Thursday, 23 March 2023

Bills

Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (14:39): I am pleased to be able to rise today to speak on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I must say I have been looking forward to this bill coming on for debate this week, because whenever we debate bills on planning or building policy we always get a really unique insight into the diverse suburbs and the regions and the communities that make up our glorious state. So I look forward to hearing the contributions from all sides of the chamber on this as we detail the particulars of the bill and link them to the characteristics and circumstances of our districts.

In the inner north we are facing some significant growth challenges that necessitate a robust building and planning system. With the population of Melbourne expected to overtake Sydney by 2030 and be over 6 million people, there is a very pressing imperative to carefully balance the need for more homes with the impact on our environment, on open space, on heritage features and on local amenities. It also means carefully planning for more services like health and education, more infrastructure like roads and cycling connections, and more opportunities to create local jobs and unique local economies. All of this growth and planning must be buttressed by a building system that has quality, safety and equity at its core. That is the intent of this bill as we incrementally work to update and reform Victoria’s building system.

As you will know, the building regulatory system has not been really comprehensively examined since the early 1990s. In this time there have been significant changes not only to design and construction practices but in the very way we live and interact. Right now two out of five people living in the Northcote electorate are renting and a quarter of people are living in a flat or apartment. While we still maintain many beautiful low-rise streetscapes, which we cherish greatly, there is no denying that densification has changed the face of the north as we have absorbed and welcomed new families. Three decades ago suburbs like Northcote, Thornbury and Preston were heavy with factories and warehouses, and while some of that still remains, nowadays many of these have been transformed into medium- and high-density residential and mixed-use developments. Some of this has been quite confronting to my community. It has been confronting to me, having grown up in leafy Alphington, which is now seeing some pretty dramatic infill development, especially along Heidelberg Road. Thankfully, as we grow, there has also been a concerted effort to revitalise our suburbs with things like new parks and better schools, stronger public transport links and more community facilities. At the same time that all this has gone on there have also been significant leaps forward in terms of disability accessibility standards, energy efficiency and our understanding of urban design.

All this has meant a growing disconnect between the regulatory framework, the way the industry operates and the expectations of consumers. On the ground it means that major defects in residential buildings cost Victoria $675 million each year, with residential apartments making up two-thirds of this cost. For renters, who often have little control over the buildings they live in, these defects can mean homes that are uncomfortable, unworkable and sometimes unsafe. I have been really pleased to see the good work going on to update the National Construction Code and the advocacy from our government to ensure there are significant improvements to building standards that will come online later this year. They include things like mandatory accessibility standards and enhancements to energy efficiency requirements, something my community is extremely keen to see.

To augment this broader work we have also brought forward this bill, and our government is working to reform the building system into one that has safe, compliant and durable housing and buildings at its core. We want to strengthen consumer protections, give builders and industry more confidence and reduce the need for costly rectification works. To that end the bill will formalise and strengthen the role of Victoria’s first state building surveyor. The state building surveyor will have a statutory role as the primary source of expertise and technical guidance for the building and plumbing industries, but beyond advice the surveyor will have the power to issue building determinations relating to standards and requirements in these industries, translating to greater certainty within the industry and better building outcomes.

I cannot count the number of conversations that I have had with residents in my community about issues ranging from housing affordability to rental standards to building disputes and, distressingly, combustible cladding. At present there is no overarching peak body which gives voice to these people, which translates their frustrations and experiences into tangible and coordinated reform. So I am very happy to see this role created through the bill in the form of a dedicated building monitor. It is really important. The building monitor will represent Victorian domestic building consumers, advocating for them on systemic issues in the building industry. It will advise the Minister for Planning, giving that direct line into government, and will publish an annual building monitor issues report with its key findings and recommendations to government. This is a critical avenue for the needs, experiences and voices of residents to be heard and form part of the decision-making of government.

Now, the bill also brings into effect several other reforms, which I will not go into much detail on because I want to specifically address the challenges of combustible cladding and I am mindful of the time. But just very, very briefly, the bill expands the categories of building practitioners that will be required to be registered, giving consumers more confidence that practitioners have the appropriate experience, skills and qualifications to perform their roles. There will be a building manual which will be a single repository of all the relevant information relating to the design, construction and ongoing maintenance of a building, and that will address a significant hurdle for owners and owners corporations in accessing information about their building. They will be able to readily access information about the design, construction and maintenance of a building, which as we know can be really vital, especially if something goes wrong and needs to be fixed. There are also improvements around information sharing and improvements to the Architects Registration Board of Victoria.

I want to turn now to the parts of the bill which relate to combustible cladding, because this is an issue which unfortunately has deep impact for the lives of many residents in the inner north. Across my community there are still home owners and renters living in buildings constructed with flammable, combustible cladding. Not only does this cladding pose a significant health risk, but the cost of remediation can be overwhelming, with some home owners facing bills of tens of thousands of dollars to remove and replace the cladding from these buildings. For renters this can also mean that they are forced to vacate their homes while remediation works takes place, causing significant disruption and anxiety. The Andrews Labor government has of course established the world-first program to tackle high-risk cladding, with a $600 million package to fix buildings with combustible cladding and establish Cladding Safety Victoria. So far CSV has removed enough dangerous cladding to cover almost nine MCGs. Over 12,000 homes have been made safer from fire risk, protecting more than 22,000 Victorians, but the work is not done.

Just this month I received an email from a resident grappling with a notice that their building in Northcote has been identified as having combustible cladding. The resident detailed the financial and mental distress of these circumstances, explaining how difficult this unforeseen financial burden has been and the sense of injustice that the cost is incurred through no fault of their own. In this case the cladding has not been considered a high enough risk to qualify for our scheme, but this bill amends the Building Act 1993 to allow the government greater flexibility to determine how the cladding levy should be directed to support rectification of buildings found to have non-compliant combustible cladding. It will enable buildings that fall outside of the funded cladding rectification activity to be supported with funding. The process of remediation is ongoing, and many home owners and renters are still facing uncertainty, but these amendments will make it easier to get support to where it is needed.

As we look to reform our building systems, we need to ensure that our regulations are fit for purpose, that they strike the right balance and that they actively work to build equity into our suburbs. And not just that, they need to encourage innovation and excellence so that our buildings are not just safe and compliant but also beautiful and sustainable. In Northcote we really care about that. We want to create livable, sustainable and prosperous communities, and this bill goes towards doing that. I particularly commend the combustible cladding aspects of this bill, and I commend the whole bill to the house.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (14:49): I am delighted to rise and speak on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, because the Ovens Valley up in my patch is a place of booming growth from private investment in housing, and Yarrawonga is one of those towns that is absolutely going ahead in leaps and bounds with the building industry. In fact Yarrawonga is the fastest growing town in regional Victoria, and for good reason too. It is a lovely town, great people, but the private investment that is coming to Yarrawonga is outstanding.

On the bill, we have heard from the member for Croydon, who put forward a reasoned amendment, and I do hope that the government considers those thoughts as we move closer to the guillotine. These legislative amendments will create various reforms. Firstly, it will formalise and strengthen the role of the state building surveyor, which is important as Victorians continue to want to secure the great Australian dream – to own your own home. It is critically important, particularly in this day and age when the cost of land and the build costs are through the roof, and we need to be sure that consumers get what they have paid for and that both the builder and the purchaser are satisfied with the final product and the final payment as well. Too often we see on shows like A Current Affair or other types of programs where the end result does not match the agreed outcomes, and that gets very messy. So further regulation of the building industry – an industry that is absolutely booming – is certainly called for.

It will also establish a building monitor, which again will give great assurance to the industry. It will expand the categories of building practitioner that will be required to be registered, enhance the building approvals process by introducing further safeguards to better inform consumers and strengthen information sharing between the statutory entities with a role in the building regulatory framework.

While I am on this building aspect, in the Ovens Valley there is the town of Bright, the beautiful town of Bright, which many people in this house would know. In fact nearly everybody in the other place does, because we held a regional sitting there in the 59th Parliament. It was a great success up in Bright. Everybody loves Bright. Bright is in the early stages of a 350-home subdivision in the building sector. Now, 350 homes is not big when you look at somewhere like Melbourne or a suburb of Melbourne, but it is quite significant for a town the size of Bright, which has a population of only 2600, so 350 extra homes, extra families, is a significant increase. You can imagine the details that need to be considered: the entries to and the exits from the subdivision, the extra schools, the drain on resources and the extra infrastructure that is needed in these towns as a result of this booming building industry.

The first obstacle that has been encountered is the turn off the Great Alpine Road. Some may have already heard about this building dilemma that we have in Bright. Everybody, as I say, who has been to Bright sees that vista when they drive into Bright, the beautiful elm trees that welcome them. I mean, there is a sign that says ‘Welcome to Bright’, but really –

Richard Riordan: Is it a bright sign?

Tim McCURDY: It is a bright sign, member for Polwarth. But you do not need to see the sign, because when you enter those trees, whether it is in the autumn and they are changing colour or whether it is at this time of the year and they are just beautifully green, as some of them are evergreens, it is sight to behold. Obviously, with this new development there are concerns that some of those trees will be going, and this has been a major issue in Bright. I spoke with many in the community last week and even with the developer this week, and I was very pleased to see that it has gone from what was going to be the removal of eight, seven, five, four trees to one tree being removed, two others being relocated and the developer making some changes and filling some gaps, because as we know with this gateway to Bright, it is not an avenue of honour per se but it is just like an avenue of honour, and there are gaps –

Richard Riordan: It’s iconic.

Tim McCURDY: It is iconic, and it is known Victoria-wide, Australia-wide. When trees are 70 years old some of them die from time to time and there are gaps, and the developer is going to fill those gaps, which are substantial. I would like to see no trees removed, but coming back to only one being removed and the relocation of a couple more and filling in those gaps, I think there is a real opportunity for the developer and the residents of Bright, the community, to come to an agreement. We might get there after what I have seen this week and having spoken to the community. I mean, it is not my decision at the end of the day – it is a council decision and a community decision whether they want to go further into that – but certainly from what I have seen, it is a satisfactory outcome. Hopefully that is a win-win, and hopefully the mock-up that I saw will really encourage people to think a little bit laterally, because Bright really needs this development.

Our smaller community towns and towns like Bright are so full of tourists and Airbnbs; we have lost so many houses to Airbnb. There are no houses for staff. I talked to the manager of the Bright Brewery, who has got many, many staff. It is a very successful brewery and it is the number one employer in Bright, and they need this development to go ahead. So these changes that are coming in are important changes to make sure that we continue to keep a good, solid building program in front of us, because the Bright Brewery have to get people out of Yackandandah, from Wodonga and from further beyond, and they just cannot keep staff in many instances because they are travelling from so far. On the one hand, the Airbnbs are terrific for tourism, but at the end of the day it certainly reduces our stock when it comes to staff. When you look at the big picture in this building sector, it really is important that we get this building sector right, and that is what this bill tries to do, I believe.

Now, the bill also replaces a previous bill that expired in the Legislative Council in the last Parliament, I believe. In this previous bill the government was proposing changes to the architects accreditation board, removing accredited architects from the board. Part 5 of the bill outlines the amendments to the Architects Act 1991 to do with the membership of the board. The Australian Institute of Architects has informed me that it is okay with the latest changes and comfortable to support these amendments, so it is always good when industry is on side or partly on side. The 2022 bill also included provisions for local councils to undertake pre-occupation inspections for high-risk buildings, and this has not made it into the 2023 bill. That suggests that maybe the government has had second thoughts about changes to the building approvals process. I am not sure, but it does not appear to be in the latest version, the 2023 bill.

One criticism I do have is that the government still appears to be running an old agenda. Even after an election there do not appear to be a heap of new ideas. Despite us being four months into this new Parliament, we are still running a bit of an old agenda, but I suppose we have got to make these changes and get through them quickly. I have noticed there have not been a lot of new bills introduced, but no doubt the government will get more bills introduced so that when we return to this place there will be plenty more things to debate and legislation to get through.

They have also made some changes, as I said, from the 2022 bill, suggesting they have had that change of heart. While the building boom goes on, in a couple of my regional towns councils are still struggling to get properly trained surveyors, and they are neglecting the building controls and core building functions of local governments. Again hopefully this bill will improve some of those things, because it is a battle when people wait for not just weeks, not just months but years to get permits approved so that we can keep progress going.

Industry stakeholders have encouraged us to support the legislation; however, they have also suggested that it be strengthened by requiring the inclusion of a requirement that building surveyors practising in Victoria be members of a professional standards scheme. That would then allow the industry to assist with the regulation of practitioners. They have also stated that changes in the bill are long overdue and absolutely necessary, so we are all singing from a similar hymn sheet, I am sure.

Builder shortages are also impacting our industry, leading to delays in new houses being built. As I said, local government planning departments are slowing things up – not by choice, it is just they do not have the staff as well, and certainly that would help to alleviate the housing crisis that we have.

House prices in the Ovens Valley are booming, with some towns seeing the median house price double in the past three years, not dissimilar to what we are seeing here in metropolitan Melbourne and other places, but as I said earlier, there is a building boom going on in Yarrawonga, Cobram, Bright and Wangaratta. This is designed to help combat the increase in prices and get more local residents into homes. Proper regulation and standards are important to ensure that new houses being built are of good quality and will not come back and cause issues for owners later on. We do see that down the track: sometimes the bigger the boom, the quicker the job gets done and the more shortcuts get taken. I am not saying that happens in every case, but we need to regulate to ensure that this does not happen.

As I mentioned, the member for Croydon has submitted a reasoned amendment that I do hope the government takes into consideration as we go towards the guillotine later today. With those comments I will commend the bill to the house.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (14:59): I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The Andrews Labor government is committed to delivering a building industry that provides safe, compliant and durable buildings and houses. Strengthening our building system will benefit consumers, give builders and industry more confidence and certainty, and reduce the need for costly rectification work. This bill will provide greater certainty for industry and help to put consumers – the people who live, work and use these buildings – at the very heart of the building system, where they belong.

The bill’s legislative amendments have a key focus on consumer protection and will implement reforms that will reshape and strengthen the system of regulations that enforce compliance in Victoria. The Victorian building sector is made up of a number of agencies, each with an important role to play in maintaining a safe and well-regulated industry. A number of reviews, including the building system review stage 1, have highlighted that a lack of coordination, information sharing and data collection is a central issue for regulating the building industry. Consumers are often frustrated at the duplication of processes or requirements to provide information to different entities within the building system. There is an expectation that building system entities should work together to support how consumers interact with the system.

The building regulatory system in Victoria has not been comprehensively examined since the early 1990s. This bill will begin that very important work. It will implement key improvements identified by the building system review expert panel, with further reform to follow as this panel continues its work. The legislation will formalise and strengthen the role of the state building surveyor within the Victorian Building Authority. This is a role which is already established, but the legislation will give it a statutory role as the primary source of expertise and technical guidance for the building and plumbing industries. This includes the power to issue binding determinations relating to the technical interpretation of building and plumbing regulations, codes and standards.

This bill will further establish the role of a building monitor to represent domestic building consumer interests in the building system, with a key focus on systemic issues. At present there is no overarching peak body or dedicated organisation representing Victorian domestic building consumers. The building system is designed in a way that does not sufficiently consider the needs, abilities or experiences of domestic building consumers, and their voices are absent from the key decision-making bodies. The building monitor aims to address this gap, with the responsibility of representing and advocating for consumers on systemic issues within the building industry. The monitor will advise the Minister for Planning on systemic issues and risks facing domestic building consumers, and they will publish an annual building monitor issues report with key findings and recommendations to the government.

The bill expands the categories of building practitioners required to be registered to enable the regulation of building designers, project managers, site supervisors and of course building consultants. Fundamentally this is about ensuring that practitioners have the necessary skills or qualifications to carry out complex and high-risk work. The regulation of these categories of practitioner will depend on the types of work that they carry out, first being prescribed in regulations, and the public will be consulted on the regulations before they are made.

The legislation takes further steps to ensure that consumers in the building industry are protected, with the best possible access to all information. It introduces a requirement that a draft building manual be prepared by the applicant for an occupancy permit and provided to the relevant building surveyor for approval. Building manuals are intended to be a single source of all relevant information relating to the design, construction and ongoing maintenance of a building. The building manual will address a significant hurdle for owners and owners corporations in accessing information about their building. By making information about the design, the construction and the maintenance of the building more readily accessible, the building manual will assist not only owners and owners corporations but also other parties such as building practitioners and regulators in the future. Once the draft building manual has been approved by the relevant building surveyor, the manual will be provided to the owners and the owners corporation, who will be responsible for maintaining and keeping the documentation current and up to date. This bill will also require the relevant building surveyor to provide at the time of issuing a building permit a document that clearly details their roles and their responsibilities. This will improve consumer understanding about the role and functions of building surveyors in the building permit process. All of this will enable better transparency and reporting on the health of the building system.

Equally important is that the legislation amends the distribution of the cladding rectification levy. This will allow government greater flexibility to determine how the levy should be directed to support rectification of buildings found to have non-compliant combustible cladding. Several high-profile building failures in Australia and also around the world have rightly shaken the public’s confidence in the building regulatory system. This especially includes the use of combustible cladding, which led to the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in London in 2017 – this claimed 72 lives, tragically – as well as fires here in Melbourne at the Lacrosse apartment building in Docklands in 2014 and the Neo200 building in the CBD in 2019. I can remember in 2019 around the time of that fire at the Neo200 there was fear in the community, especially for those who lived in apartment buildings. We had a residents meeting at the apartment block which I lived in at the time and absolutely everyone wanted to know about cladding and the issues that could potentially arise. The concern and anxiety of tenants was understandably palpable. The financial cost alone of the combustible cladding crisis has been substantial, with many owners facing significant rectification costs to ensure that their homes are safe to live in, to say nothing of the stress on home owners and risks to health and safety.

This is why the Andrews Labor government launched a $600 million package in 2019 to fix buildings with high-risk combustible cladding. The bill will now enable buildings that fall outside of the funded cladding rectification activity to be supported with funding made available to deliver relevant programs to facilitate cladding rectification. A strong and viable system of regulation to enforce compliance is vital in the building industry, and an experienced and skilled workforce is absolutely indispensable to enforce that this compliance is upheld.

It goes without saying that safety is and always should be a main priority in the building industry. That is why unions which represent workers in the building industry and associated industries, including the mighty CFMEU, the plumbers union, the Electrical Trades Union and of course the manufacturing workers union, and their armies of organisers, shop stewards, OH&S delegates and the thousands of members that they represent, deserve a special mention and to be commended for upholding the health and safety of workers and consumers alike in this very hazardous industry. Safety is paramount, and no-one goes to work wanting to be in harm’s way. I know that these unions and their members will continue to contribute to a best practice building regulatory framework and uphold the health and safety of their workforce, consumers and residents alike in and around the building industry.

I am pleased that the Labor Andrews government is establishing a parliamentary inquiry into bosses who refuse to pay their subcontractors in the building and plumbing industries, as well as preparing a new registration and licensing scheme for building trade subcontractors and of course workers. The state government is also preparing for the commencement of the new edition of the National Construction Code this year, delivering significant improvements to building standards that improve occupant access, health, safety and amenity outcomes, and will apply to most new Australian residential and commercial buildings. This bill delivers much-needed reform to Victoria’s building system, placing consumer protection as central to these changes, and that is why I am very pleased to support this bill.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (15:08): Today I rise to speak on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. As many in this chamber know, up until a few months ago I was a self-employed builder. I worked in the industry for about 30 years, so I am glad to speak on this bill because it is actually my wheelhouse. It is something I am passionate about. I will congratulate the government. Most of the bill I accept – I will not congratulate you too much; you are already up and about, so just calm down, but most of the bill is in pretty good nick. But I do have concerns, and I will just go through a few things. The things that will have a positive impact on the construction industry are things like formalising and strengthening the role of the state building surveyor. That is a good idea. Establishing a state building monitor is very good for consumers. Enhancing a range of building approvals and processes, strengthening information sharing between different bodies and strengthening the governance arrangements of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria – all those are very positive aspects of the bill, but I do have some concerns.

The minister has said that the intent of the bill is to protect consumers, but in doing that there is a lot of new red tape here, and that might create new costs when building a new home. I think as a Parliament, when we talk about consumer protection, we need to be careful about creating new red tape that in the end hikes up the price for consumers looking to build their family home.

In the bill briefing we were told that the intent of the bill is for high-risk construction only. In the bill there is no mention of ‘high risk’ or a description of what ‘high-risk construction’ is. On that point I would ask the minister or the government to narrow the definition of ‘high risk’ or actually define what ‘high risk’ is. My fear is if we do not narrow that description, the unintended consequence of this bill will be that that will filter down into the domestic industry. If that happens, that will make housing less affordable than it already is. So I would call on the government to put that definition in the bill, so we all understand what ‘high risk’ is.

The other thing I have concerns about in the bill is the new categories for registration. Some of these new categories set out in the bill are ‘building designer’, ‘project manager’, ‘building consultant’ and ‘site supervisor’. The two categories I am most concerned about are building consultant and site supervisor. I will start with the consultant category. The category creates registration requirements for building consultants to be able to undertake activities like prepurchase due diligence inspection work, monitoring essential safety measures and maintenance work, disability access work and energy efficiency work. I will just touch on this for a minute. The problem I have with the description of ‘building consultant’ is that part of that description overlaps with a building surveyor. What the government has not given me here is what the qualifications are for a consultant. There are no qualifications; it just says ‘building consultant’. Where we get the overlap is where we talk about things like disability access and energy efficiency. When you get an occupancy permit on a building, it is only a building surveyor that can sign off on those two particular issues. Where I see the overlap in here I think there is going to be a conflict, and the government needs to think about that and sharpen that up a little bit.

When we talk about energy efficiency – and I will touch on this because nowadays it is very important for cost of living, and we all know the cost of living is going up – we have a problem, because at no point in the process of building is wall insulation inspected. What happens is your building surveyor comes in and looks at the frame. The installation cannot be in the frame at that point in time, because the building surveyor cannot see the connections and the hold-down points that are required for the inspection. He does not see the insulation go in the walls. Maybe if we are going to talk about energy efficiency and improving that and having a stock check for that, that is at frame stage. A building surveyor can come in and actually inspect that the right insulation is in the walls, because essentially once the plasterwork is on the walls it is too late. No-one can see it. You cannot see through plaster – you are not Superman. It is a simple as that. So I would like the government to work on that aspect of the bill.

When we go to the site supervisor category, I have concerns here as well because of the lack of a description of a qualification for a site supervisor. This comes back to my point previously about being very accurate in the determination of ‘high risk’. The unintended consequence of this is if you do not define ‘high risk’ and this does filter down into the domestic construction industry, you could possibly lose, by their qualifications, a lot of site supervisors. A lot of site supervisors in the domestic construction industry, it may shock you to know, are not carpenters. You can have ex-bricklayers, plasterers, pavers and electricians. Metricon Homes, for example, Australia’s biggest home builder, train their site supervisors, but they are not necessarily carpenters. So I can see an unintended consequence if we do not define exactly what ‘high risk’ is. This will filter down into the domestic construction market, and then we could have probably up to 60 per cent of domestic site supervisors not being able to work because they do not have adequate qualifications. A site supervisor on a 30-storey building in Melbourne has completely different qualifications to a site supervisor building a slab-on-ground construction in metro Melbourne somewhere.

So the government really needs to tighten up on those two aspects of the bill. As I said previously, most of the bill I do not have a problem with. I am more than happy to sit down with the minister and their team and point them in the right direction in these categories, where we can get to an agreement on the bill and the bill can get passed through. Essentially I like the bill, but there is this unintended consequence, and I am very, very concerned that it will filter down into the domestic construction industry. You need to take into account that in Victoria you have about 310,000 to 330,000 construction workers, and over two-thirds of those work in the domestic construction industry. The other third is either in commercial or in civil construction, so there is a very big portion of this where we have got to be very careful when we are putting this bill through.

In closing on this, I am not going to repeat everything my colleagues have said through the day, but I would like the government to take on board my comments. I do not know how many builders there are in this chamber – I might be the only one – but I do have a fair bit of experience in this section and, as I said previously, I am more than happy to help the government to redefine this and get it to a place where it will pass through both houses. I am giving the government too many compliments here, but I actually think it was well thought out –

Members interjecting.

Wayne FARNHAM: You see, this is what we can do with bipartisan work; okay. We can create good bills and they can move forward. It is a beautiful thing. That is how this chamber should work. It is not always that bloke up the back yelling at me, which he does all the time. I do congratulate the government because most of the bodies that have seen this bill like this bill and think it is a step in the right direction. I believe it is a step in the right direction except for those points I have brought up, and that is what I want the government to focus on. Adjust that and bring it back to the house so we can get it through the house.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (15:17): I rise today to express my support for the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. It delivers on a number of recommendations of the building system review expert panel stage 1 report. These recommendations have been informed through extensive consultation, as mentioned, with stakeholders, including consumers, industry, unions and professional associations. We have a broader program of reform in the building industry. In the last budget we invested almost $28 million to provide greater protections for consumers, strengthen building standards, cut red tape and address building workforce shortages. We are bolstering the construction workforce of the future through significant investment in training people with the skills required. In 2023 in construction courses alone there are 6300 fee-free TAFE places available. This is a significant figure indeed.

Importantly, for so many people who are aspiring to build their own home but are struggling with the rising costs of construction, we are working closely with industry and unions to identify measures to mitigate this impact, and well we should, especially given Victoria leads the nation in the supply of new homes. In the 12 months to January 2023 nearly 62,000 new homes were approved for construction in Victoria. Contrast that to New South Wales, which during the same period saw only about 52,000 approvals and Queensland about 37,000.

In regard to my district of Monbulk I make note of some important data gathered at the 2021 census. Close to 20,000 dwellings were recorded across Monbulk as owner occupied, either owned outright or mortgaged. This bill will give these domestic building owners greater protections for future works they may undertake on their dwellings. Those protections will provide for people who will build their home in the future too. 1619 people across Monbulk listed themselves as working within the construction trades. This bill will provide greater systemic support for those working within the industry. This much-needed reform to our state’s building system, which this bill will deliver, will have a direct impact on these people across my district and Victoria as a whole by placing consumer protection as central to these changes. The government is well aware that major defects in residential buildings cost Victoria a whopping $675 million a year, with residential apartments making up two-thirds of this cost. One of the key effects of these changes proposed throughout the bill will be the enhancement of consumer protection, which I am sure each and every one of us in this place can agree is an important measure indeed.

Key improvements identified by the building system review expert panel will be implemented via this bill, and as the panel continues its work further reform will follow, because this government knows that learning is perpetual and seeking improvements must always be an ongoing pursuit. This bill is a very substantial document which will address a range of matters that require improvement.

Firstly, it will formalise and strengthen the role of the state building surveyor. This role already exists within the Victorian Building Authority, but the effect of this legislation will give it a statutory role as a primary source of expertise and technical guidance for the building and plumbing industries. The power to issue binding determinations relating to technical interpretations of building and plumbing regulations, codes and standards will be endowed upon the state building surveyor through this bill.

Secondly, this bill will establish a building monitor to represent domestic building consumer interests in the building system with a focus on systemic issues. We do not have an overarching peak body or dedicated organisation representing Victorian domestic building consumers. Thankfully, this bill will remedy the gap. In the previous budget the government provided $2 million to establish the role. We are serious about getting this done. Until now the building system has been designed in a way that does not sufficiently consider the needs, abilities or experiences of domestic building consumers. Key decisions made about the building industry simply do not include them. The building monitor aims to address this gap with the responsibility of representing and advocating for consumers on systemic issues within the building industry.

The monitor will advise the Minister for Planning on systemic issues and risks which domestic building consumers may face. This will include engaging with domestic building consumers to understand their experience in the industry better. They will be required to publish an annual building monitor issues report with key findings and recommendations to government. The establishment of the building monitor is a great step forward for our state and for all those within the domestic building industry.

One of the functions of the new role that I would like to highlight will be the development and promotion of education materials and strategies in order to reduce consequences for domestic building affected parties. I think this is an incredibly important inclusion. The better educated all parties are in terms of their rights and responsibilities, the better compliance is certain to be. I am sure it is no surprise to anyone in this place that I am a strong advocate for education at all ages and stages of life. We simply do not know what we do not know. Sometimes, poor decisions are made because parties to an agreement do not understand their rights and responsibilities. In the case of consumers this is very much the case.

A close friend of mine went through the process of extending her house as her family expanded. What should have been a four- to six-month job turned into a three-year drama. It caused high levels of stress and anxiety for my friend, for her husband and for their children. Dodgy works were undertaken by subcontractors, plans had not been accurately drafted, walls were placed in the wrong spot, windows were wonky and the registered builder decided not to return calls and emails for weeks at length or to even attend the worksite when promised. Every few weeks a new contractor would show up and do maybe a day or two of work, never to be seen again. Unfortunately, examples like this are not as rare as they should be. Part of the issue for my friend was not knowing from the start where she and her husband stood as consumers. I suspect this may have even been part of the issue for the builder as well, so I welcome this focus on education as a function of the building monitor. This will assist consumers with knowing where they stand, but it will also make it abundantly clear to practitioners within the building industry their obligations and rights.

A third aspect of this bill will be the enhancement of the building approvals process, including by requiring relevant building surveyors to provide their clients with an information statement and requiring building manuals to be prepared for certain classes of building. Building manuals are intended to be a one-stop shop of all relevant information relating to the design, construction and ongoing maintenance of a building. This is an absolute win for owners and owners corporations. It will facilitate their access to information about their building, and other parties such as building practitioners and regulators will benefit from these manuals in the future. Once a draft building manual has been approved by the relevant building surveyor, the manual will be provided to the owner or the owners corporation. It will then be their responsibility for maintaining and keeping the documentation within the manual current.

A fourth aspect of this bill is the expansion of the categories of building practitioners required to be registered to enable the regulation of building designers, project managers, site supervisors and building consultants. This is about ensuring that practitioners within the building industry have the necessary skills and qualifications to carry out complex or high-risk work. Of course the regulation of these different categories of practitioner will depend on the types of work they do, and the public will be consulted on the regulations before they are made.

This bill will create several other reforms, which include strengthening information sharing arrangements between the Victorian Building Authority and other building system entities, strengthening and improving governance arrangements for the Architects Registration Board of Victoria to reflect best practice governance standards and amending the distribution of the cladding rectification levy to allow the government greater flexibility to determine how the cladding levy should be directed to support rectification of buildings found to have non-compliant combustible cladding. Provisions relating to the composition of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria require a minimum of three members to be registered architects while appointed to the board and also to have leadership experience in the building industry. This means the board will continue to benefit from the professional expertise of registered architects.

Strengthening our building system will benefit consumers. It will give builders and industry more broadly confidence and certainty and reduce the need for costly rectification work. This is part of the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to delivering a building system that provides safe, compliant and durable housing and buildings. Wherever we can avoid situations where consumers expect an extension to be completed in four months but three years later they are still waiting for their certificate of completion and compliance, that is a fine thing. This piece of legislation is incredibly important to protecting consumers in all ways. It is not just about a stick, it is also about carrots, it is about education. I commend it the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (15:27): I am pleased to stand here today and talk on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I would like to congratulate the member for Croydon, who led us off today. He articulated everything well. I do notice that he has put in a Building Legislation Amendment Bill reasoned amendment. I think there are a few little bits and pieces through here where we can actually make the bill, which is a very good bill, an even better bill. The crux of it is that the government has committed to delivering a building system that provides safe, compliant and durable housing and buildings. This requires a workforce of skilled and experienced practitioners and a strong and viable system of regulation to enforce compliance. The bill makes a series of legislative amendments that will implement reforms and reshape the regulatory landscape in Victoria with a key focus on consumer protection, and we all know we need that consumer protection.

So with the legislative changes – and I will just actually list them while I am standing here – the bill will primarily amend the Building Act 1993 and the Architects Act 1991 and make minor or consequential amendments to the Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020, the Owners Corporations Act 2006, the Sale of Land Act 1962, the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. These amendments will create the following reforms, as other members have spoken about: formalise and strengthen the role of the state building surveyor, which is important; establish a building monitor; expand the categories of building practitioner that will be required to be registered; enhance the building approvals process by introducing further safeguards to better inform consumers; strengthen information sharing between statutory entities with a role in the building regulatory framework; amend the distribution of the cladding rectification levy; and finally, strengthen and improve the governance arrangements for the Architects Registration Board of Victoria under the Architects Act.

In establishing a statutory role for the state building surveyor, when it did happen, it was established by the government as an executive staff member of the Victorian Building Authority. That was to provide compliance advice, technical guidance and interpretation of relevant building standards. The government now seeks to strengthen the role through recognising it in legislation. Under this bill the SBS will be positioned as the primary source of technical expertise and guidance for the building and plumbing industries, which I think is fantastic, being a former plumber; it is great.

Just touching on that, when I was plumbing, if I was doing domestic plumbing, the way it would work was – I was a licensed and registered plumber – we would come onsite if we were building a domestic house, and the only requirement of us was when we were laying a sewer, and we would put in our forms and book in for a sewer inspection. That sewer inspection might be booked in for a Wednesday or Thursday, so we would get there early and we would put the drains in and make sure they complied, and then we would all wait for the inspector to show up and check our drains and that the work was okay. A lot of the time, probably 95 per cent of the time as the years rolled on, we would not get an inspection, so it was virtually up to self-certification by the plumber. As soon as the time ran out and the inspector was not there – and sometimes it was a Friday – we would start backfilling the drain a little bit early. We would actually have it all done, so the underground works which then went under a slab would not have been checked; they were just relying on the plumber to self-certify the actual drainage works.

Then it continued with the building of the house. We had the hot- and cold-water supply, the roof, the gutters and the downpipes, and we self-certified them too. Then at the end of the work on the house we put in our compliance. If we were lucky enough, or unlucky enough, whichever way you want to look at it, the inspector would then come out and assess the whole job. So there is that connection with a plumber, and it is all right if they are reputable – there are a few cowboys out there – but if it did not get inspected, that is when things could go wrong. That is just a little bit on how we self-certified.

On the changes which the member for Narracan spoke about, we need to know that ‘high-risk’ area, because I also have concerns with high-risk building and plumbing practitioners: does it filter down to domestic plumbers? We need to get clarification on what some of these amendments are actually going to cover. We do not want to make more work for the people that are building domestic houses, because all that does is get put onto the new home owners, who are struggling now to be able to afford housing. There are roughly 300,000-plus registered workers in Victoria, but up to 200,000 of those work in the domestic area. These are the people that we want to get that clarification on to make sure that something that is going to be used on high-rise buildings in Melbourne does not necessarily affect people that are building houses out in the suburbs and out in country Victoria.

One of the biggest issues – and it got mentioned by the member for Croydon, who briefly touched on it – we have is the rectification of bathrooms and ensuites in new houses, and that comes back to them not being waterproofed properly. We used to get phone calls from owners of houses, and they would say they had a bad wet patch which they needed us to come and check. Luckily the wet patch was only in the ceilings of double-storey houses. We would go out there, and it was that the actual waterproofing of these particular bathrooms was faulty. I am not sure whether people had been watching The Block and thought we can waterproof our house very, very quickly or if it was other people that were actually meant to be doing the job of waterproofing not doing it properly. They do not get inspected – no-one comes out and inspects the waterproofing in properties. That might be one part that this legislation can actually regulate a little bit better, because if you talk to insurance companies and also home owners, they move into their new house and within a month they are ripping plaster down to perform these rectifications. That is just one thing that I think may be able to be done there.

The local builds around my part of the state down in the seat of Morwell out around towns like Churchill – they are absolutely booming with the amount of houses that are being built out there. In Glengarry there are brand new subdivisions out there, with a lot of houses being built. Tyers is the same, and Yallourn North. In Moe, which is one of our major towns, there are a lot of houses under construction. But with surveyors, the councils have not got the quality of surveyors. They are very, very hard to get at the moment because with the industry booming they are one of these commodities that other regions try to poach, and it makes the process of getting planning done and also getting your permits and everything through council very, very hard. So to have an avenue to have more surveyors and also the building monitor is just going to make that process flow a little bit easier, which is terrific.

In my home town of Traralgon there is a lot of building going on, both commercially and domestically, so it is great that that is happening. Also in Morwell where my office is there are some major housing developments going on around there, so I feel this bill here is probably more important for the seat of Morwell because in the next little bit we are going to have the athletes village starting, according to the government, and they are going to be built without any garages or kitchens, supposedly. We would love these amendments to be pushed through so on the flip side when the athletes village is turned into housing everything is above board, all the checks are done and the buildings are purpose-built for people to move into. But all in all, I commend these changes and I commend the bill to the house.

Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (15:37): It is my pleasure to join the debate this afternoon on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. Before the member for Warrandyte was unceremoniously dumped from the front bench in the previous Parliament, he gave his second-reading speech on a nearly identical bill and outlined in very great detail the opposition’s then view that the bill would not be supported. I can only assume that with the member for Croydon now occupying that august role common sense has prevailed, because we find ourselves in a position today where the opposition are in fact supporting the bill, but they have nonetheless moved a reasoned amendment. That reasoned amendment is one of those classic kick the can down the road reasoned amendments, saying that we should refuse to read the bill until the minister consults further with stakeholders, including the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, about options to require building surveyors practising in Victoria to be members of a professional standards scheme and a few other things.

I have to say, the work of a typical electorate office obviously deals with constituents who are having difficulties, perhaps in dealing with the Department of Education or schools or raising issues regarding health, but one of the issues that crosses my desk the most is when people are suffering at the hands of builders or building surveyors who are acting unethically. In many cases the single biggest transaction that anyone will enter into over the course of their life is for the purchase of their home or for the building of a new home. There is a real power imbalance between the consumer and the builder in this situation, and it is just so important that you have consumer protection at the heart of any scheme seeking to regulate this industry, because when you have that power imbalance you do see and you certainly hear, in my case in my electorate, plenty of examples of people being on the rough end of decisions by builders and building surveyors. It is not in fact just the person contracting the builder or the building surveyor; it can ultimately be the neighbours when you have building surveyors signing off on stuff that is not actually built to the plans. I know that local councils suffer and are frequently frustrated by the fact that privately retained building surveyors – a scheme, incidentally, brought in by the Kennett government – are certifying that a dwelling is fit for habitation and has been built in accordance with the plans, when in fact it just has not.

One of the recent examples I have seen is where building surveyors are happy to sign off on a building in circumstances where they have done so much earthmoving on the site that the actual height of the building relative to the original ground level is significantly higher than proposed under the plans. They would say of course, ‘The building is still the same height off the ground; it’s just the ground moved.’ It is that sort of gameplaying that drives many of my constituents spare, that drives local councils spare and that drives the member for Ashwood’s constituents spare, and it is exactly the sort of thing where you need a regime and legislation like this to make sure it simply does not occur. So I am pleased that the opposition have changed their view on aspects of this bill. But what we do not need is this sort of kicking the can down the road scenario under the reasoned amendment, so I do urge members to vote down the reasoned amendment a little bit later this afternoon and to support this bill and its passage through to the other place.

To the bill proper, it is a bill that is about delivering that reform to Victoria’s building system and it is about consumer protection, because as I have outlined, in terms of a contract for services, in almost all cases it will be the single biggest contract that people enter into over the course of their lifetime. Building a house is 10 times bigger than buying a car and many orders of magnitude bigger than almost every other transaction most people would undertake over the course of their lives, and it is absolutely critical that, when you have got a transaction that is so large that it can make or break a family and where the power imbalance is so substantial, you have the appropriate regulation around that to ensure that people are treated fairly.

This government is alive to the fact that major defects cost $675 million every year, and most of those defects are in residential apartments. I was with some constituents recently looking at a building that is under seven years old to which they have some remedies, and I have assisted them in taking the steps necessary to pursue some of these remedies. But you have got cracking, you have got infrastructure failure in terms of the water management in this building and you have got a developer who has done a number of other buildings in the street that are all exhibiting similar faults. It is really, really difficult for those owners to take action. It is really, really difficult for them to seek a remedy from the practitioners who ultimately signed off on these buildings when in fact the buildings have not been built in accordance with the plans or shortcuts have been taken.

I appreciate that there are all sorts of supply-side pressures in building at the moment, and materials costs have risen 50 per cent over the course of the last two years. There is enormous pressure in this industry at the moment, and I do not resile from that in any way. But unfortunately it is the unethical operators who ultimately are doing the damage here, meaning that people cannot take action to get their homes sorted. Some of the faults I saw in this particular development in Ringwood were absolutely extraordinary. People had cupboard doors falling off cupboards spontaneously in the middle of the night. They were very lucky not to be injured by it. They had water running down inside walls in what is, effectively, a brand new building. So it is extraordinary that these things can be signed off on, and it is extraordinary that it is so hard to go after builders in those circumstances.

This bill is about responding to those very issues. Strengthening the building system is about benefiting consumers, giving builders themselves and the industry more broadly confidence and certainty and really just trying to take this whole expensive rectification process out of the mix. It is far better always to build it once and build it right. This bill also forms part of our commitment to delivering a building system that provides safe, compliant and durable housing and buildings. What we do not want is the sort of pseudo disposable housing, the really low-quality stuff, which has been seen from time to time in Victoria and has been seen in plenty of other jurisdictions around the world. It is all value driven and all value managed to within an inch of its life, and as a result you end up with substantial defects.

So how do you go about doing it? You formalise and strengthen the role of the state building surveyor, you establish a building monitor and you expand the categories of practitioner that can be brought into this. That will include things like building designers, project managers, site supervisors and building consultants, because as building becomes increasingly complex and as the professions supporting it become increasingly specialised, they develop, naturally, different names. You need to make sure you capture every one of those new professions or even sub-professions. The other thing you have got to do is strengthen the information sharing – we do that with these rules – and improve the governance arrangements of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria under the Architects Act 1991. We have responded fairly I think to those matters raised by the former shadow minister regarding that and have made sure that a minimum of a third of the architects board will be licensed architects.

The state building surveyor – we first provided money for that in last year’s budget – is established as a statutory role, as the primary source of expertise and technical guidance for the building and plumbing industries. That is really important. It is always really important to have a voice in government that has that subject-matter expertise, has the ability to say authoritatively whether a mistake has been made on a technical basis or an ethical basis and can help inform decision-makers at the Victorian Building Authority. The VBA deals with a very high volume of complaints, but there is some sort of seasonality to that. There are some structural elements to the cyclicality of it. They do very important work, and it is great to have that work now supported by a state building surveyor. It is for that reason and many more that I commend this bill to the house.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (15:47): I rise to contribute today on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The member for Ringwood spent a bit of time talking about some of the errors that there are at the moment under current building frameworks, and I too would agree that there are significant issues around the way surveyors and planning and other issues dish up some pretty poor outcomes for home owners and new home builders. I would say that there is a view from both sides of the house that we need to as a Parliament always do what we can to strengthen consumer protections and make sure people are getting the best value they can out of one of their largest investments.

I would refer specifically, for example, to quite a bizarre situation going on in my own electorate at the moment in the Surf Coast shire. It is an area under quite a bit of pressure from growth and development, and we have seen over the last 10 years land released. It came as quite a shock to me as the local member, because certainly for the last couple of years Labor representation has covered that area, but you would think, when you allow a new housing subdivision of many streets and many first homes for young families and others who have moved in, that someone would have noticed that they built the housing estate across a natural waterway. So it came as a great shock to me in November, literally days into my new representation of that area, that families in about 10 houses were knee-deep in water through the middle of a residential subdivision because somebody forgot that they had gone and allowed the subdivision to go right across a natural waterway.

