Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 807 ..

the advice of the reference group, with regulations replaced by codes of practice developed by the reference groups or perhaps industry boards. These concerns were floated early on in the consultation process and have now emerged again. I have also been reminded that Mrs Dunne in the past, on 10 December 2002, moved to remove the building regulations from the control of the Planning and Land Authority when it was set up. I shared, and still share, the view of the government on this.

The ACT is a small jurisdiction that, uniquely in Australia, deals with both the state and local government functions of planning and building regulation and control. While usually separated into local government and state government planning and building licensing and inspection regimes, these activities deal in effect with the same industry and the same individuals. There is, in fact, a continuum of action: from planning application to construction, completion and certification. It makes good sense, given the scale and scope, for people in this one agency to cover a wider range of activities than would be the practice in another context.

One specific issue that has been raised in this context is that the registrar may be too much in the shadow of the chief planner. It is in addressing that concern that I have had an amendment drafted. It defines the registrar as a public authority for the purpose of the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 2004.

Another key issue that we have had to deal with over the past few days has been the status of nominees, which this new licensing regime requires all licensed businesses to identify. It is an issue that seems to reflect fairly entrenched differences of view. This legislation will require the nominees appointed by businesses to oversee the work in their area of responsibility. It also requires them to report some information, such as their termination from employment, to the registrar. These requirements are because nominees are seen to have a public duty as well as a responsibility to the businesses.

I understand that the HIA, in particular, would rather have the businesses carry all the responsibility for the quality of its work and to tie the nominees into what they describe as the “sanctity” of the employer/employee relationship. However, the whole purpose of a nominee approach is to put some of the onus on the nominees to either ensure the work is carried out to the appropriate standard or, if that becomes impossible, advise the registrar of that fact.

Demerit points have also been fairly hotly contested––10 points, 20 points, 15 points; 10 years, no years, three years and so on. My view is that demerit points in themselves are not a penalty; they are rather a measure of problems. Consequently, I do not see the application of demerit points to problems which emerge after the act comes into force, but are the result of building activity in the past, as a retrospective penalty. These, and a number of other issues that are reflected in some of the industry concerns, I will address in more detail in the detail stage.

MRS CROSS (6.45): I will speak very briefly, given that we don’t have much time left. The concern that I have with this these bills—the Building Bill 2003, the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Bill 2003 and the Construction Occupations Legislation Amendment Bill 2003—is not that we are debating them generally but the fact that concerns have been brought to our attention by the industry, which is going to be most affected by these bills. Some of them reacted a little slowly and it wasn’t within the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .