The new Executive Director of the ACT’s peak building and construction industry organisation, the Master Builders Association of the ACT (MBA) has applauded the Land Development Agency’s decision to go to the private sector with englobo land releases at Denman-Prospect.

Return to englobo land releases a welcome sign

Kirk Coningham said that MBA had been involved in discussions with the ACT Government for some time, promoting the need for a return to private sector participation in local land supply.

“The decision by the LDA is a good one for both industry and potential new home owners seeking solutions on housing affordability.

“The MBA’s Land and Planning Policy paper, released last year, highlighted the importance and strength of private sector involvement in land supply and the LDA’s announcement is certainly a boost for the local economy.

“It is now clear that the ACT Government is very much focused on the private sector in boosting the ACT economy.

“Our objective has always been to ensure the private sector plays a role in local land supply to encourage both innovation and competition for more affordable housing.

“As an industry, we are committed to working with the Government and its agencies to help deliver employment and economic well-being for our community,” Mr Coningham said

ED

ITION

2-2015

Master Builders Association of the ACT1 Iron Knob St, Fyshwick ACT 2609PO Box 1211, Fyshwick ACT 2609

Tel: (02) 6247 2099Fax: (02) 6249 8374

Email: canberra@mba.org.auWeb: www.mba.org.au

MASTER BUILDERS EXECUTIVE COUNCILPresident – Valdis Luks

Treasurer – Frank Porreca

Chair, Commercial Builders’ Sector Council – Peter Naylor

Chair, Suppliers and Subcontractors’ Sector Council – Grace Ferreira

Chair, Residential Builders’ Sector Council – Marc Roland

Chair, Civil Contractors’ Sector Council – Andy Crompton

Chair, Professional Consultants’ Sector Council – Bryan Leeming

MASTER BUILDERS MANAGEMENT TEAMExecutive Director – Kirk Coningham

Deputy Executive Director – Jerry Howard

Director Industrial Relations & In-house Legal Counsel – John Nikolić

Chief Financial Officer – Aaron Froud

Director Commercial Operations – David Leitch

Work Health and Safety Advisor – Philip Edwards

MBA GROUP TRAINING General Manager – Wendy Tengstrom

The final battle has commenced for the full reinstatement of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). This is looking distinctly like a case of "Lambies" to the slaughter. So Jacqui, who won't waste her time with anyone who is not serving military or Tasmanian, is quite happy to meet with her CFMEU friends to put them straight.

Frankly, some of the politics in this country is becoming laughable and the rest of the world is taking note. Worse still, the number of investors (Australian and International) turning their backs on the country because of the woeful industrial relations environment should be worrying future generations.

The trouble is most of generation next are either blissfully unaware of the untold damage being done to our economy because of rising infrastructure costs, or they refuse to believe that bad people are controlling large parts of the building and construction industry.

The logic in denying the return of the ABCC is frightening. Four Royal Commissions in thirty years should give cause for alarm at a political level but because many just don't have the courage to tackle the real problems they are prepared to consign future generations to try and repair the damage. History is not going to treat this current cohort of political operatives very kindly.

Each of the Royal Commissions have found horrendous behaviours within the industry. Many of the illegal and violent behaviours have been perpetrated by the unions, and yet we can't see our way clear to try and deal with the problems with methods designed to reflect elements in an industry who don't behave like the rest of society.

It is very interesting to see a person like Martin Ferguson who has been at the heart of the union movement calling for the reinstatement of the ABCC. Why? Because he's been around long enough to know that unless something is done that future generations will be left trying to fix something that just has to be fixed now. The country's future prosperity and well-being is absolutely tied to the presence of an ABCC.

All of the data that was produced pre and post the ABCC Mark I tells of an undeniable shift in both behaviour and reduced costs. Here we are again, arguing for something that most normal people would find a no brainer. This is a classic example of a political system that fails the community it is meant to be serving. The only serving that is at work here is the self-serving interests of those who stand to gain the most out of the wreck being created.

On the back of a recent campaign undertaken by Master Builders Australia to have the ABCC reinstated, further commentary has fuelled the critical need for this body. With the industry watchdog out of the way totally, a return to the bad old days of the building and construction industry is guaranteed. And yet those to whom the industry and the community were reaching out to simply deny that a problem is there to be fixed, or the system that failed to fix it before can fix it now.

In the meantime the industry is pinning its forlorn hopes on Jacqui Lambie to quell the unions and save it from being hammered.

HAMMERTHE

hits the nail on the head

"Lambies" to the slaughter

B&T Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations Registrar and Anor [2015] ACTCA 7

Recent Appeals Decision Build according to approved plans

Review By Steven Gavagna, Principal of Goodman Law

On 23 March 2015 the Court of Appeal in the ACT handed down its decision in B&T Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd (the “Builder”) v Constructions Occupations Registrar (the “Registrar”) & Anor (“Empire Apartments”). It was an appeal from a Supreme Court (the “Court”) decision dismissing an appeal from a decision in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the “ACAT”). In a majority decision the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents, the Registrar and Empire Apartments. Steven Gavagna, Principal Director of Goodman Law, represented Empire Apartments, the successful respondents. Here he explains the appeals case, findings and its ramifications.

Background

The Builder had built apartments advertising them to be “the epitome of luxury”. The Builder changed the plans but did not have the amendments approved. The Builder and the developer were owned by the same person.

The Registrar then issued rectification orders for over 40 items against the Builder. After negotiations during the earlier ACAT hearing 3 remained unresolved. The first was the substitution of cheaper material to the façade being Alucabond and stone cladding to fibre cement board. The second was that translucent glass was to be inserted into the external balustrades and the third was that distinctive balustrades were to be provided to 4 other units. ACAT decided that that the Builder had not complied with the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 (ACT) (the “COLA”).

The Court considered the application of COLA and the Building Act 2004 (ACT) (the “Building Act”) in light of the facts.

The Appeal raised 5 issues:

1. The Court wrongly assumed that there was evidence of loss or damages under s 36(1)(a) of the COLA;

2. The Court misunderstood the proper role of the public record, constituted by the approved plans;

3. The Court wrongly assumed that the Owners Corporation could speak for the unit owners;

4. The Court erred in assuming that under s35 of the COLA that there was reasonable grounds that the appellant contravened s42 of the Building Act; and

5. The Court erred in upholding a rectification order that did not comply with s 38 of the COLA in that it did not specify the rectification work with sufficient clarity.

In relation to point 1 the appellant, the Builder, also raised the spectre of a recent High Court decisions of Brookfield Multiplex v Owners Corporations Strata Plan 61288 (2014).

Findings for each of the 5 issues:

1. The Court found that there was evidence in relation to the reduction of cost in the substitution of material, and that the remaining items were obvious omissions from the approved plans. It agreed with the primary judge in that there was no reason to interpret words “injury loss or damage” as being confined to solely to a contractual; or tortious loss and can be extended to a financial or aesthetic detriment and that there was evidence before the registrar that he cost of re-instating the building in accordance with the approved plans would be substantial. Therefore loss or damage ‘existed’ in the building was constructed to an inferior standard to that which the appellant had lawful approval.

2. The Court agreed with the primary judge stating “the integrity of the public record is, with respect to consumer protection, of great significance”. The Court found the submissions to the contrary by the appellant carried little weight taking into account the express provisions of the COLA.

3. In regards to whether the Owners Corporation could speak for the owners, the Court found there was sufficient evidence presented in the ACAT that showed that resolutions had been made in favour of the Owners Corporation acting as it did and the appellant’s submissions were rejected.

4. The fourth point appeared to puzzle the Court and the issue was raised before the primary judge. They found the Registrar entitled to issue the notices it did and the submissions of the appellant were again rejected.

5. The last point relates to specificity of rectification. The primary judge did find that those aspects of the Registrars orders were imprecise, however, the Court said that the appellant made no specific challenge as to that issue. The Court did find that despite the orders of the ACAT and that which stone to use was not specified and that “It was, after all, its design and intent to incorporate stone into the project”.

The judge dissenting did so on the basis that his Honour felt the primary judge had erred in failing to conclude that the ACAT had made a mistake in determining that loss or damage had occurred pursuant to s36(1)(a) of the COLA. His Honour discussed at length the manner of interpreting legislative provisions in relation to determining the issue. (I think we can take this out)

Ramifications

In conclusion, despite the fact the Builder could have had plans approved, it didn’t. The public and public officials ought to be able to rely on the public record as a means of determining what is built.

This is a good result for the Registrar and Owners Corporations in that the definition of “damage” has been extended beyond contractual damage to include aesthetics.

For further information on these changes, please visit the website at www.goodmanlaw.com.au

Master Builders ACT is taking firm action in conjunction with its members to improve both the standard of building quality and the quality of building and construction industry education and training in the ACT.

Master Builders ACT to launch building quality and training policies

Master Builders ACT has released the third and fourth policy papers, in the series of five planned. Being the ‘Building Quality Policy’ and the MBA’s Training & Education in April 2015

The ‘Building Quality Policy’ has been developed by MBA following years of public and government criticism of building quality, which has focused on a small number of high-profile, usually multi-unit developments in the ACT, whose poor quality and inadequate rectification has caused significant reputational damage to the remainder of the building industry which is delivering high-quality completed projects.

The ‘Education and Training Policy’ complements the ‘Building Quality Policy’, by establishing a pathway to maintain and raise standards of training, skills competency, safety and professionalism for the ACT building and construction industry.

The ‘Education and Training Policy’ aims to Increase and improve education and training options, career pathways and professional specialisations for building and construction professionals at all levels.

The MBA’s ‘Building Quality Policy’ establishes an industry-wide response designed to reduce the likelihood of building and construction projects, generating public and government concern.

In 2010 the ACT Government, in response to mounting public pressure over several high-profile projects published the ‘Building Quality in the ACT’ report.

Criticism of the building industry over poor quality, multi-unit projects, particularly when they are high-profile developments is not confined to the ACT. But the public, government and – naturally – the building industry have been acutely aware of the issues around projects in the Territory which have attracted adverse attention.

The Building Quality Policy’ had its origins in the realisation by the MBA ACT Executive Committee that defect rectification at the end of projects often costs as much as the project’s profit. A report by the University of NSW found that for every $100 million spent on construction, over $5 million is lost as a result of poor building quality. The angst associated with defects and subsequent rectification is undermining confidence in the building industry within Government and the community.

The MBA ACT has over the years developed a detailed study of defects and their causes and has worked with its members to develop a ‘Defects Avoidance Strategy’. This Strategy incorporates specific training and the publication of technical and guidance material targeting deficiencies in specific construction techniques. The ‘Building Quality Policy’ takes this Strategy to the next level and strives to deliver buildings and building services that consistently meet and exceed customers’ expectations.

Key elements of the Policy are:

• Advocate to the ACT Government the establishment of a Building Regulatory Advisory Committee

• Implement targeted professional development training for MBA members and the industry.

• Support the implementation of mandatory professional development training for all construction industry licensed practitioners.

• Advocate to the ACT Government the establishment of a peer review of all Class 2 buildings greater than two storeys

• Implement two-day annual training seminars delivered by industry professionals for members and industry practitioners

• Develop pro forma checklists for MBA members using a technology-based document management system for recording critical hold-point inspection stages on projects

• Advocate to the ACT Government to establish a review of the current building certification and inspection system

The MBA recognises that to achieve building quality standards, critical evaluation, ongoing innovation and commitment to building quality processes and stakeholder management is required.

The ‘Building Quality Policy’ is part of this on-going review process. It aims to maintain and enhance the quality requirements associated with being a member of the MBA.

The majority of the defects identified in multi-unit projects originated in poorly specified design documentation, selection of sub-standard building products or a lack of skill by the contractors in completing their tasks to a satisfactory standard. In some instances specifications and plans have been ignored and approval and certification have also been questionable and found to be deficient in some form.

A substantial proportion of the inspection and quality control issues on these projects resulted from the matters being inappropriately left to 'somebody else' and checking of the completed work being viewed as ‘someone else’s responsibility’.

There is also the view in the community that private building certification has contributed to a deterioration in building quality. But contrary to widespread public belief, the building certifier does not perform a quality control function. Quality control needs to occur at the work-face with contractors being clear about expectations and armed with the tools and skills to assess and record at the critical points during construction.

Implementation of the ‘Building Quality Policy’ will ensure inspection and quality control occur throughout the construction process to address public and government concerns.

The MBA’s ‘Education and Training Policy’ is intended to strengthen the quality of building and construction projects in the ACT by providing for a better trained and higher-skilled building and construction industry workforce with the skills and adaptability suited for future industry growth and development.

It provides for learning and work force skills development through personalised training, mentoring and corporate partnerships.

It encourages engagement with critical stakeholders including government, business and the community to ensure training and education policies and the necessary funding to enable timely and effective industry adaptation.

It aims to set the highest standards of training, skills competency, safety and professionalism for the ACT building and construction industry.

As part of its commitment to high-quality training and education MBA ACT has encouraged the development of MBA Group Training (MBA GT), a not-for-profit employment and training organisation dedicated to providing career opportunities in the construction industry.