I must say in my past life before Parliament I spent time on a catchment management authority. I am well aware that there are a huge amount of government and public resources going into identifying these types of places and spaces. Allowing good planning and good surveying and allowing things to be built in the right spots is not new to us, yet we have allowed this to happen. In fact in the middle of the night, when these families woke to find a good foot of water rushing through their homes, they were rightly shocked. But what comes as a great surprise to me, and a great disappointment of course, is that in order to solve this problem we are requiring government agencies to come together and work for the best outcome for the community. What I am sadly finding is that agencies like Southern Rural Water and others are more excited, agitated and energised by fighting amongst themselves and blaming each other, other departments and other agencies as to why the mistakes happen than by working with the local home owners and the farmer adjacent to fix the problem and how we make it move forward. I guess that is one example of why our reasoned amendment is a good one, which is why we are saying to the government: you do not listen enough – you do not listen enough to the people at the coalface, those that actually know what the weaknesses are and the problems are.

So while we are keen to support this legislation, we also want the government to look at the reasoned amendment, because this government is creating a very, very strong track record of not being able to get the nuances of their decisions right. They are not able to actively understand how things work to get the good outcomes. Of course I have already mentioned today, and I will mention again because it is a classic example, that as Shadow Minister for Housing I know only too well how much this government says it cares about providing homes and houses for people. You would think, ‘Well, that’s a good priority. All governments should have it near the top of their list’ – Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the understanding and the desire to make sure all their citizens have somewhere to sleep at night. This government have made much of it because they have not done anything for eight years and they have suddenly woken up to the fact. They are slowly starting to read their reports and are saying, ‘Oh heavens, we’ve been here for eight years and we’re adding 3000 families a year – 3000 families a year – to the homeless list’, which is not something that they should be at all proud of, not at all proud of that.

Then they have said, ‘Well, we’re going to spend $5.6 billion.’ The Premier was on about it. In fact he got me thrown out of question time. He was on about the fact that he is spending $5.6 billion. His Minister for Housing was on the radio the other day talking about how much money they are spending. But guess what? None of them – not the Premier, not the housing minister, no-one on the government side – wants to tell us how many houses they have actually built. When we did the research, when we did the analysis, when we did what this government should do, which is to look at what they are actually achieving, lo and behold, we discovered they have created 74 extra homes – 74 extra homes in five years with $3 billion. That is actually a monumental effort, to achieve so little with so much. It is sort of akin I guess to sending shiploads of resources to another country to help them in a time of famine but then not being able to feed anybody. You know, it is grossly incompetent.

So when we, as a party, are keen to see housing and providing homes to people as real priorities of any responsible government, it is no wonder that we want to bring in a reasoned amendment and we want to say to the government, ‘Look, we know what you are trying to do, but your track record on actually getting something done that is important is not real flash.’

I think also back to well before the election last year in 2022. For most of 2016, 2017 and 2018, as I used to drive back down the Princes Highway, back to my wonderful electorate of Polwarth, I would drive past these big elaborate signs down the West Gate Freeway that said, ‘Tunnel opening in 2022. Look at us, we are building this tunnel. Opening in 2022’. Lo and behold, the signs sort of gradually started to be peeled off the highway signage. They started to roll them up and pop them back into the top cupboard, and why? It is because despite the fact this government talks about doing things, they could not achieve it. We now know that by 2022 not only did they not actually finish the tunnel, they had not even started the tunnel. That is once again a pretty monumental thing to be able to achieve. And why hadn’t they started the tunnel? Because they had not even figured out where they were going to put the dirt from the tunnel. That is sort of engineering 101: dig a hole, put dirt somewhere. That is a common sort of thing.

When you see these sorts of absolutely catastrophically stupid oversights by this government, it comes as no wonder that we would want to bring a reasoned amendment to something as important as developing homes. So we are saying that the reasoned amendment is important because we do not have a lot of faith in dealing with this. The industry has come back to us, and the industry has said, ‘Well, look. A lot of the bill’s not bad.’ There is general agreement about some of the improvements we could make, but one of the big things holding us back is we do not have the building surveyors, we do not have the skills and expertise in the area. Despite your rhetoric, government, on TAFE and TAFE training and extra qualifications, we have heard a lot about it for the last eight years, but it has not delivered any results. I guess that is sort of the point of my contribution today – this government loves to talk a big story, particularly if it involves a Facebook post with the Premier with a white hat on. They love those, but they do not like looking at the outcomes and what they have actually achieved with those announcements.

Just in conclusion, providing homes for Victorians is important. We know today in a tragic way this government refuses to tell us how many people need a home. We know that the last time the government fessed up with a figure of people waiting desperately for a home in Victoria was June last year, well before the election. It is now well after the election, and they are still too embarrassed to tell us what the list is, but we know that it was 36,223 families as of June last year who did not have somewhere to call home. We can probably extrapolate that, and on the current trajectory it is probably closing in on 40,000 families now desperate for a home, an aggregate of 64,000 people the last time the government was prepared to tell us how many it was – 64,000 people who do not have a proper home to live in. So developing bills and policies and legislation that make getting into a home better, quicker and more affordable is a good thing, but we want to see this government put a genuine attempt into getting an outcome, and my wish for this bill is that it in fact helps increase supply of homes and it helps get homes developed more quickly and more affordably so that Victorian families and Victorian individuals can actually achieve their dream and their hope of a home to live in that is safe, that is fit for purpose and that is going to be that lifelong investment that that family and household need. We will see later today whether the government members will have the strength and courage to hold their team more to account; I suspect not. I commend the bill to the house.

Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD (Broadmeadows) (15:57): I rise to speak in support of the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, a significant piece of legislation that will impact the safety, quality and sustainability of buildings in Victoria. Unlike the member for Polwarth, I will stick to the facts. Victoria is home to a growing and aspiring population. Over 6.5 million people call our state home. Victoria has a diverse economy, excellent health care and education systems, and our story of multicultural success is the envy of the world. Our people’s contributions are the cornerstone of our economic and social success. As our population continues to grow it is essential that we have safe, sustainable and high-quality buildings to not only accommodate the needs of our people but also provide them with the infrastructure they need to innovate and thrive in modern Australia.

This government has undertaken some of the biggest infrastructure projects in our state’s history. As Victoria proudly continues its Big Build we need to make sure that our systems are equipped to prioritise safety and sustainability at the core of our government’s work. Over 350,000 Victorians are employed in the building industry across more than 125,000 businesses. Approximately 99 per cent of those are small businesses employing less than 20 people. The building and construction industry is an essential sector in Victoria’s economy, contributing significantly to economic growth and job creation. It creates the places where Victorians live, work and build shared experiences together. It contributes around $40 billion per annum to the Victorian economy, and Victoria leads the nation in the supply of new homes. In the 12 months to January 2023 nearly 62,000 new homes were approved for construction in Victoria. Having affordable housing and transport, education, health, entertainment and other infrastructure is essential, and a productive and efficient building industry is vital to achieving these outcomes.

This government has undertaken the most comprehensive review ever into Victoria’s building system, involving experts from Victoria and around the world. This bill is a response to this review and the challenges that Victorians have faced, including flammable cladding, structural defects and non-complying building products. It has been almost 30 years since the Kennett government deregulated the building industry in Victoria with the alleged aim of modernising it. Instead in some parts it has become the wild west, with some developers and builders feeling they have been given carte blanche with standards and safety and leaving many home owners with defects and poor building quality. Under current law building designers, project managers, building consultants and site supervisors are not necessarily registered with a statutory body, and often when they make a mistake the problems are mostly found years after the mandatory six-year structural defects insurance has ended, adding additional cost and financial stress for home owners.

The Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 will deliver much-needed reform to Victoria’s building system and give consumers the confidence and protection they need. These reforms were recommendations of the building system review expert panel and will deliver great confidence in the industry by ensuring it provides safe, compliant and durable housing and buildings. It has been drafted after extensive consultation with key stakeholders, including consumers, practitioners, unions, industry groups and local government. The Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 reflects the government’s commitment to putting the safety and wellbeing of Victorians first and strengthening the regulatory framework for building and construction in our state. This government continues to invest in the infrastructure and regulation that our growing and aspiring population needs.

This bill will make improvements across the entire building system, from ensuring the competence of building practitioners to supporting professional participants in the system, cultivating a more informed end consumer and strengthening the regulations that oversee the architecture, plumbing and building industries. It is a multifaceted approach to improving a complex system. The bill also progresses the goal of national harmonisation of the building system, agreed by building ministers in all jurisdictions to remove red tape and enable smooth processes for the construction sector.

Defects in residential buildings cost Victoria $675 million each year, with residential apartments making up two-thirds of this cost. I cannot tell you how many friends I have heard of having to move out of their apartments due to internal pipe problems and flooding, causing much distress, upheaval and the loss of many treasures, let alone the many weeks of extra work and worry. This legislation will not only protect consumers better but also give builders and the industry more confidence and certainty and reduce the need for costly rectification works. I am proud that our government is taking the necessary steps to address the gaps in the current system. The bill includes several key measures that will help improve building quality, ensure accountability and provide greater transparency in the building and construction industry.

The bill will also help us move towards much-needed new requirements for builders and building practitioners to disclose any relevant information about their work history, including any past disciplinary action or legal proceedings. This information in the public domain will provide greater transparency in the industry and help consumers make informed decisions about who they choose to engage for building work. The legislation will positively impact the safety, quality and sustainability of the buildings we live and work in. The bill provides for a new registration and licensing system for builders and building practitioners and will replace the current system and go a long way to ensuring that only qualified and experienced builders and building practitioners are allowed to undertake building work in Victoria. It will also ensure that individuals who are not qualified or competent are not permitted to engage in building work, which will reduce the risk of unscrupulous operators working in the building industry. Under this new system builders and building practitioners will be required to demonstrate their competence, experience and qualifications before being granted a licence.

The new building product safety scheme is another important component of the bill. The scheme will require manufacturers and suppliers of building products to demonstrate that their products are safe and compliant with relevant standards, helping to prevent the use of non-compliant and unsafe building products, such as flammable cladding, which have caused so much harm in the past. It also provides assurances to the public that the building products used in their homes and workplaces are safe and compliant with the relevant standards.

The bill will also establish a new regulatory body to oversee the building and construction industry in Victoria. This body will be responsible for ensuring that all buildings in the state meet the required safety and quality standards and will have the power to investigate any instances where these standards are not being met. The Victorian Building Authority will have powers to monitor and enforce compliance with building regulators and to investigate and prosecute non-compliance, helping to ensure that builders, building surveyors and other practitioners are held accountable for their work and that the public can have confidence in the safety and quality of the buildings they inhabit. The VBA will have the power to suspend or cancel a practitioner’s registration if they are found to have engaged in non-compliant or unsafe building work. Under these new rules all builders and developers will be required to undergo regular training and education on the latest building techniques and safety standards. This will help ensure that they are up to date with the latest best practices and are able to provide the highest quality service to their clients.

One of the key benefits of this legislation is that it will help to ensure that all buildings in Victoria are safe and fit for purpose. These reforms are essential not only for the individuals who live and work in these buildings, but also for the wider community as a whole. Safe and reliable buildings are essential for economic growth as they provide a stable foundation for businesses to operate in and for individuals to live and work in. Greater transparency and accountability in the sector will ensure that consumers have access to the information they need to make informed choices about the buildings they work and live in. Through this legislation the government is encouraging greater innovation and creativity in the building and construction industry, and it is only part of what we are doing to improve building in Victoria.

The 2023 budget invested almost $28 million to provide greater protections for consumers, strengthen building standards, cut red tape and address the building workforce shortage. We are introducing continued professional development for building and plumbing professionals and a new registration and licensing scheme for building trades, subcontractors and employees and establishing a parliamentary inquiry into bosses and contractors who refuse to pay their subcontractors. I am also really excited that we are preparing for the commencement of the new edition of the National Construction Code this year, delivering significant improvements to building standards that improve occupant access, health, safety and amenity outcomes, which will include the new mandatory accessibility standards for homes and apartments, ensuring these homes are suitable for occupants across all stages of life. I have been working towards accessible building design for many years, even before my dad became a paraplegic, and him not being able to get into some rooms or buildings due to inadequate door width or other inaccessible measures is unacceptable and makes my blood boil.

I urge all members of the Victorian state Parliament to support this important piece of legislation and to help create a safer and more prosperous future for all Victorians.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (16:07): I rise to speak on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I was talking just a minute ago with the member for Kew about the great movie The Castle with Darryl Kerrigan: ‘It’s not a house, it’s a home.’ A home is so important to everyone’s life. It is the great Australian dream to own a home, and for many it will be the largest single purchase that they make in their life. Whether it is a house or whether it is an apartment, it is certainly such a big decision to make. When you are investing so much money and so much of your livelihood you want and hope to get it right. So I support the intention of this bill, what it is trying to do, but with the amendment of the member for Croydon to improve the bill, because the amendment that the member for Croydon is suggesting is that we have more stakeholder consultation with the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors about options to require building surveyors practising in Victoria to be members of the professional standards scheme, allowing them to assist the government to regulate practitioners and strengthen the permit process.

One of the things we always hear about when it comes to Victorians dealing with government is red tape. It is probably the single biggest frustration that anyone has when they deal with government, because everything takes time. Even, we know, back in the COVID days, when you were trying to navigate your way through things – everything takes time. You might be directed to a website or waiting for information back. Certainly when you are building a house there are so many stages, there are so many agencies: the planner, the builder, the council, there are so many agencies that are involved – the surveyor – in the actual building that it gets quite complex. One of the biggest issues when building a home or purchasing a home, particularly off the plan, is when there are faults.

Today I happen to have a group from our Chinese community in Caulfield with us – we were walking around the building, and I was telling them about what we are talking about today – many newly arrived Victorians, soon to be Victorian citizens, and they are looking forward to actually purchasing the great Australian dream. One of them, Cherie, has recently purchased an apartment. I was talking to Cherie about her issues, and she mentioned the problems with the townhouse that she had purchased – the leaks and the issues in terms of the defects with that townhouse – and the difficulties of having to deal with those whether it be with council or whether it be with the person she purchased the townhouse from. It gets very, very difficult. We all know that when you are buying something the person you are buying it from is the best in the world. The real estate agent will promise you the most, the best thing. The builder will show you the fantastic product that they are going to deliver. But we have got too many examples here in Victoria where midway through a project, whether it is the surveyor, the planner, the builder, they have gone broke.

Tim Richardson interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: I thought you were taking a point of order, member for Mordialloc.

Tim Richardson: No, no – you’re doing well.

David SOUTHWICK: Thanks, mate. I am not often on the bill – today I am.

So you have got the issue, which is taken up, and as part of that issue the person that has invested so much money is trying to get it resolved. There are so many circumstances, and in Cherie’s case we hope that will be fixed, but there are so many instances. There was a recent report that one of my constituents sent to me when we were talking about this bill:

Building industry fears around waterproofing as leaks reach crisis point in Victoria

It talks about a couple:

Ms Alexander had moved into the brand-new apartment a few months earlier with her husband Sean and their newborn son.

She said they called the construction company, who did some works including replacing the carpet and told the couple the issue was fixed.

But Ms Alexander said a few months later, it happened again.

Under the carpet, the couple … found mould and rusted fixings.

A building report, seen by the ABC, detailed issues with waterproofing between the … doors …

This couple went to VCAT. They were told by the building inspectors report that the cost of waterproofing would be $116,000. The bulk of that, $87,000, would be just for the external doors. They went to VCAT and spent thousands of dollars and much time just to seek that hearing to try to deal with it. The insurance did not cover it, and this is a common situation. With some of these issues people can be waiting five or 10 years to have them fixed.

It is very, very important – and I know that I have spoken to the building committee of the Law Institute of Victoria, and they are very supportive of part of this bill that appeared in the last formation of the bill but not in this one, that they would have, for councils, the surveying being enshrined at the highest level. The bill has removed that provision from its 2022 form, which would have allowed councils to have pre-occupation inspections of high-risk buildings. That is very important when you have issues like Cherie’s, like that of the Alexanders, and there is not someone to go to, because a surveyor has done the work but a council will turn around and say, ‘It’s not our problem; it’s the surveyor’s problem.’ Then you end up in VCAT. So with complex problems you cannot have the councils pass the buck. We have got to have protections and we have got to ensure that happens.

I am sorry. I know that I have well and truly gone on and the member for Mildura was all ready to go, but I will just say this: one of the most important things we do need to do with all of this is to get more stock, get more product on the market and get more product to get more housing affordability. It is a key issue. We have got to get the opportunity for more people to own their own home. As the Kerrigans said: ‘It’s not a house, it’s a home.’ Let us ensure that, and to do that let us streamline the building process, let us ensure the costs are reduced and let us hold people to account so that when they do purchase it, there are protections if things should eventuate.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (16:14): I rise to contribute on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. Of course this is a very important piece of legislation which will action key improvements identified by the building system review expert panel to ensure that Victorian consumers are protected and at the heart of our building system. I will commend the member for Caulfield for his comments about making people accountable, and I will come to some incidents out in my area in Melton shortly, but they are very similar to some of the facts that the member for Caulfield raised.

We do need to make builders, building surveyors and, even more so, developers accountable for their actions, or lack of actions in some of these situations, that leave people either without a home or with a home with many faults that take many tens of thousands to repair – or developers cancelling contracts a couple of years later. I know that we got rid of sunset clauses in legislation passed in this chamber; I think it was last year. But we are still seeing these actions by some developers unilaterally cancelling contracts and people being left with nothing – no home. They have got their deposit on their land, and then the developers are trying to reoffer that block of land to them at current market rates. There is nothing that those poor individuals can do apart from take it to court, and of course they cannot afford to take that legal action. So we, and councils, through legislation like this need to keep builders, building surveyors and developers accountable. My electorate of Melton is one of the fastest growing electorates or areas of Melbourne. It is projected to grow to 250,000 people by 2030 and 450,000 by 2050, so there is an enormous amount of building going on in that area, that LGA.

This bill will primarily amend the Building Act 1993 and the Architects Act 1991, and it additionally will amend the Sale of Land Act 1962, the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002, the Owners Corporations Act 2006 and the Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020. These legislative amendments will create the following reforms, and I will read them out as they are recorded here. It will formalise and strengthen the role of the state building surveyor, it will establish a building monitor that expands the categories of building practitioners that will be required to be registered, it will enhance the building approvals process by introducing further safeguards to better inform consumers, it will also strengthen information sharing between statutory entities with a role in the building regulatory framework, it will amend the distribution of the cladding rectification levy and it will strengthen and improve the governance arrangements of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria under the Architects Act.

Few things do anger me, but the irresponsibility of property developers, as I alluded to earlier, is a real major concern. I would have between 150 and 200 landowners that I think have been conned by developers promising many, many things in their residential estate that were not delivered. They need to be held accountable, and I have raised this with local council also. But there are many good honest developers too and many good honest workers, in particular in the Melton area there are many fine builders, plumbers, electricians and architects. It is typical, isn’t it, that we have to change the law to cater for the minority when you have plenty of great builders and tradies that do great jobs. But of course the small number of I will call them crooks means that we have to bring in legislation and toughen legislation to try and protect the average punter out there.

There is an estate called Robinsons Rise in Cobblebank in Melton, and again I will come back to what I said earlier, where people purchased land and house packages, some of them quite some years ago – four, five, six years ago. As I said, there were about 150 to 200 of these landowners, and this particular developer decided to unilaterally cancel the contracts. Unless the punter agrees and signs off on that, they cannot cancel the contract. The problem is they are sitting idle with a block of land they effectively do not own and they cannot build on, and the developer is telling them they have cancelled their contract. Of course, as I said before, the only way it can be rectified for these people is by taking it to court. They cannot afford to take it to court. I have tried to get legal firms to take it up as a class action, but do you think we can get that done?

So you have got about 150 to 250 people out there hoping that they were going to have a new home. Some people were moving into the area because they worked in emergency services and they wanted to be close to their workplace because they did shift work – 14-hour night shifts as an ambulance paramedic. This particular paramedic wanted to have a home close to where she worked so she did not have to drive too far after 14-hour night shifts. Guess what? She has not got anything. She ends up, I think, doing a deal by just getting her deposit back. So she does not end up with the land. She does not end up with a land and house package. She gets intimidated and harassed to the point that she cannot take legal action and she ends up doing a deal to retrieve her money. It is a disgrace – an absolute disgrace. It is life changing for people, and it should not happen and it should not be allowed to happen.

I have had people come to me who have had houses built and have faults in the houses. I have been out and visited these places, and the faults in the houses – how they were signed off astounds me. Stevie Wonder could have seen the faults. It is just ridiculous. Cracks in walls, water coming up through the slab, mould – just unbelievable. Someone – I think it might have been the member for Caulfield – talked about how it was going to cost the person that had the apartment $116,000. Well, for this particular couple in my electorate it is in excess of $200,000 in faults. They ended up going to VCAT. A deal was done at VCAT. The builder offered to buy the house back but then reneged only a few weeks out from these people moving into or purchasing another house, so then the battle went on again. And of course it has cost them $50,000 to $60,000 in legal costs. Now, people should not have to go through that. This is a retired couple. They were using all their retirement funds to justify trying to amend the problems with their house. They had to move out of the house.

Those sorts of things just should not happen, but they are happening. I am hoping that this legislation will rectify those sorts of things against developers and some of those shonky builders. Again, I know a lot of tradies and I know a lot of builders. They are not all bad. I will say it is a minority that makes it bad for the majority, and it is a shame that that happens. As I said before, the member for Ringwood referred to the power imbalance between the builders, the developers, the building surveyors and the purchasers, and there is a power imbalance and there is not a lot that they can do unless they do take legal action, and it is a shame that they have to go to that.

The state building surveyor acts as an authoritative industry leader for building surveyors and practitioners across the state. This is an executive role in the Victorian Building Authority which was recommended by the Victorian Cladding Taskforce, and this bill will give further responsibility to the state building surveyor, giving them a statutory role as the primary source of expertise and technical guidance for the building and plumbing industries. I have a bit of a bugbear with regulators – if our regulators regulated, we would not have issues such as these – so I am hopeful that this particular situation and the state building surveyor will regulate appropriately and keep the pressure on, as I said before, those shonky builders so people will be delivered a good product. As has already been mentioned in here, this is the costliest asset that you will have in your lifetime, and people have had their lives destroyed by shonky buildings, by some builders harassing people for purchases, in particular single women that have purchased a house, and it is not good enough. This is a good bill, and I commend this bill to the house.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (16:24): I will keep this brief, because –

A member: Thank you.

Jade BENHAM: Yes, you are welcome. It is getting on in the afternoon and it is just about time for a nap. I am happy to rise, though, to talk about and support the reasoned amendment that my esteemed colleague the member for Croydon has spoken about.

A member interjected.

Jade BENHAM: Esteemed, yes – and echoed by my esteemed colleague the member for Narracan. I mean, it is a good bill. We know it is a good bill, and we are in support of it – we appreciate that it goes a long way to strengthening the building legislation – but it could do more. I have said in this place a number of times that I do not profess to be an expert on everything, but when I know very well that I am not, I am more than happy to seek out the counsel and advice of those who are, such as my esteemed colleague the member for Narracan – builders, plumbers – and also my esteemed colleague the member for Morwell, a plumber: people that are at the coalface. So when we talk about stakeholder engagement, it is great for governments to write and implement and pass legislation, but if it is not practical on the ground, is it actually going to do any good?

That is why I am in support of the reasoned amendment. I think listening to the stakeholders and those on the ground that are actually doing the work is incredibly valuable. And why wouldn’t we? Obviously, the theory and the principle are very good. We know that there is a housing crisis, and there are many ways to go about housing. I know lots of people in the industry. In fact a friend of mine that was walking around the halls of Parliament today is in the housing industry, and she has made comments about the changes to cladding and all of the issues. We have heard numerous members speak about that today. So I have paid special attention to this bill.

With regard to housing in my area, obviously cladding on high-rises is not a great problem – it is not something we deal with day-to-day – but housing is, and the shortage of it. A few years ago, in a former life as a councillor and mayor of a rural council, a conversation was had while I was sitting in Canberra at a housing seminar with the then CEO. I had a crazy idea like, ‘Why doesn’t council just start building houses?’ And of course he said, ‘Well, that’s not what councils do.’ I said, ‘Well, we’ve got land. Why not?’ And he said, ‘That’s not what councils do.’ And I said, ‘Why?’ And he said, ‘No.’ And I said, ‘Why?’ And he said, ‘Okay.’ So we looked into it, and then, magically, we had a discussion with Regional Development Victoria, who said, ‘You know what, that’s actually a good idea. The market’s failed. Here’s half a million dollars. Start building houses.’

That was three years ago, and now on the market in Robinvale we have affordable housing built to a model to provide entry-level houses, brand new, built by local builders. So it has ticked all the boxes. It has used local trades, and the houses will be sold by private treaty so those that have been looking to get into the market can actually get into the market rather than going to auctions and bidding against investors who might own multiple properties and those who can afford to pay over and above what the market is doing – and in Robinvale it is slightly inflated. There are four houses on the market now, and that started with a $500,000 investment from Regional Development Victoria, which is fantastic. After those four are built, we will roll on and build another four, and so on and so forth – so, practical solutions to solving the housing crisis in regional Victoria. That is what can be done when there are solutions put forward that are not about politics but more about your actual community – solutions can happen if we work together. Like my esteemed colleague the member for Narracan said, things can happen – he said exactly the same thing – when we work together.

I was interested, reading through the bill, in the state building surveyor and the building monitor, and I got thinking about building surveyors – as you do, because it is a thrilling subject – and the lack of them, particularly in regional areas. We are talking about public sector council building surveyors, those that need to be employed by councils to offer sign-off on building permits, for example, if they were to not choose to use a private surveyor. Robinvale falls into the Swan Hill Rural City Council, and currently they have cancelled any application being taken for building permits, because they do not have a building surveyor – in a housing crisis. It is outrageous. They have stopped taking building permits in a climate like this.

So you can talk about building surveyors, but we need to also work on how we attract more of these professionals to regional areas with housing. Where are you going to house them? You cannot build a house because you cannot get a building permit. You cannot employ a building surveyor because you cannot house them. You see the cycle that is quite vicious. It is not only building surveyors, though; it is also planners and engineers. There are almost permanent vacancies for really good positions in councils like Mildura and like Swan Hill. Everywhere in regional Victoria they have these permanent vacancies for positions like this, but to not be able to take building permits during a housing crisis to me is just –

A member interjected.

Jade BENHAM: Exactly. It is a vicious cycle. We cannot increase supply without building permits. It is lunacy. I did say that I was going to keep this brief and I meant it, so with that I will gladly put my support behind the reasoned amendment that the esteemed member for Croydon has submitted.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (16:31): Well, it is very interesting, the reasoned amendment. I did not realise the Liberal and National parties supported compulsory union membership, because basically the reasoned amendment is to have all building surveyors be members of a professional organisation, which seems odd and a bit hypocritical when they are not saying that there should be compulsory union membership in other industries.

Anyway, getting back to the legislation that we are here to debate today, the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, as other speakers have said, was part of, first, a review that the Andrews Labor government commissioned and that provided a stage 1 report. This review was commissioned in August 2021 and there were a number of recommendations. This legislation was originally part of a bill that was introduced to Parliament prior to the last election that covered a number of topics, including things in the legislation we are talking about today. We have dealt with since the election two components of that bigger bill – around heritage and also I think around plumbers’ restricted licences and other matters. I spoke on both of those pieces of legislation in December and February, and this is the third part of that bigger bill.

Of course a home is the biggest investment that most of us will ever make, and this aspiration is getting more and more difficult to achieve. But as a home is the biggest investment in our life and in fact a human right and an essential necessity – having a roof over our head – we do need strong laws to protect home purchasers, and I would say particularly first home buyers, who often buy new buildings or even off the plan. Residents in the electorate of Thomastown have had their fair share of problems with builders and developers and building that first home. After having the fantastic feeling of finally being able to save a deposit and then purchase a home, they have those dreams smashed by builders in the industry that are not doing the right thing or developers that are not doing the right thing, so this legislation is yet another march on to try to further regulate the industry and ensure there are greater protections for consumers – consumers being the home purchasers.

I just want to go through a couple of the issues that residents have come to me with over the last few years when it comes to the building industry and the purchase of new homes. First of all, we saw some developers using the sunset clause to their advantage whereby a purchaser would pay a deposit to put a down payment, if you like, on a home and land package or even just some land, and then later on the developer, when the price of that land might have inflated by 10, 20 or 30 per cent, would invoke the sunset clause, dashing the dream of that purchaser, who thought they had secured some land. Going past the time in which they were required to start building on the land, the developer would take that land back, give the deposit back to the purchaser and then resell the land for a further profit to somebody else.

Now, the Andrews Labor government fixed that problem. We passed legislation to protect consumers, but it seems to be that people are always finding loopholes. They are always finding ways in which to exploit situations, and so we continually have to provide or introduce new legislation to counter those issues. I have seen damage to people’s properties based on the house next door being built and them not being able to find the entity that they can pursue to have that damage rectified. We also see partially developed estates then sold to other developers or builders, and therefore while they get the rewards from the next purchasers, they do not take up the liabilities such as the beautification works or maintenance of nature reserves and all the promises of bigger and better things that just do not happen. Again we need to make sure that the legislation is ensuring that home owners and consumers are protected.

One of the things that this bill actually does is formalise the role of the building surveyor and make the state building surveyor the central point for technical expertise so we do not then have a whole lot of arguments about one piece of technical evidence versus another. The state building surveyor is the primary source of technical expertise and guidance for the industry around building and plumbing. Also the building monitor really is an essential part, I think, of the legislation, because at the moment each individual home owner has to pursue through the courts or VCAT or whatever on an individual basis their issue, but the building monitor will be a statutory appointment and will collect and analyse data and information so that things can be looked at in a systemic way. For example, with the sunset clause issues, each individual home owner had to pursue those issues on their own, whereas with the building monitor this will allow for more systemic addressing of problems, so it will see overall what the issues are rather than having things being dealt with one by one at the expense of the individual home owner.

It also will expand the categories of building practitioners that will need to be registered to have their works prescribed by regulation, because really the only way to ensure true regulation of the industry is to have licensing registration so that individuals and organisations must be brought in and there is somewhere to go to make sure that there is proper accountability for the work that they are performing and what they are giving back to the purchaser or consumer.

It also enhances the building approvals and quality assurance processes by providing a process for requirements relating to the preparation, maintenance and updating of building manuals, and requires building surveyors to provide owners with information setting out roles and responsibilities. Again it is giving more information, and through that information it is giving more empowerment to the consumer in order to make sure that when they are making, as we said, what is probably the biggest investment in their life – their home – they have more control over what is going on and more knowledge about what is happening.

We know that there has been a little bit of criticism about, for example, the state building surveyor not being independent of the VBA, but again these bodies and positions really have to work with the Victorian Building Authority as the overarching authority around building. So they really cannot be separate; they ought to be working within and be a part of the system.

That system of course then has to be a system that is providing the best possible support and working for the consumer and for the home owner, not for the industry, because the industry ought to be doing good jobs and making sure that the buildings that people are living in are of the best possible standard, whether, you know, we are looking at what sort of regulations we need in terms of accessibility or whether, particularly now we are looking at floods and so on, we need to make sure that homes and builders are properly equipped to deal with all those possible mitigating effects to make sure that homes and people are protected from all sorts of events that are going to happen into the future.

So this legislation gives further protection to consumers – particularly, I think, first home buyers, who are often the ones who are buying the new homes – and this is one further step that the Andrews Labor government is taking to protect the people that need to be protected. Yes, of course the building industry should be making profits – it is a business – but they ought not to be doing it at the expense of home owners. I am sure that there will be further legislation we will see into the future, but this gives a strong foundation for protection, and this bill should be supported by all.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (16:41): It is important to rise and speak on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. This is really important legislation at a critical time in Victoria as we see our communities expand and grow into the future. As our population expands and grows and we see a diversity of housing stock offered and a range of different changing circumstances in my community out in the City of Greater Dandenong and the City of Kingston, it is important to make some contributions here. I am really pleased to see this bill introduced and the reforms that will be put in place to support consumers and constituents of mine into the future. As outlined by members who have spoken on this bill, on the importance around strengthening the state building surveyor’s role as established within the Victorian Building Authority (VBA), this legislation will give that greater formalisation and strengthen its role for protection of consumers into the future. I also want to touch on the establishment of the building monitor to represent domestic building consumer interests in the building system, with a focus on systemic issues.

