The New South Wales Government has released details of its proposed reforms to the building and construction sector, but key stakeholders warn the changes miss some crucial points.
The regulations were announced following a number of high-profile incidents involving the discovery of cracking and damage to apartments blocks, such as Opal Tower and Mascot Towers, both in Sydney, which required residents to be evacuated.
However, Engineers Australia warns that the changes do not adequately respond to the recommendations from Building Confidence, the landmark 2018 report into the sector by Peter Shergold and Bronwyn Weir.
Engineers Australia particularly wants to see the State Government implement a Shergold-Weir report recommendation that would require a compulsory registration scheme for the state’s engineers.
“Our concern is that the proposals as they stand today will only affect engineers who design certain elements within apartment buildings only,” Engineers Australia’s National Manager of Public Affairs Jonathan Russell told create.
“But a building is a system, and if you modify one seemingly innocuous aspect over here, it might have an unintended consequence on a safety-critical element over there. Our point is that by restricting the scope for the registration scheme within apartment buildings, you’re just making life more complicated for yourself.”
The proposed regulations would introduce a registration requirement for some of the state’s engineers, but only those who have to perform a “compliance declaration” for a Class 2 apartment building.
“This is a vital piece of law that will play a significant role in restoring quality, transparency and quality of work in the building and construction industry,” the Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation Kevin Anderson said.
But Russell believes this response is inadequate.
“Too much of what the State Government is doing is a rushed job,” Russell said.
“They’re pushing ahead to get a bill through parliament this year because they said they would, so they’re more interested in speed than getting it right the first time.”
Learn from what works
Russell said Engineers Australia wants to see New South Wales adopt a system of compulsory registration for engineers modelled after the requirements Queensland has had in place for the past 90 years.
Earlier this year, Victoria also passed mandatory registration legislation for five key sectors.
“Our advice to every jurisdiction is to always model the registration scheme on Queensland,” Russell said.
Another advantage for state and territories looking to adopt Queensland’s system, he said, is that it would improve regulatory efficiency.
“Because Queensland’s had it since 1929, it works, it’s been proven to be effective. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.”
Input from all corners
As of Wednesday afternoon, the NSW State Government’s draft legislation has been made open for public comment for about two weeks before likely introduction to Parliament in mid-late October.
Engineers Australia hopes that engineers and the New South Wales public will take advantage of this consultative period by insisting that the State Government embrace a more rigorous scheme.
“We’ve started a campaign to get the wider membership active to write to the Premier to make sure she knows that this is a big deal,” Russell said, referring to NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian.
“It’s a public campaign; we’ve got advertising all over the internet to encourage the general public to click through to our campaign website, learn about the issues, and write to the Premier to tell them that as a citizen of New South Wales, they have a stake in this and they want better.”
As the campaign website states: “It is unacceptable that virtually anyone in NSW will still be able to call themselves an engineer, even if they have no relevant education or experience, and no commitment to maintain competency.
“This contrasts with other professionals like architects, doctors and lawyers, who all have to be registered before legally providing services.”
The difference, according to Russell, is that an incompetent or untrained engineer can have an even more damaging impact on society.
“Seemingly innocuous engineering work can have a devastating effect on people when it goes wrong,” he said.
“We know, and we’re very glad that most engineers are doing the right thing, working within their competency, and doing a good job. But it doesn’t take many bad apples to ruin the cart.”
Engineers Australia urges NSW residents to write to Premier Gladys Berejiklian about their concerns. Members in NSW will receive an invitation to attend an open forum later in October, where Engineers Australia will be seeking their views and sharing more information.
These proposed changes might sound like a step in the right direction
But if I understand it correctly the recent issues in Sydney involved bldgs designed by qualified engineers
Registration in itself would have made no difference
I am a retired para qualified engineer who was involved in the building industry for 50 yrs in the Bldg services sector During that time I only met or worked with a handful of university qualified engineers who actually knew what they were doing Sadly 95% of those I worked with really didn’t have a clue what they were doing
Registration is not going to fix the real problems
I have sent Gladys a message telling her that the proposed regulations are half baked and wont work
Oh dear. Once again we engineers are duped by those who simply fail to understand the complexity of what we do. But that is OK. In the past they wanted a cheap job and they got their Opal and Mascot warnings, which they have evidently decided to understand the broader causes of these warnings. Make no mistake, these Shergold and Weir people and their followers know exactly what they are doing. They do not want the engineering profession to get any air. So the community, led by the regulators, all want to continue to marginalize engineers and they will thus continue to get the cheap engineering design and documentation price. They still want a cheap price for the engineering and they are going to get it, as well as the associated cheap job. Once the profession of structural engineering is pushed down to breaking, it will never recover. What will the next area of failure be, – perhaps residential scale construction. We await to see the inevitable outcome of a irrevocably ruined profession. If you do not believe me then you are deceived. I n my 61 years I have seen this once world leading profession destroyed, with the growth of the Building Surveyor profession that is a technical engineering vacuum and a professional rabble. I always knew Shergold and Weir were way off the mark. When the former robust and technically first class profession of structural engineering is gone, because the needs and support engineers have been screaming for is not provided, do not think the overseas engineers are going to step into the void. They will not. Nice work Shergold and Weir, you really screwed up. Not just for NSW, but also for SA TAS, WA NT etc etc.
This is a systemic problem that affects ALL areas of construction and engineering, not just high-rise apartment buildings; primarily including, but most certainly NOT limited to, general domestic Residential and Commercial structures.
The design, construction, supervision and approval processes ALL need to be addressed appropriately, as the current system is just NOT working!
How do I know this? I don’t design NOR inspect full residential houses anymore, hardly even see only slab and footing designs either, AND currently do more damage reports than anything else, as a design engineer; i.e. NOT specifically, nor intentionally specialising in this field of damage investigations!
Primarily due to the hugely increasing demand for damage/condition/forensic reports (currently 2 or 3 new ones every week in a small local Regional QLD area; can barely keep up with the demand), not just from my considerable experience in this field, obtained from that high demand. It seems like every second house that is constructed requires an investigation and subsequent rectifications. This is more prevalent for relatively newer structures also (from new to 10-15 years), as opposed to aged structures with degradation issues (over 15 years).
Most people can’t even afford the considerable expense to investigate the issues, let alone the cost of rectifications required, typically running into the tens of thousands of dollars at least, all the while trying to pay off the mortgage of the biggest investment they are likely to encounter.
It seems typical “Builders” (loosely called) now just sit back in an office on the phone piecing together standard/generic, prefabricated, apparently “approved and signed off components” (just/only to meet the bare minimum requirements for approvals etc.), from the many and various sub-contractors and poorly assembled (slapped together) on site as quickly and cheaply as possible – with very little adequate supervision by a competent person! It seems that the overall structure is not really “designed” in full, without a “competent person” to oversee the whole design AND construction of the entire structure AND how each “component” works together on site; let alone ensuring the suitability of “standard/generic” details/components/materials/construction methods for each site – often incompetently overlooked, by building designers, engineers, building certifiers and builders alike.
How do I know this? The countless damage report investigations reveal many and various failings across the board! Although often, but not always, just the builders poor construction and cutting corners. Many “designs” I have witnessed should just not have been approved in the first place, let alone constructed and then approved/certified again!
I believe the main issue being the currently losing battle between experience/capability/integrity/workmanship/durability/TIME…etc. Vs. $cost/speed/apparent efficiency…/bloated documentation/approvals/corruption/material-product quality & suitability…etc.
It seems the more documentation/processes/approvals that are put in place, (in the false hope of improving construction and end-user functionality), the more cutting corners of actual construction that takes place on site and during the design, approval, fabrication and construction processes. Contractors have become so concerned and reliant on JUST getting those many and various pieces of approval PAPER (often not worth the paper it’s written on), signed off by the engineer/council/building certifier, in order to get paid; they have lost sight/focus of the actual construction of the building itself AND don’t care once they have those pieces of paper approval signed off!
Quality of design/approvals/construction/supervision invariably become the compromising factors in the equation of $ Vs. Time in producing good quality work. Pride in workmanship and quality goes straight out the window, as should all the worthless pieces of paper…
I could go on further, however this may not be the right forum for further discussion on this matter…
can’t resist further comments on this important topic….
It seems the introduction of Private Building Certifiers (commonly referred to as “50 buck Phil’s”) has had a huge detrimental impact on the entire construction industry. Almost as if it was deliberately introduced as another avenue for corruption of the inadequate system in place, open to be inevitably exploited.
Who would ever have thought that introducing a cheaper, easier, more widely accessible (less restricted) way to expedite the construction/approval process & get it approved for a price, while bypassing/circumventing real adequate engineering design & construction supervision, opting for prefab/pre-approved components, all whacked together on site as quick as possible, would result in poor construction work and subsequent problems? Hmmm….I wonder?
Essentially by default resulting in or intentional collusion between developers, builders, engineers and certifiers seems to now be the norm in order to economise and fast-track the entire process from concept to structure occupation, in an unprecedented and obviously inadequate, inappropriate, incompetent pace, with all the boxes ticked & pieces of approval paper signed off as apparently compliant with the NCC or Australian Standards, with the end-user completely unaware of reality!
An unsustainable pace that has allowed many and increasing errors in design and construction across the board, whether intentional to cut corners, or just pure incompetence and/or lack of adequate time to conduct appropriate services (from concept & design right through to construction & final occupation).
The paradox is that when taking the overall picture into account, structures are costing more, with more waste (hence a part of the cost increase), more stress due to time restrictions therefore leading to cutting corners & $50 buck Phil inspections, allowing anything to be built, invariably producing inadequate low quality structures with serious ongoing, often exorbitant, irreparable problems.
With the end-user paying exorbitant prices for such low quality, inadequate residential housing & commercial structures (particularly but not limited to) and suffering with the “lemon” they just invested their life savings into.
Surely this trend is becoming more obvious to others and this inadequate process needs to change immediately! Introducing more legislation and more documentation & approvals will only worsen the problem, partially created from the very process itself. Working the process and not the actual job!
Firstly ensuring the design engineer (and builder/sub-contractors) are competent, (not just any apparently competent person), MUST be more heavily involved in the construction supervision process, as used to be the case, to ensure the DESIGN INTENT is actually achieved on site. It is apparent the random $50 Phil’s with little or no genuine design experience, have little genuine understanding or ability to fully comprehend the drawings or construction implications to ensure the design intent IS actually achieved on site. There is no denying this fact! It’s happening…
Why? As there are invariably changes occurring on site during construction, either due to site issues, or intentional cost cutting construction changes, which are not appropriately checked for their FULL effect on the structure. THIS IS THE DESIGN ENGINEERS RESPONSIBILITY!!!
How do I know this? I have had many years of extensive design and site experience & understand what occurs on construction sites, and have MANY TIMES previously needed to contact the design engineer when conducting local site inspections on their behalf, in order to get appropriate checks & approval for significant design/construction changes – with some very serious implications. However, I have NEVER once in 20 years design and site experience EVER had a single phone call from a Building Certifier (“Phil”) inspecting the construction of one of my designs, for approval or advice on construction issues/changes occurring on site. I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that significant changes have not occurred on site during construction without my knowledge nor approval. I am fully aware this does occur and also see the significant consequences when conducting the countless damage reports on structures that have ALL the appropriate pieces of approval paper, all nicely ticked off and signed off….something obviously not working there….
So what is the point of all the engineering design (even if fully registered, experienced and competent!), drawings, time and cost that goes into producing those drawings, to ensure the structure complies with the NCC and Australian Standards, AND that it actually performs adequately for the FULL DESIGN LIFE of the structure (that’s a novel idea!?!), if the “Builder” and/or “$50 Phil the certifier” can just go and build and approve whatever they want, without adequate supervision to ENSURE DESIGN INTENT, due to whatever reasons chosen on site and approve it between themselves, with all the stamps and signatures required… The effort of the engineering “design intent” goes out the window, let alone quality, durability, adequate performance for the full design life…etc…
I know this occurs, as I see the resulting issues from many sides across the board, from experience in design, construction and forensic investigations. It’s now all only about getting that piece of paper signed off!!
Recent experiences have for the first time in my career, forced me to consider to not conduct any site inspections in future, due to the shear lack of experience and cowboy attitude of on-site construction – absolutely woeful!! They are not what I would classify as “Builders”. Primarily from not wanting to be associated with the actual construction occurring, let alone certify it. Even to the point of refusal to certify the construction of a new large commercial building, which was inadequately constructed.