MBA GT is fully aligned with the MBA ACT and is a nationally recognised, locally preferred, registered and accredited education and training provider in the building and construction industry. MBA GT is one of three major Building and Construction group schemes in the ACT, and employs professional trainers and also directly employs apprentices. MBA GT is led and governed by a board of directors with varied professional, business and skills backgrounds, who all volunteer their valuable time to meet the organisation’s mission. MBA GT is operated by a group of highly skilled and dedicated managers, trainers, field officers and administrators who deliver the following vision and mission:

The objective of MBA ACT and MBA Group Training is to work together to “professionalise” the ACT building and construction industry by:

• Providing quality education, training and mentoring with clear learning outcomes and career pathways

• Supporting men and women seeking career entry into the building and construction industry and related professions

• Enabling industry training commencement through quality school-based programs, including ACT Government and stakeholders engagement and support for enhanced literacy and numeracy outcomes

• Ensuring an apprenticeship structure that is relevant and contemporary

• Delivering Certificate and Diploma courses that meet higher industry level demands for skill and knowledge

• Collaborating with the University of Canberra to enhance and promote the Bachelor of Building and Construction Management tertiary accredited degree

• Innovating and developing learning programs for mature age entrants and practicing industry professionals requiring specialised education and training

• Continuing commitment to a rigorous assessment for recognition of prior learning (RPL), for existing skills and enabling higher qualification attainment

• Increasing local and national leverage for future funding and partnerships to increase education, training and employment opportunities in the ACT. This includes the support for an engineering degree program, as well as more employment options for apprentices and graduates locally

The MBA and the University of Canberra work closely together via a joint MOU to enhance educational pathways and career opportunities for building and construction professionals.

As part of its drive to improve education and training for the building and construction industry, MBA ACT and MBA GT engage the ACT Government to improve and clarify professional registration and licensing requirements and encourage continued training to meet the requirements, to enhance the development and retention of building and construction professionals in the ACT and region.

MBA ACT and MBA GT will continue seeking opportunities to increase flexibility in the building and construction industry by combining MBA GT high quality training and education modules towards higher level recognition of competencies and skills. The MBA is seeking to develop a professional 'skills passport' for its members. This will allow personalised career planning as well as increased focus on highest quality education and training.

To ensure education and training development for the industry, MBA ACT will continue seeking longer term funding commitments from the ACT Government and from industry, so as to maintain and enhance the development of educators, trainers and mentors and ensure the delivery of the highest professional standards in a changing education market.

Building Quality Policy I 1

Master Builders ACT

Building Quality Policy

POLICY DOCUMENTMaster Builders Association of the ACT

Building Quality is inherently important for the Master Builders Association and is an essential ongoing prerequisite to be upheld by builders to maintain privileged membership.

Master Builders Association of the ACT

1 Iron Knob St, Fyshwick ACT 2609

PO Box 1211, Fyshwick ACT 2609

T (02) 6280 9119

F (02) 6249 8374

E canberra@mba.org.au

W www.mba.org.au

Education and Training Policy I 1

Master Builders Association of the ACT

1 Iron Knob St, Fyshwick ACT 2609

PO Box 1211, Fyshwick ACT 2609

T (02) 6280 9119

F (02) 6249 8374

E canberra@mba.org.au

W www.mba.org.au

Master Builders ACT

Education& TrainingPolicy

POLICY DOCUMENTMaster Builders Association of the ACT

It is the view of the MBA that construction quality and defect mitigation will improve by adopting a process of collective responsibility by all of the key parties in the construction chain. Responsibility in the construction phase requires tighter control so that responsibility at the work-face is shared, thereby minimising cost implications and re-work further down the track.

Crucial vote on reintroduction of ABCC postponed

The ABCC was first established as an industrial regulator for the construction industry in 2005, following the 2002 Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, which recommended the introduction of ‘an independent body, free of the pressures on the participants in the industry, [to] ensure that [industry] participants comply with industrial, civil and criminal laws applicable to all Australians’. Following the election of the Rudd government in 2007, the watchdog was re-branded as Fair Work Building and Construction (FWBC) and its powers watered-down.

