Page 803 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
specific areas, there is scope to look at the specific channels through which we should be seeking to address those issues, be they an Assembly inquiry or some other mechanism that could be set up.
So I will not be supporting Mr Coe’s motion today. I do not think it is the right mechanism to tackle the issues and it fails to recognise the work that is already underway.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.37): It is interesting that Mr Rattenbury finishes by saying that clear recognition of problems exists, but “we’re not interested in a comprehensive solution to all the problems”. Yes, some bits and pieces have been done. Mr Corbell’s immediate defence is, “We’ve got a stimulus package,” the package that the Chief Minister hopes will stimulate but will not guarantee that it will do anything at all. But there is that clear recognition that something needs to be done—that there are problems and that something needs to be done.
What this motion does is bring it all together so that we can have a comprehensive response to one of the most important private sector industries in this territory. And it is important at a whole lot of levels. If you are going out and buying a house, the biggest purchase that an ordinary individual or couple will make, you really want to make sure that you get a great product, that you are getting value for money and that the industry is working for your benefit as well as for their own. The builders need to make a profit, and the staff need to get decent wages. But it has to work for everyone. This motion is about bringing it all together, because of the clear recognition that, in Mr Rattenbury’s words, the opposition have of the dilemmas that exist in the industry across the sectors. And it is about time that we addressed it as a whole.
Yes, you could hive it off to various committees so that they could do their bits, but at the end of the day the best way to do this is to have someone, or a group of individuals, independent of the Assembly, have a look at the industry as a whole and come up with solutions that balance the competing needs of regulation versus price, delivery versus quality, so that we get the best out of our industry for all of us.
The government is entitled to the revenue that reasonable fees should bring. The workers are entitled to a safe workplace, free of bullying, free of intimidation, a safe place, and decent wages so that they can live. The owners of the companies that build should be able to make a profit, a reasonable profit, in this industry, so that, as they mainly do, they reinvest in the next project, which keeps the economy going. Those that own the buildings, rent the buildings or purchase the buildings should be able to get value for money and the quality of living or operations, in the case of a workplace, that they deserve.
That is what this motion is about. We have read the litany of stories, whether it be the number of deaths on our workplace sites that have occurred over a number of years under this Labor government, or the stories of people who have purchased properties that leak and they are finding it hard to get redress. We have all read the litany of stories that have occurred, from one extreme to the other. As Mr Coe said, this is not about blame; it is about building and protecting the industry that builds the territory in which we live. That is why we should have an independent inquiry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video