Producer Statements PS1-PS4 Explained — Their Status Under the NZ Building Act 2004

A producer statement is a written professional opinion that part of a building's design or construction complies with the New Zealand Building Code. Four types exist — PS1 design, PS2 design review, PS3 construction, PS4 construction review — but none has particular status under the Building Act 2004: a council may rely on one, but is never obliged to.

By Steve Parker · Trueworks · NZ construction compliance · 6 min

Producer statements sit at the centre of almost every consented New Zealand build, yet they are widely misunderstood. Homeowners treat them as a guarantee. Some contractors treat them as a formality. Both readings are wrong, and both create risk when a project reaches the code compliance stage. This is what a producer statement actually is, what each of the four types covers, who can issue one, and — the part most often missed — what legal weight it carries.

What a producer statement actually is

A producer statement is a signed statement by a suitably qualified person expressing a professional opinion that specified design or construction work meets the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code. Building and Construction Minister guidance published by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is direct on the point: "A producer statement is a professional opinion based on sound judgment and specialist expertise. It is not a product warranty or guarantee of compliance."

That distinction matters. An opinion is only as reliable as the competence and independence of the person giving it, and the diligence behind it. It is not a promise that the work is without defects, and it does not transfer legal liability away from the designer, the builder, or the council.

The four producer statements

New Zealand practice recognises four standard producer statements, each covering a different stage of the design-and-build sequence:

• PS1 — Design. Given by the design professional (for structural or geotechnical elements, usually a Chartered Professional Engineer) confirming that the design of a nominated part of the work has been prepared to comply with the relevant Building Code clauses. A PS1 typically accompanies a building consent application as part of the supporting design documentation.

• PS2 — Design Review. Given by an independent reviewer — commonly a second engineer — who has peer-reviewed the PS1 design and confirms it as compliant. Councils sometimes require a PS2 for higher-risk or specific-engineering-design elements.

• PS3 — Construction. Given by the contractor or installer who has carried out the building work, confirming it was built in accordance with the consented documents. Building Performance notes the PS3 is "often used by proprietary system installers" — for example a membrane, tanking, or cladding-system applicator confirming the install matches the manufacturer's and designer's requirements.

• PS4 — Construction Review. Given by the design professional who has monitored and reviewed the construction, confirming the completed work has been built in accordance with the consent. A council will frequently make a PS4 a condition of the consent, requiring the engineer to observe nominated construction stages and certify the result.

Read as a set, the four statements trace a chain: the design is prepared (PS1), optionally reviewed (PS2), built (PS3), and the build is reviewed against the design (PS4).

Their status under the Building Act 2004

Here is the fact that reframes everything above. Producer statements have no defined role in the Building Act 2004. Building Performance states it plainly: "While producer statements are well-established and widely used, they have no particular status under the Building Act 2004." They are not a statutory document, there is no legislated form, and no council is required to accept one.

Instead, a producer statement is "used as one source of information which the council may rely upon to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to conclude that building work complies with the Building Code." The building consent authority remains the decision-maker. Before it issues a code compliance certificate, the authority must be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building work complies with the building consent (Building Act 2004, section 94). A producer statement can help establish those reasonable grounds — but the authority weighs it alongside inspections, records, and its own judgement, and it can ask for more, or decline to rely on it at all.

Who can issue one, and what a council checks

Because a producer statement carries no statutory form, the weight a council gives it depends entirely on the author. Councils assess the issuer's credentials and use their own internal processes to decide how much weight to give a statement. For engineering elements that generally means a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) with demonstrated competence in the relevant field, and often current professional indemnity insurance. Some councils maintain author-approval registers or accept statements only on their own template. A producer statement from an unqualified or uninsured author, or outside the author's field of competence, may be given little or no weight — which can stall a code compliance certificate late in a project.

Where producer statements meet your contract and your risk

For anyone pricing or running a build, three practical points follow.

First, the required producer statements should be identified up front, not discovered at handover. If a consent condition calls for a PS4 on the structural steel or the retaining walls, the engineer's monitoring scope and fee need to be locked in before construction, and the trades whose work will be certified need to know their work will be reviewed. This is exactly the kind of item a disciplined pre-start review captures — see what a NZ pre-trade-start compliance sheet actually contains.

Second, a producer statement is not a warranty. Because it is an opinion of Building Code compliance rather than a guarantee, it does not displace the statutory protections a homeowner already holds. On residential work the Building Act implied warranties still apply regardless of whether a producer statement was given, and a defect that surfaces later is assessed against those warranties, not against the statement.

Third, a missing or refused producer statement is a programme and cost risk, not just a paperwork gap. If a council will not accept the statement offered — wrong author, insufficient monitoring records, work that departed from the consent — the code compliance certificate is held up until the position is resolved, sometimes by opening up completed work for inspection. Identifying that exposure while the documents are still on paper is far cheaper than discovering it at final sign-off.

What to check before you rely on one

• The producer statement type matches what the consent condition actually requires (a PS3 install statement is not a substitute for a PS4 review).

• The author is qualified and competent in the specific field, and — where the council requires it — approved and insured.

• The statement references the correct consented drawings and specification revisions, and any construction monitoring it relies on was genuinely carried out.

• The scope of the statement covers the whole of the nominated element, with no carve-outs that quietly leave part of the work uncertified.

Producer statements are a useful, well-established tool for moving a build toward its code compliance certificate. They are not a guarantee, they are not mandatory, and they do not bind the council. Treat them as one input to a compliance decision — specify the right ones early, confirm the author and scope, and keep the statutory warranties and the council's "reasonable grounds" test in view.

---

Trueworks provides independent, code-cited reviews of building quotes, variations, and compliance documentation for New Zealand builders, subcontractors, quantity surveyors, and architects. If a consent's producer-statement conditions, specifications, or variation claims need a defensible second opinion in writing, start an independent review.

Unsure whether the producer statements on your job cover what they should? Trueworks runs an independent check — get in touch via the contact page.

A spec or compliance question buried in the documents? Get a written, code-cited read before you price around it. Send us the drawings and the quote, tender or variation. You get a written, code-cited check back within 24 hours. No charge for your first check. No card, no obligation. NDA available. → Get the free check at trueworks.co.nz/contact — or email hello@trueworks.co.nz