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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4208 ..

removed properly. Indeed the Master Builders Association has people quite capable of doing that.

We need to look at the best way forward here. I commend Mrs Cross for bringing this particular bill before the Assembly. It ensures that the ACT now will move forward so that public safety and the safety of individuals are addressed. It also, I hope, at the end of tonight, will ensure we move forward in a proper, structured way that does not have any adverse effects that will cause significant concern and problems in our community. I have talked to Mrs Cross and she certainly does not want that to happen.

It is very important that we look at what is the best way forward. We need to look at what is needed. We need a regime that protects people; we need a regime that works without adverse effects on housing, the property market and any other unintended consequences in the ACT. It is a complex issue; it is a hard ask. I note that the government has brought forward by a couple of months some matters in its schedule to its amendment No 3. I think that is quite sensible.

One of the problems with the initial bill—and I think Mrs Cross is quite right in saying it should not start until 16 January 2006 because a lot of work needs to be done—was: what about home renovators? It covered a number of things, but home renovators were not covered. That, I think, is very important. We actually need to start now an education campaign. I note the Master Builders Association, again in conjunction with WorkCover, are keen to progress that. That was something that was certainly missing. I see that it has been taken up now in the government’s amendments and that is certainly something the opposition supports.

It is crucially important too that we end up with legislation that does not have adverse effects. That is why I think whatever we do should start by 16 January 2006 so that, if there are problems, they can be fixed up and we end up with a regime that satisfies the needs of everyone in our community in relation to this crucially important issue. I note from the government’s amendments that there is one aspect of it that starts before that. I will speak to my amendment in greater detail when we come to that stage, but I do think it is important that 16 January 2006 is the crucial time.

It is crucially important that experts look at this and come up with what is the best way forward, including not just what all the issues are and how we should attack them but also, I would suggest, some suggestions as to what needs to actually go in acts of parliament and regulations in relation to this issue. I am pleased to see that the government has indicated in its amendments that there will be a task force that will report to the Assembly next August. I am going to move an amendment to add something to that which will, I hope, if supported, set up a regime that satisfies the needs of industry, home buyers, home sellers, tradespeople, home renovators—people who might come into contact with asbestos.

As a lot of people have commented in the last week in relation to this bill, a lot of activity has occurred in this area. I think I can quite confidently say now that the legislation passed here tonight will not be perfect; there will be a lot that needs to be done. If we are not careful there may well be adverse effects even from this legislation. There are several clauses that I think we need to look at very carefully before they are

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