response to similar problems.6 The New Zealand Government is understood to be monitoring this and considering whether something similar might be adopted here. However, there are some steps that could be taken now without needing to wait, which would be in line with its acknowledged “leadership position” in the sector. So, as a starter, here are ten specific guidelines or changes the Government could adopt in its approach to construction contracts, which would make a meaningful difference: 1. Liability limits: Contractual limits on liability are a sensible and straightforward way of managing risk. They are commonplace in other types of commercial contracts and in consulting agreements, but are not always present in construction contracts. When preparing construction contracts it should be standard practice for central and local government to include an overall monetary cap on both general liability and liquidated damages and to exclude indirect or consequential losses. A contractor or consultant should not be expected to assume unlimited risk. 2. Hard time bars: It is common for construction contracts to contain strict time bars for notifying variations, extensions of time, claims, and the like. The time periods are often short and coupled with a requirement to include various (sometimes excessive) information. The consequences of failing to give proper notice within the stipulated time can be severe if these requirements are a condition precedent: the contractor may lose all rights to the particular claim simply because of a procedural defect. The usual rationale for hard deadlines is ‘project discipline’, but this is hardly justification when the consequences of non-compliance are far reaching. Discipline can still be maintained without a condition precedent by allowing late claims to be valued as if they have been notified on time but not invalidating them altogether. 3. Ground risk: Perhaps the most fraught area for allocating risk in construction is what lies beneath. Usually critical to the build