Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 12 Hansard (Thursday, 1 November 2018) . . Page.. 4638 ..

Despite a reporting day in 2019, the work the committee can manage is finite. In meeting the time frame for the drone inquiry, the inquiry into building quality would likely be delayed so that we could still meet our responsibilities of inquiring into annual reports and also the drone inquiry, noting that we have already had to delay our focus on building quality to undertake the inquiry into the jobs procurement bill. Alternatively, if we push ahead with the building quality inquiry, the drones inquiry will be rushed in order to meet the deadline and balance our existing workload.

We can see the impact building quality is having on the lives of Canberrans from the submissions that are coming in. One group of residents is faced with having to pay $85,000 out of their own pocket to rectify building defects in the development they purchased. The example illustrates the clear need for this Assembly to undertake a thorough examination of the industry and how it is regulated.

Procedurally, I have to ask how the Greens, of all people, can support this motion. When a motion on building quality was moved by Mr Parton earlier this year, I sought the Greens’ support to amend the motion and have the Assembly refer the subject to the EDT committee for inquiry. The Greens indicated that they would not support my proposed referral. They felt that it was inappropriate for the Assembly to interfere with committee work. Instead, the motion was amended to strongly encourage the EDT committee to inquire into it.

Mr Rattenbury has said in this Assembly:

… I reiterate my comments … today that the Greens’ view is that in making referrals to committees … it is best for the committee … to perhaps meet and discuss the likely referrals and to actually work collaboratively together to agree on a work program.

He then said that the motion that was being debated was made “even worse in that the committee has not discussed this possible referral and this matter has not been canvassed with … committee colleagues”. I question why what was inappropriate then is now completely fine.

I also put forward that there is scope for balance here. We have had over 100 responses to the survey I ran on building quality. To date, we have received 39 submissions accepted by the committee, with more awaiting consideration. By all indications, the building quality inquiry will be a significant piece of work. That is why I am moving the amendment circulated in my name. The amendment I have moved gives the economic development and tourism committee the ability to consider drone delivery technology once the building quality inquiry has concluded in a time frame that is not rushed and allows all matters to be considered adequately. I look forward to working with my committee colleagues as we consider both issues and prioritise the workload of the committee so we that can deliver meaningful insight into the topics of inquiry.

MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (11.54): Drone technology has been evolving rapidly. Its applications have been expanded and we are now at the point where we

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video