Wednesday, 25 May 2022

Motions

Building practitioner fees

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:30): I move motion 768:

That this house:

(1) calls on the Andrews Labor government to reverse its decision to massively increase registration charges on builders, building companies, building surveyors and others from 2 May 2022; and

(2) notes that these Victorian Building Authority fee increases are an unjustified imposition on the building and construction sector that will add to the cost of housing.

This set of charges that has been brought forward by the government through the Victorian Building Authority, beginning on 2 May, is an absolute doozy. These charges are applied now to builders, building companies, building surveyors and others and, as I will come to in a minute, are eventually to be applied to a whole list of trades the government intends to register. The government has already got the legislation in place and the regulations are being drafted as we speak for these other businesses to come through, but the increases here are unwise—unwise on two levels. First of all, they push the price of housing up. If you charge builders much more for the cost of registering their companies, there will be increased costs that have to be passed through. Those builders will not be able to absorb that cost. That cost will certainly be passed through. The VBA—a very inefficient organisation, a flawed organisation; I think even members of the government admit to many of the problems in the VBA—

A member interjected.

Mr DAVIS: No, they actually do. I have had conversations with many of them.

A member: Who? Name them.

Mr DAVIS: Well, indeed I think even the Minister for Planning has said that there are problems with the VBA. But let me just be clear: very few people in the community think the VBA is running well. It is an organisation that is top-heavy in many respects, but even aside from that it is an organisation that has not served consumers well. It has not served the building sector well either, and it is an organisation that has not got the outcomes that the Victorian community would want.

The changes that the government has put through will see huge increases and in a very small number of cases decreases in fees, but overwhelmingly very large increases in fees—100 per cent, 200 per cent and even more in some cases in terms of the scale of the increased fees. The government, I hasten to add, is also, as part of its process, planning to register a large list of trades and trade sectors. Carpenters are the first on the list, but also tilers, painters, plasterers and others are on the list to be forced to be formally registered by the Victorian Building Authority.

The government has gone a little slower on this than it had intended, partly because of COVID. Actually, I think it was a good thing that they paused with respect to COVID—there was a benefit. But the truth is they intend to press forward with their registration and they intend to put very large fees on every tradie, on every one of those registered groups, as they bring them forward. Now, some may argue that that registration is justified. It is the scale of the fees and the scale of the fee increases that we particularly resent, and we particularly stand up for the building industry, the building and construction sector and our tradies and say, ‘Those huge increases in fees—100, 200, 400 per cent in some cases—are fee increases that are far beyond what is satisfactory’.

We have indicated that it is the opposition—the Liberals and The Nationals—view that these charges should be reversed. They should revert to the charges that were in position before 2 May. They should step back from the increases, and they ought to make sure that those charges are paused at the 2 May level. That would provide some relief for those builders who are going to be clobbered, and clobbered hard, by these increases in fees.

The HIA, the Housing Industry Association, has been very clear on what these fee increases mean. They say that they will impose extra costs. They say that they will impact on many of the building firms. They have welcomed the opposition’s announcements on these matters. They have been very clear that this is not the right way to go and it is certainly not the right time to do it.

Let me also be clear on the impact of these new fee increases imposed by the Andrews Labor government through the VBA on 2 May. Those costs will flow straight through into housing affordability issues. We have already seen the government layer tax upon tax upon tax upon tax—more than two dozen new taxes on property by this government, taxes on building and construction, and the windfall gains tax, which is one which is yet to impact fully. That tax will increase the cost of housing directly. We saw the government push forward with its plan to put a new tax on every new property, where there were over three on the development, in Melbourne and in the country—that new tax that they proposed and have temporarily paused on, temporarily stepped back from, that they had shackled to public housing funding. They had actually said, ‘We’re going to provide a source of extra funding, and we’re going to do it through a tax’. That tax would have put $20 000 on a median-priced house in metropolitan Melbourne, it would have put $12 000 on a median-priced house in country Victoria—a straight hit, a straight tax, straight on top. The government had shackled that new tax to some planning reforms and changes.

Those planning reforms and changes are the result of significant work that has been done with a lot of the industry groups and others, and there are in those planning reforms and changes some sensible, practical suggestions that will lower the cost of permitting and supporting the housing sector. Whilst we have not seen the full details of them, we see that many of those changes make sense. We have made a commitment that if in government, we will introduce those planning reforms and changes. We will do that after consulting with councils and after consulting with communities, and we will do it quite quickly if we are elected in November. We will work through that process, and those of the reforms that sensibly move us forward we will adopt—we will introduce them.

The government says that there is $7 billion worth of cost savings to be achieved over 10 years. Even if only half of that were true—even if it was only $3.5 billion over 10 years—that is a significant load off the system, a significant lowering of the cost, and the proposals appear in many respects reasonable. So we say: why not introduce those reforms now? Why not impact on housing affordability by making it easier to get permits, cheaper to get permits, more efficient, and thereby lower the cost of housing? We agree with that objective that the government set themselves, but the idea that you would only do that if it was shackled with a massive new housing tax is a dumb, dumb idea. So we said no to the housing tax. But, make no mistake, if the government are re-elected in November, they will bring back that $20 000 tax on new homes in the city and that $12 000 tax on new homes in the country. That is what they will do.

I might say I was shocked to see the Greens out talking about this and saying that actually the government’s proposed tax is not big enough. They are saying it should be doubled. They are saying to double it, which would add $40 000 to a median-priced house in metropolitan Melbourne. So I just think of young families, young singles, others trying to buy a home getting shackled with an extra $20 000 or being hit with an extra $20 000 under the Labor Party—and goodness, if they had to do a deal with the Greens in the lower house to get government, I have no doubt Labor would do it and I have no doubt the Greens would do it. But the price of that could well be the Greens housing tax, which is a double whammy. They actually want to do a $40 000 hit on a median-priced house in metropolitan Melbourne. So all of this is very important, because housing affordability is one of the most important points.

I say on housing affordability there is a lot that can be done. We will have more to say. In this case one thing that we can do is immediately unwind the new charges that have been placed on builders and building surveyors and building companies and will be placed on all the tradies that are in that long train that are about to be registered. That will be providing more costs, more hit, on the purse of young people trying to buy homes. Why would you do that? Why would you make it harder for our building sector? I think the Housing Industry Association had it right. They praised what we announced, which is that we would reverse those changes—we would remove those increases and put it back to the charges that were there before 2 May this year. So that is a very practical way. It is a simple way.

I want to make another point. The very large firm Metricon, amongst other firms, is actually under real pressure. Now, we accept that there are worldwide pressures on the supply chain on wood and other supply inputs to housing.

Ms Terpstra: Steel.

Mr DAVIS: Steel, indeed. We accept that this is a significant challenge around the world, including in Victoria. We also accept that there are significant labour supply issues. There are shortages in key groups, no question about that. But it is in the context of that that we are facing real pressures on a number of our builders, and not just Metricon; other builders have got real pressures. Government needs to be a model in how it behaves here, and I communicated this directly to government to say, ‘You need to make sure that you pay on time’. You cannot have firms that are under real financial pressures, some not of their own making—some on these worldwide issues and supply issues and so forth. Government must be a model payer, and they must do what they can to keep the cash flow going.

Today in the chamber in question time I asked a question about a firm that has been caught betwixt and between on a government project. Government projects ought to be the exemplars of assisting firms from whatever state they are based in, because they employ Victorians. No matter what is going on here, they employ Victorians, and those that employ Victorians ought to be supported in this way. If they are making a constructive contribution in that way, there needs to be support.

I accept the pressures that are there, but I just ask the question: why would you, with all of the pressures there, increase the charges on builders? Why would you jack them up hundreds of per cent in some cases? Building surveyors clobbered with a massive new charge—why would you do that when the economy is so fragile at the moment and with the pressures in the building industry, the admitted supply issues and the labour issues? Why would you, as a response to that, slap a tax on it? Why would you do that? I do not understand the logic of a new tax in the middle of this sort of crisis. So I would take that tax off, and that is what this motion is about. It says, ‘Look, take that extra tax off. That is reasonable’.

The other side of this is the windfall gains tax. Now, that does not start until next year officially, but actually it is already beginning to impact on behaviour across the sector. People are looking at sites. The uncertainty around the windfall gains tax is making it very difficult for people—for builders and for those developers that have wanted to take up land. They look at the land. They see there could be remediation issues, for example. Will that be taken into account with the windfall gains tax? We moved amendments on those sorts of things. If there is a windfall gains tax collected in a particular area, where will the money go? Well, we know it just goes back into central revenue. It is not held in the municipality that it is collected in, and we say it ought to be. If you are going to have that kind of tax, well, let us make sure it supports services and infrastructure in the area near where it is collected. I do not think that is an unreasonable point if it just comes back into the city to fund cost blowouts in major projects. Many of these cost blowouts predate the pandemic. Many of these cost blowouts predate the supply issues. Many of these cost blowouts are simply because the government could not manage projects, could not scope them properly and could not get them under control.

There was a case mentioned in this chamber earlier in the day about the heart hospital—a very important hospital. It was actually our announcement in 2014, the heart hospital. We had a different site and a different model. Ours was $150 million. They announced a project at $150 million with some differences. Ours would have been built in four years. They said theirs would be built in four years. We are now almost eight years later—

Mrs McArthur: Not built.

Mr DAVIS: and it is not yet built, and instead of $150 million it is well over $500 million. It is more than $400 million over budget. So this is the failure of this government. What worries me about these taxes upon taxes upon taxes—these new taxes that this government scoops in—is they are not going often to constructive steps; they are going to fund waste and mismanagement, with money squandered on the poor scoping and poor planning of projects. If we look at the Metro Tunnel, that is almost $4 billion over budget. The West Gate Tunnel is almost $4 billion over budget. All of these are projects that have been botched and blundered because the government did not know how to manage these projects.

I am going to be quite clear on this straightforward motion. We recognise that there are cost pressures. The solution to those cost pressures is not more tax, it is actually less tax if you can possibly do it. Here is a practical way that we are suggesting to lower taxes on building, to lower taxes on construction and to lower taxes on firms that are under pressure now. They are under pressure, and I get that. And this pressure is not just in Victoria—of course it is not. But it is in Victoria that the taxes are being jacked up most harshly and most viciously, and they have targeted again and again and again the construction and building industry.

It is no wonder that housing affordability is so difficult. Forty per cent, roughly, of the cost of a new property is tax—roughly 40 per cent. The Urban Development Institute of Australia work makes it clear that around 40 per cent of the cost of a new property is tax. Then there are the delays in the planning system, and all of those just add and add and add. That makes it hard for young families. It makes it hard for people who want to buy a first home. It makes it hard for people who want to buy a second home even. All of these additional costs feed through. So the motion today is in that context of the challenges we face on housing affordability.

In the federal election we saw some options put forward. I thought the option of using some guided and structured access to super was actually not a bad one, and I thought that it was a superior option to the one provided by the new federal government. But I welcome any step that helps with housing affordability. What I think we need to be cautious of is this government—the state Labor government, the Andrews Labor government—returning again and again and again to clobber the construction and building industry and doing that in a way that makes it harder for them to provide the services, the building and the homes that are needed for people. One simple practical measure that this motion draws attention to is to reverse the new changes put in place. We can as a state make sure that those charges are not jacked up on builders, building firms, building surveyors and others, and the list of trades that are very close to being registered. So that is a practical way forward. It will help.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:49): I rise to speak on this motion 768 in Mr Davis’s name calling on the Andrews Labor government to reverse its decision to, as he says, increase—I will not go into all the descriptive language in this, but it is basically calling on us to reverse our changes in building registration charges.

What I thought I would do to commence my contribution today was to, for those who might be playing along at home and watching this debate, perhaps do a little bit of explaining around what this is actually about, because I noticed Mr Davis’s contribution was very heavy on flourishing rhetoric. Effectively the Victorian Building Authority is resetting its building practitioner registration fees, and the changes will create a fairer fee structure for practitioners, contrary to what Mr Davis says. The Victorian Building Authority is the chief regulator of Victoria’s building industry, and as a self-funded regulator it is critical that the VBA has the resources needed to maintain safety and compliance through effective and efficient regulation. It is important because it is a critical industry. The Victorian Building Authority is funded through building and plumbing registration fees and the building permit levy. The legal instrument to change building fees sits under the Minister for Planning’s head of power. The Victorian Building Authority is creating a fairer building practitioner fee structure to support future growth in the building industry.

The new fee structure reflects changes in how industry and practitioners operate and the increasing costs of regulation since the structure was put in place in 2005. So you can see that quite some time has passed since there has been a review of the fee structure. Over the last eight years there has been an 86.3 per cent increase in the value of building work, a 31 per cent increase in building permits issued and a 22 per cent increase in the number of individuals registered as building practitioners. The new fee structure is now aligned with other jurisdictions. Fees for commercial builders and domestic builders over the registration life cycle are comparable to those charged in other jurisdictions. The fees for other categories of registration, such as building surveyors, remain lower compared to some other jurisdictions as an incentive to attract new entrants into the field.

The VBA has given practitioners ample notice of the change so they can prepare for this. The new system introduces a hardship provision as well to support those practitioners who are doing it tough. It will allow the VBA to respond to the continued growth in the industry and to continue to protect consumers, as we know consumer protection is very important. It will promote the integrity of the building industry through the benefits of registration and greater regulatory oversight. The new fee structure more accurately reflects the cost of regulating the building industry. The VBA did announce its new fee structure on Friday, 11 February, so we do believe that there has been ample notification to the sector to enable them to prepare for these changes. And there are more risks to the community through practitioners using corporate vehicles because of the limitation to liability and the risks of phoenixing, which leaves consumers with little or no protection and which goes to my earlier point about why we need to ensure consumer protection. As I said, where you have got different providers using different corporate models, the risks increase. As I said, phoenixing can happen, and this leaves consumers with very little protection. There are higher costs associated with this to regulate corporate practitioners because of these business models that are being used.

So the new fees for corporate practitioners reflect the value gained from using a company structure and the increased oversight required by the VBA, and I think that is what is lost on Mr Davis in his contribution and that perhaps what he is not factoring into why the government is having to do this is exactly the reasons I have just mentioned—because there are different structures that corporations and individuals are using and there is an increase then in administration, so there is increased oversight required by the VBA.

Fees for other categories of registration, such as building surveyors, as I said earlier, remain lower compared to other jurisdictions, and this was done as an incentive to attract new entrants into the field. But we also understand that due to COVID-19 and related pressures some practitioners are experiencing financial hardship or facing special circumstances. As a result of that the VBA is developing a fee relief scheme to assist these practitioners and to alleviate any other unforeseen circumstances, as we did during 2020 and 2021 for those impacted by COVID-19.

As I said earlier, we did outline our changes to the sector on 11 February this year. We are giving close to three months notice of the change in fee structure so that practitioners can indeed get ready for this, so there has been ample notice given, and we have consulted closely with the sector as well on all of these matters.

People might say, ‘Why should I maintain my registration given the fee changes? Why should I keep my registration?’. The issue is that the registration gives you the right to practise and it shows people that you are qualified, skilled and experienced to do the job. To be registered you have to meet strict criteria. This is why we need to have regulatory oversight in the building sector, because as we know, if we look to some other jurisdictions, particularly overseas, sometimes accidents as a result of poor builds in the construction sector can have catastrophic events. That is why we have high standards here in this country and we have high standards in Victoria, and we are unapologetic about that. But with that comes a requirement to support the sector through regulation and oversight.

It is unlawful for a person who is not registered to carry out building work requiring a building permit for work valued at more than $10 000. By being registered practitioners benefit through the legitimisation of their services over unregistered persons who may be unqualified or lack the qualifications or competencies to deliver safe and compliant building works. This is absolutely critical. Consumers benefit therefore by knowing that registered practitioners are competent and qualified to complete building work in the classes in which they are registered. This is really critically important. Consumers have additional protections because of the increased level of regulatory oversight over registered practitioners.

If we were to take the advice of those opposite, if we reversed everything—stripped fees and the like—we would actually see unsafe worksites and people being injured in workplaces. Stripping fees and regulations absolutely results in unsafe worksites and unsafe buildings, and this threatens everyone in the building chain. Contrary to what Mr Davis says, the increases have been supported by industry, which is every bit as keen as this government to drive out rogue developers and dodgy builders. The fees are in line with other states and are vital to regulate a safe building industry. As I said earlier, there has been an increase in building permits. In fact over the last eight years there has been a 30 per cent increase in building permits issued and a 20 per cent increase in the number of registered builders alone. That is a very sizeable increase, and that is why we have to make sure that we keep our registration system and fees have to be fit for purpose and keep pace with other jurisdictions. As I said earlier, and I will say it again, the VBA has given practitioners significant notice of the change so they can prepare, and we are also looking to introduce a hardship model so that if people are suffering hardship, this government will support those practitioners to adapt to the changes.

Corporate registrations will also cost more than individual registrations, and that reflects the fact that corporations will have more capacity to pay than perhaps individuals or sole operators. Again, it is looking at who has the greatest capacity to pay. The new fee structure will protect building consumers and promote the integrity of the building industry through the benefits of registration and greater regulatory oversight. As I said before, the new fee structure will more accurately reflect the costs involved in regulating Victoria’s building industry for all the reasons I have just outlined. There have been increases in people coming into the sector and we have got a massive uptick in building permits and the like, so it is only reasonable that we make sure we have a fit-for-purpose system to support that.

Tradespeople know that only Labor supports them. This is critically important. A resource regulator means unsafe worksites and unsafe buildings, which threatens everyone in the building industry, whether they are tradies or consumers. I know you guys do not like regulation; you would really like to have nothing. But the problem is people get injured, people get hurt and then what happens? We cannot have that. That is why we have got to have regulation; we have got to have a properly regulated and funded industry.

I understand where Mr Davis is coming from, but his motion is ill thought out and does not reflect the realities of the building industry and the sector. The government has consulted widely and closely with all who are involved in this sector. This motion should not be supported by the house, and I urge everyone in this chamber to also reject this motion.

Ms BURNETT-WAKE (Eastern Victoria) (17:00): I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Mr Davis’s motion 768. On 2 May, the day before the budget was released, Daniel Andrews decided he would significantly increase the fees for individual and company building registration. While he was at it, he also hiked up the renewal fees. This is yet another tax imposed on hardworking Victorians by the Andrews Labor government. What the government fails to understand, or perhaps fails to empathise with, is that these increases will severely impact our tradies and construction workers at a time when they have, frankly, been through enough. The lengthy lockdowns, the limits on how many people can be on site for any given length of time and supply chain delays have taken their toll on the industry, with many small businesses having no choice but to close their doors. Tradies across the industry have had to juggle compliance with COVID-19 rules with the need to meet contracts, which in many cases could not be done.

Even larger companies have gone into administration, citing the uncertain business environment, such as the government’s regular builder, Probuild, leaving $5 billion in building projects unfinished. The impact of this is being felt by many Victorians, such as my constituents who attend the Rosebud Primary School. I have spoken in this chamber previously about how the children are going home covered in dirt due to their playground being an unfinished construction site, due to Probuild going into administration.

These taxes will have a further impact on the industry, but that impact will be handed down to everyday Victorians. The hardship is already being felt down the line by Victorian home owners, who are eagerly awaiting the completion of their homes after lengthy delays due to the supply chain issues and a lack of building materials. But the industry pressure does not end there. This new tax will ultimately lead to increased housing costs for Victorians. If builders and construction workers are having to pay more to do their jobs, they will have to charge more to their customers, who are everyday Victorians. The dream of owning a home or building a new one is getting further and further away from reality for so many Victorians with the rising cost of living. The last thing this state needs is increased taxes on the construction and building industries. What they need is a state where hard work is rewarded and taxes are minimised. These tradies work extremely hard, and there is simply no justification for these increases. If we want our housing sector to be competitive, it needs lower charges, not higher taxes. This increase will only add to the cost of business, and that hike will be felt further down the line by homebuyers.

Driving around, everyone has seen those numberplates: ‘Victoria—the place to be’. Isn’t that a great memory? We know that over 45 000 people left our state at the height of the pandemic. We need to rebuild Victoria’s reputation as a place to invest in and move to. This will not happen if it remains a place where tradies and builders are clobbered with unnecessary taxes and charges. That is why the Liberals and Nationals will have them reversed if elected to government in November this year. I commend this motion.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:03): I think it is very important that we put this in perspective—that is, we need to think about the reputation of the majority of those professionals in the building industry. Registration is an important part of that because it differentiates them from those who have not got the same skills and capacity to carry out work that Victorians can rely on. That is one point I want to make.

Secondly, consumers need to know that the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) has the resources it needs and requires to be able to keep them safe, because at the end of the day think of the cost of inadequate regulation. If you under-resource, think about what that might mean for consumers. I am hearing a very one-sided story from those opposite, and they are not actually thinking about the benefit and the reputation of the building industry itself. I will say, and I will make a qualification: we know that most professionals in the building industry are doing the right thing, but unfortunately there are those who are not and there are those who are trying to cut corners.

Ultimately if the VBA does not have the resources it needs—that is what this is all about: making sure that they have resources that are fit and proper for where the industry is at here and now rather than some other era that those opposite are talking about or reflecting on. I do not know what that is. It is so that consumers know and can rely on the quality work that is being delivered in this state. I am just going to refer to a media release. It is dated 29 March 2022:

The Victorian building watchdog issued more than $180,000 worth of penalties to building practitioners found breaking the rules in the past three months.

The Victorian Building Authority … has penalised 29 building practitioners a total of $180,750 from December 2021 to February 2022 for various breaches of the Building Act and Building Regulations.

Breaches have included failure to call for mandatory inspections, failure to comply with directions to fix non-compliant work, issuing building permits inconsistent with applicable planning permit requirements and using false certificates of insurance.

The VBA’s Executive Director, Regulatory Operations, David Brockman said that it was a practitioner’s obligation to comply with the rules and keep Victorians safe.

Did you notice how conveniently those opposite left the safety aspect out of this debate today? Regulation has a very sound and proper purpose, and that is so that Victorians can rely on the quality work that is delivered in this state. So if the VBA is to be able to aptly do its job, we need to support it appropriately.

I might add that the new fee structure is now aligned with other jurisdictions. If you listened to what those opposite said today, you would think that Victoria was some extraordinary outlier imposing the fee structure that is being put in place, when in fact the new fee structure—and I will repeat this—is now aligned with other jurisdictions. So that is what I mean also when it comes to the point of having some perspective in this space and in this debate.

There are many other aspects to this, and I know Ms Terpstra has put them on the record today, and that has been most constructive, because we are fairly short on time. But one thing that I did want to reiterate is that the new structure will allow the VBA to continue to help protect consumers and promote the integrity of the building industry through the benefits of registration and greater regulatory oversight. The changes will create a fairer fee structure across all practitioners. Recognising the differences in registration categories, the new fee structure means different increases dependent on the type and number of registrations held by a practitioner.

To come back to that reputation aspect—when we are looking at the building industry, thinking of those in the building industry—and that question, ‘Why should I maintain my registration given the fee changes?’, well, your registration gives you the right to practise. It shows people you are qualified, skilled and experienced to do the job. To be registered you need to have met strict criteria. It is unlawful for a person who is not registered to carry out building work requiring a building permit for work valued at more than $10 000. By being registered, practitioners benefit through the legitimisation of their services over unregistered persons who may be unqualified or lack the qualifications or competencies to deliver safe and compliant building work. So I would ask those opposite to remember Victorian consumers and think about them and think about the cost to them for work that does not meet the requisite building standards. I note that this is in the minority. I am not trying to cast aspersions here, but we have to be realistic that there are those who do not meet the requirements. So maybe, those opposite, when you are thinking about cost, think about the cost of not regulating properly.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:09): I rise to support Mr Davis’s motion and to support those building companies, surveyors and tradies who are the latest target of a bankrupt government which fails to understand that taxing enterprise is not just immoral but is ultimately economic suicide. You socialists do not understand that in the end you run out of other people’s money. That is what happens when you keep taxing people.

The alarm bells rang in the first line of the authority’s media release, which notes:

The … VBA … is resetting its building registration fee structure, to create a fairer fee structure that supports future growth in the industry.

I agree with one part of that. It will support future growth, but that growth will be in the regulator, not the building sector being slugged with this latest demand, and it certainly will not be fairer. In fact it is highway robbery.

Builders, many small and medium-sized companies, are currently facing huge pressure on their fragile operating margins. We know all about that—they are going broke everyday. The ongoing impacts of COVID are felt not just in vaccination mandates and staff shortages but in the supply crisis and extraordinary delays and cost inflation it has brought about. The numbers affected are substantial. More than 26 000 registered individuals and 11 000 companies will face these utterly unjustified increased charges, and all Victorians in the property market will pay as prices rise to accommodate the Victorian Building Authority’s (VBA) increased cut.

This increase bears no relation whatsoever to inflation, even at its current level. For a domestic builder, the practitioner registration fees have gone up by more than 180 per cent—180 per cent more just for the pleasure of being regulated by the VBA, just to have the freedom to do the work you have been doing for years. This really does nothing to shift the feeling of some that government regulators like the VBA are little more than parasites on the industries they serve.

The government often seems to assume that these price hikes can be passed on to consumers and the market will just take it. That was certainly their approach with the windfall tax which they have only just introduced, but many of these small operators have quoted on fixed-price agreements. They are already absorbing huge increases in material costs and wages. This kind of thing, this tax, will be the final straw. It is just tax after tax after tax and for literally no improved service or offering.

The stresses on the industry are apparent. Even major operators like Probuild have folded, and rumours continue about the fate of Metricon. My concern is for the smaller businesses which do not attract the column space and whose staff are not paid employees, leaving the invoices at the office, but owners of family businesses struggling to make ends meet. Torquay businessman Anthony Lococo seems sadly typical. He spoke to the Age about the difficult decision to close his business and put his seven employees out of work. He said:

It’s been a heartbreaking decision to make, but after two years of struggling to get materials and trades, and costs continuingly blowing out and eating into anything that even looked like a profit margin, I decided at Christmas that I just couldn’t face another year of it … I’m drained … I’ve had enough.

That is a local business in Western Victoria Region. There are hundreds of thousands across Victoria like him. How can you sit there and want to tax people more so they go out of business?

This is not a complex motion. We need to reduce costs on this sector and to stop the latest attack on business and on the competitiveness of the Victorian economy. I strongly support Mr Davis here and the promise he has made that the future Liberal government will reverse this damaging raid on a sector so central to Victoria’s economy.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.