Now, we have got a couple of examples, but there is one I want to reflect on for the benefit of the house. This might be a really important frame to consider. There are a lot of different changing circumstances across community developments going on. One that is being built at the moment with dozens of dwellings on a site called Sixth Avenue, Chelsea Heights, in my local community was put forward in 2020–21 for development. A number of residents have bought in hoping to get that dream house. Some of them are first home buyers; some are moving to choose to live in the wonderful City of Kingston and the great suburb of Chelsea Heights. But over the course of two years they have, despite the purchase being made and some residents thinking that the development would be happening sooner, taken up rentals and put their lives on hold, and in some circumstances are paying mortgages as well as renting while waiting for this development to take place.

Disappointingly, there has been just a complete lack of information. Every so often there are communications from the developer, communications from the City of Kingston about how close the development might be, but that has been going on for two years. This is one example of that lack of information for consumers across the sector that can lead to incredible stress and anxiety over when this might come to be. So residents in my local community have come to me with this circumstance, and I think it relates to some of the consumer protections and considerations because effectively those prospective constituents in the City of Kingston and constituents of mine really do not have a voice in this process. As their customers, the developers need to keep them informed.

The City of Kingston does not have a formal relationship with these purchasers because the relationship is with the developer, and so that uncertainty and lack of oversight has led to significant anxiety and concern in the progress of this development. When we think of the HomeBuilder grant that was put forward and the support that was going to be provided for construction that was getting underway, which was a measure that was put in to support and consider the building industry, residents may not be able to access that important support as well. So this could be an area of consideration and interest for the building monitor to put forward and say, ‘Well, these are the circumstances where we need greater oversight, greater advocacy or a change in policy and outcomes.’ So I am really encouraged by what the building monitor might be and the work that might be put forward in that space. For residents that are in that Sixth Avenue, Chelsea Heights, development as well, what would it mean in circumstances like that?

We have put forward the need to share that information with these consumers in the building industry to give that certainty. There has clearly been a lot of work done between developer and council to get to this point, but the missing link in communications has been those prospective constituents. These are their dream homes. They want to educate their kids at the Chelsea Heights Kinder and be part of the local community. Chelsea Heights Primary School is going so well. Where else would you want to be other than in the City of Kingston or in Chelsea and Chelsea Heights? We just need that information and certainty to go forward, and that is something that could be a really good element and a really important reform that could be supported by the introduction of the building monitor.

I also want to talk about the building approvals process and the introduction of further safeguards to better inform consumers. Every member of Parliament will have an example where they have had a constituent come to them with concerns about a particular building outcome and they have been frustrated about not knowing where to go. Is it Consumer Affairs Victoria? Is it a VCAT interaction as well? And to pay either consultants or lawyers to get to that point sometimes costs more than the work that actually is being undertaken. This can cause a significant amount of duress, concern, frustration and anxiety for a range of different residents and constituents. So any amendments or safeguards that better protect and inform consumers I think are a really important change as well.

We heard reflections on some of the work that surveyors do. I do know that is a very big growth area for the building industry. We need more builders, we need more surveyors and we need more town planners, and as our state and our communities grow, there is such a demand for workers in this sector. So if anyone is thinking of a career choice, there are plenty of opportunities in that space as our communities grow. And it is a really important role. You cannot do anything without surveyors. You cannot do any works without the interaction of our town planners and our councillors in building. It is a really important and critical role in our community, so I am really heartened by the establishment of the statutory role of state building surveyor. I think it enhances and strengthens that oversight, that accountability, as well. It gives greater comfort and protection among ever-changing community relationships and engagements.

When we consider some of the big changes that are coming in the City of Kingston and City of Greater Dandenong, we have the Suburban Rail Loop getting underway, and that will see more people moving into our local communities. It is such a substantial and visionary project. Those development zones are coming as well – those communities of tomorrow that are providing affordable housing, employment and community connections and places for many years to come. It is exciting to think of those communities of tomorrow that are going to be well and truly thriving and really expansionary and visionary.

We need to protect that open space, but we also need to make sure that there is proper building support and outcomes. That is balanced with affordability and taking the time to do it in a considered and reasonable way and making sure that we are supportive of residents. I reckon that consumer voice is really important. A lot of those people that will be buying into some of those developments and some of those apartments in the future will be first home buyers getting underway, whether it is with an apartment or some other dwelling. There will be a great element of social and affordable housing that we connect as well. These are the opportunities that come from such a visionary landmark policy. We do not want people being pushed further and further out based on affordability. We want people that have been born and have grown up in their local community to be able to live there, where they have grown up and participated. So those protections into the future are going to be a really important consideration.

I am really excited as well about the building manual and the bill requiring that a draft building manual be prepared by the applicant for an occupancy permit and provided to the relevant building surveyor for approval. Those building manuals are intended to be a single repository of all relevant information related to design, construction and ongoing maintenance for the building, so there is greater information that we can share between statutory authorities to lessen the impact of delays and share information so people are not having to go back to the drawing board each time. Sharing that, being more transparent in the process, is really important. I reflect as well again on that example and that circumstance in Chelsea Heights.

That lack of sharing of information creates further anxiety for local residents, so the building manual and the requirement for that information sharing, whether it is with owners or with owners corporations, is a really important step. We have so many owners corporations across our community, and indeed across metropolitan Melbourne and regional and rural Victoria, so that information flow, that greater transparency, is something that will be really important into the future.

This is a really important bill. I am really pleased to see some of the reforms to consumer protections to give confidence to the sector as we embark on a massive transformation of building outcomes across our local communities. It is a really important step. I really welcome it, and I know that it will have great benefit for my local community and constituents across the south-east.

Matt FREGON (Ashwood) (16:50): I am very happy to rise this afternoon on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I thank my colleague for South Barwon, who I think was about to stand but has given me a few minutes here. I appreciate that because this bill is very important to my constituents – all of our constituents. We have heard a number of stories from both sides of the house about individual cases in a building industry that we are all generally proud of – we are proud of our builders and our surveyors and everyone in between. We had the member for Narracan speaking about his industry, and it was very good to hear him. We had the member for Morwell throwing in some plumbing advice there. Rebecca and I are about to go into a whole heap of renovations over the next couple of years, and I might be calling on them should things go wrong.

That is what really we are talking about here – when things go wrong. The member for Caulfield piqued my interest when I was in the chair before, because he started talking about The Castle, referencing ‘It’s not a house, it’s a home’. We will bypass that for a second. I do not think the reasoned amendment gets us anywhere closer to helping the people that we have all been concerned about – quite generally I think we are all concerned about them. To the member for Croydon, who made a very good contribution, if he thinks that is helping I would ‘tell him he’s dreamin’’.

Issues come to our desks when it goes wrong. The industry can be great in so many ways, but the frustrations that happen to people – because it is not just a house, it is a home – are very important, not just in relation to the buildings that they dwell in but in relation to their lives. If you go back to The Castle, Mr Kerrigan wins his case, because in the end it is not just about the house, it is about the family, the memories, the photographs. It is about the times; it is about the serenity. There is not much serenity for a couple who are living in a house where the surveyor or the building guys or whoever got the level wrong and who accepted plans from a council that said, ‘The house next door is going to be so many feet above’, but it is actually four more feet than it should be. You are not going to pull that house down. The couple I was speaking to who are in that situation – Angelita and Robert – understand that no-one is going to pull that house down. I thank them, because not only are they seeing the issues through, they are highlighting the frustrations with the system.

So when I read this bill – and I commend the Minister for Planning on this work and I commend the review that occurred and everyone involved in it – and when I saw that we were implementing a building monitor whose express point is to represent the domestic customer, to understand and to assist, this is a hole that we are filling.

So to the constituents I mentioned – to Nicole, who has had issues with a surveyor who classified her land incorrectly, which has resulted in months at VCAT and costs, and to Glenn, who has got a fence falling over because of levels – I would just like to say that this is a good bill that implements some avenues for you to tell your stories and have them listened to and put back into the system. We as members will do that. I think a lot of members are told about cases. We will talk to the Victorian Building Authority, we will talk to the minister and we will express our opinion, but this is another aspect. To have the state building surveyor as a primary source of technical expertise and guidance for the building industry gives answers to some of the concerns we have heard from the other side.

We are here to debate. I would suggest that if this bill passes – and I hope it does – some of the members on the other side who expressed some of these concerns will want to go and talk to the state building surveyor to put those messages across. We all should be using these resources, and this bill is a very good step in the right direction – but it is not finished. Government never finishes; it is a work in progress, and we work every day.

Whilst the reforms and the review are very important and the recommendations of the building system review expert panel stage 1, which have led to this, are so important, I am very happy to inform that stage 2 of the expert panel’s work, which is ongoing, will focus on accountability for disputes, roles and responsibilities; building protocols; maintenance; and technologies. A second discussion paper will be released in 2023 seeking stakeholder feedback and stage 2 options. I say to my constituents: there is more work coming. This is a good step. I commend the minister, and I commend the bill to the house.

Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (16:56): It is with some pleasure that I rise this afternoon to make my contribution on the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, and I must say I do so as a Geelong-based MP who very much looks after the growth corridor of Geelong. In fact my seat is one of the fastest growing seats in Victoria. It has one of the fastest growing populations in Victoria. As a consequence of that, we see many people who move to my community seeking to buy some land from a developer to enter into a building contract with a builder and build their dream home. As a consequence of that dynamic of my community, of course my community has a lot of interaction between builders, sparkies, plumbers, building surveyors, town planners and ultimately consumers. On a very, very occasional basis, constituents will indeed approach me when a building that they have got for themselves through engagement with a builder has failed and they have attempted to go through the processes of the act as we currently know it in an attempt to address any defects. Sadly, most consumers that have come to my office have indeed found that process to be disappointing and have found it very difficult, more often than not, to have defects in the fabric of a building remedied.

One constituent in the suburb of Highton last term approached me when they had the back end of the house renovated and they had a new extension to their property built. They went through all of the normal processes of getting permits, getting engineering and other things done, and the slab that the new building was constructed on cracked. They had to go through extensive mediation to get that issue addressed. It was costly and it was problematic. These reform processes that our government – the Andrews Labor government – are putting in place are all about extending the rights of everyone so that when there are challenges on this front there are fair and adequate processes by which consumers can get justice with respect to buildings that they have. This reform process is extensive and it will be ongoing, and I am very pleased to see the work that we are doing in this space. As I say, South Barwon is a very, very fast-growing community, and I commend the bill to the house.

The SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. The house is considering the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The minister has moved that the bill be now read a second time. The member for Croydon has moved a reasoned amendment to this motion. He has proposed to omit all of the words after ‘That’ and replace them with the words which have been circulated. The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Those supporting the reasoned amendment by the member for Croydon should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (55): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Jordan Crugnale, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (24): Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ryan Smith, David Southwick, Peter Walsh, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.