Fair Trading and Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Mr TIM JAMES ( Willoughby ) ( 10:19 :00 ): On behalf of the Opposition, I rise to speak on the Fair Trading and Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. This is an omnibus bill that makes a series of amendments across 22 Acts of Parliament. A large proportion of these measures are minor or administrative and make sensible updates to bring the law up to date. I want to focus on the substantive measures in the bill that go to public confidence in licensing, certainty for the building industry through regulatory settings in relation to insurance, and the Government's proposed dismantling of the loose-fill asbestos register.

Let us turn to licensing first up. Strengthening the licensing tools available to NSW Fair Trading makes sense and the Opposition supports those measures. It will assist in restoring public confidence that those who are licensed are indeed entitled to hold that licence and are competent to carry out the work. This matters because the community has been rightly alarmed by recent revelations that put the licencing system into question. We saw the issuing of licences on the basis of fraudulent qualifications. This included reports that hundreds of tradespeople obtained licences using fake credentials linked to organised criminal gangs impersonating genuine training providers.

There have also been many instances where qualifications have been issued by training providers without rigorous confidence in the skills of the recipient. Those revelations were damaging to public trust and confidence. At a time when building defects remain a serious concern, home buyers and owners must be able to rely on the licensing system as a genuine indicator of competence. People should not be left wondering whether the person working on their home has real qualifications or a piece of paper obtained through deception. The message is straightforward: The community needs a licensing system that is credible, clean and enforceable. The Opposition expects NSW Fair Trading to use these strengthened powers to swiftly cancel licences where people are not entitled to hold them, and to restore confidence across the industry.

I turn now to insurance. I will start with decennial liability insurance [DLI] and then professional indemnity insurance [PII] because building insurance, and the policies relating to insurance, go directly to the State's capacity to deliver housing—especially class 2 apartments—and to do so with quality and consumer protection and confidence. If we want more homes built, the building industry and consumers alike need certainty over insurance settings and arrangements. Builders and developers need stable policy settings so they can plan, price risk, secure finance and make investment decisions. Insurers need clarity in order to bring products to market, and consumers need confidence that the insurance will actually protect them and their interests.

The bill switches the baseline for DLI purposes from "serious defect" as it is defined in the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020, or the RAB Act, replacing it with the new concept of "relevant defect". The purpose, as we understand it, is to remove focus from more subjective and minor elements that were discouraging insurance providers from entering the market. If the definition is clearer and better aligned with DLI's intended purpose, it should assist market entry and, over time, expand the availability of DLI products. We do welcome this. DLI is a consumer protection but it is not meant to—and cannot ever be expected to—cover each and every conceivable risk.

The Opposition has long shared industry's concern that the transition to DLI has moved too slowly and with too much uncertainty and difficulty. We support the move to ultimately mandate DLI and move from strata building bonds. That was indeed the Coalition's policy within government. But the transition under this Government has been undermined by ambiguity about what the Government considers to be a "mature market" and what triggers will be used to increase the strata building bond rate prior to any mandating of DLI. As part of that transition, we support the eventual increase in the strata building bond rate from 2 per cent to 3 per cent. But that increase was only ever meant to occur once a mature DLI market had emerged. The problem has been the prolonged delay in DLI market maturity combined with rolling deferrals through the regulations and uncertain timelines. Industry has been left navigating a stop-start arrangement, sometimes with changes made at very short notice through regulation.

That uncertainty is not a minor inconvenience. It affects, and has significantly affected, investment decisions, project feasibility and the pricing of risk across the market. Indeed, the Labor Government's delay on this has, in turn, delayed thousands of homes. One insurer with whom I have met—among a number of them—cited over 9,000 new homes delayed on the back of this Government's inability to get the regulatory and policy settings right to create certainty to have a market come into existence. Getting these settings right is essential if we are to increase housing supply, especially apartments, while lifting quality and consumer protection. I foreshadow that the Opposition will move an amendment in the consideration in detail stage to add additional certainty for the building industry and to help us to build the homes that we need. Whilst the changes already made in the bill may accelerate DLI market maturity, there should be additional clarification for industry on what maturity looks like.

