Residential Building (Misc. Consumer Protection Amendments) Bill 2022 (No 44)

Thursday 25 May 2023

[11.37 a.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I thank the Leader for bringing on this bill and intend to make some comments about the state of the residential construction legislation we have more generally in Tasmania.  As we know, the sweeping reforms from 2016 drastically changed many of the legal requirements around residential construction and development.

It was driven by the need to update the prior iteration of the Building Act, which had been developed during the 1990s and in operation since 2004.  There was also a need to conform with standards in other Australian jurisdictions for regulatory consistency.  There were concerns by the building industry in the lead-up to the 2016 bill regarding the time taken for processing of approvals and a consequent necessity for the removal of unnecessary delays that would inevitably increase the cost of building projects.  Consumer demand and sentiment had also changed significantly during that time, and the legislation enacted in 2016 attempted to accommodate and reflect those changes.

The bill we have before us aims to get the balance right between ensuring strong protection for consumers without impeding construction activity.  We have, over the past few years, seen significant increase in the sheer volume of consumer demand, with the concurrent difficulty in obtaining supplies and labour to complete building projects and developments.  We have all heard with sheer horror the stories of construction companies falling into administration or liquidation with half-built homes, leaving not just the purchasers in limbo but the companies in the impossible positions of being unable to complete their jobs and creditors waiting in line to recoup what they possibly can.

I understand the bill we have before us addresses a number of specific things, including the enhancement of the dispute resolution framework, better addressing defective work and improving the accountability of statutory office holders.  I emphasise, however, that in the past few years a number of people in Tasmania have been left devastated financially, mentally and emotionally over issues regarding the construction of their homes.  No person in a country like Australia should ever have to go through something like that.

We all heard yesterday from the people who briefed us - the brave people, I would have to say - and as was mentioned by the member for McIntyre, years on from when this started, how seriously affected they still were and the ongoing problems they still had, with some people even considering whether they could continue living.  For that situation to go on and for those people, we cannot imagine what it is like.  The member for McIntyre has read a couple of the letters in so I will not read those, but I will note a comment from one, about CBOS:

I would have assumed, like everyone else, that CBOS was there to assist, to sort and to fix out.  How sad that that wasn't the case.  That we are told that the first step is to write a letter.

From one of the people yesterday, whom I will not name either:

Another call to CBOS, who told us to engage a new builder to repair all of the defective work, get the house finished.  Our advice was to engage another builder to repair the defects and complete the house.  This proved to be impossible because none of the builders of the many we spoke to were prepared to take over the whole job because they would have to certify the work, some of which had been buried in concrete.

Over the next two years and eight months we were able to engage four different builders, numerous trades to undertake the works needed.

I recall the member for McIntyre's issue and how very deeply it affected her.  It must have been a terrible situation to have a house you cannot live in, that you are locked out of, and to try to seek help.  To see those people yesterday, telling us emotionally about the situations they have been through; I do not think any of us ever want to be in those situations.

One elderly lady in my electorate who came to me in recent times had managed to buy a home that she thought was her forever home.  She is a lady in her early eighties.  As it turned out, there is a problem with the roof and the house now has mould.  Someone had replaced the roof, and the snow came and caused damage. No-one would take responsibility.  She has been to CBOS, but they had no advice apart from saying 'take legal action' - but who do you take legal action against?  The insurance company will not pay; they say it was the builder, but the builder is no longer in work.  This lady purchased it believing that all the work had been done.  From memory, we do not have legislation where, when you have bought something, you can go back - you hope it is as good as it should be.

I also have many dealings with a very good building surveyor in Launceston who tells me about issues that he comes across and assists people with, where work has been done incorrectly - all sorts of things that he says should not be happening in these times, with the legislation we have before us.  On a number of occasions, he has asked me if we could have a select inquiry into the building industry and into the bill.  I do not know how that would go; it would be a bit like trying to have an inquiry into health, and I think that has been tried in the past.  There are so many different angles and streets that you could start going down.  I am not really sure where you would end up or whether we would ever complete it.

I am pretty certain, member for McIntyre, and perhaps the member for Huon can confirm it, that all trades have to have compulsory educational components and professional development.  I know that plumbers and electricians do, so I would be certain that the builders do as well.  Talking about tilers, I have a son who is a builder and is an excellent tiler.

Ms Rattray - You are laughing, then!

Ms ARMITAGE - Well, I am not laughing because he lives in Western Australia.  It would cost me a lot to bring him back to do the tiling; it would be cheaper to get someone else.

Ms Rattray - You would get a visit and get the work done.

Ms ARMITAGE - I would be lucky to get the work done; I might get the visit.  There would be too many other good things to be doing, apart from work.

I consider the legislation before us certainly improves the situation that we currently have.  As we progress in improving our building laws and regulations, I hope to see our existing laws strengthened to protect both builders and consumers in this regard.

To turn to the current bill, I know it amends the Building Act to introduce a new compliance order, called a defective work order, which can be issued by the building surveyor or, in certain circumstances, the Director of Building Control, where defective work is identified within 24 months post-completion.  I believe this is an extremely important measure as often defective work can take some time to rear its head.  Leader, how was the figure of 24 months reached?  Are both consumers and builders satisfied that it is a reasonable amount of time? 

In providing for greater accountability of statutory office holders, the bill also amends the Building Act and Occupational Licensing Act to consolidate all of the council, general manager and permit authority functions under the Building Act to be the responsibility of the council as a body corporate.  As the Leader indicated, the bill transfers the responsibility of the permit authority away from an employee of the council and provides that the council as a body corporate is the permit authority for the purposes of the Building Act - transferring accountability of decision-making from an individual employee to the council itself.  While I understand this will have little impact on the day-to-day functions of permit processes, the distinction is an important one to make, and is necessary to ensure that consumers are the ones who are ultimately protected. 

Finally, the bill amends the Building Act to provide for the minister responsible for the administration of that act to direct a permit authority to exercise any of its functions under the Building Act if the minister is satisfied that a permit authority has not satisfactorily performed its function.  According to the Leader, this will resolve situations where councils decline to take prompt and appropriate action to protect consumers, residents or the public.  This seems like a drastic sort of provision to include; however, I understand it is better to have it than not.  I wonder though, what sort of situations are envisaged for this sort of power to be enacted?  Leader, what might trigger it?  An example of the use of this sort of power could be instructive.  What sort of recourse would a permit authority have with a minister who seeks to use this power?  How would a minister determine when a council declines to take prompt and appropriate action? 

I thank the Leader for bringing forward the bill, and I look forward to hearing further contributions.