Page 107 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 25 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Some new maximum penalties include terms of imprisonment. Failure to comply with the Building Act can endanger life or property, and it is certainly an abuse of trust. Therefore, it is fitting that this option is available to the courts. It also makes a range of other alternative actions, such as good behaviour bonds, available to a court should they deem it appropriate.
The amendments to the offence in section 49 of the Building Act give a good example of how this bill improves the existing offences. At present, the section requires that a person must carry out building work only in a way that will or is likely to result in a building that complies with the Building Code. The associated offence is a strict liability offence with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units.
The bill recasts the existing offence to apply only to licensed builders, as people with specific skills and training in the Building Code. The penalty remains the same as appropriate for a strict liability offence. However, a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units for all of the types of noncompliance with the code, which could include serious structural issues, does not reflect the differing ramifications of departures from the code.
As such, the bill introduces two additional offences: an offence that has a general application to any person carrying out building work that intentionally does not comply with the Building Code, with a maximum penalty of 300 penalty points or three years imprisonment or both—this would apply to people carrying out work that does not require a building licence, as well as licensees—and an offence for a licensed builder that knowingly or recklessly does not comply with the Building Code, with a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units or five years imprisonment or both.
These penalties provide a scale that recognises the respective gravity of all types of breaches, the different people that may legally undertake building work and the intentions of the person that breached the code.
Penalties for individual cases will be determined, of course, by the courts, but this bill gives the courts greater capacity to respond to breaches with serious consequences and with commensurate penalties.
The bill also raises the penalty for intentionally failing to comply with a rectification order from 200 penalty units to 2,000 penalty units. This is an increase from $28,000 to $280,000 for an individual and from $140,000 to $1.4 million for a corporation. As we can all appreciate, $140,000 does not cover a lot of rectification work, especially on a large building where costs may extend into the millions of dollars. The present penalty at this level is simply not adequate to deter offences in the majority of cases.
The Construction Occupations Registrar has a number of obligations in the legislation that include the power to decide applications in relation to licences, to administer acts such as the Electricity Safety Act and to maintain the standard of construction occupations work by acting on complaints and applying to the ACAT for operational discipline if appropriate. These are significant tasks. The registrar has these functions to maintain the minimum construction standards for our community. The bill
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video