Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 31 and 32, “Amendments to other legislation”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister on Schedule 32. Now, when we were looking at the amendment to the legislation, amendments to Building (Infringement Offences, Fees, and Forms) Regulations 2007, I’m noticing that for Schedule 1, in relation to subclause (1) and subclause (2), the fine amount has been increased from $250 to $1,000, presumably to be in line with what is already existing in sections 108(5)(b) and 108(5)(c) in that respective legislation. However, I have a question regarding the overall nature of that adjustment. If the Minister is adjusting those two elements anyway—adjustments to section 108(5)(aa) and 108(5)(a)—what was the rationale for not increasing all of them?

For example, in terms of what is in that schedule for 108(5)(b) around displaying a false or misleading building warrant of fitness, the fine is still at $1,000. However, if we’re looking at some of the other offences and amounts within this legislation—let’s say if we’re drawing, not to discuss it, a comparison to clause 22 in Part 1, where if a person commits an offence or did not display or misrepresents a particular display in the context of a dam, if it’s an individual, the fine is $20,000, and if it’s a body corporate, $60,000 or $50,000 and $150,000. I wanted to check with the Minister: what was the rationale for only uplifting two of them but not other areas? It is quite a substantial difference. For both of them, presumably, it’s about displaying a misleading building warrant of fitness or authorisation of some sort, but the offence amount is quite substantially different.

Thank you. I thank the member for his question. The short answer is because I prefer consistency to relativity in terms of maintaining those different amounts that are currently fixed in the legislation. More generally, I suppose, at the risk of sounding glib, it seems to me that these dollar amounts reflect the seriousness of the offences, and we think that they are set at an appropriate level.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2