risks, a more comprehensive solution would involve creating a national building consent system that integrates both self-certification where appropriate and systematic, randomised spot checks by third-party inspectors.

Such a system would allow trusted trades to certify their work under clearly defined standards while retaining third-party checks to verify compliance. Implementing substantial fines for those who fail to meet these standards would also provide a deterrent against cutting corners, helping maintain accountability and public trust in the industry.

A standardised national platform would not only create consistency across regions but also offer a transparent framework that everyone – architects, developers, homeowners, and local councils – can follow. This would help streamline the building consent process without sacrificing the essential checks and balances needed to uphold quality.

The problem with the current patchwork system
Currently, New Zealand’s building consent process is managed by 78 local authorities – 11 regional councils and 67 territorial authorities. Each applies the same national Building Act and Building Code but interprets them through its own procedures, creating significant regional variation.

This lack of consistency has made the process unpredictable and, in many cases, costly. A simple extension project in Auckland can face far more regulatory hurdles and higher fees than an identical project in, say, Invercargill, solely because of regional discrepancies in interpretation and enforcement.

For those navigating the consent process, this regional variability introduces a significant layer of frustration. Architects and developers often struggle to predict how long approvals will take or what additional requirements may emerge, adding time and cost to projects. A national, consistent approach could eliminate these inefficiencies, providing a more predictable framework and helping reduce the administrative burden on all stakeholders.

Centralised and digital: the key to consistency

A centralised, digital platform for building consents offers a promising path forward. Such a platform would allow all councils to follow the same procedures and timelines while retaining room for addressing specific local needs, such as earthquake-prone building standards in Wellington or flood-prone areas in regions such as Christchurch. This would eliminate much of the regional inconsistency and provide a single point of access for submitting and tracking consents, making the process clearer and more reliable for everyone involved.

By centralising the consent system, New Zealand could also address resource imbalances across councils. Currently, larger councils such as Auckland charge higher fees to cover their more complex processes and staffing shortages, whereas smaller councils may lack the resources needed to maintain rigorous standards. A national system could redistribute these responsibilities, reducing processing times and providing a more consistent fee structure across regions.

Why self-certification isn’t enough

The risks associated with unchecked self-certification are too high to ignore, and in industries with high public safety implications, third-party oversight remains essential. Building a national system that includes both self-certification (in clearly defined scenarios) and independent, randomised inspections could strike the right balance. Self-certification could be beneficial for low-risk tasks, where a licensed professional can vouch for compliance, but significant construction projects should not bypass independent checks.

A national system doesn’t mean a loss of local knowledge or control. Councils would still play a vital role in managing local environmental factors, such as flood zones or seismic activity. However, by centralising the overall process, we could streamline the approvals for most projects while reserving local expertise for specific, high-risk scenarios.

A well-regulated, consistent system is crucial if New Zealand is to address its housing crisis and improve productivity in the construction sector. Streamlining building consents would remove many of the current bottlenecks, helping to deliver homes faster and at lower costs. By moving toward a centralised, digital consent process with built-in accountability checks, New Zealand can achieve a balance that enhances efficiency without sacrificing quality.

Self-certification may offer a solution to certain administrative burdens, but it is not a substitute for oversight. To protect consumers and preserve the integrity of New Zealand’s built environment, we need a consent system that combines the efficiency of centralisation with the safeguards of regular, independent inspections. With these changes, New Zealand could lead the way in creating a building consent process that is transparent, reliable, and fit for the demands of a growing nation.