Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I also would like to talk about clause 7 inserting new sections 9A and 9B into the Act. In particular I wonder if the Minister could explain the thinking behind having two pathways for a thing becoming a building product or a method becoming a building method. If we look at the new section 9A(1)(a) it says In this Act building product means a product that— … could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building;". It then goes on in section 9A(3)(a) to (d) to say "In determining whether something could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building the following are relevant considerations: … the purposes for which the thing is ordinarily used: … the purposes for which the manufacturer or supplier intends the thing to be used: … the purposes for which the thing is represented as being used for: … the purposes for which the thing is likely to be used (because of the way in which it is presented or for any other reason)." It then goes on to say that that list is "relevant but not determinative considerations and do not limit what may be considered." So so far what the law tells us is that a building product is something that could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building. It then goes on to give quite a list of possible considerations and says these are "relevant but not determinative"—we could ask anything else—and then it goes on to say "An Order in Council"—well actually we'll get to that. Then it says that in section 9A(1)(b) it could also be that a building product is something "declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be a building product." Now this leads to a very interesting conundrum. So a building product can be something that fits the definition of being expected to be used as a component of a building according to the list that is relevant but not determinative and presumably that would ultimately be interpreted by the courts. But if something doesn't fit that criteria then the Governor-General by Order in Council—which really means "the Minister"—can override all of those judgments and say that something is a building material after all. Logically the second method of becoming a building material—having the Governor-General determine that something is a building material—could only be relevant if there was a will to define something as a building material that according to all of the other considerations listed in the Act wasn't a building material. So something is a building material unless it's not but if it's not the Governor-General can still say that it is and one has to ask what sort of criteria would be used in the Order in Council to decide that something was a building material other than the definition that's in the law. The difficulty with this is that people already face enormous difficulty with confusion caused by regulation and I know that people who look at this are going to say "Well how do you actually know whether something is a building product or not?" because if it's normally expected to be a building material well that sounds sensible. Then there's a list of things that might form your expectation. Then it goes on to say "But it's not just those things. It might be something else." and then it goes on to say "Actually forget all of that. A Minister can just decide that something's a building material." but it's not clear why the Minister would want to do that if something wasn't already a building material according to the first set of criteria. So if the Minister could explain that I think it would be inordinately helpful to people out there who are just trying to build houses and work out what they can legally use to do it—to have her explain it. I know I would certainly appreciate it and I hope that she can. New section 9B talks about what a "building method" is and we face a similar level of confusion over what a building method is. It says that a building method is something that of course is a method of "using 1 or more products or things as part of building work;" and that sounds like a sort of self-evident definition of building work. So it sounds as though something for using one or more products or things as part of a building work would be a building method. It's really putting one or more things together. That is almost a definition of building—very helpful. Then it says "(b) for carrying out building work that is declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be a building method." So there could be something that's not using one or more products or things as part of building work but nevertheless the Governor-General declares that it's a building method after all and it's difficult to know what sort of criteria the Governor-General—or at least through the Minister—would use to decide that something was a building method even though it didn't fit the definition that's already being given in the law. It then goes on to say at new section 9B(2) "However a method that would otherwise be a building method under subsection (1)(a) is not a building method if it is declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council not to be a building method." So it seems that a building method is putting one or more things together and if it's not the Governor-General can say that it is. But if it is the Governor-General can say that it's not but it's not clear why the Governor-General would say that or on what grounds they would use other than the law that people can actually read before them. Now I think it's incredibly important that people who are trying to get on with the business of solving the housing crisis have some clarity about what the law is so that they know what a building method is that they're allowed to use and they know what a building product is that they're allowed to use because at this point they certainly don't seem to get much guidance from the law. If they did then it wouldn't be necessary for the Governor-General to be able to override them. On the other hand if the Governor-General can just decide that something is or isn't a building product or a building material without any of the criteria that they use being defined then one has to wonder why we bother putting any definition in the law in the first place. So if the Minister could explain why her Government did the initial drafting this way—it's been changed very little by the select committee—I think it would be enormously helpful for her to put it on record so that people can get a common-sense view of what a building product or a building method actually is. Thank you Mr Chair."