Page 1586 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson has spoken of some problems which could be fixed by the Government in order to make it somewhat easier and less costly for builders. We are talking here about regulation. Of course, it is not just government regulations that cause increases in cost; it is also the charges and imposts of a nature which increases the oncost of wages, which are added to labour costs such as payroll tax, workers compensation, superannuation levy, long service leave levy and others. Any reduction in any of these costs would materially help the industry as a whole and reduce the cost of the final product, that is, housing.
Let us not underestimate the benefits derived through the subcontracting system in Australia, which is the envy of the rest of the world. It makes for significant reduction in total cost. So, let us please keep the subcontracting industry the way it is. Firstly, builders will need to become familiar with the discussion on the new thinking and directions in terms of the enlightened approach now commonly emerging with regard to urban design. Builders must bring themselves up to date with this thinking. This is an important step for them and is not to be delayed. The Government could help them by issuing some guidelines, such as they do, for instance, about how to buy a house. This involves a question of training, research of materials and, perhaps more importantly, their interaction with related fields, such as landscape design, energy conservation and so on.
The second matter that needs attention is how the Government can assist the building industry by freeing up approvals and modifying regulations in keeping with design and materials. Mr Stevenson has spoken eloquently about those. The Government can also do something about kicking off new urban developments. It can free up the industry by eliminating payroll tax and the other imposts that I spoke of before.
MADAM SPEAKER: I believe that the discussion is concluded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
MR DE DOMENICO (4.06): Madam Speaker, my attention has been drawn to page 66 of the proof copy of Hansard of last night's deliberations on the Animal Welfare Bill. Some words I used in the debate last night were reported in the Canberra Times this morning. The particular words I used, about Mr Lamont, were, "Mr Lamont is probably on a promise". I can see how those words can be misconstrued to mean that I had suggested that Mr Lamont was on some sort of monetary or other promise.
Ms Follett: What else could it mean?
MR DE DOMENICO: I have not finished yet; just wait. I said to Mr Lamont that those words were an off-the-cuff remark; that I did not have any notes. The fact that they were reported in the Canberra Times is for Mr Lamont and the Canberra Times to sort out; but I withdraw any imputation on Mr Lamont's character that may have been seen in those words.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .