Page 1793 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is one aspect of the Bill, as presented by Mr Connolly, that does worry me, however. I am referring to the explanatory memorandum, where it notes that minor building work will no longer be subject to the full approval - and emphasis is on "full" - building permit and inspection process. It states that these minor building works are "prescribed buildings"; and regulations will be prepared following the passage of this amending Bill, setting out the circumstances in which buildings will be classified as "prescribed buildings". So there is still a bit of a question mark as to whether, on the day this Bill is put into effect, people will be able to get on with putting up a new letterbox or a new garden wall without going through the process, because presumably it depends upon the Government issuing regulations which will set out the circumstances in which buildings will be classified as prescribed buildings. So, there is still some way to go, even after the Assembly passes this Bill tonight.
Madam Speaker, it is good legislation. It gets the Government out of regulating the private lives of people and allows them to get on with their lives; and, to that extent, the Liberal Party supports it. However, when we get to the detail stage I will be proposing an amendment. I have discussed this with the Minister. It would appear that in drafting the Bill there has been an oversight on the part of the drafters. In the explanatory memorandum it is noted specifically that clause 11 and the schedule provide for the amendment of the principal Act so that sexist language is eliminated, which is fine. But it then points out that there were two clauses of the Bill in which the word "workmanlike" is used and that, since "proper and workmanlike" has a judicially defined meaning, those two clauses cannot be amended. To quote the explanatory memorandum, it "could lead to uncertainty and confusion". However, having said that, the Bill then proceeds to amend those two clauses, clauses 7 and 12. I foreshadow that in the detail stage I will move that those two clauses be deleted from the Bill. Unless the Minister has taken other advice since I spoke to him, that is necessary to achieve the objective that is stated in the explanatory memorandum. With that, Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party supports this Bill.
MS SZUTY (9.29): The Government is to be commended for the introduction of the Building (Amendment) Bill, which will exempt minor construction works from the planning approval process, the building permit process, the issue of certificates of occupancy and use, and the requirements for statutory warranties and insurance. As the Minister outlined in his speech, part of the problem has been that 85 per cent of minor constructions inside and outside of homes are not submitted for approval now. People often experience delays in conveyancing while awaiting approval of minor structures. It is also interesting to note that, of the plans lodged in the last 12 months, some 16 per cent could be defined as building work of a minor nature, and it is therefore difficult to substantiate the cost to government of processing applications, interviewing owner-builders and undertaking inspections for minor constructions.
I must admit, Madam Speaker, that in considering this amendment Bill I wondered what the definition of "minor construction" would be and whether public health and safety would continue to be protected under appropriate legislation as it is now. I recalled the very tragic accident in South Australia recently, when two children were killed after a pillar which "may have been illegally erected" collapsed.
Debate interrupted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .