Page 1397 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
badly needed jobs. It is not only about existing jobs but also about the building industry’s capacity to create additional jobs to help us climb out of this pandemic-created hole.
I am sure that the minister’s office receives many constituent representations when a builder or a homebuyer finds themselves at loggerheads with the other party. I know our office does, and many of them end up being referred to the minister’s office. Based on the pleas for help that I have received and that, no doubt, the minister has received, I can say that often things can be sorted out without taking a case through ACAT or an even more expensive court process.
The proposals in this bill set out a framework for disputing parties to be brought together to establish a mutually agreeable solution. That has to be a good thing. That framework defines the parties involved in a dispute, the sorts of matters that would be dealt with in the dispute resolution process, and the main elements of the process. It also sets out the administrative structure for handling disputes and creates powers for making a decision. The bill also enables the creation of regulations that will prescribe detailed implementation provisions.
It is difficult to fault the broad framework and goals created by this bill. The building industry and the ACT community should not have high hopes, though, for what exactly is going on here. What we have here is not a solution to fix gaps in industry mediation by any means. The bill’s content and provisions are admirable goals as far as they go, but the fact is that the bill has no bite because it has no effect, because there are no detailed regulation amendments accompanying the bill. Without these, at this stage, it is a hollow log or an illusion, much like a colourful hologram that gives you an attractive picture but has no substance. The reason for this exercise in illusion is that the regulatory adjustments will be of such complexity that another couple of years will be needed to bring this bill into effect.
It is a bit disappointing that we are looking at passing a law that will not benefit the residential building industry or its customers for quite some time. In the meantime, those involved in disputes will have to endure costly ACAT and court proceedings when they really should not have to.
Here we are, Madam Speaker—dare I say it—rushing through a piece of last-minute legislation firmly welcomed by the building industry and, I am sure, by customers of the residential sector of the building industry; but if this legislation does not really come into effect, if it does not actually do what it is supposed to do for two years, then there is a risk that issues discovered in the regulation development process may, in fact, call for changes to the bill itself. Sadly, optics have prevailed over outcomes, and it will be left to a Coe Liberal government to do the actual fixing.
I thank Mr Ramsay for his efforts in setting up a bit of our work program for the Tenth Assembly, but I hope that this government is not going to say that it has met recommendations 28 and 43 committed to by Minister Gentleman back in 2016. I remind this chamber that, back then, this government said that recommendation 28 would be achieved by the end of 2016 and recommendation 43 by the end of 2017-18. Lo and behold: here we are in mid-2020 still looking at a fix, only to be told that this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video