Page 908 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The plumbing code of Australia is a lengthy and technical document prepared and published from time to time by the Australian Plumbing Regulators Forum, which is an intergovernmental body. The production of similar standards by the ACT government would be an onerous impost on the ACT government’s resources and would be contrary to the aim of achieving consistency with the regulatory frameworks of other jurisdictions. Other Australian jurisdictions are also recognising the plumbing code of Australia under their respective laws for similar reasons. The government therefore considers that the use of incorporation in this instance is appropriate and any declaration under subsection 46 (1) is a disallowable instrument.
The scrutiny of bills committee also raised concerns regarding the numbering of clauses in the explanatory statement on the bill. The committee identified some inconsistencies in the content of the explanatory statement and the bill. As noted by the committee, these were due to changes in wording made between various versions of the bill during its drafting. I acknowledge these errors and they have been amended accordingly: the reference to clause 3, notes, has been omitted from the revised explanatory statement; the explanation of clause 1.25 of schedule 1 has been amended in the revised explanatory statement to correctly refer to the Planning and Land Authority; the explanation of clause 1.1 of schedule 1 has been amended to replace reference to “new subsection 29 (1) (a)” with a reference to “existing 29 (1) (a)”, as suggested by the committee; and the explanation of clause 1.6 of schedule 1 contains a reference to subsection 61 (1) of the Building Act, which the committee considered may have been an inaccurate reference. This reference was intentional and the explanation has been rewritten to make clear the connection between subsection 61 (1) and subsection 56 (1) being amended. A typographical error identified in the committee’s report has also been amended.
The committee also raised concerns about perceived retrospectivity of certain provisions. The committee raised these concerns regarding the potential application of retrospectivity under clause 1.17 of schedule 1. The explanatory paragraph has been rewritten to make it clearer and to address the question of retrospectivity.
The amendment, in creating a new part 14 of the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004, is not a retrospective provision but, rather, a prospective provision based on past facts. This is based on the principle that the amendment affects the future operation of the act based on events that had already taken place at the time of its commencement. The amendment will extend the provisions of the act, including the registrar’s ability to issue notices and rectification orders, for work that was conducted prior to the commencement of the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act under certain other acts, which are now repealed.
The recognition of repealed laws under the act cannot affect notices and orders that the registrar may have made prior to the commencement of the amendment and can only affect future orders based on past events—for example, the construction of buildings prior to the commencement of the act. The principle of prospective provisions based on past fact is an established principle based on Australian case law. I am satisfied that the provisions do not breach the principle of retrospectivity and that they are in fact prospective. Furthermore, the government is of the view that the provisions are necessary to ensure that licensees are held responsible for work they conducted under repealed laws that were in operation as recently as two years ago.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .