Page 873 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Parton’s original motion? The first thing I guess I would say is that my office has worked closely with Minister Gentleman’s office to craft an amendment which I believe is an improvement on the very good foundation that Mr Parton started with.
First, though, there are three reasons. Mr Parton’s motion assumes that all these reforms are all that needs to be done. However, I have heard some very knowledgeable people in the industry suggest that there is more to be done. There is a whole raft of additional changes that are going to be required. Suggestions that have been put to me include limiting the professions that can design more complex buildings. I am told that currently there are no rules about this, which leads to totally unskilled people designing critical parts of buildings.
Other suggestions include fundamental changes to the role of building certifiers who, many believe, will never be able to undertake a full supervision role for complex buildings; naming and shaming laws for developers who do not fix failures in their buildings; adding other design professionals such as building designers, to the current architects registration system; and licensing developers as well as buildings. I see the possibility of an Assembly standing committee inquiry as a good step in advancing the next tranche of reforms, and I hope the standing committee or committees in question decide to take this issue up.
Secondly, Mr Parton’s motion has a hard deadline for completing all the reforms. Initially I thought this is great. However, I have been told that some of the reforms will need more time or will not be able to be delivered hundred per cent in accordance with the original wording, and there is no point binding the government in a way that simply will not work and they cannot do. However, I do believe there is a good benefit in making sure that this work moves forward faster. From what we have seen so far, I am not comfortable that this will happen unless there is a very high degree of scrutiny of the progress. Thus, we need regular reporting, and the ALP amendment delivers just that.
Thirdly—and I suppose this is more a matter of politeness than high policy—the amendment does keep the major part of Mr Parton’s original motion, and I see this as an acknowledgement that Mr Parton was basically on the right track with the motion.
To wrap up, I will be supporting Minister Gentleman’s amendment, which I believe is a refinement of Mr Parton’s good motion rather than a watering down of it.
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for Regulatory Services, Minister for the Arts and Community Events and Minister for Veterans and Seniors) (5.09): I thank Mr Parton for the opportunity to detail the measures that the government has introduced through some significant reforms in 2013 and 2016 to the regulatory framework to ensure that the building industry delivers high quality property constructions. I am concerned, however, that Mr Parton has slipped into some inaccurate language when it comes to some of the detail. I note that on his social media this morning he claimed that my response to this issue was to call for an inquiry. Today in the chamber he has decided that rather than an inquiry I called for a review. I can assure the Assembly that Mr Parton’s characterisation on both accounts is inaccurate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video