Hon Maurice Williamson
Minister for Building and Construction

29 January 2013 Media Statement

Changes Proposed For Construction Contracts Act
Construction contract disputes will be dealt with faster and more cost effectively under proposed amendments to the Construction Contracts Act, which were introduced in Parliament today.

Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson says the proposed changes, which include streamlining the disputes process and introducing greater accountability, are part of a package of building law reforms aimed at making improvements to the building sector’s accountability and productivity.

The Construction Contracts Act 2002 created default progress payment provisions for construction contracts, provided an adjudication process for disputes, as well as ways of recovering non-payment of construction contracts.

“A review of the Act in 2009 concluded reasonably minor amendments could give it a wider application, and many of the suggestions made in the review are contained in the amendments introduced today,” Mr Williamson says.

The proposed amendments include:

- Removing the distinction between residential and commercial construction contracts

- Broadening the definition of construction work to include design, engineering and quantity survey work

- Allowing more direct enforcement of determinations about rights and obligations
-
Reducing to five days, the time a defendant has to oppose an application to have an adjudication determination entered as a judgment

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Arguably Reassuring: Inspector-General Finds GCSB "Arguably" Legal

Of the 88 individuals:

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
More>>