Page 4803 - Week 13 - Thursday, 28 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This legislation does not change that. Rather, what this bill does is to make a new person, the company director, liable for the problem if the company does not do the right thing. The only retrospective aspect is adding another person, the director, if all other responsible entities refuse to take responsibility. Basically, it is not a new offence. What happened was wrong in the first place. This approach is consistent with the approach taken in other areas of company law, such as paying tax and workplace health and safety.
I will also take the opportunity to raise concerns, and somewhat agree with Mr Parton, about the consultation or, more clearly, lack of consultation with the industry on this legislation and, clearly, the committee process was then rushed. Building regulation reforms to date have had support from parts of the industry—for example, the Master Builders Association, who have taken a very constructive approach on this issue. In my view it would have been better to consult with constructive stakeholders first before this bill was tabled.
Lack of consultation leads to mistakes not being noticed. I am fairly confident that this bill will be shown to have mistakes that could have been picked up. I sincerely hope that the government will use the next few months to take detailed feedback from the more constructive industry stakeholders and correct any drafting problems quickly.
I will speak briefly to Mr Parton’s amendments. Amendments 1 to 3 deal with retrospectivity. I have just outlined our reasoning for not supporting those. Amendments 4 do 6 have policy merit but, as I mentioned before, director liability should be a last resort only. But it appears that the wording of the amendments has unacceptable side consequences. I really do not blame Mr Parton or PCO for that. The process has been incredibly rushed and they have been working under severe time constraints.
Madam Speaker, despite my reservations and the Greens’ considerable reservations about the process, the Greens are going to support this legislation. It is a strong step forward for better building regulation in Canberra. I hope that once it is in place, and the vast majority of it I understand is noncontroversial and a good idea, backed by strong enforcement in line with the government’s recent approach, there will be some improvements in building quality in the ACT.
I am even more hopeful that the government will consider carefully the issues that I have raised in this speech, the issues that Mr Parton has raised in his speech, the issues that the Master Builders have raised, that the committee has raised and that Mr Parton has crystallised in his amendments, and seriously consider making changes in a future bill to alleviate any poor drafting and unintended consequences of this bill.
MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra) (5.22): What a hyperbolic speech from Mr Parton—dramatic as always. Thank you for the entertainment at the end of this sitting year. In talking about correct process, you need to better manage your own side. I appreciate that you were away in Uganda when that bill was tabled and that it was Mr Wall who referred it to the standing committee. It is absolutely clear in Hansard that it was a motion that Mr Wall put and he, on behalf of your party, put the date “on or before 26 November 2019”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video