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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 811 ..

It is unfortunate that some industry representatives waited until last week to raise again a range of issues—and I stress this—that had already been responded to through the community consultation report. A small number of new issues had been raised. Members will see later in the debate that there are two government amendments that address the concerns about the retrospectivity of demerit points and the mandatory requirement provisions for nominees.

I stress in relation to the issue of retrospectivity—I know members have raised it in the debate this evening—that the need for retrospectivity is because the Building Act 1972 is being repealed. A new act is replacing it. So, unless there is retrospectivity application of the new act, potential offences committed whilst the previous acts were in existence would not be able to be actioned. It is a loophole that would allow potentially shoddy workmanship to escape without any sanction, and that is not acceptable.

As you have just heard, the consultative approach taken to this reform package has been comprehensive. There has been an open door approach in finalising the reforms. It is unfortunate that some individuals and organisations, having been party to these reform proposals, now seek to have yet another go. It is also surprising, given that a number of changes had already been made to the legislative proposals based on the helpful and sensitive recommendations of industry.

I can appreciate that change can be unsettling, especially when you have an act which has been in place for over 30 years. But that is not a good enough reason to maintain the status quo when most people agree that this is not a good regulatory system that we have in place at the moment. Time will reveal any modifications that may be needed and industry will continue to have an important role to play in identifying issues that need to be addressed. At the end of the day, we will continue to work cooperatively with our licensees, the community and industry bodies to ensure the best possible outcomes for our community. I have been clear that this has been the government’s intention and I would hope that industry assurance of their commitment to this approach is genuine.

This package of legislative reforms to the licensing of building and construction occupations is one of the key planks in the ongoing improvements to the land and planning system in the ACT. Both the Assembly and the community spend much time debating what we want Canberra to look like and what we value as a community when it comes to high quality design and development. But it is important to remember that part of achieving our goals in designing a high quality built environment is ensuring that the built product is also of the highest quality—that the electrical wiring, plumbing or gas fitting work meets the Australian standards we apply and that the work of building certifiers contributes to ensuring that the buildings we live, work, and play in are safe and meet the required standards of construction. That is what this package of bills is all about. It is about a package of reforms that modernises an existing legislative framework that is currently cumbersome and deficient in many areas. It is about the transparency of that system and about refocusing the regulatory framework to be relevant and effective for today’s community. Integrating the multiple licensing processes into one process and introducing new measures of accountability both for the regulators and licensees will achieve a more efficient use of resources and, ultimately, better quality building and construction work in the ACT. Consumers can be assured of adequate avenues of redress and have confidence in the quality of licensed tradespeople they employ. Licensees can

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