Building industry rejects claims of monopolistic practices
New Zealand’s building material supply chain is characterised by price competition and quality products says the New
Zealand Building Industry Federation.
Acting-Chief Executive Bruce Kohn said today claims of monopolistic practices in the supply chain made by Auckland City
Councillor Richard Northey were an “over the top” reaction to the high cost of housing in Auckland.
“Consumers know from the regular flow of television, radio and print media advertising by major retail outlets around
the country the extent of that competition among suppliers.
“We have open tariffs and when consumers go to the various merchant stores around the country they find available to
them imported alternatives to New Zealand-made product that has come from Asia and Australia.
“The manufacturing side of the New Zealand building supply industry is focussed on quality production. It has invested
heavily in providing greater certainty of product performance. Often it has to rely on exports to underpin the financial
base of its operations and currently this is not being helped by the high New Zealand dollar value on international
currency markets. But, as Mr Northey would understand, its viability is significant to the preservation of New Zealand
jobs.
“There is little doubt that the Auckland City Council report is flawed in its comparisons of New Zealand and Australian
building costs, possibly because of the short time frame officers had to prepare an initial document. Any discrepancy
between Australia and New Zealand costs has probably more to do with the relative size of the two economies – four
million people compared with 20 million.
“The Federation would welcome an in-depth study but suggests that the use of this initial report as a base to advance
suggestions of more red-tape and regulation is unwarranted.
“The industry is focussed on working with the Department of Building and Housing, Government and local authorities to
ensure the quality of product and building systems is such that we don’t have a repeat of the leaky homes era. The
potential cost of that to ratepayers suggests quality should be first priority.”
ENDS