The GNCA is of the view that the current discussion paper, and previous inquiries, have been daintily dancing around the elephant in the room, which is: Why does a purchaser of (say) a fridge have considerably more consumer protection, consumer protection, and ease of access to appropriate remedies, than does the purchaser of a dwelling? Given that a house costs in the order of a thousand times as much as a fridge, surely, in a rationally organised society, greater protection would go with greater expenditure? To read GNCA’s full submission please click here.
Committed to the preservation of community facilities and open space.
