PRIVATE CERTIFIERS

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:51): I move:

That this house establish a select committee to inquire into the functions and duties of private certifiers in the state of South Australia with the following terms of reference—

1. The operation of part 12—Private Certification of the Development Act 1993, and in particular—

(a) the framework under the Development Act 1993 to handle complaints made against private certifiers;

(b) the current process of accrediting private certifiers in the state of South Australia;

(c) whether current methods of accreditation for private certifiers is appropriate and/or whether other streams of accreditation should be considered;

(d) the appropriate qualifications required by private certifiers to undertake tasks related to the structural integrity of buildings;

(e) the system of auditing approvals provided by private certifiers and adequacy of the current processes of enforcement in the event of a breach to the Development Act 1993; and

(f) any other matters directly relevant to this part of the Development Act 1993.

2. Whether the Building Advisory Committee or any of its members have been placed under any undue influence in the performance of their statutory duties.

I am pleased today to move this motion in favour of establishing a House of Assembly select committee of parliament to inquire into the functions and duties of private certifiers under part 12 of the Development Act 1993. For some time now, there has been a debate about the appropriate roles and functions that private certifiers should play in certifying the structural integrity of buildings in South Australia. Central to the government's position in this debate is the safety and wellbeing of South Australians. Clearly, the member for Bragg disagrees because she says that this motion is an abuse of process.

All South Australians should have the confidence to enter a building knowing that the soundness of its structural integrity has been properly assessed by professionals with appropriate qualifications. The most contentious issue in this debate is the extent to which professional engineers should be appropriately included in the building assessment process to ensure that buildings are assessed with the highest standards of quality control. This government holds the view that this proposition requires an in-depth inquiry. The select committee of parliament to be established by this motion shall conduct its inquiry in accordance with the terms of reference.

On 1 June 2005, a coronial inquest into the deaths of Ms Johanna Heynan and Ms Marilyn McDougall handed down its findings about the collapse of a roof over the dining room at the Riverside Golf Club on 2 April 2002. The Coroner's recommendations were clear and unequivocal on the question of the building's assessment and what action needed to be taken by the government. Among a range of recommendations, the Coroner stated:

I recommend that the Minister for Local Government conduct an assessment to ascertain the extent to which Local Government is not enforcing conditions imposed on grants of development approval, not enforcing the laws in relation to Certificates of Occupancy, not conducting an independent appraisal of the structural engineering aspects of the roof of proposed buildings...

In response to the recommendations of the coronial inquest, the government established the Ministerial Task Force on Trusses during May 2006 to examine and report to the government a possible way forward, given the recommendations handed down by the coronial inquest. The purpose of the task force was to identify possible reforms aimed at ensuring rigorous yet practical measures, that they be developed and implemented in conjunction with industry to prevent further tragedies such as the Riverside Golf Club roof collapse.

The task force identified areas where industry practice was very poor in defining the various roles, responsibilities and accountability of individuals engaged in the approval and construction process of buildings. I am advised that the Department of Planning and Local Government is currently working on the implementation of the recommendations handed down by the task force in November last year.

As part of the broader issues about an assessment of building structures, the Building Advisory Committee also turned its mind to the duties and functions of private certifiers in a discussion paper provided to the Minister for Urban Development and Planning entitled 'Checking of structural engineering calculations' in April 2008.

The Building Advisory Committee is a longstanding and well-respected committee created under statute to advise the Minister for Urban Development and Planning on the administration of the Development Act 1993. The Building Advisory Committee in its discussion paper recommended that the government consider the appropriateness and extent to which a professional engineer should be involved in the checking of building calculations.

Of great concern to the Building Advisory Committee in its discussion paper was that the Development Act 1993 appeared silent on the limitations of building surveyors in exercising their responsibilities under the act. Under the current legislative framework it appears that building surveyors, as a profession, are entitled to self assess their own professional limitations. I will repeat that: they are entitled to self assess their own professional limitations. And, yet, when the Rann government moves to do something about this, the member for Bragg deplores it.

The Building Advisory Committee discussion paper argues that this could lead to poorer assessment of buildings, thus putting the community at risk. Central to the establishment of this select committee of parliament is the need to explore all these issues and assess the extent to which professional engineers should be involved in the building assessment process.

Some members of the industry advocate that the status quo should be retained, that to reform part 12 of the Development Act would add additional cost to the industry or consumers. The select committee is being entrusted with the task of assessing the degree to which a monopoly exists over the accreditation practices for private certifiers.

Any accreditation process needs to embrace the principles of continuous improvement. All industries experience change from time to time and it is important that private certifiers, like many professions, adapt to changes to their industry. In essence, the committee is being asked to identify whether there are at present any vulnerabilities in the current accreditation framework and consider ways in which to strengthen the accreditation process.

The Building Advisory Committee provides an important function for government. It needs to be able to operate in an environment free from external or negative consequences to its members stemming from the advice provided to the government. It is the view of this government that differences of opinion when exercised appropriately strengthen the quality of debate. The government would be most concerned if a member or members of the Building Advisory Committee were subject to any punitive action simply for providing advice that is contrary to the prevailing view of the professional body. We hold that view, despite the member for Bragg's denouncing our initiative as an abuse of process.

Ms Chapman: I will be saying a lot more about it, too.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, the member for Bragg says that she will be saying more by way of deploring what the government has done. The select committee will be asked to explore this issue in detail, report to the government the degree to which this may or may not be occurring and propose a possible course of action. I wish the committee every possible success in pursuing its investigation into these issues of community concern and look forward to receiving its findings.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Chapman.