The legislation currently before the Senate would re-brand FWBC as the ABCC, enable swifter access to coercive interrogation powers, increase fines for unlawful union behaviour, introduce novel anti-picketing / workplace obstruction laws and implement a more stringent Commonwealth procurement code, the Building Code 2014. The legislation is in part aimed at addressing law-breaking by rogue construction unions, but also ensures (via the Building Code 2014) that builders will face exclusion from government work where they comply with unlawful union demands, such as participation in a black-ban against a subcontractor on the recommendation of a union.

Labor and the Greens currently oppose the legislation, on the basis that it singles out one group of employees (construction workers) for harsher treatment and exposes them to liberty-infringing coercive interrogation. The truth is that the legislation is aimed at ensuring that the rule of law is preserved for all participants, in an industry where freedom to work, freedom from fear and freedom of speech is greatly curtailed by unlawful union behaviour and a policy of appeasement by employers. The coercive powers are rarely used against employees, instead being used to compel employers to speak out, despite fears of reprisals by unions. Similar powers

have been granted to the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission – an acknowledgement of the difficulties of enforcing the law where silence is often a barrier to prosecutions.

Labor and the Greens only need three Senate cross-benchers to defeat the legislation. Currently, Senators Muir (Australian Motorists Enthusiast Party) Madigan (Indpendent) and Lambie (ex- Palmer United Party, now independent) have expressed opposition to the reintroduction of the ABCC, while Senators Xenophon (independent) Day (Family First) and Leyonhjelm (Liberal Democratic Party) have expressed support (Leyonhjelm on the basis that the coercive interrogation powers will cease in five years) leaving Senator Wang (Palmer United Party) and Senator Lazarus undecided. In a positive development, Senator Lambie, who formerly opposed the legislation, has now asked for more time to consider it, following a meeting with Boral executives about the alleged black-ban imposed by the CFMEU on Boral products in the Melbourne CBD since 2012. In the meantime, the Coalition introduced legislation to ensure that FWBC’s coercive interrogation powers do not sunset in May, which was notably supported by Senator Lambie.

Former Labor minister and ACTU president Martin Ferguson has also publicly supported the reintroduction of the ABCC.

Mr Ferguson has compared the construction division of the CFMEU with the former BLF, stating that ‘the manner in which the BLF conducted themselves is now rife within branches of the CFMEU… and in my opinion the CFMEU should be brought to heel and required to conduct themselves in a fair and reasonable way.’ Master Builders is calling for cross-bench Senators to demonstrate similar non-partisan leadership on the question of reintroducing the ABCC, which is one and the same as whether they support reforming the construction industry.

A vote on one of the Coalition’s signature election policies, the reinstatement of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) has been postponed to allow the Coalition more time to lobby cross-bench Senators.

While lack of affordable housing is a major issue in some other states and territories and a key issue in the recent NSW state election, it has been less visible in the ACT.

While currently less visible in the ACT, affordability is already a problem for low income groups in the ACT – for which the private sector is offering some specific response.

And there are signs that it could become a much more widespread general problem in the ACT if action is not taken to prevent further falls in building and construction activity.

While the outlook for the ACT economy and public sector jobs remains uncertain, recent newspaper reports suggest that Australian Public Service job cuts are slowing. A recent University of Canberra NATSEM report showed ACT household income fell by $2571 in 2014 but the most recent Commsec ‘State of the States’ report (see January’s On-Site Insight) also suggested the ACT economy may have touched bottom.

Average ACT housing prices have remained relatively high compared to other capitals except Sydney, but housing affordability has not yet become the potent political issue in the ACT that it has elsewhere, especially in Sydney.

However there is growing concern among organisations representing low-income groups in the ACT about shortages of low-income accommodation.

CHC Affordable Housing which has undertaken affordable housing developments at Bruce and Gungahlin is proposing a large-scale affordable housing development on the ACT Government’s former Downer Primary School site.

The Canberra Times recently reported that planning officials have recommended in favour of a CHC Affordable Housing plan for a 300 affordable townhouse and apartment development on the site.

Planning officials recommendations in favour of variations to the Local Area Plan to permit the proposed development are currently being considered by Planning Minister Mick Gentleman.

While there has been a shortage of lower-cost housing for rent and purchase in the ACT, despite the slow-down in the ACT economy and lack of wages growth housing has remained relatively affordable in the ACT according to the real estate industry’s conventional measure of (overall) housing affordability.

Real Estate Institute of Australia president Neville Sanders was recently quoted pointing out that housing in the Australian Capital Territory remained the most affordable of any state at 20.4 per cent of average income to meet average loan repayments, followed by Tasmania at 25.9 per cent. New South Wales was once again named the least affordable state for homebuyers, requiring 36.2 per cent of average income.

