Wednesday, 1 April 2026

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (11:36): I rise to make a contribution on the Building and Plumbing Administration and Enforcement Bill 2026. This bill before the Parliament is a very important bill in that it talks about balancing the need to ensure we have consumer protection for those that are buying probably the most significant purchase in their lifetime, their home, and also ensuring that we get the building industry moving. There have been a number of occasions in this chamber that I have spoken about one of the key elements that we are really struggling with in Victoria, and that is confidence – confidence to see our economy moving, confidence to get people to invest in Victoria. In line with confidence, one of the reasons why people are not investing is because of costs – everything costs too much. We are the highest taxing state in the nation. We have the highest property taxes in the nation. The cost of building a home – so much of it goes into actually constructing that home. We know people are choosing, unfortunately, ABM or ABV – anywhere but Melbourne or anywhere but Victoria – when it comes to investing. We have got to turn that around, and we desperately need that confidence to get people to invest.

One of the things that the two major parties have both recognised is that we are in a housing crisis in Victoria, and I will certainly concede that the government has been talking about that. We, the opposition, have released the first part of our tranche of policies – more homes, more choice and better affordability. The government have been in government for 12 years, and nothing takes away the fact that even though the government are talking about it and they have a target, which initially was 80,000 homes a year, a few years later, or 12 months later, when that was not being met, it went from 80,000 homes for each and every year to 800,000 over 10 years. People will say that is the same. Well, we know it is not the same, because what the government were hoping to do – they were not meeting the front-end targets, so they have backed it in and by the time they get to year 9 or year 10, 10 years later, when they are not in government, they can say it is not their problem, or they could say they would catch up.

The problem is that since the government has come to power we have the least amount of housing construction build completions in a decade. We are in a housing crisis. We do not have building completions, and the reason why we do not have completions is because of costs. The cost of building is through the roof. We are the most expensive state when it comes to building construction and taxes, and people are choosing other options. We also know about the Big Build, which has been absolutely caught up in $15 billion worth of CFMEU corruption. That $15 billion, those high costs and the blowouts on the CFMEU Big Build have meant that Labor have put the materials from residential housing into the Big Build. Again, it means that those families that want to build their first home and those Victorians that actually want to get into a rental cannot because there is not the supply.

So what needs to happen? We need to signal to the industry that we are ready to go. This bill does none of that. This bill is actually filled with hypocrisy. The reason why it is filled with hypocrisy is the government is trying to sell this bill as a consumer protection bill, but according to the building industry this bill will drive up building costs, drive small businesses out of business and make it harder for Victorians to build and get into a new home.

That should not be the aim of any government. The aim of any government in a housing crisis should be to build more homes, to help builders out and to say, ‘What do we need to get you to invest in Victoria?’ We know there are a lot of builders when they are looking at this bill saying, ‘The regulatory environment makes it too hard to do business in Victoria already. Now you are making it not harder, but impossible to do business in Victoria.’ It is absolute hypocrisy.

Now, you might ask why, when a government that talks up a big game that they want to build more homes, 80,000 a year, 800,000, are now 55,000 short in two years. In the first two years they are 55,000 short in that 80,000-a-year target, so they are already not meeting their targets. Then you might say, ‘What does this government really want? Is it just a headline? Do they want to also encourage young people to own their own home – the great Australian dream of owning their own home?’ Well, you only have to look at what former Premier Daniel Andrews said in March 2022. He said the great Australian dream of owning a home was less of a priority for younger generations compared to previous ones and stated, based on discussions with children and their families, that younger people were more focused on perhaps living where they want to live and that home ownership was not a big thing anymore. Young people do not care anymore. Of course they do not care when they cannot get into one. Of course it is not a priority when housing is unaffordable, when they do not see that opportunity to work hard and build for the future. They do not see that. We have seen many people argue that young people absolutely still desire home ownership but have been priced out of the market. This bill does that. It prices people out of the market according to the building industry, and I will talk about that shortly. The Housing Industry Association and Master Builders Victoria suggest that building costs could go up by 30 per cent based on these types of regulatory changes, a 30 per cent increase in costs being passed on not to small business, but to the person that wants to buy or get into a home. That is why we are not seeing construction being done here in Victoria.

But let me go a little bit further, because you might turn around and say, ‘Well, costs are like that everywhere. Young people are not purchasing everywhere.’ Well, let me give you a bit of an example because we have Leo, who is interning in our office this week. Leo is 13 years of age. Leo will be voting one day and he has said to me that one day he wants to be able to own his own home. Now, Leo did this research in 5 minutes in my office this morning and what he found was the average first home buyer in Australia is now aged 33 to 36. In 2000, it was 24. In Victoria it is over 40, so it is harder for young people to get into a home in Victoria. Nationally it is 33, it used to be 24 but it is 33. In Victoria it is 40. That is a big gap. What it means in Victoria is that we do not care about getting young people into homes. We do not have the policies to get young people into homes, and people like Leo have to look for other opportunities, because that is not what is happening here in Victoria. That needs to change.

Vicki Ward: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would encourage you to encourage the member to be accurate. Melbourne has been named as the nation’s cheapest city in which to buy a home, and we also lead the nation when it comes to first home owner loan grants.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): It is not for the Chair to determine the facts or otherwise of a contribution. It is presumed that members will do that. I will let the speaker come back to the bill.

David SOUTHWICK: I am right on the bill, but thank you for reminding me. I am right on the bill because we are talking about cost of construction, which is what this bill is about. It is interesting that the minister would make an interjection and a point of order, because the minister is part of the problem. This government is part of the problem when they have a Premier and ministers that have done nothing to ease the cost-of-living pressures on building new homes. We have a bill before us which is two volumes’ worth, which we are debating today, and the industry had two weeks to consider this bill – two weeks to consider a bill that will change the industry forever, that will send small businesses out of business and that will send builders out of business. The hypocrisy and the lack of care of this government about the small businesses that they are going to send to the wall – this is a government that does not listen. They do not listen. Instead we have got a bill which they expect the industry to just suck up, to take in and to change effectively what they do, which we know as a result of this will not cause more building; it will cause more builders to go broke. That is why, instead of ministers taking points of order, we want the Premier, the ministers and the Allan Labor government to start to listen to builders and small businesses and to ensure the cost of construction becomes affordable so we can build more homes, give more choice and start to restart Victoria.

I therefore move an amendment:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has allowed for proper consultation with the industry to occur.’

If you look at the feedback already, the Housing Industry Association (HIA) has written to the Premier, to which I do not believe there has been a response, and that letter is also on the Housing Industry Association’s LinkedIn page for government if they would like to see what the view of the housing industry is. If the government fails to respond to correspondence directly to the Premier, then maybe they can look at social media to also understand what the industry thinks. The purpose of the letter is to request that the government delay the second-reading debate in the Legislative Assembly:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The bill is a substantial piece of legislation. It is described in clause 1 as being a restatement of the amendments of the existing legislation. The bill is more than just a formal re-establishment of the Building and Plumbing Commission or an update of the compliance and enforcement powers. A re-establishment of legislation is not a simple matter. The second-reading speech, for example, indicates that the remade legislation about disciplinary sanctions includes many changes. With the regulator being very active in its compliance and enforcement activity in the past couple of years, HIA is very cognisant of the importance of ensuring that procedural fairness is not lost.

Now listen to this, if I may:

The bill would have taken months for the government to prepare: two volumes, about 700 pages. It is not unreasonable for the industry and other stakeholders to be given at least a few weeks to consider the implications of the bill and allow time to contribute to the debate on the merits of the legislation.

That is from the HIA. If I go to the Master Builders Victoria (MBV), they talk about some of the issues, particularly with the sequencing of the changes. Those are some of the issues. We do need reform and we are happy with reform. We are happy with a level playing field. We are happy with the Building and Plumbing Commission being tasked with doing some of these things. I do have issues and the industry does have issues with the resourcing of the BPC and certainly with giving the ability for proper process and due process if a builder is found guilty without a process of appeal and what may happen in terms of that business if they were found innocent and what they do in terms of reputational benefit. We must clean up the industry when it comes to shoddy builders, but when you have got 90 per cent of builders that are doing the right thing, you do not need a massive stick. Many of the builders that we should be targeting are the unregistered builders, who are the builders that are not doing the right thing from day one – they are the ones that we should be cleaning up. There is no real effort to really target those that actually do not play by the rules; rather, they are doing everything they can to target the builders that are already doing a lot.

If you look at Master Builders, Master Builders Victoria raises significant concerns with the proposed minimum financial requirements. That is one of the key elements of this bill, which I want to talk about now. That framework is not aligned with the actual drivers of insolvency in the construction sector. They contend that insolvency is primarily caused by cash flow volatility, risk allocation and cumulative regulatory burden rather than insufficient capital and the proposed revenue to net tangible assets model, and that it fails to address these issues. What they are saying is they believe that shifting the model from a work-in-progress cash flow model, which is capacity-based, to a fixed annual revenue cap does not reflect how builders actually manage their risk. What does that mean? What it means is if the builder has contracts of about a million dollars, let us call it, they are two half-million-dollar contracts in round figures. In the previous model they could manage their cash flow and they could continue on with bringing in new jobs as the old job was complete. In this particular model that the Allan Labor government is proposing, if the $500,000 worth of one of the jobs is complete, the builder needs to wait until the end of the financial year before they take on another job. How is that building more homes? When they have completed a job, they have actually delivered on the job, so they have got $500,000 left on the liability that was first a million dollars. You would think that they could roll in another job – not according to the minimum financial requirement (MFR). There is no sequencing and there is no sense in terms of some of these changes. They are the kinds of things that the industry would want to talk to the government about if they actually picked up the phone and listened. But the government are not listening. They have failed to listen. They are just steaming through.

The multiple major reforms in this bill are creating significant uncertainty and pressure already in a very strained industry. You have got MFR and the National Construction Code (NCC) converging, which is causing the problem. While there is certainly support for stronger consumer protections and action, which we support and which the industry supports, no question, we have got to have those kinds of consumer protections in place and stamp out poor practices. That is not what we are talking about. Small to medium businesses are particularly exposed with these risks and higher costs, which allow them reduced participation, and many will exit the market. The early intervention and enforcement powers and civil penalties may affect builders due to unclear thresholds and lack of safeguards.

The MBV, Master Builders Victoria, request a delay to the implementation of the bill and alignment with other reforms and is strongly recommending to allow consultation for refinement and proper sequencing. You have got the HIA and you have got MBV, Master Builders Victoria, both peak bodies, on a unity ticket with our amendment that we are proposing today saying, ‘Let’s look under the hood; let’s actually see what this is going to do to the cost of construction, and let’s not put more impost on small businesses and let’s not put more homes out of reach for Victorians,’ because that is what this government is doing. This government is not protecting Victorians, it is stopping Victorians from getting into a home – from renting one, from buying one, from getting a roof over their heads. If we want 80,000 homes a year, then we have got to ensure that we can have an industry that does that, and this will not happen.

On top of this bill today we have issues in terms of the war, we have issues in terms of fuel costs and we have issues in terms of some of the flow-on effects to materials and to transport. I was told in a forum only a few days ago, again from one of the members of Master Builders, one of the builders, that outside of the 30-kilometre zone, if they have got a job outside of 30 kilometres, they are cancelling the job. They are not travelling beyond 30 kilometres because of the cost of getting onto a site. They are costs that are already being imposed because of fuel costs; they are choices that need to be made.

Some of the materials, some of the piping and the resin for those materials, are now in short supply, and for those that are in supply, those materials have been jacked up. So the materials are being jacked up and you have got fuel costs, and the regulatory environment is putting more homes out of reach for all Victorians.

The other part which I want to touch on at the moment very, very much talks about dealing with the insurance piece of the bill and what happens in terms of moving the overall insurance piece from 10 years for what are considered to be defects, whether they be major or minor defects, and the obligation on the builder to fix those defects. This is really important when it comes to costs. We know that we had legislation that was for two years. We now know that we have got legislative changes for fixing defects proposed in this bill for 10 years. The issue is that many of the materials and many of the products that builders use have a warranty, and many of those warranties would be, say, up to seven years. What happens when the warranties that this government is proposing are beyond that seven years and are in fact 10? If you have got warranties for white goods that are seven years but the builder has to give a 10-year warranty on the bill, how does the builder make up the difference? I will tell you how he makes up the difference: he charges the consumer. That is the only way you can make up the difference. So costs go up.

How does that happen? Builders are telling me that they have to factor maintenance people into the cost of the contract to go around and inspect the properties in the lead-up to the 10 years to minimise the cost when it hits 10 years. Some people might like that. Some people might say, ‘Great, I wouldn’t mind a maintenance contract built into my building cost, and I’m happy to pay 30 per cent more for that. If the cost is 400 grand, I’m happy to pay $520,000 for that.’ But most people will not want to do that. They will want the best cost for the building construction. Sure, they do not want a dodgy build. But some of the issues with this bill are actually in determining what a major issue is, in terms of a structural issue, which is a fair go if you have got a structural issue, versus what is a minor defect and what happens in terms of the builder obligations versus somebody else. If a builder has gone in and built something and then a landscaper comes in and does something else, and the landscape piece changes issues in terms of the overall build site, then who is responsible? Is it the landscaper that might have been contracted a year or two later, or is it the builder? There are issues to work out.

Then also, what is considered a major or minor defect? If there is paint that has faded in the ninth year and the paint warranty is for seven years, who makes up the difference? Does the builder need to come back onsite and repaint the house? They are questions that the government has not worked out. When we asked in the briefing what is major and what is minor, we were told these issues will be worked out later. You cannot work it out later if builders are signing fixed contracts today. If builders are signing fixed contracts today, they are locked in for 10 years, and they need to know the difference between if they have got to come back and fix up a paint job or if they have got to come back and fix up a structural defect. They need to know what the difference is. If you are going to have the builder on the hook for all of this, then ultimately the consumer will pay. In a cost-of-living crisis, in a cost-of-construction crisis and when 43 per cent of building a home is taxes and regulations in Victoria, then what do we expect? We expect it to go up, and we expect building and houses to be more out of reach for Victorians. That has got to change.

If I could just draw attention to the Building and Plumbing Commission (BPC). I did make mention of this during the cladding bill earlier. The Building and Plumbing Commission will be the regulator, they will be the enforcer and they will be the one group that will do everything on a build when it comes to building and construction. So if you have got a problem, if you are unhappy with a build, you will ring up the BPC and say, ‘Can you please fix this for me, because I believe I’ve got a dodgy builder?’ There will be legitimate things that the BPC will need to investigate. This is all meant to come into play on 1 July. Are the BPC properly resourced? What additional things will the BPC need to do? How will the BPC fulfil these obligations?

I just draw the attention of this house to a Google review, because we love Google reviews. Many small businesses rely on their Google reviews because that is their reputation and how people buy their goods or services. I know for many people who might be thinking about a new builder, the first thing they would do is a Google review. How is that builder? Have they built other homes? What have they built? What is their reputation like? Well, do a Google review on the BPC and see what their reputation is like pre these changes with all the work they have got to do. I did a Google review, and they got a 1½-star rating. That is what BPC got – a 1½-star rating. And you should read it. It says:

Disgusting commission which has already forgotten the purpose for which it was formed. Leaving hard working Aussies stuck in the mud, when they don’t ignore you they’ll leave you waiting numerous months if not years for a outcome …

That is from Nick B on a Google review. He gave them a 1-star. Another 1-star from Joel says:

Too many confusing layers staff not very helpful doing the run around ... VBA have just rebranded to BPC same stuff around. Very disappointing.

That is a Google review. I would suggest the government have a look at these Google reviews of this new body that is going to fix the problems. I could go on forever. This government might turn around and say, ‘Oh, you’re just making this stuff up.’ Well, here is a full name, Wade Harris on a Google review. Wade Harris gave 1 star five months ago, saying:

Somehow the BPC is actually more useless and incompetent than the VBA. Made an inquiry through the ‘online form’ regarding Plumbers insurance policy for defective works (burst plumbing pipes) and received an automated ‘no reply’ response …

There you go. Leo, my intern, would do a far better job. He would pick up the phone; he would fix it. This lot: do we have the confidence that they are going to fix it by 1 July? I would urge this government, if they were serious about listening, if they were serious about fixing the housing crisis and if they were serious about getting more homes, delivering the 80,000 homes that they promised, to delay this bill, talk to builders, talk to the industry and get it right. Unravelling it will not fix the builders that are leaving the industry in droves, leaving Victoria because they say ‘anywhere but Victoria’ because it is too hard to do business. That will not fix it. The damage will already be done. This government has had years to fix the problem. They have come in, and they have given no time at all to read volumes of a bill that no-one in their right mind could get through. You would need dozens of lawyers to get through this, and they expect the industry to get through it in two weeks. What a joke. This is consultation: leaving builders out in the cold in a cost-of-living crisis and in a fuel crisis, expecting builders to pick up the tab. No wonder we do not have homes built in Victoria. No wonder it is too hard to do business in Victoria.

I urge the government to support our reasoned amendment. Push it down the road. Let us get the fuel crisis under control, let us talk to builders, let us ensure we clean up the mess of dodgy builders and give builders that are doing the right thing the opportunity to build more homes, because that makes sense. Do not penalise the hardworking builders, the salt of the earth, that are doing the right thing. Do not do that. Do not turn them away. Do not make it harder: work with them. It seems like this government is always about envy. You have got somebody, a tradie, that is trying to have a go, trying to build a bit of something for their family, but this government says, ‘No, we’re not going to support you; we’re going to ignore you.’ All the signals are wrong.

If you want more homes, you have got to be able to ensure you have a regulatory environment that makes sense. Do not keep changing the rules. Do not take a sledgehammer to a problem that you can fix by sitting down with the industry and getting it right in the first place. That is what we are seeing with this bill today. We have got to work with the industry. The industry know what they are doing. You have got very sensible people. The Housing Industry Association and Master Builders Victoria want to work with the government. They are not political. They just want to sit down and work with the government. They have requested that the Premier delay this bill, and I would plead with the government to delay this bill. Let us work together and ensure we get the costs right and get more homes. The coalition is determined to build more homes, to reduce red tape, to ease the regulatory burden, and to ensure we have a better taxation system that encourages investment, returns confidence and reduces costs. That is what we will do because it makes sense. What this government is doing is chalk and cheese. You only have to look at the volumes of the bill that we are seeing before us, which has had no consultation and has had no interest in listening to the industry. Why? Because the Allan Labor government again thinks they know best.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:06): I might just address some of the matters raised. Victoria is building more homes than any other state in the country. You would not think that from what we just heard from the opposition, and I must say their plan for housing for the future of Victoria sadly leaves millennials and below well out of the picture. They want to shovel people into a few inner-city areas, just pad them up, and then the rest can go as far out as you can imagine, which means that they would be spending an eternity in traffic trying to get to their relative jobs, including builders themselves. So I do not think they are ones to be claiming glory when it comes to thinking of homes for younger people – and I note that we have more first home buyers than any other state. So if we are talking about breaking into the market, that is certainly a top priority for our government.

We have slashed stamp duty on off-the-plan apartments, units and townhouses for 24 months to cut up-front costs, speed up building and make it more affordable for everyone to buy off the plan. The Victorian Homebuyer Fund shared equity scheme contributes 25 per cent of the purchase price. Now, this is to do with renters, but just so you know, there is a cap of one residential rent rise per 12 months. When people are saving to buy a home, it is important that we are looking at all the costs. We are also providing first home buyer stamp duty exemptions on properties up to $600,000 and concessions on properties from $600,001 to $750,000. We also offer first home owner grants of $10,000. This support topped $900 million last financial year. We have also changed the rules on building and pest inspections so that the vendor, not the buyer, provides them, saving families up to $4200 and countless hours often wasted if they are outbid and do not buy the property. That is just to note some – just some – of the many, many cost-of-living measures that we are introducing.

But coming back to the core elements of the bill – and we know that a handful of dodgy builders undermine the whole industry – I do not think we can afford another day. Literally getting these important reforms through the house is paramount for the benefit of consumers – for the benefit of Victorians – but also for the reputations of all the good guys in the industry, all the good builders that are doing the right thing. I personally witnessed with my mother after my father died, when she had various renovations, a good builder that did fantastic renovations and turned up when they were meant to, and we did not have any problems after the build. That was a renovation many, many moons ago. But subsequently another builder came along who would turn up at 4 or 5 in the afternoon and run lights at night and was buying endless supplies and actually not delivering a product. In the end she had to end that contract and get another builder to complete the contract. Now, the point of that is not just giving two examples, because there are many, many more examples, unfortunately, of decent Victorians who have had very bad experiences. The imperative is to bring about what is the most comprehensive overhaul since the building legislation was first introduced over 30 years ago, noting the substantial changes in the industries themselves over that period of time.

The scale of change since 1993 is immense and not to be underestimated in any way, and it is very confusing because I do not know what the signal is. The Liberals previously opposed our buyer protection reforms but then on the other hand were calling them ‘dodgy builders’. So it is a very confusing message, and I am not sure what they expect Victorian consumers to glean from those very confusing messages, particularly as they want to jam up this bill based on the amendment that was just circulated.

I think it should not be underestimated, shovelling young people way, way, way, way, way out of the city, noting that we cannot forever be penetrating good agricultural land and moreover the bush – we actually do need some sort of ecology. Hence building up the middle-ring suburbs, noting I live in Southbank – that is a very dense area, and there is more and more high-density housing coming on board there. If you want to call out where I am coming from, I live in high-density housing, so I am not opposed to that. And I live it – I live in a 37-storey building. This is Labor’s plan: building up those middle-ring suburbs that really have not taken the brunt of the building load – we know areas such as Melton have for instance, as an example, taken more than their fair share, if we are going to talk of the relative load of housing in this state. It is ultimately about fellow Victorians. I think if we are going to think from a point of equity and fairness for now and future generations, I really am not copping it from the opposition when they are saying they are the ones thinking of young people – I think not.

These are new powers, and they are needed. It is really about – and fundamentally this is what underpins this legislation – putting health and safety at the centre. We are all better off. It is not good for builders themselves as well to be tied up in years and years and years of litigation, whether it is the vicissitude of acts that have led to the outcome actually being proactive on the front foot and incentivising, for want of a better word, or driving, I should say, better outcomes in terms of the quality of builds. Surely that has to be in the interests of all Victorians.

What are the main reforms in this bill? It is delivering a new principal act for building and plumbing, and it will sit at the core of a contemporary integrated legislative system. It will be a modern legislative framework that is easier to navigate. Surely that is better for everyone in the industry. I know the member for Caulfield was exclaiming at the sheer size of the legislation. I would not say that that is a reason to baulk at and run from the legislation because it has two volumes et cetera. Surely detail is paramount in circumstances such as building and construction, noting that it is easier to navigate, which surely is better for everyone in the industry but also the adaptation capacity as the industry continues to evolve – and it will, and it should.

The bill includes an overarching building system objective, as I stated from the outset. This is the fundamental tenet putting health and safety first in all building legislation related decisions. This objective will drive and align decision-making towards a common goal, supported by complementary objectives for building regulators. The commission will be established with a best practice, long-term governance model with sustainable funding arrangements, and each role across the building system will be clearly articulated and defined rather than duplicative or conflicting. So it is thinking about all those, not least the builders who have to operate in a high-pressure environment, no question whatsoever. I would classify it as a difficult profession. I am not a builder myself, but it certainly requires a lot of precision and there is certainly a lot of risk in that role. But reducing the complexity and the layering, so to speak, has got to be a good thing. And it establishes a new enforcement framework for Victoria’s building legislation with modern best practice powers that equip the Building and Plumbing Commission with regulatory teeth, because we know the sheer pain and suffering for those who have endured very bad outcomes as the result of, can I say, faulty building practices, which undermine all builders, and it is not fair to them either.

We are actually thinking about the majority of builders, who do the right thing and work really hard and who are undermined by those who seek to cut corners, and really about having an effective watchdog at the end of the day, which can then, coming back to that question of confidence, restore the confidence of consumers.

So how is this being done? It will be through new tools to enforce higher civil penalties, as well as a broader scope to issue infringement notices and the ability to hold directors personally liable for wrongdoing. This includes changes making it harder for company directors to escape consequences by phoenixing their business. I do not think it will be out of context here to say that there have been so many incidents of phoenixing it is not funny, and it would break your heart when somebody who has truly had very bad building practices simply shuts down and resurfaces with a magical new structure that belies the sins of the past. Surmounting these kinds of, I could say, heartbreaking ramifications of those activities is surely a priority when we are looking at the health and safety of Victorians.

 Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (12:16): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution. I will just seek your indulgence for less than 30 seconds, Acting Speaker, as I will not get an opportunity to do so in this place this week, to shout out to my community of Porepunkah, who you all know are in the Ovens Valley community. I want to commend their resilience over the last seven months. They did not ask to have two police officers shot and killed in their backyard. They have done an outstanding job to continue on, and I just want to do a big shout-out for them. This chapter is now closed. I have the utmost support and respect for Victoria Police, and I just wanted to do that shout-out. Thank you, Acting Speaker.

Now onto the bill – I do want to talk about the Building and Plumbing Administration and Enforcement Bill 2026, and I will follow on from the member for Caulfield, who has moved a reasoned amendment. I do support that amendment, which is:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has allowed for proper consultation with the industry to occur.’

I do not want to go over everything that the member for Caulfield has said, but he did point out some very interesting facts. We do walk a very fine line when we try to balance first home buyers needs with keeping builders accountable and making sure that we have good solid buildings, but at the same time we know that it is cost that is causing a lot of pain as we move forward. We have to do everything we can to try and reduce that cost while not reducing the standards and to make sure that we keep builders accountable. We know that that cost is getting very high, and we do know much of the cost of building a house is tax – 43 per cent, to my understanding, of that is tax. That is not conducive to a strong building industry either. With those high costs of building materials and high taxes, combined with rental providers who are selling up their properties, we are in a housing crisis. We are well aware of that, and we need to make sure that we do what we can to improve this situation. As the member for Caulfield mentioned, the average homebuyer in Australia is between the ages of 33 and 36, and in Victoria they are over 40. So that is just an example of the costs. For those in Victoria, they have got to wait a little bit longer, and that is quite disappointing. But we will move on.

As was mentioned by the lead speaker, the Master Builders Victoria and the Housing Industry Association (HIA) both agree with our reasoned amendment, and that is to pause and have more conversations with the industry to make sure they get this right. The Master Builders have suggested anywhere between a 10 and 30 per cent increase could come about because of these construction costs. Breaking that down, there could be a 10 per cent increase through insurance for future rectification orders and somewhere between that 10 and 30 per cent due to the NCC, the National Construction Code, being implemented. That increases insurance premiums and, partly due to the increased premiums, first-resort insurance, and there is some allowance for an increase in cost to comply with the new minimum financial requirements. There are some real issues in there that should be addressed in this bill rather than waiting for a year or two after we get going with this bill.

We do see quite often that legislation is introduced and debated in this house and then two years later we come back to tidy up some of the mistakes. We just implore the government to consider these, even between houses, to make sure that we do get this right, because all of us in Victoria need to ensure we have got a better building industry, because the housing crisis is no different in the Ovens Valley, Cobram, Yarrawonga or Myrtleford than in metropolitan Melbourne. I have people come to my office all the time saying that they need housing and they are living at the river. Beyond Housing are now telling me it will be five to 10 years before those people get a home, and that is tragic for those people. So it is in all of our best interests to make sure that the housing industry improves and this bill is an improvement for all of us, because the 800,000 houses that were promised over 10 years – well, clearly it is not happening. 54,000 was the number I got for the last 12 months. Added to that are the rental providers, who are jumping ship at every turn, and I cannot say that I blame them, because the land tax is in turn making them want to jump ship and either get out of being a rental provider or take their investment and go to another state, and that is not what we want.

In terms of renters, we know that at every rental opportunity there are 50 to 100 people lined up to try and secure that property, whether it is a house, an apartment or whatever. Those queues are getting quite long, and again it is in all of our best interests to make sure that the housing industry thrives as we go forward.

The Victorian government continues to talk about improving the housing industry, wanting to win votes, and saying, ‘Look, this is how we are looking after renters,’ but the reality is, if we either make this more difficult for rental providers or make the costs more expensive for builders, we are just not going to help renters at all, because we cannot be so blind as not see that it is not going to get passed on to the renter. Any cost, whether it is a land tax or whether it is an increase in the cost of building a house, the rental always has a formula – 4, 5 per cent of what the cost of the building is or thereabouts – and that is always going to be the case. As costs go up, buildings go up, landlords or rental providers are going to pass that cost on, and we know that is just not going to help.

Where else should we get to? The Allan Labor government needs to start to listen. They sincerely need to listen to, as we said before, the Master Builders Association and the HIA. Stop thinking they know it all. Stop wanting to drive Victorians north out of Victoria to New South Wales and Queensland. I did hear a statistic the other day that up to 35 per cent of Victorians are thinking about leaving Victoria. That is not what we want; that is not good for anybody. We have to give them the encouragement to feel that they should stay and we want them to stay. Giving them a house to live in, or the opportunity to live in a house, is a damn good start.

Victorians are getting sick of picking up the tab all the time, if it is an extra cost in the building sector, if rental goes up. We have talked about some of the legislation that has come through this place that supports renters, and I support renters 100 per cent, but if it comes at the expense of landlords or rental providers, then we have to be very careful of that balance, because we know where the cost is going to end up. It is no good saying the rental provider is going to wear that cost, because we know that is not going to be the case. As I said, listen to the industry – HIA, Masters Builders Association – because with the amount of tax that we currently pay on building a house, if this legislation brings in more cost to the building industry, then we are going to see it get even more difficult to get a house and the housing crisis that we are currently in will only get worse.

We know how things change quickly. We have seen with the fuel crisis that it is happening in all of our communities at the moment, not just in regional Victoria but all across metropolitan Melbourne. Everybody is feeling this pain, and we just see how things change very quickly. Sometimes I think the government forgets that legislation like this can make changes to an industry like the housing industry. If it adds more cost, it does not take long for things turn upside down very quickly. That is why I just implore the government to make sure that they listen to the industry, maybe between houses, so we can get it right.

In my patch, Yarrawonga is the fastest growing town in regional Victoria.

There is building going on left, right and centre. There are people moving there to retire, people moving there to grow their families. It is a wonderful part of the world, and it is only a bit under 3 hours to Melbourne, so people can still get home to babysit their grandkids if they want to and get down to Melbourne. It is communities like Yarrawonga who are growing very quickly. We want to make sure that continues because it takes the pressure off Melbourne.

Those who want a house in Melbourne, if they cannot get one, well, they can look to the country. But at the moment we cannot provide those because the costs are very high, and if this bill continues to escalate those prices in housing, then again we are going to see for quite some years down the track that we will be saying to people, ‘Don’t look further afield into regional Victoria because we can’t handle what we’ve got. We’d love to build more houses for you. We’d love to be able to support the overflow from Melbourne, but at the moment we can’t.’. With those words, I suggest that the government look at the reasoned amendment that the member for Caulfield has put, and I do sincerely hope that they will listen to the industry and support this reasoned amendment.

 Katie HALL (Footscray) (12:26): I do not think there would be a single member in this place who has not had a constituent come to their office with a devastating story about making the largest purchase they will make in their lifetime and dealing with a shoddy building. We know that most builders take great pride in their work. They deliver great homes and apartments. But this bill is for enforcement for the small minority who do the wrong thing and in turn support for the builders who do the right thing. I listened to the member for Albert Park before, and she mentioned the devastation that comes from when a builder phoenixes. I have a shocking example from my electorate where a rather notorious developer under the name of Shangri-La Construction built a property that did not have adequate waterproofing throughout the apartments, and of course the apartments ended up flooding. When they sought recompense they discovered – not long after this builder was featured on 60 Minutes for a comparable building in, I believe it was, Carnegie – that the builder had phoenixed. So the builder was still building, still had a business, and the consumer protections needed to be in place to support those potential purchases.

I am really pleased to make a contribution to the Building and Plumbing Administration and Enforcement Bill 2026 because housing is a key priority of this government. As Parliamentary Secretary for Homes I have been able to be engaged throughout the process – the development of this bill – and the broader reforms we are making to the Building and Plumbing Commission (BPC) to make sure that consumers are front and centre of our reforms, because it is so important that, yes, we build more homes, but we are building quality homes, and that there is confidence in the market. And if homebuyers are confident in the lasting quality of a new home, particularly for my community in off-the-plan apartments, they are more likely to buy.

Building and buying a home is of course the biggest investment most of us will ever make, and Victorians rightfully expect to get what they pay for. Stronger consumer protections are something that I would have thought everyone in this place would support.

I am not surprised, though. It is disappointing to see that those opposite are responding to the concerns only of big industry and not supporting reforms that will protect people who are making this investment in a home, because stronger regulation to prevent and rectify shoddy building work will save Victorians from serious financial challenges and it will protect them from the debilitating debts that they would incur if they were left to fend for themselves.

As I said, many in this place will have been confronted with the consequences of dodgy building. In my electorate there have been too many residents who have been ripped off by builders, surveyors and other parts of our building system. Victorians deserve a building regulatory system that gives them the confidence they need to build, to buy and to rent in Victoria. Tradies and other workers in the building industry know the pride they feel at showing off a house that they helped build to their friends and family. We know that good builders and home designers like nothing better than to see purchasers moving into a high-quality home, and we want this experience to be the case for everyone who interacts with the Victorian building industry. This is about the very small cohort of builders who have been doing the wrong thing. Over time that has eroded community trust in the building industry, and it risks putting reputable builders out of work.

This bill finalises the establishment of Labor’s new integrated building watchdog, the BPC, and it gives it even more enforcement powers to prevent dodgy work. Whilst not having the political bravery to clean up the building industry themselves, the opposition have repeatedly called for reforms to protect consumers. Once upon a time those opposite introduced a similar bill, but then they pulled it at the behest of their corporate masters when they were last in power. In the over 30 years since the Building Act 1993 was first passed the industry has not been able to self-police these rogue operators, and it is time that we introduce a new principal building act and finalise the establishment of the new and improved regulator, the Building and Plumbing Commission, so it can get on with its important work.

This bill introduces for the first time a clear building system objective which legally places consumers at the heart of the system. The objective of the building system of course is to promote and protect the health and safety of building occupants and the public. In Victoria’s building system people must come first. This is the type of reform that only Labor governments would make. On this side of the house we believe that working Victorians should be at the centre of all of our work. We believe that reforms like this are how we support working people through the biggest purchases of their lives. This new building system objective underpins all regulation and activity across Victoria’s building system, protecting consumers who need it most. At its core this objective makes clear that protecting the health and safety of building occupants and the public is paramount whenever building and plumbing work is carried out or regulated. Putting people first is non-negotiable, and this building objective creates a clear lens through which all decisions that affect the building system are to be made. This building objective reform is not a minor change of language but a complete reorientation of the building system. This bill will protect consumers from being exposed to devastating debt and rectification costs and rebuild confidence and trust in Victoria’s building system.

Of course, while the vast majority of builders and plumbers work with pride, professionalism and high standards of quality and integrity, we also know that the bad actors need to face consequences to stop them undermining the hardworking builders in the industry. When things do go wrong, the financial and emotional impacts on consumers are devastating, and when the reputation of the industry is tarnished, all hardworking professional builders and plumbers are impacted as consumer confidence and investment in the industry diminish.

We are introducing an enforcement framework that contains a range of measures to enhance the ability of the commission and other building system regulators such as municipal building surveyors, Energy Safe Victoria and fire safety authorities to monitor and investigate compliance with building legislation.

In concluding my comments on this bill I would like to acknowledge the residents of Roberts Street in West Footscray and the residents of Barkly Street in West Footscray who have come to my office to talk to me about the crippling experience of moving into a property that has not been properly built and not being able to seek recompense from the builder. The financial pressure that this puts on ordinary working people who were just trying to do the right thing and find a place for their family to live has been absolutely devastating. When I have spoken to them about the government’s commitment, it is about our commitment to them as consumers. I commend this bill to the house.

 Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (12:36): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Building and Plumbing Administration and Enforcement Bill 2026. Straight off, we have moved a reasoned amendment on this bill, and for good reason. If I can just read it out again, it is that:

… this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has allowed for proper consultation with the industry to occur.

That is what the industry is telling us – that the government has had months and months and maybe years to create this 700-odd-page bill, and the industry has had two weeks to look at it. In the words of the member for Albert Park, she actually said this is one of the most comprehensive overhauls in building. Why give the Housing Industry Association (HIA) and the MBV, Master Builders Victoria, two weeks to look at what the member for Albert Park described as ‘the most comprehensive overhaul’ of building? They got two weeks to reach out to their members to get feedback. That is why we have moved this reasoned amendment, because if it is what the member for Albert Park stated, then they need more time. That is what they are saying to the opposition, and that is what they have clearly stated to the member for Caulfield, the shadow minister in this space.

I tell you what, I hope the government going forward gets some speakers up here with a little bit more credibility than the last two I have just listened to, their two leading speakers on this bill, because what came out of their mouths was absolute rubbish. They actually have not read the bill and they do not understand the bill, and that is why they are just rambling on the way they are. It is really that simple. If people actually got into the guts of this bill and talked to the builders in the industry about why this bill is not good for the industry, they would get the feedback. That is the problem with that side of the chamber: they just take the minister’s notes. They are too lazy to actually pick up the phone and talk to builders about this bill. My phone has rung off the hook about this, and particularly about the minimum financial requirement. This is going to just hamper building houses in this state like you would not believe.

I am going to start with a bit of an education for those opposite, who might actually pick this up. The first thing I will say to them, because I think they are clueless when it comes to construction, is that this part of the hammer hammers in the nails and this part of the hammer pulls the nails out. There is your first lesson.

Now let us get into the MFR. The minimum financial requirement will completely decimate mum-and-dad builders in this state. I will put it in the simplest terms I possibly can so those opposite can understand. If I am a builder and I have a turnover limit of $2 million or a million dollars – it does not matter – the old system would be that once I finished a house, which might be worth $350,000, that would come off and I could roll another house back on.

The minimum financial requirement stops all that. The minimum financial requirement is on your overall turnover. So if I build a house for you, for example, at $500,000 and then you decide you want all the bells and whistles in your kitchen and in your bathrooms and everything else and raise a variation with me as the builder for another $200,000 of work, that goes to your overall cap. Variations should be excluded. It is overall revenue. If you are a builder like me – before I got into this place I did commercial construction and domestic construction – they all now get lumped in together. If I am only on a $2 million limit and I do a $1 million commercial project, I only get $1 million of housing. That is about 2½ houses a year on an average cost. That is it; I cannot build any more homes. How do you think it is going to hamper the Metricons and the Simonds of the world, who are our biggest deliverers of homes in this state, that they are now capped at a turnover? They cannot roll one house off and bring another house on.

If you are trying to reach a target of 80,000 homes a year, you have just put it in the toilet by introducing this bill. You have absolutely stuffed it. You are already 44,000 or 46,000 homes behind in two years alone. That is on the government’s own target. This bill is going to drive those targets right down into the sewer. The way this is going to affect the building industry is absolutely ridiculous. I do not think the government has any idea of what this will do to the mum-and-dad builders in the state, and they are the ones that actually deliver most of the homes. It is not your Metricons, it is not your Simonds, it is your mum-and-dads; they are the ones.

The member for Footscray – honestly, I wish the member had not walked out – actually said, ‘We’re only worried about big industry.’ The HIA and Master Builders Victoria – their membership is not big industry. They are small business owners. They are mum-and-dad builders. They are the ones that are employing tradies. What an absolutely clueless comment to make, that that is where this is targeted at and that is why we have brought in this reasoned amendment. We have brought in the reasoned amendment because the two biggest building sector agencies in Victoria, being the Housing Industry Association and Master Builders Victoria, which represent the mum-and-dad builders in this state, said they need more time. But again, the government is too arrogant to listen to them. The government is too stupid to take their advice. I have said this before in this chamber. The government keep ignoring the advice of the building industry, and they are warning them time and time again: ‘If you keep going down this line, you will not get homes built.’ They said it on the last bill and they are saying it on this bill, but the government is too arrogant to give them more time to look at the bill to give them the feedback to make it better. Two weeks to look at that many pages is ridiculous after the government has had months or years to develop the bill. It is absolutely ridiculous, and it is a massive slap to the industry again. It is a massive slap that the government is just too arrogant to even consider their request for an extension to look at the bill in proper detail.

It is obvious those on that side have not looked at the bill in proper detail, or the first two speakers have not, because what they said in the first two contributions was absolute rubbish. The member for Footscray got up and talked about a dodgy builder – and yes, there are dodgy builders in the industry – and about the waterproofing not being correct. Since I have been in this place I have been begging the government to bring in waterproof inspections. It still has not happened. I have always said, ‘Stop the problem at the front end, not the back end.’ If you are going to raise a certificate for something, it should be inspected. That is a no-brainer. It is called common sense, which it did not take me long to find out is severely lacking in this place. Common sense would be to have waterproofing inspections. The biggest defects in the industry are water leaks, so why don’t we inspect it?

Why? It is a simple question. The builders are up for it. I actually know builders in the member for Berwick’s area, I believe – SJD Homes – that are already doing their own waterproofing inspections because they recognise that is the biggest liability on a house.

Then, not to whack the building industry enough, we have taken minor defects from two years to 10 years, which is absolutely stupid. When you have got paint that is only guaranteed for seven years and someone can say after nine years, ‘My paint has faded – you fix it,’ that is a stupid, stupid thing to do. All this government is doing is wrecking the construction industry in this state. All this government will be doing with this legislation, by ignoring the industry and their request to look at it further and more in depth, will be delivering less homes in Victoria in the middle of a housing crisis. You cannot meet your own targets you set anyway, so why wouldn’t you listen to the industry to get more homes into the market? This bill and what the government has done to the construction industry in Victoria is just criminal. It is criminal. New builders trying to get into the industry will not be able to do it under the minimum financial requirements. They are the new ones we need coming through. We need more trades, we need everything, and all this government has done to the industry since I have been here is stuff them around.

 Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (12:46): I am proud to be rising in support of this bill because Victoria is facing a housing crisis, and when we talk about a housing crisis we have got to be honest about the solution. We need to build more homes, because without more homes prices rise, rents rise and people are locked out of the communities that they love. I see this in my own electorate in Northcote. Young people who grew up locally want to stay close to their families; essential workers, healthcare workers and professionals want to live near their jobs; and renters want the security of quality affordable homes, as well as the chance to take that next step into home ownership when the time is right for them. But for too many that dream feels so far away. Solving the housing crisis means increasing supply, but it also means building the right homes, homes that are safe, secure and built to last; homes that people can confidently invest in; homes that draw on our knowledge of sustainability and good design; and homes that strengthen communities for the long term.

In my electorate of Northcote we are already seeing what it looks like to get that right through the Victorian Labor government’s investment in social and community housing. Projects like the Walker Street development and the Oakover Road homes in my electorate are delivering high-quality energy efficient, well-designed accessible housing for people who need it most. These are homes that have been thoughtfully planned to integrate into the local landscape and the streetscape to support a diverse mix of households and to provide long-term livability. They are giving older women at risk of homelessness, young people, families and individuals access to secure, dignified housing in the communities that they are a part of, close to services and to transport – homes where they are needed. Critically they are being delivered to a high standard. They set a benchmark for what good development should look like, because when people can see that new housing is well built, well managed and enhances the neighbourhood, it builds confidence. It shows that increasing supply and maintaining our communities and everything we love about them can go hand in hand, because building homes is not just about numbers, it is about trust.

I have spent years advocating on behalf of residents, traders and community members in Northcote who have borne the brunt of consequences when builders and developers fail to meet those standards. I have raised in this place and directly with authorities the concerns of residents in developments where approved plans have not been followed, where promised landscaping outcomes have not been delivered, where defects and safety issues have been left unresolved for far too long. The impact of these outcomes is that too many Victorians feel that buying off the plan, building their own home or even renovating is a risk. We want first home buyers to feel like they can take that step. We want people to be able to build their dream home, to invest their hard-earned savings into their future and to know that they are not taking a gamble.

But the lack of confidence is holding people back, and when people hold back, projects stall and fewer homes get built. If we are serious about addressing the housing crisis, we must restore confidence in the checks and balances that hold the building industry to high standards. That is what this bill does.

The Building and Plumbing Administration and Enforcement Bill 2026 establishes that modern, coherent framework for the building and plumbing system in Victoria. Right now responsibilities are spread across multiple pieces of legislation, creating confusion and gaps in accountability. This bill brings those functions together and creates a clear and consistent framework for the entire life cycle of building and plumbing work. At the centre of all of that is the Building and Plumbing Commission, a single integrated regulator overseeing compliance and enforcement, licensing, dispute resolution and key consumer protection mechanisms. In practical terms it means stronger oversight and better protections for Victorians building, renovating or buying a home. It introduces for the first time a clear building system objective which legally places consumers at the heart of the system, because in Victoria people come first.

Through my electorate office we have worked closely with many constituents dealing with the very real consequences of a system that has not always protected them. We have supported residents facing serious building defects, including water ingress, structural issues, mould and incomplete works that have rendered homes unsafe or unlivable, and we have supported residents who have exhausted their savings trying to rectify defects left behind by builders who have since liquidated. We have worked with owners corporations dealing with widespread defects across entire developments where the burden of rectification has fallen unfairly on residents. We have worked through the complexities of buildings impacted by combustible cladding, supporting people through the state’s rectification program, and we have helped individuals trying to understand their rights in a system that can be complex and difficult to navigate. These are not isolated cases, they are recurring patterns, and behind every case is a person or a family or indeed a whole apartment of people dealing with stress, uncertainty and financial pressure.

This bill finalises the establishment of our new integrated building watchdog, the Building and Plumbing Commission, and gives it even more enforcement powers to prevent dodgy work, hold the industry to account and make the regulator’s activities more transparent. It is part of our ongoing work as a Labor government to improve consumer protections – protections that those opposite too often treat as an afterthought. Well, that afterthought is people’s lives. Building or buying a home is likely the biggest investment a family will ever make. It cannot be just a leap of faith; it needs to come with certainty.

This bill is integral to creating a system that supports building high-quality homes, not just for today but for the future. We know that the vast majority of builders and plumbers of course work with pride, professionalism and high standards of quality and integrity. It is tough work, detailed work and work that makes possible the magnificent physical environment that we all enjoy every single day in our city and in our suburbs. That is no small feat, and our builders and plumbers should be proud. You will hear that pride when they drive past a building and say, ‘I built that.’ These reforms are for them too, so they can work in a system with integrity. But we also know that there are bad actors: people in businesses who will cut and run to make a profit, no matter the harm they leave in their wake. These operators need to face serious consequences – consequences that stop them from undermining the hardworking Victorians in the building industry and selling out consumers.

Those opposite have argued today that this bill will slow down the housing market, effectively admitting that they are willing to roll the dice on quality in order to push through development. Well, we know what that means. We have seen this play before. It means people left with poor-quality builds, defects and devastating debt.

We need a robust compliance and enforcement framework that can drive out those who wilfully flout the law and guide, educate and assist those who are doing the right thing. The bill strengthens enforcement, giving the commission the tools it needs to act clearly, act decisively and act proportionately. At the front end we are introducing stronger early intervention powers like improvement notices and a modernised infringement scheme so issues can be addressed before they escalate to serious harm.

At the serious end of the spectrum, we are introducing a new civil penalty regime. This will allow courts to impose much bigger financial penalties for major breaches, up to $600,000 for individuals, and to strip companies of profits made by cutting corners, because right now, for some operators, penalties can simply be absorbed in the cost of doing business. This bill puts an end to that. It removes the financial incentive to do the wrong thing. We are also introducing stronger investigation powers, including the ability to compel answers and new offences to protect authorised officers from obstruction or abuse while doing their jobs.

One of the most significant reforms in this bill is director accountability. For too long we have seen dodgy operators hide behind corporate structures, walking away from defective work and liquidating and then starting up under a new company name. That practice, phoenixing, leaves consumers to pick up the pieces, and this bill tackles it head on. In practical terms it makes it much harder to walk away from accountability and much harder to start again with a clean slate after doing the wrong thing.

Taken together, these reforms are about restoring trust. They are about creating a system that supports families, first home buyers and consumers with the confidence to build and buy their homes without feeling like it is just a gamble. Because when first home buyers feel confident, when families feel protected, when communities trust the system, more homes get built.

 Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (12:56): I rise to speak on the Building and Plumbing. Administration and Enforcement Bill 2026 and in doing so it is through the lens of being the shadow minister responsible for home ownership and housing affordability. This is the lens through which Victorians will judge everything that the government does do on building. Is this delivering more homes? Is this delivering more supply? Is this getting them into a home? Is this getting me into a rental sooner? There exists, as we know, a housing crisis in our nation. Is Victoria playing its part in addressing the issues so that it helps Victorians get into homes? The right question on this bill is not whether it has good intentions, it is will it build more homes? Will it make those homes cheaper? Will it put home ownership back within the reach of young Victorians? On every one of those tests, this government fails.

I support the position of the Shadow Minister for Housing and Building, it being that we will move a reasoned amendment which has actually come from within the industry – the industry asking for us to not continue with this bill until further consultation has taken place. This is not the first bill that we have debated in the house where we have spoken on the side of industry or on the side of the sector, who have actually asked for bills to be paused so that meaningful and genuine consultation can actually take place. Firstly, let me say that in terms of genuine consultation when you speak to the Housing Industry Association, they have formally requested a delay. Master Builders Victoria has called for a deferral and a redesign. These are not anti-reform voices; these are people from within the industry building the homes and the builders that they represent. The builders themselves are the people who were not meaningfully consulted before this bill was introduced, and that speaks to a pattern of behaviour from this government.

It is so true to form, so true to character, that here we are again without consultation having taken place, without actually asking the experts. Do not worry about the health advice, member for Berwick. Do not worry about having to ask actual people within the disability sector. Do not worry about actually asking people within the child protection sector. Here we are again with another bill where there has not been true consultation, where the industry has spoken out against the government and said, ‘Hold on a minute. Have you even asked us, have you even consulted with us?’ Because there is this dictatorial, top-down, big government approach that comes from the Allan Labor government where, when you look at planning more broadly, there is no right to object, there is no way to take it to VCAT, there is no right to appeal and there is a stifling and silencing of the voices of the community. They do not actually get to have a say about their own neighbourhood. Here again, with a building bill we have Master Builders Victoria and the Housing Industry Association saying, ‘Hold on a minute. Can we wait and actually have some meaningful consultation take place?’ But no, that is not the case from the Allan Labor government. When we look at why this is an issue, this risks making homes more expensive to build. Master Builders Victoria warns that the combined weight of this bill and related reforms could add up to 30 per cent to construction.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.

The SPEAKER: I would like to acknowledge in the gallery Rob Molhoek, the member for Southport in the Parliament of Queensland.