David Maclennan against Radio New Zealand and Stuff

Radio New Zealand published an article on August 18, 2025, titled Watch: Major shake-up of building consents announced, and Stuff published an article on the same day headlined Building consent overhaul ‘the most significant in a generation’, minister says.

Both articles reported a Government announcement that it 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.

They 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 were 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 articles 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 articles quote 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.”

Mr Maclennan also complained the articles breached Media Council Principles (4) Comment and Fact and (12) Corrections.

In response RNZ said this was a breaking news story and this piece was written to provide its audience with key details of the Government announcement. The article was followed up the next day on Morning Report with an item in which a lawyer explained how homeowners could be left with costs following the changes.

It cited Media Council Principle (1) which says balance can be judged on a number of stories rather than a single story. It also said it would continue to follow the story, mindful of the consequences to homeowners of the leaky building debacle.

In its response Stuff said the article accurately reported the announcement and it would always consider reporting the lived reality of homeowners who might be affected, should they come forward.

The Media Council notes these complaints are very similar to a complaint Mr Maclennan made about an Interest.co.nz article on the same Government announcement (Ruling 3792).

The announcement was about plans to change the system of apportioning liability for defective work to address concerns that local authorities were often the last man standing and having to meet the full cost of making good because other responsible parties were no longer in business. The articles do not denigrate the many homeowners who have suffered the heavy costs and other serious consequences of being left with leaking or otherwise faulty homes.

A change in the way liability is apportioned could obviously seriously impact homeowners. However, RNZ has already reported that in a follow-up item the next day, and Stuff has indicated it would consider doing the same.

As stated in its previous ruling, the Media Council understands Mr Maclennan’s concerns about the costs borne by homeowners when things go wrong.

Many articles have been written about their plight, but this article was not about that. It was about a proposal to change the system of apportioning liability when homeowners sue to recover damages from architects, suppliers, contractors, or councils.  Indeed, the plight of the homeowners can be seen as an accepted and background fact.  The issue that is being addressed is the best way for the community to meet their losses.  There was reference in both articles to other reforms like compulsory builder insurance that would be in the homeowner’s interests.

The suffering faced by homeowners is well understood and 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, we agree with RNZ that this was a news story about pending legislation relating to a long-running issue and the reason for it.  Ways to improve the law for the benefit of homeowners and the community was referred to.

The Council does not believe a case has been made to show the coverage has been inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced. There was also no evidence to show that the article breached Principles (4) or (12).

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.