Page 904 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
useless. I understand that when the initial exposure draft to the ACT was circulated to industry for comment there was a commitment to run a public information campaign to advise the public of the requirement to employ only licensed individuals for plumbing, electrical and building work. I understand that no such campaign has been conducted to date.
It seems that no education process of agencies, contractors and employees on the issue of unlicensed workers has occurred. Even with education, policing of activities is essential, which raises the question of the capacity of the inspection staff to undertake such activities. I understand that, for example, there are only two plumbing inspectors in the ACT, one of whom is due to take a lengthy period of leave shortly.
Arising from these amendments, I would like a few assurances. I would like an assurance that the current level of inspectors will be maintained, even with the significant budgetary problems facing the ACT government. Is the government prepared to commit to addressing the issue of education and monitoring of the use of unlicensed handymen doing work which should be undertaken by licensed tradespeople? Is the government going to undertake its promised review of the legislation two years from the commencement date?
Most of my comments have related to the whole COLA legislation package, including its many amendments so far, and I believe there will be more amendments. Whilst I support the bill at hand I put on record that, in my view, some of these amendments could have been avoided if all issues had been adequately canvassed and taken account of in the early stages of drafting of the original act.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.33): I must say that I did appreciate some of the comments that Mr Seselja made and the detailed analysis he has done of this bill. The Greens will be supporting the bill because the changes it makes to the construction occupations legislation are quite simple and seemingly quite rational. Changes to plumbing regulations, for example, will ensure that irrigation can be installed by an irrigation plumber, which both creates a lower level qualification, bringing more people into that part of the work force and, conveniently, allows for irrigation to be installed by someone other than a fully fledged licensed plumber. The bill also provides for recognised standards to apply to building products, methods or components and so certifiers can know that they are compliant with the building code by design. This is part of a national approach to building codes and is particularly pertinent to small jurisdictions such as the ACT.
The most complex amendments in this bill relate to the issue of disciplinary actions against partnerships. Prior to the amendments, people in partnerships could, in effect, dodge their responsibilities to deliver satisfactory work by redirecting any offence, such as engaging workers without appropriate skill or endorsement, to other partners. Over the past few years, we have seen a continual refining of the legal obligations of employers in terms of their public safety and OH&S responsibilities. These amendments, insofar as they clear up the responsibilities of corporations and partnerships, are a part of that project.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (5.35): The aspect of this bill on which I wish to comment, and which was previewed by Mr Seselja, is the series of amendments to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .