Page 1579 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of the 70-odd calls that we have had, we have not had any relating to any one of those houses, which is not surprising, Madam Speaker, because these houses were under construction in that last month and in most cases are not yet even to the final fit-out stage, let alone being offered for sale.
The most common problems encountered were incorrect use of wet area plasterboard and failure to waterproof shower recesses correctly. A new product which is on the market is a form of gyprock for wet areas. In the past something like Hardiplank or Hardiflex has had to be used in wet areas; but there is now a gyprock product for wet areas, which is sound for moisture but you have to seal it very carefully because the inside of it is just the gyprock plaster. It would appear that the industry is not quite up to speed on the use of that product. If we continue to detect faults with it, we have in mind banning it. Used correctly, it is perfectly sound; but if there is any minor fault moisture can get in and undermine the integrity of the product. So, we are looking at it very carefully.
Inadequate or reactive clay under the footings was another problem, as was inadequate compaction, to which Mr Stevenson referred. They were often tested by that method of putting a rod into the soil. That is not an Australian Standards approved testing method; it is more a subjective one that is used by experienced surveyors. The report was compiled by a building inspector who has trade qualifications, a clerk of works certificate and more than 20 years' experience in the building industry, with a substantive classification of technical officer grade 4. So, one of our more experienced inspectors did it. While it is true to say that prodding it with a rod is not an approved standards test, it did let us know that we have reason to be concerned about the way people are dealing with those slab underfloors. Again they can be dealt with most effectively by better education.
Madam Speaker, Mr Stevenson's point is a very valid one. It is a significant industry, as shown by the level of increased activity. Any threat to standards in the building industry is a threat to the entire ACT economy. We became aware of the potential threat; we conducted the audit; as a result of the audit we have got the industry together with the regulators and are setting about ensuring that it will not recur. In relation to other threats to the construction industry, Madam Speaker, it would be remiss of me if I were to sit down in this debate without referring to the article in the Financial Review of yesterday's date, which details the enormous threat to the construction industry by the goods and services tax. The article refers to Dr Ron Silberberg of the Housing Industry Association saying basically that, if you do not exempt the home building and construction sector from the goods and services tax, it will be a massive blow. He said that they have been talking with the Opposition to secure such an exemption, but that if you exempted it from the goods and services tax it would leave a $2.5 billion funding hole in that Fightback package.
Madam Speaker, Mr Stevenson is right in saying that this is a vital industry. A threat to confidence in the industry could have been a serious blow. We responded to that in a manner which I am confident will be satisfactory. We will keep it under close scrutiny. It is an industry which, at the moment, is booming in the ACT. It has expanded by 134 per cent in the first year of this Government. But it would appear from the article in yesterday's Financial Review that it would be put under extraordinary pressure should this goods and services tax apply to every product going into the home building sector.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .