Tuesday, 12 May 2026

Clause 1 (16:26)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just a few questions from me. Looking at the Building and Plumbing Administration and Enforcement Bill 2026, I understand that rectification orders can be issued on works that have been completed within the last 10 years, being valid for any buildings that had a final approval residency permit issued within that 10-year period. With respect to the design of this legislation, Minister, was it the government’s intention that developers may avoid liability within the 10-year period in the instance where consumers were proactive and had fixed defects that had to be fixed for safety or compliance or continued use of the building? Was that avoidance of liability intentional?

Harriet SHING: The short answer is no. That is not actually part of this bill. I think that probably relates more to the buyer protections legislation, and we covered that in some detail when we went through the committee stage. I am very happy to go through some of the detail, if you would like, but in essence there will be situations where home owners need to urgently address building defects and seek to be reimbursed for these costs. Rectification orders, though, are not dealt with in this particular bill. They have gone through with the buyer protections legislation, and they are anticipated to commence on 1 July after we have finalised those regulations, which were recently released for public consultation. Rectification orders as such will not allow for reimbursement, but an owner could make a claim for these costs under the new first-resort home warranty scheme – for those who have purchased cover from 1 July this year – and that will generally apply to homes with a rise of storeys of three or less. Subject to any limitations and exclusions, urgent works by the owner would be claimable as a loss arising from or in connection with defective or noncompliant building work. But it is important to note that in emergencies the owner would first need the Building and Plumbing Commission’s approval to carry out urgent works, and the BPC will have a customer service assistance phone line when the first-resort home warranty scheme starts on 1 July this year. But rectification orders are not designed to respond to emergency scenarios. The powers to respond to incidents that pose an immediate danger to life, safety or health are actually vested in municipal building surveyors.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can I ask, specifically with respect to buildings that are three storeys or above, those larger apartment tower type dwellings, what recourse is available to consumers who fall within those particular circumstances? What recourse is available for people in those circumstances where they are in those larger buildings above three storeys?

Harriet SHING: That, Mr Puglielli, is where the developer bond would apply. So that is the 2 per cent that was covered off in the buyer protections legislation committee stage and in the course of that bill and its passage.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just for the avoidance of any doubt – say, for those of us that have been contacted by constituents, for example, in these sorts of circumstances – who should they be going to, and what should they be reporting to make sure that they can seek recourse for any works that have had to be undertaken within their building?

Harriet SHING: The Building and Plumbing Commission.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: In the future will the BPC have capacity to issue rectification orders quickly in the instance that a defect needs to be urgently rectified?

Harriet SHING: Rectification orders are not designed to respond to emergency situations, as I have just outlined to you. Powers to respond to those incidents do sit with municipal building surveyors. There are steps that need to be undertaken prior to the commission issuing a rectification order, and they include investigation and also engagement with the practitioner. The circumstances are anticipated to vary really widely and will impact upon the timing of what occurs in an individual circumstance.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: That investigation period – is there a timeline in some respect that you can update the house with?

Harriet SHING: Again, it will depend upon the type of rectification order being sought. Again, I just want to be really clear around the fact that they are not intended to respond to emergency scenarios. That has been part of the ongoing consultation and discussion around administration and enforcement and what that framework looks like, but this is part of the first-resort insurance regulations. They are not in this bill, and they have in fact been gazetted today.

David DAVIS: I just have a handful of questions that I want to ask. Clause 155 – it might just be convenient to deal with these in the purposes clause – bans a domestic builder who has entered into a major domestic building contract from appointing a private building surveyor. Paragraph 155(2)(c) extends this ban to a director of the builder if the builder is a company, or a business partner of the builder. My question is: what happens if the director or business partner is the actual owner of the land on which the home will be built? For example, a builder who may want to build their own home or want to appoint a private building surveyor. Or is it the case that they will be forced to engage the municipal building surveyor whether one is available or not?

Harriet SHING: That is quite an intricate question. I am just getting some further detail from the advisers. I can perhaps flag that we will put a placeholder on it and come back.

David DAVIS: Further, clause 188 replaces section 128 of the Building Act 1993. It provides a building surveyor with immunity from liability if they rely in good faith on a certificate given to them by a registered building practitioner or endorsed engineer. Unlike the Building Act, there is a provision stating that if the building surveyor would be liable for the immunity, then the person who issued the certificate has liability attached to them. What is the purpose of this provision? Why is it needed? If the certificate was incorrect, surely there would already be liability for the person who issued the certificate.

Harriet SHING: You have asked a question about the way in which liabilities will operate and the new civil liabilities of company officers. Clauses 315 and 316 are the ones that are relevant there that will apply to officers of bodies corporate if a body corporate contravenes a specified civil penalty provision and the officer fails to exercise due diligence to prevent the body corporate’s contravention, as well as those new liabilities that apply in division 3 of part 6.5 to company officers. Clauses 312 to 316 include people who are officers under the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 or any other person who takes part in the management of a company. The Building Act currently provides that any person who takes part in the management of a company is criminally liable if they were knowingly concerned in any offence by the company under the Building Act. The major difference between the current and new regimes is the introduction of clauses 313 and 314, which provide that liability can be based on a failure to exercise due diligence and an officer can bear the burden of proving that they did exercise due diligence respectively, but these forms of liability apply only for a limited range of serious offences in building legislation. In a criminal proceeding, if a company officer is found guilty they will face fines and other potential sentencing orders. The clauses in division 3 of part 6.5 apply in relation to any body corporate that commits one of the relevant offences in building legislation irrespective of whether the body corporate that commits the offence is a developer or not.

It is also really important to look to joint and several liabilities of directors of bodies corporate. At a high level, the Building and Plumbing Commission will be able to issue a declared director notice if satisfied that at a relevant point in time a person was a director of a body corporate contravening a relevant provision or order issued to the body corporate under the act and that relevant directives or orders issued under the Building Act are rectification orders, rectification costs orders, directions to fix, emergency orders or building audits. This new power is needed to incentivise company compliance with consumer and public protection orders in the first place, and it is appropriate for directors to be personally liable if the company fails to comply, because compliance with regulatory orders is fairly and squarely within the knowledge and control of directors and they decide whether the company complies or not.

That new statutory insurance scheme provides a backstop if a company does not comply with the rectification orders, but not all consumers are covered by insurance. That includes people in high-rise apartment buildings, and in some very bad examples of defective or insufficient work we do want to make sure that we are in a position to have somebody pick up the tab and get that work fixed. We do want to make sure also that the new power applies only to directors and not to other company officers.

David DAVIS: I just want to turn now to clause 197. Clause 197 of the bill allows for internal review of decisions made by the BPC. It allows for an internal review to stay a decision unless it involves an emergency, interim or immediate suspension of a registration or licence. This seems to effectively ensure that if the BPC wants to suspend a builder registration or licence there will be no stay of that decision pending the completion of the internal review. This is a harsh position, though the BPC has only 28 days to complete the internal review. What happens, is the question, if the internal review or an external review overturns the decision? Will the registration or licence holder be compensated, or can the builder avoid the need to seek an internal review and appeal straight to VCAT?

Harriet SHING: Thank you, Mr Davis, for that question. There were two questions as part of it. In the first instance, you can elect to bypass the internal review and go directly to VCAT. And on the question of compensation and that 28-day period for internal review, compensation would not be part of seeking an internal review where a decision comes back in either direction. That is not dissimilar to other parts of regulatory frameworks where an internal review process and determination is made in accordance with that process.

David DAVIS: I now want to turn to clause 364. The proposed section 364 allows a person who suffers loss, injury or damage because of a contravention of a provision of building legislation, which includes the Building Act, Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and even security of payment legislation, to sue in a court of competent jurisdiction. This new provision was not in the Building Act. It looks like the provision could be used by a person involved in a building project to sue for damages in a court without the need to go through the BPC’s mandatory conciliation process and then VCAT. With the delays in VCAT being well reported, this seems to be a way for those who can afford a lawyer to take a shortcut. Is that the intent of that provision?

Harriet SHING: It is not the intention of the provision to provide any kind of shortcut, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: Whether it is intentional or not, does it have the effect of allowing a shortcut?

Harriet SHING: Do you mean instead of the internal review process? I think the easiest way, Mr Davis, for me to explain it is just to be really clear that there is not actually a shortcut as such. There are pathways that people can elect to pursue, whether through internal review or through heading directly to VCAT. When one makes a choice, there are consequences that flow from each of those pathways, and it is intended as part of this reform to provide a better measure of autonomy for people to make the decisions about seeking the remedy that they may feel is fit for them.

David DAVIS: Well, just a little further then, as the building legislation contains a number of requirements, it may not be too difficult for a consumer to identify a contravention so they can sue a builder or another person involved in their home building project. Is it expected that consumers will easily be able to rely on this provision to avoid the mandatory BPC conciliation process and VCAT?

Harriet SHING: This is not a framework that has been established to allow or encourage consumers to take shortcuts or to bypass, in perhaps something other than good faith, a process by which a claim may be made. Very squarely the focus of this legislation and indeed the focus of our entire reform is to create a better measure of balance between consumers on the one hand and builders and industry on the other hand, and the regulation and enforcement provisions are intended to provide a better ease of access for consumers to remedies and a better capacity to make choices about how those remedies are sought. The mediation dispute resolution process is not dissimilar to work that has occurred previously under previous systems, and this is about making sure that that alternative dispute resolution framework continues to be available as part of what we hope will be an opportunity to fix situations in a remedial way so that the relationship between parties is able to be maintained.

David DAVIS: I am not sure that fully allays my concerns, but nonetheless let us move on. It is worth noting that a consumer might also breach building legislation. For example, a consumer may elect to not bother getting a building permit and therefore breach section 16 of the Building Act. Another example is a consumer occupying a house without an occupancy permit under section 39 of the Building Act. Will it be possible for a person such as a builder or perhaps an unregistered tradesperson to sue a consumer for losses they suffered because the consumer failed to obtain a building permit or occupied a home without an occupancy permit?

Harriet SHING: I am not sure how losses can flow to a builder because a consumer occupies a building prior to an occupancy permit being issued, Mr Davis. Perhaps you can provide a bit more clarity around how you think that losses might crystallise for a builder.

David DAVIS: I think if I was to speculate on that, it might be that there is an injury that occurs to somebody or there is some outcome that is unsatisfactory – somebody occupying the house, for example, in some way is captured by the fact that an incident occurs or something negative occurs. Is the consumer absolved of responsibility in this sense, or is it possible that one of those other groups, the builder or an unregistered tradesperson, might be able to sue?

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, until such time as an occupancy permit has been issued a premises is not deemed to be fit for occupation, so I am not sure how it is that you would –

David DAVIS: Consumers do do that, though, sometimes.

Harriet SHING: Yes – seek to ascribe a measure of compensation payable to a builder for injury, which I think was the example that you cited there. The occupancy permit framework exists for a very specific purpose – that is, to permit a building literally to be occupied because certain threshold conditions have been met. This framework, including first-resort rectification orders and post-occupancy processes, exists to provide consumers with that measure of protection. This is not a bill that contemplates what might occur, for example, in a civil matter – a tort, for example – where a builder might seek compensation for damage to property or breach of any kind of contract and provisions under the contract which ordinarily, or at least in many instances, would require that the building not be occupied until such time as an occupancy permit had been issued.

David DAVIS: I understand the minister’s point, but I think she is perhaps not listening to my concern here. It is a possibility that a consumer might jump the occupancy permit – that happens – and in that circumstance there may be some negative outcome for the builder or a tradesperson. Are they held responsible for that?

Harriet SHING: The builder would have to establish the loss or injury or damage that occurred as a consequence of the contravention. That is again where we are talking about a tort. We are also potentially talking about a breach of contract. There are any number of different possibilities in the hypothetical that you have advanced that might crystallise in civil law – tort law ameliorated by contract – or in other frameworks whereby a builder has received an undertaking from a consumer not to enter a premises or to occupy it until such time as certain things are satisfied, including the issuing of an occupancy permit. This is, I would say, Mr Davis, something that to my mind crystallises outside of the scope of this bill and is probably most appropriately addressed through tort, through contract or through the framing of an agreement between builder and consumer.

David DAVIS: Minister, I will just accept your points there. Other than that earlier point, on which we are awaiting some further response –

Harriet SHING: Oh yes, sorry, I do –

David DAVIS: You do have that.

Harriet SHING: For the building surveyor issue, the owner and builder who is a building surveyor, which I think was the example that you referred to there, should actually appoint a separate surveyor so that they can act independently in accordance with the building surveyor code of conduct. The code of conduct sits outside of the bill itself, but as a general provision it has got eight core principles that building surveyors must adhere to when providing building surveyor services. They are:

1.   Act in accordance with the law and in the public interest.

2.   Act with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.

So they are two relevant components here.

3.   Perform competently and within the required level of expertise and experience.

4.   Act independently.

Which again is another relevant consideration.

5.   Avoid conflicts of interest.

Again, another relevant consideration.

6.   Document and maintain records.

7.   Communicate promptly and effectively.

8.   Provide a complaint handling process and address issues of non-compliance.

So there are a number of components there in those principles of conduct that would apply, to my mind, in any reasonable scenario, such as that which you have outlined, and would probably result in advice being given to any surveyor as an owner-builder that they appoint a separate surveyor, in compliance with those code-of-conduct principles.

David DAVIS: I have one further little group of questions. I listened closely to your earlier response, and I am not sure you quite captured the level of concern that the opposition has and also many tradespeople, the Master Builders, the Housing Industry Association (HIA) and others have about the increase in costs. The Master Builders say that construction costs under these legislative changes will increase by 10 to 30 per cent, and they say roughly 10 per cent of the increase to the contract price is to allow for future rectification orders. That is a very clear but real cost on new properties and new construction. You might think for a $400,000 house another 10 per cent is actually quite significant. Then they say the remaining 11 to 30 per cent allows for changes in the National Construction Code (NCC) 2025, which is being introduced in May this year; allows for increases in insurance premiums as a result of changes to first-resort insurance; and makes some allowance for the increase in costs to reporting, for example, to comply with the new minimum financial requirements (MFRs). So 10 per cent plus another 20 per cent is 30 per cent; that is a very significant increase in costs. For young families and others this will potentially be a devastating blow. I understand the need to have better arrangements. I talked about that in my contribution, and I understand the objectives, but the aim is to achieve that without ratcheting up costs. The trouble with the bill is it does appear to do that and it does appear to have that consequence. I just wonder if you would respond to the points made by the industry associations. Can you provide any assurance that would allay my fears now as to those cost increases?

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, on the question of costs, building defects cost Victorians presently $675 million – the defects – so we are actually protecting –

David DAVIS: At least.

Harriet SHING: Well, thank you, yes – at least. Defects themselves cost $675 million, so we are actually protecting consumers from the potentially debilitating costs that sit within that figure that can be incurred when consumers are forced to self-rectify that dodgy building work. Mr Davis, this is not a zero-sum game here. We do need to make sure that we are striking the right balance. You are, I think, probably also referring to matters that sit outside of this bill, that are out of scope as they relate to costs to build homes here in Victoria. Are you are talking about the building levy, Mr Davis? Yes, okay.

The new non-regional building levy component will be 0.37 cents for every dollar of the cost of building work that is $1.5 million or more, only imposed on class 2 to 8 buildings that are not in regional Victoria. In addition to that, the total amount of building permit levy to be imposed for class 2 to 8 buildings in non-regional Victoria will actually reduce by 50 per cent if the cost of building work is between $800,000 and up to $1 million, 66 per cent if the cost of building work is between $1 million and $1.5 million and 47 per cent if the cost of building work is $1.5 million or more. There are no changes to the rate or the amount of building permit levy in regional Victoria. The building permit levy is not increasing for any building class.

There is a penalty levy, and that is imposed if the building work that required a permit was carried out without a permit as well. So again, this is about making sure that we are providing a disincentive for people to contravene the building legislation, and they have been set by reference to other tax contraventions. Mr Davis, this is about, again, the striking of a balance between those self-funded rectification works that have previously not been covered by the supports or protections that consumers have needed; this framework, which provides that measure of support and consistent outcome; and again, those fairer changes through the levy framework that I have just discussed with you.

David DAVIS: But it is also the insurance premiums that will come with this change to first-resort insurance and some allowance, it has been put to me by the industry groups, for an increase in the cost of reporting to comply with the new minimum financial requirements. There are a number of layers, not just one or two, that are adding to the costs. Do you have a figure that is different from the 30 per cent that is proposed as the likely increase in cost by the industry associations?

Harriet SHING: Sorry, Mr Davis, you may have been conflating a couple of things here. Minimum financial requirements are buyer protections, and first-resort insurance premiums are buyer protections. We have been through that in significant, granular detail. That has been part of significant discussion over an extensive period of time now with industry. I do not want to be drawn, in the course of this particular committee stage, Mr Davis, on matters that are not within the scope of this bill. This is ground we have traversed before, I think, over a number of hours in fact. We have continued to engage with industry outside of this process to make sure that they are aware of this further work as it adds on to buyer protections, MFRs and first-resort insurance premiums.

David DAVIS: Minister, you seem to actually be confirming that there is going to be a significant increase in costs. I think that is what you are saying. That is what the sector is saying. They are saying that there will be the 10 per cent increase to the contract price to allow for future rectification orders, and then they are saying the remaining 11 to 30 per cent allows for changes in the NCC 2025, which is being introduced in May this year, increases to insurance premiums as a result of the change to first-resort insurance and some allowance for increasing costs to reporting et cetera to comply with the new minimum financial requirements. So some of these are about the act. Some of them seem to me to add additional costs. If you have a different figure from that 10 plus 20, maybe you can justify a different figure. Give me a carefully thought through figure. If it is 22 per cent or what, I am interested to hear that. But at the moment I have these estimates by the industry groups, and they do concern me.

Harriet SHING: I am going to take you back to the first statement in your last contribution, Mr Davis. I am not saying what you have ascribed to me. Let us be really clear about that. I am not saying I agree with your figures. I am very happy to talk with you about costs when there is legislation in the committee stage that actually dictates costs. You are talking about things, Mr Davis, that are out of scope. We have actually just introduced legislation to make minimum financial requirements more workable for industry today in the Legislative Assembly. In the other place today, Mr Davis, legislation was introduced that goes directly to the matters –

David DAVIS: I am happy to say I was not there, as I think you ought to realise.

Harriet SHING: Well, Mr Davis, I am not sure what you do with your time when you are not in the chamber, but we are very happy to have a conversation with you as we go through that legislation that is now in the Legislative Assembly. I would not agree with you at all, and I would not want anyone to be drawn on concluding that I agree with you, about any significant increase of costs to industry as a result of this bill. If we should be looking for the cause of any cost increases, Mr Davis – and I hate to invoke his name in the course of this debate – we should actually be looking to supply chain instability, which industry has identified in the course of discussions about the National Construction Code is actually caused by Donald Trump’s war in Iran. I can hear the Deputy President scoffing, which is unfortunate, but what I would say is that this is an issue which industry has raised in that context around the NCC. If you do want to talk about increases to costs, we can look at that, as far as a broader discussion on pressures across the industry, whether that is with feedstock for anything from pipes through to bitumen, right through to the challenge of supply chain and delivery of fuel. But Mr Davis, legislation has been introduced to make those MFRs more workable, and that will no doubt be something that we get to talk about in the not-too-distant future.

David DAVIS: I am not going to labour the point here, but I am going to make it very clear that I am not satisfied with the minister’s response. In fact all of the indications from the industry are that there will be significant increases in costs. The minister has done nothing to allay my concerns on this. You might want to point to Donald Trump and the Middle East –

Harriet SHING: That is what industry has pointed to, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: A lot of matters around this bill predate those points.

Harriet SHING: Have a look at their letter on the NCC. That refers to Donald Trump’s war.

David DAVIS: The NCC changes, I understand, related to 2025 originally.

Harriet SHING: Why are they referring to the war in Iran, then? That is your stakeholder saying that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, without assistance.

David DAVIS: I am just indicating to you, Deputy President, that I do not think it is convincing with this sort of bill to point to the Middle East as the main problem. This bill in and of itself and the associated matters have the capacity, it seems to industry – and that is the material provided to me – to increase the cost of housing. That is what the industry has told me. It may be that there are world events that also impact costs. That does not diminish the problems that this bill might have. It does not diminish the costs that might come from the current arrangements that predate the Middle East and relate to this bill. They are not mutually exclusive. Minister, I think even you would have to concede that.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, I would encourage you to speak with the head of the HIA in relation to requests as they relate to the National Construction Code and the attribution of concern – further concern – about the National Construction Code as it relates to geopolitical events and challenges caused by upward pressure on prices as a result of the war that we have never asked to have impact upon us here in Australia. Mr Davis, it is, however, pleasing to note, as you did in your contribution, that you will be supporting this bill –

David Davis interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, I am just going to read that onto the record that you have now said that you will not be supporting this legislation.

David Davis interjected.

Harriet SHING: Okay. That is a very different position to that which you outlined in the second-reading debate, Mr Davis. If indeed it is that you are saying that consumers should not have protection, should not have a measure of recourse and should not have the benefit of the Building and Plumbing Commission – which, again, we heard from people interjecting, including the Deputy President, about how the Building and Plumbing Commission is in fact, cleaning up the industry – and if you are saying now, Mr Davis, that the Building and Plumbing Commission is not needed to clean up the industry, then that is something that you should absolutely put on the record. I think Victorians will be very interested to hear it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would just like to clarify that my comments were not about the Building and Plumbing Commission cleaning up the industry but rather about Anna Cronin cleaning up the Victorian Building Authority.

David DAVIS: I think the minister is trying to run around in circles here. The fact is, as I outlined in my second-reading contribution, that I think the current authority has made some very useful steps, and I am very happy to concede that. But that is a different question than what is in this bill, and there is much in this bill for which the impact is not yet clear and not known. That is why we moved a reasoned amendment to seek greater consultation with the sector. That is what we did, and we did that for the reason that the government has pushed this through the lower house very quickly. It is a very large bill, as everyone has conceded. It is a doorstopper, and there are real questions about how the bill will impact.

The final point I would make is that the minister has not provided clarity on these cost matters. The industry has made it clear to me that the bill and associated matters are likely to see a significant increase in costs, and those, I think, are a legitimate set of points. Now, the minister has then said, ‘Oh, well, the Middle East and Donald Trump’. There may well be further supply chain impacts, but the industry has made it clear that the bill itself and the related matters are actually an issue. That is what they have said, and that is why we have moved to see further consultation, which the chamber has not seen fit to provide as a step. That is why I have sought further clarification in the committee stage here, and it is why the opposition will vote against the bill in the final analysis.

Harriet SHING: Thanks, Mr Davis, for confirming that you do not support the establishment of the Building and Plumbing Commission and for confirming that you do not support reforms that put consumers at the heart of a framework regulating the biggest purchase of their lives. Mr Davis, this bill is not about introducing new compliance requirements and cost to industry; it is actually about strengthening the powers for the regulator to ensure that people do the right thing, a regulator that you have just indicated has done some good work. The cost of doing nothing is well known. Mr Davis, you just corrected me when I referred to defects costing $675 million a year for consumers, and you said, ‘At least.’ Well, Mr Davis, the fact that you agree that it is an enormous amount of money shows that you are aware of the problems and the fact that defects put consumers at a distinct disadvantage and that these defects also cost industry in terms of rework and repeated costs and lost productivity. The bill shifts the system so that problems are prevented early rather than fixed at a much higher cost later. That means fewer defects and that means lower rectification costs and legal costs, and it also ensures that those who do the wrong thing bear the cost of noncompliance instead of consumers, instead of government and instead of, as I said in my contribution in this bill and in the buyer protection committee stage, the vast, vast majority of builders who do the right thing and take great pride in what they do.

It is something that, again, has been raised directly in the course of legislation that has been introduced in the Legislative Assembly today, as well as in matters which are well outside the scope of this bill. But, Mr Davis, if you are now saying that you do not support this legislation, which I have taken from what you have just said to indicate that you will vote against, then that would seem to create an entire paradox to what you said in the course of your second-reading contribution as the lead representative for the opposition. One might be forgiven for having serious concerns about the policy and positional vacuum that appears to operate within the coalition at the moment, whereby on the one hand you are talking about housing affordability and availability, on the one hand you are talking about providing people with a measure of protection and support where large builders die, disappear or go bankrupt and on the one hand you are talking about reforming – and you refer to a doorstopper – with large volumes of transitional provisions that do exactly that –

David DAVIS: Well, do they? That is the question. You have not been able to provide us assurances.

Harriet SHING: and on the other you are voting against this bill, Mr Davis. So I am perhaps almost as confused as no doubt your colleagues will be.

David DAVIS: I am going to conclude here and make a very serious point here that the opposition understands the intent of the bill, and the opposition understands what all Victorian consumers want. They not only want certain clear protections, but they also want a bill that is not going to land them with massive new costs that make their homes more expensive, in this case by as much as 30 per cent. Now, if that is the outcome, where homes become more expensive, people will be very concerned. You assert that the bill will do X and Y and Z. The point here is you have not fully and adequately consulted with many in the sector. That is what they have told us, and that is what they have told us in writing. That is why we moved the reasoned amendment, to say the consultation had been inadequate. It is all very well for you to assert that the bill will make certain changes and certain outcomes, but few people trust this government or believe that its approach is always going to deliver the right outcome. In fact there is every bit of evidence that the government’s approach on this bill may deliver deficiently and not deliver the outcome that is required. I predict confidently here that over time the government will come back and have to clean up errors in this bill as the bill starts to bed down. There will be errors there because the government has not consulted properly and widely. I think the consumers, householders and persons wanting to get into a home have every right to seek two things: high-quality building but building at a good cost as well. The concern here is that the second part of that might not be met, and indeed because of the rushed way the government has pushed this through, the first part may not be met either.

Harriet SHING: Housing, whilst very expensive around Australia, is less expensive in Victoria, to buy or to rent. That is a combination of a couple of things: supply and a pipeline of certainty that enables builders and developers to get timely decisions around the way in which they develop, seek approval for, construct and complete dwellings. Mr Davis, to assert that because there may be unforeseen or unintended consequences in a bill that you, not an hour ago, stood to say that you would support –

David Davis interjected.

Harriet SHING: Not oppose, I beg your pardon. Not oppose means that you would ultimately vote yes, Mr Davis. And now you are saying that you will vote no. That effectively puts paid to the credibility of everything that you said when you got to your feet in the second-reading debate. Mr Davis, what we are doing, which is hard work and long-term work and work that requires partnerships with industry, with communities across all levels of government and with our supply chain, is making housing more available and more affordable. That is not happening because of any of the settings being advanced by the opposition, Mr Davis. That is happening despite them. That measure of certainty and clarity for buyers and those buyer protections are not happening because of any of the assertions that you have stood here in this chamber, along with your colleagues, to make. It is happening despite them.

The work that we are doing to provide safety, certainty and security for people – the very people who you purport to represent, who are distraught because they lose their life savings, they cannot buy in the suburbs that they grew up in because planning permission is intended to be revoked or who cannot get into an area which has been ring-fenced and are therefore left with fewer options, Mr Davis – are the Victorians at the heart of our pivot to a consumer focus on a building system guided by reform that has been undertaken for an extensive period of time. Mr Davis, we commenced this work in 2024. Consultation is not unsuccessful simply because it does not give everything to everyone who wants it. Mr Davis, you can agree to disagree with this, but to put a reasoned amendment that says ‘Until such time as proper consultation would occur’ would seem to connote that proper consultation is only achieved when every single thing on a wish list is achieved. That is not consultation, Mr Davis; that is a veto.

The work that we are doing here is very squarely guided by the fact that we made a decision as a government to support consumers with navigating their way through a building system that for too long had not had regard for them in the way that it needed to. That is the large-scale work that Anna Cronin and others are leading. That is the large-scale work that has informed development of this legislation. That is why these bills have such a comprehensive set of transitional provisions, because we are moving away from a system which was not fit for purpose when it came to people making that biggest purchase. We will keep going with the work we are going with, and we will do so because we know that it is in the interests of those people who do not come to this place, who saved for years and often decades and sometimes generations in order to find a home that they can afford.

David DAVIS: In response to that, we are concerned about the outcomes for people seeking homes. We are very concerned about the quality, and this bill may not provide that. Because of the government’s rushed approach, they cannot guarantee that that is the case. Equally, we are very concerned about the high costs that are going to be ratcheted up, and it may be between 10 and 30 per cent more, and this bill may add to the cost of every new home and every new renovation in the state. If that is the case – the industry believes it is – that will cause tremendous damage to consumers. They want safety and security, for sure, and we agree with that, and they want good outcomes in terms of quality, but they also do not want the massive slug of additional costs because the government has not worked through the regulatory steps properly.

Harriet SHING: Mr Davis, just to be really clear, all of the provisions that you have cited and all of the reasons that you have referred to today are not actually within the scope of this bill.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 1019 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (17:20): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (17:20): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill without amendment.