David Maclennan against Interest.co.nz

Interest.co.nz published an article on August 19, 2025, titled ‘We don’t want an empty chair problem’: Government to look into professional indemnity insurance and home warranties after announcing plans to move to proportionate liability for defective work.

The article reported that the Government was exploring consumer protection measures such as professional indemnity insurance and home warranties after it announced major changes to the building consent system which came into force in 2004.

It reported Minister for Building and Construction Chris Penk’s announcement of plans to move from joint and several liability to proportionate liability for defective work. This would ease the cost burden on ratepayers for defective building work as councils are hesitant to sign off on building consents and inspections because they could be held liable for all defects, leaving ratepayers footing the bill.

David Maclennan complained that the article breached Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance as it misrepresented the history of liability under New Zealand’s weathertightness crisis and failed to represent the majority-affected group: homeowners. It left readers with the false impression that councils were the main victims.

He said independent analysis shows that homeowners bore most of the costs of leaky buildings. He cited a PwC reported that around 69 percent of the total repair cost was borne by homeowners, local authorities around 25 percent, builders/contractors 4 percent, and central government 2 percent.

“The article quotes no homeowners, no consumer advocates, and no representatives for this statistical majority. The absence of balance leaves the impression that councils are the main victims of joint and several liability, when in fact homeowners remain the central stakeholders — and the least represented

“The framing in this article risks rewriting history and shaping reform discussions around the interests of councils and insurers, while ignoring the lived reality of homeowners who bore the brunt of the disaster. Without correction, readers are misled about who suffered most — and who stands to lose again if reforms replicate the gaps of the past.”

In response, Interest.co.nz said the story was basically a straight news story covering a government announcement. It was not an analysis of the leaky home disaster, per se, and there was no intention to underplay the financial, mental, and physical impact of leaky homes on homeowners over many years. There was a strong case that homeowners have been let down and this had been reported previously.

It did not believe a correction or clarification was required but invited Mr Maclennan to write an article on the issue.

The Media Council understands Mr Maclennan’s concerns about the costs borne by homeowners when things go wrong, and it might have been useful if the article had pointed that out.

Many articles have been written about the plight of homeowners, but this article was not about that. It was about a proposal to change to proportionate liability when homeowners sue to recover damages from architects, suppliers, contractors, or councils.

Clearly more could be written on this subject to point out that homeowners’ interests need to be taken into account, particularly if the proposed changes will make it even harder for them to recover the costs of fixing their faulty homes. However, the Council does not believe a clear case has been made to show the article was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.