Debate resumed from 6 May 2026.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology, Minister for Building, and Minister for Corrections) (23:58): In reply: I thank members for their contribution to debate on the Building (Approvals and Practitioners) Bill 2026, including the shadow Minister for Fair Trading, Work Health and Safety and Building, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, the member for Tamworth, the member for Sydney and the member for Wakehurst. The bill before the House seeks to strike a balance between accelerating the State's housing delivery while ensuring that the quality of homes are maintained. As New South Wales works towards its housing accord targets, it is essential that an increase in development applications results in an increase in housing completions without compromising quality.

The bill also delivers on the Government's election commitment to lift consumer confidence and restore transparency for certifiers in the building sector. The reforms will establish a clear chain of responsibility for other professionals so certifiers, who will be known as approval authorities, are not incorrectly held accountable across the whole building approvals process. The bill achieves these aims by introducing a refreshed and streamlined building approvals process which removes duplication and administrative burden on consumers and the industry. It also enables approval authorities the discretion to allow variations to keep construction moving without derailing project timelines.

These allowances will be appropriately balanced by an ethical and impartial workforce, with reforms to clarify circumstances where conflicts of interest arise and raise penalties for serious breaches. I am proud to say that this bill encourages innovation and new methods of construction through its nation‑leading regulation of prefabricated homes. It will give consumers confidence that their prefabricated home meets the same standard as a traditional home, and facilitate consumer protection for these homes. At its core the bill fixes the unwieldy building certification system that has grown more complex after decades of ad hoc amendments, bringing it into the current century through digital solutions that will speed up new home builds.

I now respond briefly to points made by honourable members. I acknowledge the members for Sydney, Pittwater and Newtown, who highlighted the importance of modernising our building approvals framework and embracing innovation while ensuring robust regulatory oversight remains at the centre of these reforms. I thank them for their constructive contributions, and I share their desire for strong industry and community engagement in the regulation development process. I also acknowledge the member for Wakehurst's contribution about the digital certification of prefabricated homes, and commend the member for his practical, productivity-focused approach to the housing innovation we need in New South Wales.

The member will be pleased to know the reforms in this bill strengthen consumer protection and regulatory confidence in modern methods of construction. The Government is working closely and productively with the Commonwealth and other States and Territories to ensure there is regulatory harmony in our processes of certification of prefabricated homes across our jurisdictions. The Government's position is to allow the national work to be concluded so any changes we pursue are harmonised across jurisdictions to provide clarity, consistency and confidence to the industry, regulators and consumers alike. I look forward to further engagement with the good member on the housing solutions our States need.

I acknowledge the members for Willoughby and Tamworth for their concerns relating to duty of care and the proposed dispute resolution framework. In relation to duty of care, the Government recognises this is a complex area of law, and recent cases have led to much debate. We acknowledge there are strong but divergent views on this matter. These views should be sought and properly considered before major changes are made. I also acknowledge the contributions about the dispute resolution framework. The Government is broadly in agreement in terms of the need to establish a dispute resolution framework. However, it strongly believes that any change in this area must be properly consulted on. The Government has begun this consultation process and is committed to timely reform in this area. I understand the Opposition plans to move various amendments relating to duty of care and dispute resolution, which I will discuss during consideration in detail.

Genuine consultation is what is needed when it comes to dispute resolution, to ensure we establish a dispute resolution process that is not kicking the can down the road. It is a mature and considered approach to policy development and implementation. In relation to some of the foreshadowed amendments, let us not forget that it was the High Court that made the decision in Pafburn. A decision of the High Court is not an insignificant decision. That is why changes to this area must be done in a very considered and mature way. I also note there are concerns around regulations. I commit to thorough consultation with all stakeholders in developing the regulation process. The member for Sydney made some comments about the need for thorough and detailed consultation. That is and has always been the Government's approach, to ensure that the changes we make are fair and reflect stakeholders' views.

The Opposition's proposed amendments actually go against that process. Regulation must be mature, considered and based on parliamentary settings and the legislative direction of the Parliament. Providing detail in regulations allows for flexibility and ensures that the Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise and approve proposed powers under the bill before regulations are developed. This is about working in tandem and in partnership with the industry to create regulations that meet the intention of the legislation. The Government is committed to working closely with key industry stakeholders and the broader public to implement these reforms. The development of these regulations will be subject to extensive stakeholder consultations.

I also respond to matters raised by the Legislation Review Committee inLegislation Review Digest No. 45/58. I note the committee's concerns with the broad regulatory powers contained in this bill. As correctly identified by the committee, the building industry has had an unfortunate history of regulatory failures, resulting in harm to the public and consumers. The powers in proposed part 6 of the bill allow an authorised officer entry to non-residential sites to seize and obtain relevant documents are consistent with the current regulatory framework. They are necessary to uphold the integrity of the regulatory scheme to facilitate proper and extensive investigation of building work. These powers enable proactive compliance and enforcement under the bill to prevent harm as expediently as possible.

The bill also permits information-sharing agreements between the secretary of the department and relevant agencies, as clearly set out in the bill. Information sharing is limited to the secretary or relevant agency required to properly exercise their functions. This is an appropriate safeguard but enables the regulatory framework to operate effectively. I note the committee's concerns regarding the abrogation of self-incrimination with the bill. The bill provides that all individuals and body corporates will not be excused from giving documents or answers on the ground that it may incriminate themselves or another person. This ensures that participants in the regulatory scheme are unable to avoid complying with their legislative obligations and related investigations.

As the committee notes, necessary and appropriate safeguards have been built into the bill, including that such information obtained from an individual is not admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings against that individual. However, such information can be used as a basis for taking disciplinary action against the individual. This recognises that such individuals are voluntary participants in a regulatory scheme. The departure from the standard six months under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to three years from the date of the alleged offence is a necessary departure that is consistent with existing building legislation.

Further, it acknowledges the nature of the regulatory environment and wrongdoing committed in this space. It is well known that defects are not always immediately discoverable or identifiable. Sufficient time is therefore required to ensure effective and necessary regulation of the industry, consistent with community expectations. As observed by the committee, allowing matters to be prescribed in the regulations is considered appropriate, given the considerable technical complexity that can be more appropriately addressed through subordinate legislation. It also provides flexibility for requirements to be refined appropriately to ensure the laws remain responsive to change and can adapt to new circumstances and advancements in the construction industry.

This responsiveness is essential for maintaining public trust and ensuring that industry can continue to operate effectively. Any regulation made would be subject to further public scrutiny and stakeholder consultation through the public publication of a regulatory impact statement, in accordance with legislative requirements. As the committee notes, our regulations would also be subject to parliamentary oversight being subject to disallowance. The bill has also simplified and made clear the version of the Building Code of Australia that is in force at the time of the application for the building approval for the first stage.

The regulation power in clause 22 (2) is not intended to upset this but rather provide a safeguard to enable a different version of the Building Code to apply where older versions of the Building Code would be inappropriate and not in the public interest. This would only be applied for large developments that span many years and involve multiple separate buildings. The Government agrees with the committee that the Henry VIII provisions should be used with care. While clause 46 enables modification of a subdivision, the power is limited to affecting three sections and a very narrow category of building work. Subdivision 3 of part 3 preserves the status quo that Crown building work can be self-assessed and not subject to formal approval. However, the bill now allows the Crown to opt in to the building approval process. Because Crown building work is unique from private development and has different risks, a regulation power has been included in clause 46 to modify the application of certain approvals provisions where the Crown opts in to the building approval process. While the Government acknowledges concerns that the classes of person that powers can be delegated to is non-exhaustive, the inclusion of the standard provision does not suggest the Government intends to inappropriately delegate to private individuals functions that would be expected to be performed by public officials or authorities.

While the Government acknowledges it is preferable for legislation to commence on a fixed date for certainty, it is necessary for this bill to fix commencement by proclamation. Supporting regulations need to be developed for the reforms in the bill to be switched on. Once the bill receives passage, the Government has instructed Building Commission NSW to commence work on the regulations and to do so with comprehensive stakeholder engagement. Accordingly, it would not be feasible to set an arbitrary date for this work to be completed. The Government appreciates that the reforms will have some impact on industry and commits to ensuring that sufficient notice of a proclaimed date for commencement of the reforms is provided and appropriate time for industry preparedness is given. That should help address the committee's concerns that proclamation provides uncertainty.

Finally, I reassure the committee about the operation of powers enabling modification of the application of the National Construction Code. The regulation power in clause 7 (3) firstly allows the Government the ability to adopt building provisions through regulations outside of the three-year Building Code amendment cycle. That is intended for significant matters such as occurred with combustible cladding. It ensures that all building standards are contained under a single piece of legislation, ensuring appropriate oversight and scrutiny, and it prevents inconsistencies with the Building Code.

I again thank the many stakeholders who have worked so closely with the Government on the bill. It would not be possible without their input. In contrast with the shadow Minister's comments about industry consultation, I note that there have been public statements from the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association, the Urban Taskforce, AMPLIFY and the Property Council of Australia commending and welcoming the Government's commitment and work on this bill to ensure that houses can be built while maintaining quality for the economy and consumers. That public statement and, indeed, the press conference that we held with Mr Pollock from the Master Builders Association reaffirm that the Government's process has been the right approach, and that is the approach we will continue to take as we set up the regulations as part of the legislative process. I take this opportunity to acknowledge those stakeholders for their tireless efforts and collaborative approach with the Government in delivering this important piece of building legislation.

I thank the Building Commission NSW for its hard work in bringing this bill to Parliament. I especially thank Tom Kearney, Audrey Maag, Katie Harbon, Michael Marks, Donna Harris, Kathryn Turner, Praveena Nair Shyamala, Michael Sawyer, Jared Araniego and Rebecca Perez, supported by Lauren Freemantle, Heather Wallace, Melinda Walsh and Georgia White. I also thank my own staff for their dedication to this important work: Brooke O'Rourke, Alicia Sylvester and Jonathan Stanbury, as well as our hardworking department liaison officers Nisan Baysal and Sabitha Padikkel. The Government is confident that the bill is the right step forward in addressing the housing crisis, and it needs the support of the House to bring it into force. I commend the bill to the House.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Michael Kemp): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration in detail requested by Mr Tim James.