Page 797 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government being caused by the new Abbott Liberal government? Talk to anyone around town today about the impact of uncertainty associated with the massive level of redundancy and the forthcoming Commission of Audit and they will tell you it is having a big impact on the construction sector and on confidence in investment.
Mr Coe seems to think that has got nothing to do with the impact on confidence in the construction sector. It is like Tony Abbott does not exist. I can understand why in this town Mr Coe would prefer to adopt a position that does not mention Tony Abbott or does not refer to the impact of federal government decisions on the construction sector, but the fact is that they have a major impact. But Mr Coe chooses to ignore that in his proposed establishment today.
I will deal with each of the issues raised in Mr Coe’s motion. First of all, he asks for an inquiry into fees, fines, charges and taxes paid by the industry to government. I do not know whether Mr Coe noticed, but just in the last couple of weeks the Chief Minister on behalf of the government announced a major reform package which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the industry sector, the Property Council, the HIA and the MBA. It is a program that puts in place a stimulus package to assist industry at a time of significant economic downturn, changes to the way lease variation charges are administered and changes dealing with outstanding liabilities under both lease variation charge and extension of time charges or commence and complete fees.
These changes have been overwhelmingly welcomed by industry, but Mr Coe seems to think we still need some board of inquiry. The fact is the industry have given the government a very strong endorsement of the reforms. They welcome the short-term stimulus measures the government has put in place by making those adjustments to lease variation charges and extension of time charges because they are making a real difference. We saw, for example, the fact that those changes have now prompted certain development decisions to be reconsidered and for those developments to be brought forward as a result of the government’s announcements. There is absolutely no need to investigate this particular item in the context of Mr Coe’s so-called board of inquiry.
Secondly, he asks to look at issues around the impact of rogue builders and phoenix companies. Just this year the Assembly has endorsed three significant legislative packages that I brought forward to this place to tackle the issue of poor performance by building practitioners. Just yesterday the Liberal opposition opposed the proposal that would put the details of dodgy builders on the public record so that the consumer can decide whether or not they should be engaged. The Liberal Party opposed that measure yesterday. How can they come into this place today and say, “We’re very concerned about rogue builders,” when they were not concerned about it yesterday when there was a law on the table to be supported to give better information to consumers when it comes to the practices of dodgy builders and building practitioners? Their sincerity on that issue certainly needs to be called into doubt.
Extraordinarily, another element of the proposed board of inquiry is the safety of construction sites. Where has Mr Coe been for the last two years? This government has commissioned a comprehensive inquiry. Do you know what it was called, Mr Coe? It was called Getting home safely. Remember that report, Mr Coe? Getting
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video