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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1120 ..

MS DUNDAS (5.45): This is a simple amendment to change a “may” to a “must”. It will require the building registrar to change the register if they become aware of any errors. I do not think anyone has a problem with the changes, as members have indicated, although I think the suggestion that the registrar would intentionally not correct an error on the register demonstrates an unfortunately unhealthy level of suspicion. I commend the amendment; it clarifies the situation and codifies what we are trying to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 100 agreed to.

Clause 101.

MRS DUNNE (5.46): I seek leave to move amendments 3 and 4 circulated in my name on the yellow page [see schedule 1 at page 1177].

Leave granted

MRS DUNNE: I point out to members that there is an amendment 5, which I do not propose to move. I forgot to tell the drafters that I did not want to move it, and I apologise to the drafters.

Amendments 3 and 4 establish the registrar of all these building construction licensees as an independent statutory person, rather than someone who is subject to supervision by other statutory persons. There is considerable concern in the community, and I think I need to put on the record what that concern is. It covers two elements, the first being that building is quite separate from planning, a view that I heartily share.

Planning is about putting together the architecture, the design and the streetscape of something, and building is the execution of that—putting it into effect. It does not matter how good your planning is if your execution—the building process, the wiring, the plumbing—are wrong. If it is not up to scratch, it undermines the planning process. The opposition see those as separate entities which, whilst closely related, should be looked at separately.

The concerns raised with me by the construction industry are twofold. The first is that in the planning system there is a compliance unit with its own building inspectors and certifiers who are licensed by the registrar, which means that colleagues are effectively granting licences to colleagues. There is potential for a conflict of interest there, remote as it might be.

As an example, there is a lot of pressure on the compliance area—there always is—and there is a shortage of staff. Somebody comes along and wants to get the builders licence to become a compliance officer, and the registrar says, “Look, this fellow’s just not up to scratch—for a variety of reasons.” There is the possibility that pressure will be put on the registrar to give that person a licence and to allow him to operate as a compliance officer so as to meet the demand. That is an unsatisfactory way of doing it.

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