It is more important than ever that we also have a proper transitional arrangement in place for when the time does come to permanently increase the bond rate to 3 per cent. On professional indemnity insurance, under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020, the position has been similar. Building practitioners are required under the Act to hold professional indemnity insurance. In practice, no suitable PII product has since emerged for builders. Exemptions have therefore been made through regulation in 12-month periods. That exemption has been necessary, for without it building sites would grind to a halt because practitioners would be unable to comply with a requirement that cannot be met. But repeated short-term exemptions are not good policy. They create uncertainty, encourage a culture of last-minute deferrals and make planning harder for industry and regulators alike. The proposal in the bill allows regulations to exempt certain groups of practitioners, or types of work, from the PII requirements, and this should provide some more welcome stability and certainty. This approach reflects a recommendation of the Delegated Legislation Committee, and the Opposition does welcome it. It provides greater certainty while the market develops, and it reduces reliance on repeated temporary fixes.

I turn now to the loose-fill asbestos register. This is a very significant matter for the people of this State. I want to make it clear that what we see here is the quiet axing, within an omnibus bill, of the New South Wales Government's loose-fill asbestos insulation program register. This includes the abolition of the register by the bill. Loose-fill asbestos is the most dangerous form of asbestos. It is friable, readily dispersible and can pose serious risks if disturbed. It is indeed pure asbestos—unbonded with other substances and crushed before it was placed straight into people's roof cavities. Where loose-fill asbestos is present, demolition is the only safe outcome.

The register and the broader response framework were rightly, responsibly and carefully established in 2015 by the Coalition Government as part of a decisive and well-resourced response to the Mr Fluffy legacy. The New South Wales Government established a roughly $300 million fund to respond to those challenges and offered to buy and remediate affected properties. A register of affected properties was established that has served as an important transparency and safety measure. It provides a public list of addresses confirmed to contain loose-fill asbestos insulation, helping to inform buyers, tenants, tradespeople, real estate agents, regulators and more. It also supports conveyancing and planning warnings so families are not left discovering the worst kind of asbestos after the fact.

The Government's move to remove references to the register, as well as to effectively abolish the framework, raises deep concerns. Even if the number of current cases has reduced dramatically, the risk profile of loose-fill asbestos warrants continued caution and concern. There needs to be a clear, legislated mechanism to deal with remaining properties and further cases that come to light—and I am aware that cases do continue to come to light. A case-by-case approach, even if supported by ex gratia payments, does not provide the level of certainty the community should and would expect on an issue of this magnitude. It may be that identified cases have fallen to a very low number, but that is not, in and of itself, a reason to dismantle the warning and response system. The right approach is to ensure that if new cases emerge in the future, which they will—they already have—there is an established pathway, clear responsibilities and resources, and a transparent warning mechanism.

I commend my colleague in the Legislative Council, Nichole Overall, who has rightly raised concerns about this. I briefly quote from a statement released by the honourable member last week:

Mrs Overall said serious questions need to be answered following revelations that the Loose-Fill Asbestos Program, administered by NSW Fair Trading, is being cut, and without clear public notice.

"The Minister for the Environment told Parliament last year that asbestos remains a significant environmental and public health risk. Yet the Government is seemingly prepared to just walk away from these impacted homeowners," Mrs Overall said.

…

"If this program is ending, people deserve to know. If it's being paused, people deserve clarity. Is there anything to take this program's place—or is it just another casualty of this Labor Government only caring about their budget bottom line rather than actual people?"

I echo the concerns expressed by my honourable colleague in the other place. In our view, the real agenda here is dollar driven and financial. A fiscally incompetent government is rushing to shut down a vital safety program in order to grab the program's remaining money. We are advised that around $150 million remains within the program, and that is what this is about.

As was made abundantly clear at the time, this was established as a 20‑year program. Members will recall that I mentioned the program was established in 2015, so we are halfway through a 20‑year program. The program was expected to continue during the course of those 20 years and to identify cases along the way. We are halfway through, and the Government is proposing to shut it down. In effect, the Government is playing fast and loose with asbestos. We have had no outline of any consultation whatsoever being done and no timely notice. There has been no engagement, as far as we are aware, with industry, community, home owners, tradies, real estate agents, councils, emergency service workers, or anybody else, for that matter.

The attempt to quietly use an omnibus bill to shut down a seriously significant, necessary and resourced public safety program is audacious and, frankly, appalling. The people of New South Wales deserve so much better than this. For those reasons, I foreshadow that the Opposition will move amendments that seek to retain the register framework. With all those observations having been made and having foreshadowed amendments to retain the loose-fill asbestos insulation register and to enhance certainty for the building industry during the DLI transition, I otherwise commend the bill to the House.

Ms DONNA DAVIS ( Parramatta ) ( 10:32 :28 ): I speak in support of the Fair Trading and Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. I commend the Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading, and Minister for Building, for bringing the bill to the House. The bill will introduce a range of amendments across the Better Regulation and Fair Trading portfolio and Building portfolio. Omnibus bills like this one act as important vehicles for a range of minor miscellaneous amendments. They enable the Government to ensure that laws remain fit for purpose in an evolving regulatory environment.

The bill makes necessary amendments to further ensure effective regulation of the licence holders within the Better Regulation and Fair Trading portfolio and Building portfolio. Ensuring that the relevant regulator has appropriate and proportionate powers to be able to take action against licence holders, including the ability to cancel a licence where appropriate, is necessary for effective industry regulation. Schedule 2 to the bill ensures that disciplinary action can be taken against former registered certifiers who surrender their registration to prevent disciplinary action being taken against them. This ensures that proportionate and appropriate regulatory action can be taken against those who are doing the wrong thing.

Schedule 11 to the bill allows the secretary to vary, suspend or cancel an authority if the holder is not qualified to hold the authority. This amendment is necessary to respond to mass qualification cancellations by the Australian Skills Quality Authority as part of its compliance program. The existing powers in the Home Building Act 1989 are ineffective when dealing with such events. For example, currently where an authority has multiple categories of work, the authority in its entirety must be cancelled as opposed to only removing the specific category of work affected by a cancelled qualification. These reforms will address this gap and give the secretary the powers needed to effectively regulate the building industry in cases such as these.

The bill also replaces the Home Building Administration Fund with a new Building Administration Fund. This is an administrative change that will not have an impact on industry. However, the change will streamline where collected revenue goes and make it easier for the secretary to access those funds for specific purposes, such as for specific building programs. This is another change that will enhance building regulation. Schedule 16 amends the information sharing provisions in the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020. These amendments will extend the scope of information that can be shared with other government agencies, such as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office. This change will assist with the effective regulation of the building industry, including in the investigation or prosecution of offences by wrongdoers.

Schedule 19 to the bill also replaces the definition of "serious defects" with "relevant defects" for the purposes of decennial liability insurance [DLI] in the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015. The change clarifies that in cases of noncompliance with the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards or approved plans, DLI coverage will be enlivened where defects result in damage, risk of death or serious injury. This is a sensible amendment that brings the scheme into line with the original policy intent of DLI coverage without reducing consumer protections. This amendment should help DLI become operational in the New South Wales market. This is a sensible, appropriate and necessary bill. It will support the crucial work of Fair Trading and the Building Commission and provide protection for consumers. I have seen firsthand the need for this in the Parramatta electorate. I have heard many tales of people who have been disadvantaged due to rogue players in the industry. I commend the bill to the House.