Curran Clare: Construction Contracts Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Construction Contracts Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6839. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Speaking specifically to Part 1 of the bill I have a couple of questions for the Minister for Building and Housing on this. I too want to just refer initially to clause 6 with some further questions about some of the implications of the changes that were made at the Commerce Committee. In the commentary on the bill it says: “In the bill as introduced clause 6 extends the definition of construction work to include design engineering and quantity surveying activities.” We in the select committee recommended amending this clause to add operations and I do remember that there was a reasonably extensive discussion about this 2 years ago when this bill went through the select committee process.The commentary also states: “We recommend amending this clause”—clause 6—“to add operations that are critical for the completion of or preparatory to the scope of design engineering and quantity surveying work. These ‘related services’ directly affect the quality of building work and it would benefit consumers if they were covered by the legislation. We”—in the select committee discussion—“did not agree with the contention that extending the meaning of construction work would unfairly open up to adjudication persons who were not party to a construction contract.” I do remember that there were pretty extensive discussions there were submissions on this and we came to the conclusion that under the Act any dispute that required adjudication would be between the parties to the construction contract.What I would like to ask the Minister about—and I have been doing a bit of further reading about this subsequently—is the bill’s main purpose. It is about implementing stronger consumer protections but it is also about extending the definition of “construction work” and of course the retentions reform which we are going to talk about in more detail in Part 2. But the whole idea of broadening the definition of “construction work” to include the work of engineers designers and quantity surveyors—who are collectively consultants—still remains somewhat contentious. I do want to ask the Minister about this: although consultants are able to rely on the protections under this Act where their payment claims can be enforced as a debt due there is a contention that it remains to be seen whether those benefits would outweigh the potential drawbacks of consultants being brought under the Act. For example consultants might bear the brunt of the amendments proposed in the bill which would remove the distinction between enforcing an adjudicator’s decision regarding payment and enforcing a decision concerning their rights and obligations but it is also possible that adjudicators would be able to hear consultants’ negligence claims and their decisions on such claims would be enforceable in the courts.Some of the things that have not been defined in this bill are the terms “design” “engineering work” and “quantity surveying work”. They are not defined in the bill and my question is: does the Minister have any concerns about the fact that they will end up being defined in the courts as opposed to being defined in this bill and is this an ambiguity that he has considered and does he have any remaining concerns? I do remember that there was extensive discussion around this. For example is the work that is carried out by project managers in relation to a construction contract caught out by the amended definition or not? So if the Minister is mindful of taking a call on this part of the bill and if he was able to address that question that would be quite helpful because that is on Part 1 of the bill with which we are directly engaged.This bill is very much about trying to prescribe—