Page 5378 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The deterrent value of security of payment legislation has also increased the speed of payment turnover and overall efficiency in the industry. The increased clarity and understanding of contracts has also been a result of the legislation, with many flow-on benefits. As the security of payment scheme proposed by this bill is modelled on the New South Wales legislation, it is also likely that it will have a proportionally positive impact on small business.
I think it would just be worth while to cover off on the governance arrangements for this new scheme that were first brought to our attention by the previous Minister for Industrial Relations when he introduced this legislation. New South Wales and Queensland differ on the administration and licensing of security of payment. The New South Wales model gives the relevant minister discretionary powers for administering the scheme. The minister then transfers responsibility for the licensing and monitoring of adjudicators to the approved authorised nominated authorities. It is a minimalist, hands-off approach to regulating security of payment that requires less than one person for the whole of New South Wales. This is in contrast to the Queensland approach, which has required the establishment of a separate agency, comprising three full-time equivalent positions, consisting of one senior executive, an administrative officer and a customer service officer.
Consideration was given to whether a security of payment function will be located within government. The role involves establishing a panel of appropriately qualified adjudicators and referring cases to an adjudicator in a timely way. As this does not require the determination of issues between the parties, the role is more akin to that of a registrar than a tribunal or court. In other jurisdictions, administration resides in specialist units in the public works and construction portfolios. In the ACT, this means it could reside in the Planning portfolio. This option would allow the scheme to operate in the context of other regulatory regimes that apply in the building industry.
ACTPLA already administer building and construction industry regulatory and licensing functions and, further to this, the legislative framework for licensing pre-exists in the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act, which is also administered by ACTPLA. With the preferred model for administering security of payment being that of New South Wales, it is fitting that the best location for the scheme should be ACTPLA. In this arrangement, an officer in ACTPLA will oversee the licensing, registration and monitoring of ANAs and adjudicators.
Earlier this year I wrote to the Minister for Planning seeking his consideration of this function being located within ACTPLA. I am pleased to say that the minister agreed that, with its other statutory functions in the building and construction industry, ACTPLA would be the appropriate location for the administration and licensing for security of payment. I should say that that was the former Minister for Industrial Relations.
The ACT’s building and construction industry will benefit substantially from the introduction of this legislation. I thank members of the Assembly for their support for this legislation. I also indicate that Mr Seselja’s proposal in both amendments to bring forward the review of the scheme by three years is something the government would support. We think it is a good idea.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video