Page 1794 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Berry: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
BUILDING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Debate resumed.
MS SZUTY: After considering the proposed draft building regulations amendment which specifies exactly the dimensions of fences and walls, retaining walls, carports, pergolas, sheds, gazebos, greenhouses, external timber decks, antennas and aerials, swimming pools, ornamental ponds, barbecues, letterboxes and various internal building structures, I am confident that public health and safety will continue to be protected, where it is necessary, under the regulations.
I make one further suggestion, however, and that is that when the new building regulations come into being they be promoted widely in the community, to the extent where community awareness and knowledge is extensively increased. As well, a review of the new building regulations and their operation after 12 months would give the Minister and the ACT Legislative Assembly some feedback on the success of the new arrangements.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (9.31), in reply: I thank members for their comments. As Mr Kaine said, this is a significant piece of reform which, as I think he said, gets the Government out of people's hair; it provides some freeing up of regulation. Ms Szuty's point is well taken, that we need to be careful that this does not lead to a reduction in health and safety standards. I think the recent controversy within the ACT as a result of the leaked report of the audit on building inspection shows that we need to be somewhat cautious of deregulation, that deregulation is not a golden road; it can lead to problems. But I am confident that the regulations which will implement this, which I can assure Mr Kaine will be promulgated as soon as we can do so, will try to strike that balance, and certainly it is our intention simply to free up the minor building work. It is not our intention to allow any risk to the public as a result of minor building works which may be a bit shoddy. With Canberra being a small and compact city and with our building inspectors being out and about on other tasks, I think we can keep a pretty good hold on what is going on.
As Mr Kaine indicated, we have discussed the amendment which he foreshadowed. It appears that we have conflict between the explanatory memorandum and the terms of the Bill. As I understand it, there was some debate as to whether it was appropriate to remove "workmanlike" and replace it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .