Page 1765 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 15 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
move ahead with the changes. I am not quite sure then what happened in the process that led to that 29 April call. I know that the minister has tried to enlighten us on that in public spaces in the past couple of weeks. I am sure we will hear more from him soon.
The minister then proceeded to nominate 1 June for the implementation date, except for certain provisions related to sprinkler systems and the like. I understand the genuine logistical problems with that particular aspect. Clearly there was a significant lack of industry-wide consultation over these updates. This not only confused but also appears to have aggravated some industry bodies responsible for implementation of the changes. In a sense, this chain of events is not the end of the world. But the erratic changes in direction could disrupt industry and confuse their chains of communication. Of course it could have impacts on costs and the purchase of the property.
In retrospect, for the benefit of industry and this chamber, I believe it would be useful to see the brief which the minister’s original announcement was based on and also the brief delivered on the Monday arising from the weekend consultations on 4 and 5 May that led to the minister’s revised decision. It was these events that have sparked this motion.
I acknowledge the daunting task confronting the responsible directorate and the minister in this area. And we, by no means, are of the belief that this is an easy task. But I do not think we can casually overlook the devastating impacts of getting building regulatory management wrong. As we have all seen, it can devastate people’s lives and their financial security. This is an area that can be readily fixed.
But as we have seen, it is not just the National Construction Code that has the hiccups. We have also spoken in the past, and I mentioned earlier in this speech, the government’s own building regulation reforms. A number of these reforms remain in abeyance and have certainly fallen well past the 2017-18 deadline for their full implementation.
I suspect a basic cause is resources in the right areas of the EPSD Directorate. And to some extent I think that has been acknowledged and to some extent, by the looks of the amendment from the government, has perhaps in some way been dealt with. It is also possible, of course, that the government is having second thoughts about some of the 43 reforms. But we will see.
I hope this motion gives some impetus for ensuring that skilled staff are allocated, properly trained and made effective in clearing up the building regulatory reform mess. We all know it is all well and good to have the staff but they must be backed up with the right training and development to ensure full effectiveness. And this includes not overloading them to the point that they leave way too soon because they are stressed out.
It is obvious that there is also a yawning gap in the minister’s inclination to embrace the need to personally engage with advocacy and industry bodies. And I do not say that as a snide political remark. That is my perception based on what I have seen and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video