With affordability calculated as the percentage of the average family income required to meet average loan repayments, the ACT always comes out as relatively affordable because of its high level of two-income families.

The limitation of this measure however is that it measures average affordability across the Territory and irons out lack of affordability for particular groups.

The big risk for the ACT is when the ACT economy starts to improve and if – or when – interest rates start to rise, there will be low stock in the building pipeline. Recent commencement and approval figures tell the story:

• September quarter dwelling commencements (the most recent) showed an annual fall of 2.2 per cent for the quarter in the ACT, compared to an increase of 17.1 per cent nationally (trend measure).

• January residential building approvals (the latest) showed an annual fall of 26.6 per cent in the ACT, compared to a 10.9 per cent rise nationally.

Low housing affordability possible in the ACT

With signs that the worst of the ACT’s public sector job losses may be coming to an end, the Territory could face a new housing affordability

crisis as its economy emerges from the current slow-down.

MIL

LIO

N

// To Insert New Data Goto Object/Graph/Data• Copy and Paste Pivot Table Data into Data

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

Mar-15Feb-15Jan-15Dec-14Nov-14Oct-14Sep-14Aug-14Jul-14Jun-14May-14Apr-14

The above graph and table below summarizes private sector building activity for the various building sectors in the ACT over the past 12 months. The values for each month are depicted in millions of dollars.

ACT PRIVATE SECTOR BUILDING ACTIVITY

COMING EVENTS FOR 2015

2015 Civil Contractor's Federation (CCF) Earth Awards

Date: Friday 8 May 2015 I Where: The Rex Hotel, Canberra

The 2015 CCF Earth Awards will this year be held at The Rex Hotel in Canberra. These awards recognise outstanding achievement in Civil Construction over the past 12 months.

2015 Master Builders and Cbus Excellence in Building Awards

Date: Friday 26 June 2015 I Where: National Convention Centre, Canberra

The Master Builders and Cbus Excellence in Building Awards are the largest black-tie event in Canberra and feature some of the best builders not only in the ACT, but in Australia.

TRAINING DATES FOR 2015

SECTOR COUNCIL MEETINGS 2015

INFORMATION SESSIONS FOR 2015

COMMERCIAL 21 Apr 2 Jun 11 Aug 6 Oct 1 Dec

CIVIL 5 May 4 Aug 6 Oct (AGM)

RESIDENTIAL 15 Apr 10 Jun 12 Aug 14 Oct 9 Dec

SUB-CONTRACTORS & SUPPLIERS 28 Apr 7 Jul 15 Sep 17 Nov

PROFESSIONAL 15 Apr 17 Jun 19 Aug 21 Oct 16 Dec

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 13 October

Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15Additions and Alterations (Residential) 5 4.7 6.8 4.6 5 4.2 5.2 5 4.5 2.5 4.5 5.3Commercial Building Work 55 26 48.2 61 55 26.5 74 11 22 17.2 12.1 43.3Garages, Pools, Decks and Similar Structures 10 12 3.4 12 10 16 16.5 8.8 7.5 5.2 10.4 12.5Multi Unit 18 56 4.6 22.5 18 0.6 30 58.7 34 65 21 3.4New Housing 50 62 51 52 50 20 47 29.3 54 30 33 42.1

5 things you can do right now to reduce your tax bill

Date 28 May – 4.00pm Where Master Builders Skills Centre, Fyshwick

With another financial year almost over, what personal and business tax planning have you done? Join us for a 1 hour Q & A session with Milestone Financial to discuss.

• How do I plan to make 2015/2016 my best year yet? • Have I structured my business the best way, or is there another option? • Should I be paying myself a wage and super and why?

Contact Lorraine Brook on 6175 5920 for more information.

HIGH RISK TRAINING MBA Group Training facilitates High Risk training through Southern Training Organisation (RTO No. 91378) to deliver a number of High Risk short courses Contact Cecilee Miller on 6280 9119 for more information. • Forklift Operations – 29th Apr to 1st May • Elevated Work Platforms

(Over 11m) – 13th to 15th May• Licence to Perform Dogging – 4th to 9th May • Materials Hoist – 18th to 19th May

• Basic Scaffolding – 1st to 5th June• Basic Rigging – 15th to 20th June• Non Slewing Crane – TBA• Slewing Mobile Crane (Over 60 Tonne) – TBA