Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 3 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 1108..
MS DUNDAS (continuing):
with the industry and then to have this piece of legislation commence. So while I see what Mrs Dunne is trying to do, I do not think we can support it, because of what we have already done with the Building Act. The message to the minister is to take the time before commencing this legislation so that the information in relation to the operation of this bill that was gleaned by members during the roundtable process can be fully explained and fully worked through with members of the industry.
MS TUCKER (5.04): The Greens will be opposing this amendment. This project has been years in development and on the table since mid last year. While various interest groups have put forward arguments as to alternative arrangements in some aspects, no-one has made the case for putting off the commencement date. If it is for the purpose of organising advisory boards and then developing a code of practice, it seems to ignore the reality of current standards and the mechanism of this bill.
The regulations, which are included as a schedule to this bill, are tied into existing standards, which the industry complies with. The Building Act, which was passed on Tuesday, describes how the quality of work is to be judged. The bill does provide for codes of practice to be established by the registrar in consultation with the advisory boards, but given that we are importing the existing standards into this new regime, it is no argument for holding off commencement of this bill.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 30, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (5.06): I seek leave to move amendments 1 and 2 circulated in my name together.
MR CORBELL: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page ], and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the amendments. Clause 31 of the bill specifies that a nominee of a licensed corporation or partnership has the functions of supervising the construction services for which it is responsible and ensuring that those construction services comply with the act and operational acts. Both the nominee and the corporation or partnership commit an offence if the nominee fails to meet those requirements. This clause also provides that it is a defence to prosecution if the nominee has given a mandatory requirement to the corporation or partnership in writing and provided a copy of that requirement to the registrar.
Concerns have been raised by industry representatives that a nominee could issue a mandatory requirement as a way of avoiding prosecution for failing to meet their responsibilities under the act and that the mandatory requirement may not be related to the alleged offence. That would then leave the corporation or partnership as the only responsible licensees open to prosecution. In order to address this valid concern this