19 August 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Thank you, Mr President. I rise to speak in support of the Occupational Licensing Amendment Bill 2026. I was very pleased when it was made public that the government would be supporting legislation to prevent corporate phoenixing and empower the regulator to deal with dodgy Tasmanian operators in the construction industry. It's also pleasing to hear, however, that by and large, those in the Tasmanian construction industry are hardworking, considerate professionals.

However, corporate phoenixing to avoid paying creditors or to do otherwise avoid a business obligation is not a new issue. It is a harmful practice that the federal government and the Australian state governments have long sought to prevent. Indeed, this legislative proposal follows the lead of several other jurisdictions.

Corporate phoenixing is a form of financial abuse that does direct and serious harm to Tasmanians. It is quite common to hear from someone who has been defrauded in some way by a builder. I have no doubt many legislators can name someone who has been affected by dodgy building practices such as abandoned contracts or other forms of fraudulent behaviours. Of course, not all dodgy builders use this process, and there will inevitably be a number who continue to do the wrong thing, but it is an important step in the right direction.

It was pleasing to hear, in the other place, the way that this bill came about. In recent times, it has become all too common for members in this place and the other to raise heated concerns about the practices of the government, and even the primary opposition, crossbench and minor parties.

Nonetheless, this bill is a positive step in the right direction and should be recognised as such. It was pleasing to hear the honourable member for Braddon Dr Broad, speaking in the other place of how this legislation came about. It was a concern raised by constituents to their representatives in parliament, which was discussed openly across party lines during the 2024 Estimates process. This matter was taken seriously by members on both sides of the aisle, not turned into a political scoring point, and one that was not lost in the noise of the 2025 election debacle.

Additionally, when members of the crossbench raised concerns, they were duly noted and addressed in committee.

Frankly, that this process has resulted in a bipartisan bill represents the very best of what good government should be and what the Tasmanian electoral system could and should facilitate on a more regular basis.

As was stressed in the other place and indeed in public consultations, this legislation is about protecting the lives of real people - not nameless corporate entities but Tasmanians who stand to lose savings, super, retirement funds and, most importantly, often their shot at owning a home.

It is not stressed enough, the significance of home ownership in modern society. Homes do not merely reflect a building, an asset or a vehicle for investment. Rather, they represent an opportunity for a regular, everyday Tasmanian to solidify their hard-earned savings, to provide for their family and loved ones for generations to come, and to create a fortress, as it were, a safe space to live and breathe.

Of course, home ownership has been prominent in media discourse lately with proposals to change the regulatory landscape of short-stay accommodation, or the latest federal budget, and indeed even this bill.

Through the discussion and political debate on these matters, a common bipartisan theme remains: homes are an integral part of Australian society, a foundation, a cornerstone on which

the Australian dream can be built. Dare I say that a home is a castle, complete with a pool room, that bureaucracy cannot touch.

As such, when parliament unites behind a legislative proposal that aims to protect vulnerable consumers to ensure the construction industry continues to efficiently produce high-quality houses for Tasmania, it is more than simply addressing a wrong. Rather, this represents an expression of parliament's steadfast support for the average, regular Tasmanian.

It was encouraging to read all of the submissions to the public consultation process. Of the 12 submissions, all were positive and many had constructive, responsible feedback. However, I will note that an ongoing concern regarding the legislative proposal in this consultation process was the concept of an 'influential person'. It seemed that a good number of the submissions were concerned that this term was too vague and broad and had potential to result in non-perpetrators being harmed, though I'm sure the honourable Leader will address that in her response. For example, one submission by the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors Association of Australia stated the following concern, risk and recommendations:

While exclusions are provided for professional advisers, the definition remains broad and subjective. In practice, this definition may inadvertently capture:

· Senior project managers or operation managers; [or]

· Commercial managers or estimators; [or]

· Individuals exercising delegated authority under employment contracts; [or]

· Personnel acting under direction from head contractors or boards.

They continue by saying:

These roles are common within subcontracting businesses and do not necessarily involve ownership, governance control, or responsibility for insolvency decisions.

[The risk is that] An individual could be deemed an excluded person due to a historic insolvency in circumstances where they did not have decision-making authority, potentially resulting in:

· Exclusion of otherwise compliant subcontractors; [or]

· Loss of licences due to employment relationships rather than governance roles; [or]

· Reluctance to accept senior operational roles in the industry.

AMCA recommends that the definition of 'influential person' be refined to:

· required demonstrable governance control, ownership, interest or fiduciary responsibility; [or]

· explicitly exclude employees acting under contractual direction without board-level or ownership authority.

I note that the Housing Industry Association voiced similar concerns in their submission. While I do fully support the intent of this legislation, it would be good to have an understanding of the government's position on this matter and what safeguards or guidance in the regulations may be possible to address these legitimate concerns.

Perhaps the key element in this is the control of who or what may hold a building licence. We hear endless government, police and department rhetoric that having a driving licence is a privilege and not a right. Yet when it comes to a building licence, until now, it has been a gold-plated right, a ticket to operate a building business free of any governance protocols that might define a company director or a member of a board.

As the bill moves to tighten the financial probity that will govern the holding of building licences, can the government give its assurance that the additional requirements in the bill, once the act commences, will allow an examination of every holder of a Tasmanian building licence? The reason I ask is that the Attorney-General was quite specific in his expectations of the bill's impact and reach. The Attorney-General described how the bill will now take into account an applicant's full insolvency or bankruptcy history, including any roles with an indirect influence, together with strengthened enforcement mechanisms. I would like to include this excerpt from his contribution in the other place:

The bill closes these gaps by making prior insolvency or phoenix-type behaviours grounds for building licence refusal or disqualification, thereby directly affecting an individual's and company's ability to operate in the sector. This will protect Tasmanians by helping to stop harmful operators before they cause further consumer and subcontractor losses.

The last two points in the Attorney-General's observation are critical. Disreputable operators are no better than common scammers. They leave a trail of financial trauma behind them wherever they go, and it's not just people hoping to have a home of their own; it's also subbies who buy materials, put in the work, pay their staff wages, and then get stiffed by the builder who pulls the pin, ready to resurface in time to go again. We hear regular stories of workers who have been underpaid, overworked, or have missed out on super. Subbies who have been scammed by a bankrupt builder are in an equally bad position, as is the homeowner with a half-finished house and subcontractors asking for payment - a situation that only amplifies the pain on all sides whilst the builder swans off to repeat the same trick.

I'd like to think that the bill can restore public confidence in the building industry and get rid of the rogue operators who have abused the goodwill of everyone they deal with. A building licence is a privilege, and the best builders operate accordingly to ensure their clients and subcontractors do well and are entirely satisfied with their work. This bill can only support those endeavours.

To finish off, I'll note the circumstances here recently. I was at my local coffee shop and I said to the people, 'How are things going with the build?' Then they unleashed what had happened. That was fine because I had a good relationship with the couple. Then right next door were two other people who came in on the conversation as well, telling us what had happened to them. I was quite surprised at that time; it became a whole-coffee-shop debate

about what had happened. I told them that it's going to get fixed, and hopefully this will be the right way. Still, it was interesting to hear how prevalent this issue it is within our industry, and we have to do all we can to correct it.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for the bill and again acknowledge the strong, positive lawmaking, from all sides of parliament, that gave rise to this timely legislation. I also greatly appreciate the work by staff and professionals behind the scenes getting us a good piece of legislation. I support the bill.