swimming pool and spa association of nsw & act...

Swimming Pool and Spa Association of NSW & ACT (SPASA) Toll: 1800 802 482 | Ph: (02) 9630 6300 | Fax: (02) 9630 6355 | Web: www.spasa.org.au

of 15

Submission on the

Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005

http://www.spasa.org.au/


of 15

4th June 2015

INTRODUCTION This submission is made by the Swimming Pool and Spa Association of NSW & ACT (SPASA). SPASA represents hundreds of businesses within the swimming pool and spa industry. Members of SPASA include pool builders, service technicians, retailers, manufacturers, suppliers, subcontractors, installers, consultants and other allied trades, all of whom set themselves apart from the rest of the industry by setting standards of skill, workmanship and ethical business behaviour in the best interests of pool and spa owners. SPASA is also a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) that provides training and assessment to the swimming pool and spa industry. Our courses are designed in consultation with key industry stakeholders and our qualifications and accreditations are highly valued by government, employers and the wider community. Please find below our comments to Questions raised within Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005 Discussion Paper.

______________________________

Questions: legislative structure for building sector regulation 1. Is there merit in consolidating the legislative framework for building sector regulation and control in one part of the EP&A Act, expressed in plain English, on a principles-based approach, with its own objectives, and incorporating any reforms approved by the Government? 2. Are there sufficient additional benefits involved to justify consolidating all building legislation in one Act, including the Home Building Act 1993?

The current legislative and administrative structure for building regulating and certification in NSW is reasonably complex and difficult to navigate. SPASA supports consolidating all building legislation into one Building Industry Act.

Consolidation would provide:

Greater clarity for all users Easier navigation Consistent interpretation Dependable application



of 15

Questions: administrative structure for building sector regulation 3. Are there sufficient benefits to justify the consolidation of building regulation administration?

Questions: Building Professionals Board governance 4. Should the BP Act provide the BPB with the power to employ its own staff in addition to seconding staff? 5. Is there merit in the functions undertaken by BPB continuing to be undertaken by a statutory board?

SPASA can see merit in Option 3 and 4 with both options providing significant benefits to both the industry and consumers. Namely:

Simplicity Integration Co-ordination One Stop Shop Organisational Culture

SPASA supports the BPB being provided with the power to act as the employer of its staff.

Yes.



of 15

Questions: framework for cooperation between private certifiers and local government 6. Would the framework of cooperation developed by the BPB Local Government Reference Group provide an effective approach for interaction between private certifiers and local government? 7. Should certifiers be required to report all cases of building and planning noncompliance to councils? 8. Is there merit in a partnership model between the State and local government in the area of certification and building regulation enforcement?

Yes, however the proposed framework is more likely to be unsuccessful if it simply relies on “cooperation.”

Yes.

Yes.



of 15

Questions: strata and community title developments 9. Would enhanced oversight of the certification process assist in addressing the problems experienced by owners of strata and community title developments?

Questions: use of e-technology 10. Would an electronic system for development applications, complying developments and building certification generate useful information for government and the industry and improve regulatory performance?

11. Do you support the adoption of standard forms for development applications, CCs, CDCs and OCs?

SPASA does not agree that buildings with a rise in storeys greater than three should be excluded from participating in the Home Building Compensation Fund. Unit Holders are in just as much need of protection as individual Home Owners and Single Storey Complex Unit Holders and generally in no better position to pursue their rights for rectification of defects. A defects bond set at two per cent of the value of the construction and held for a period of two years after the completion of the building is negligible especially when compared against the ten percent retention the head contractor retains from subcontractors generally for a period of twelve months. Enhanced oversight of the certification process may provide some improvement; however, this would still fall short of protecting purchasers who buy within strata and community title developments.

The investment in E - Technology is a MUST and should be pursued as a matter of urgency. In this regard, any E- Technology should be user friendly and be able to work across multiple platforms.

Yes.



of 15

Questions: building regulation and certification – planning and approval stage 12. Do you support, as ways of improving the planning and approval stage:

• limiting development approval to a concept approval

• a standard set of development application conditions

• independent assessment of instances where a council seeks to impose higher building standards than the BCA

SPASA is not opposed to limiting development approval to a concept approval but would like to see further detail as to the mechanics of such a proposal. Some concerns with this model include:

Project built not resembling the concept approval? What monitoring and disciplinary powers will be available to deal with the

discrepancies? Communities and others will not have access to detailed information to

satisfy concerns that may not be addressed in the concept approval An increased risk of unauthorised works due to lack of information or

documentation and misunderstanding Investment in specialised reports (Traffic, Geotechnical, Acoustic, Alternative

Solutions etc) at a later stage may not correlate with the initial concept approval

SPASA supports the concept that building plans should be prepared and certified by appropriately qualified persons for complex buildings. In this regard, reference is made to the recent major changes to building laws where licensees have a legal defence in proceedings for a breach of the statutory warranties if they reasonably relied on the written specialist advice of an independent professional engaged by the owner.

SPASA supports the development of a standard set of development application conditions.

SPASA supports the Productivity Commission proposal where a council wishes to impose a higher building standard than the BCA, the Council must undertake a cost-benefit assessment and submit the assessment to an independent party such as IPART for review and approval.



of 15

• improved information to the community on developments in their area?

Questions: building regulation and certification – certification to allow commencement of building work

13. Will a significant improvement in the process of certification, to allow commencement of building work, be provided by: • standardising the information to support the CC/ CDC

• standardising the report to support alternative solutions with content confirmed by the certifier

Improved signage would be a welcome addition for members of the community and others parties but this would need to be underpinned by the individuals listed on such signage being able to appropriately address queries that may arise.

SPASA supports standardising the information to support the CC/ CDC.

The ability to be flexible in building design makes Alternative Solutions very appealing to Architects, Builders and their clients.

However the benefits of alternative solutions are often eroded in wasted time and effort resolving issues arising from lack of clarity or understanding about what the alternative solution(s) require.

Whilst many Swimming Pool and Spa Alternative Solutions satisfy and/or exceed the Deemed to Satisfy requirements, many certifying authorities have been reluctant to consider an Alternative Solution as viable and acceptable performance standards.

Members of SPASA report that certifying authorities do not understand or have become risk-averse when faced with an “Alternative Building Solution” application.

This situation highlights a process that simply does not work for reasons that relate to a “lack of understanding” or “fear” rather than reviewing and considering appropriate Alternative Solutions.

Accordingly, SPASA supports:

Standardising the report to support Alternative Solutions with content confirmed by the certifier

A regulatory system that is better able to accommodate the Australian Building Codes Board’s intention to expand the uptake of alternative solutions



of 15

• replacing the not inconsistent test with the consistent test for both CCs/CDCs and OCs? 14. Do you support combining the roles of certifying authority and principal certifying authority? 15. For a CC or CDC, is there merit in separating the assessment of conformity with planning requirements, to be handled by the consent authority, from the assessment of building requirements? Questions: building regulation and certification – building construction stage 16. Would the current problems with the building construction stage regulatory approach be addressed by: • ensuring the builder receives the certified plans and CC/ CDC

SPASA supports replacing the “not inconsistent” test with clear specification of what information will be required to support certification, and clear guidelines for the compliance checking and review required of a certifier.

SPASA supports combining the role of certifying authority and PCA and permitting only one certifying authority per development consent.

Yes…………..Only if the experience where this has occurred in other jurisdictions can be extrapolated and the data is supportive (if implemented) of other holistic changes being considered by the Discussion Paper.

SPASA supports processes that ensure that the builder is provided with the development consent, including any and all ‘section 96’ modifications, the CC or CDC and associated building documentation and plans before building work commences.



of 15

• documenting and requiring adherence to good certifier practice

• potential additional critical site inspections based on risk assessment • replacing interim and final OCs with an OC and development completion certificate • requiring projects with missed mandatory inspections, and unauthorised work, to obtain an OC

There is an awful lot of confusion in this area.

SPASA supports the development of an urgent Practice Guide and the need for it to be given legal recognition.

SPASA supports the need for additional critical site inspections based on a risk assessment approach.

There are many problems associated with replacing interim and final OCs with an OC and development completion certificate. In particular, enforcement processes and costs become an issue if the timeframe for the Development Completion is not adhered too. SPASA supports a need to place significant requirements on a PCA such as:

For the PCA to immediately inform both the council and the BPB of the missed mandatory inspection

For the PCA to submit a missed inspection report based on a subsequent inspection of that aspect of the construction that was not inspected

For the Developer to submit agreed appropriate evidence via a report regarding missed inspection aspect of the construction that was not inspected

Unauthorised building work takes many forms and can range from very minor technical breaches which cause little or no environmental harm, to blatant environmental law breaches for projects that would never receive development approval. Accordingly, SPASA supports the following

For the PCA to immediately inform both the council and the BPB of the Unauthorised building work

A stop work order is issued on any part of the unauthorised building work No OC to be issued until such time as the matter of unauthorised building

work is resolved



of 15

• effective financial sanctions for unauthorised work?

Questions: building regulation and certification – building construction stage 17. Do you support the option of requiring the creation and maintenance of a Building Manual for all new Class 1b-9 buildings?

Questions: building regulation and certification – fire performance and safety

18. Do you support the reform of the fire protection system certification, including the proposed revised role for NSW Fire and Rescue?

Questions: supply, accreditation, accountability and oversight of certifiers – supply of certifiers 19. Would the options for change set out in this paper be helpful in improving the supply of qualified certifiers and making it a more attractive profession?

20. Is there an adequate pathway that allows a certifier to progress from the A4 category (building inspector) right through to A1 (building surveyor – grade 1), if desired?

SPASA supports the introduction of sanctions in the form of fines of a size that effectively discourage unauthorised work.

SPASA supports the Options provided within the Discussion Paper.


SPASA supports the options provided within the Discussion Paper BUT believes that experts in specific or narrow areas should be able to certify (via restricted accreditation) areas they specialise in rather than just relying on Certifiers with broad based qualifications. In addition, careers in certification may only be attractive to a small group whilst experts in specific or narrow areas will always exist. Such people may not want to have a career in full-time certification but rather supplement their current workload in peak times or times of their choosing by using their expertise to certify only areas that they can demonstrate they know well. The Accreditation Scheme needs to be broadened to allow for experts in specific or narrow areas who do not want a career certifying anything outside their expertise.



of 15

Questions: supply, accreditation, accountability and oversight of certifiers – accreditation process 21. Would the proposed changes to the accreditation process address the main deficiencies in the current system? 22. Do you support the use of an evidence-based framework and guide for the review of the accreditation scheme? Questions: supply, accreditation, accountability and oversight of certifiers - accountability of certifiers 23. Are the following sufficient to create a suitable level of accountability for certifiers in respect to their regulatory role: • improved transparency of the performance of a certifier with a Practice Guide • proactive investigations and audits

No. Also see previous response.


Yes.

SPASA supports improved transparency of the performance of a certifier with a Practice Guide.

SPASA supports proactive investigations and audits.



of 15

• increasing the awareness of the role of certifiers?

24. Does the establishment of certifier panels by councils have merit?

Questions: supply, accreditation, accountability and oversight of certifiers - investigations, audits and disciplinary action 25. Do you support an expanded program of proactive investigations and audits by the BPB and if so, how should they be conducted? 26. Would introducing a demerits point system and issuing more penalty infringement notices provide a more timely mechanism for disciplining certifiers who have not performed to a required professional standard? 27. Would you prefer an online system for the lodgement of complaints?

SPASA supports increasing the awareness of the role of certifiers.

No.


Yes………………..A Demerit Points System underpinned by increased penalties

and disqualification/suspension provisions where they have consistently

not performed to a standard.

Yes.



of 15

Questions: supply, accreditation, accountability and oversight of certifiers – support for certifiers 28. Would the establishment of an education and training program to inquiries, complaints and audits together with a building services advisory hot line address the needs of certifiers for training and information support? Questions: supply, accreditation, accountability and oversight of certifiers – competitive neutrality between council and private certifiers 29. Is it possible to achieve full competitive neutrality without either councils ceasing to offer certification services, or private certifiers being abolished?

Questions: supply, accreditation, accountability and oversight of certifiers – insurance 30. Would certifiers’ insurance issues be addressed by expanding certification and accreditation to cover critical building elements and design, and by implementing an industry scheme to cover the gap in insurance cover from certifiers leaving the industry or where the certifier changes for a particular project? If not, what additional problems remain? 31. Do you agree that there is not a ‘last person standing’ problem arising from the different liability cover between builders and certifiers? If it does arise, please explain the problem created.

SPASA supports the establishment of an education and training program. Any education and training program ideally would need to by written by appropriately qualified instructional designers and the course would need to address suitable demonstrated, knowledge and skill outcomes.

No.

SPASA has not been provided and does not have before it sufficient statistical insurance data to understand whether there is a problem and how big that problem actually is.

SPASA agrees that there is not a ‘last person standing’ problem arising from the different liability covers between builders and certifiers. If it did arise, a Court or Tribunal would have or require an understanding of the different roles and responsibilities of certifiers and that of builders.



of 15

Questions: supply, accreditation, accountability and oversight of certifiers – swimming pool certification 32. Do you favour a simplification of the requirement for swimming pool fencing certification requirements, moving from three standards to one? Questions: resourcing of the building and certification system 33. Would setting charges for both councils and the State to recover processing costs for development applications and CDCs be the most equitable and efficient approach?

The management of the Swimming Pool Barrier Program has been a monumental mess and has been void of any real or meaningful consultation from the start in 2012. E1 Certification is ultimately about the “Safety” of young children around swimming pools and spas. For that reason, the educational function specific to the E1 Course should not be handled, assessed or managed by the Building Professionals Board (BPB). The E1 Course must be overhauled into an accredited course and overseen by an appropriate authority such as the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) as is the case with the Queensland 31005QLD Accredited Swimming Pool Safety Inspections Course to become a Pool Safety Inspector. SPASA does not believe the “options for consideration” within the discussion paper as well as the reference to “whether certifiers should be able to carry out minor repairs” will address the much larger problems associated with the Pool Barrier Inspection Program. Notwithstanding the above, SPASA agrees that a simplification of the requirement for swimming pool barrier certification requirements is needed and has very recently written to the Minister for Local Government, Pool Toole MP recommending a full suite of solutions.

Resourcing and funding arrangements for the building regulation and certification system should only be considered after a number of the other areas relating to efficiency are addressed within this Discussion Paper. Key areas of focus should be to look at include eliminating fragmentation and capitalising on internal efficiencies before establishing a charging regime.


http://training.gov.au/Training/Details/31005QLD


of 15

For further information: Spiros Dassakis - CEO Swimming Pool and Spa Alliance (SPASA) Toll: 1800 802 482 Ph: (02) 9630 6300 Mob: Email: Web: www.spasa.org.au



swimming pool and spa association of nsw & act...

Documents