Page 1580 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO (3.37): Madam Speaker, I rise also to agree with the majority of what Mr Stevenson said and, until the end bit, the majority of what Mr Connolly said. Just to be a bit glib, Madam Speaker, any problems that Dr Silberberg has perceived under a goods and services tax would pale into insignificance compared with what he knows will be the problems if Senator Cook's independent contractor issue is not resolved. Let me say how important the building industry is. I think all members of the Assembly would be aware that we are told that each job in the building industry tends to create two or three jobs in the peripheral industries that supply it - architects, designers and everything else. So, it is a very significant industry not only Australia-wide but also, in particular, Madam Speaker, in the ACT.
It is perhaps a pity that we tended to restrict our conversation to the domestic area, because whilst the housing area is booming - there is no denying that - we need to put that into perspective. The leading indicators point to another surge in house building activity in the ACT. Obviously, the fact that interest rates have plummeted over time has a lot to do with why that industry is booming, together with the fact that there has to be a demand for housing before the industry can boom. So, for any government, of any political persuasion, to say, "Listen, the only reason why the housing industry is booming is us", is perhaps stretching it a bit too far. Lending commencements for new housing rose strongly, as I said before, in the early months of 1992. On the basis of those figures, Madam Speaker, the ACT house building sector should be humming, but outcomes will depend on sustained growth in demand. That is the important factor. Although over a two-, three- or four-month period there happens to be a surge, unless that growth is sustained we cannot really say that any industry is booming.
Unfortunately, though, Madam Speaker, there is no comparable recovery in non-dwelling construction in the ACT, and there will be no improvement in the immediate future. Whilst people are talking about what Federal policies may or may not do from time to time, let us repeat the situation: If the Federal Government really wanted to help the people of the ACT they would first of all allow Mr Wood to have the $13.7m for which he has asked from the better cities program. There are a lot of things that the Federal Government can do in Canberra to make sure that our vital building industry is enhanced.
Mr Kaine and others on this side of the house - and, I must also say, on the other side of the house - have mentioned from time to time things like the BMR building, the Taxation Office building, the Museum of Australia, and the refurbishment of the old Parliament House, to mention a few. In this Assembly yesterday the chairman of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, Mr Lamont, suggested that the committee is recommending to the Government a 15 per cent increase in the public works program. That recommendation's acceptance will enhance the plight of the building industry in the ACT.
But problems exist in all private sector industries, and there are a lot of things, once again, that governments, both at a local level and at a Federal level, can do to alleviate them. Both Mr Connolly and Mr Stevenson - Mr Stevenson in particular - alluded to the plethora of paperwork required by every small business in order to comply with a myriad of government regulations. We talk about workers compensation and occupational health and safety. A plumber has to fill out all sorts of forms before he can get onto a building site. Apparently the forms have become more complicated as days have gone by.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .