What could - and should - have contributed to a meaningful discussion about ways to increase efficiency in the construction industry during a time of unprecedented demand has descended into acrimony, in no small part courtesy of careless comments from a Government minister who should know better.
The Government's Rules Reduction Taskforce has proposed builders be able to sign off their own work in certain cases.
The task force was set up by Local Government Minister Paula Bennett last year to hear and act on public concerns about what it calls ''frustrating, ineffective property rules'' in central and local government.
Its findings were released last week as ''The loopy rules report: New Zealanders tell their stories''.
The report recommends ways to address regulations ''adversely affecting property owners'' and a list of what it says were commonly held regulation myths.
The Government has hit the nail on the head when it comes to public sentiment on the time, money and hurdles often involved in the building and consenting processes.
The huge construction pressures - because of the Christchurch rebuild and Auckland housing crisis - have only highlighted the woes.
Add in the ''mythbusters'' section and the evocative title of the ''loopy rules'' report, and the fact it is New Zealanders' ''stories'' rather than expert panel ''preaching'', and the whole thing makes for great PR.
But will it make good policy?
The answer depends on which side of the red tape fence you stand: that of frustrating compliance or that of desirable checks and balances.
Many businesses and individuals believe the likes of the Resource Management Act, Building Act and health and safety legislation are barriers to progress.
In principle, some of the Government's logic is sound. Some tradespeople in some industries - such as electricians - now certify their own work.
Homeowners can do many DIY jobs without needing council consent.
But the idea of builders - even licensed ones - signing off their own work is anathema to many given recent events.
Ms Bennett's comment the country has ''moved on'' from the leaky buildings saga is breathtakingly out of touch.
It is untrue, and insensitive to those who have lost their homes and suffered anguish and financial hardship over the fiasco, and often not seen builders held to account.
Then there are the fatal events - notably the catastrophic collapse of the CTV building in the February 2011 Canterbury earthquake and the Pike River Mine disaster - the result of dubious building work practices and the chilling effects of self-regulation respectively.
While some changes have been made in the wake of Pike River and the Christchurch quakes, there is clearly still more to be done in terms of training, quality and oversight.
A catalogue of issues has come out of recent work on the Christchurch rebuild, and a new unit has been set up by the Auckland Council to investigate rogue builders.
The council was failing up to 40% of building inspections, a staggering figure.
It is indeed important to continue the construction and consenting conversation.
Ridiculous rules and inconsistencies should certainly be addressed.
But if changes to remove the checks and balances already in place are sought, other rules may need to be implemented.
These could include a higher threshold for licensed building practitioners involved in signing off their work, greater accountability for builders and firms if problems are found, and changes to insurance.
But if the real issues are actually the time and cost involved to get council consents, addressing those is the priority.
Other changes may not be required at all.
Building and Housing Minister Nick Smith is examining the proposal.
It is to be hoped any new building policy will be built on solid foundations that take into account health and safety, heed history's lessons, and are not simply a quick reactionary fix in a tight corner.
Industry ''cowboys'' have already wreaked havoc; the last thing homeowners need is a cavalier approach from politicians.
