Question Time

BUILDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:48): Mr President, it is a pleasure to ask the first question of the new session. I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the checking of structural engineering calculations.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Building Advisory Committee, a body appointed by the minister under the Development Act, has circulated a discussion paper entitled 'The Checking of Structural Engineering Calculations'. This discussion paper puts forward two options, one that the committee appears to favour as it puts forward only arguments in favour of that option without considering any arguments which may be in opposition to it; and a second option which it does not appear to favour and against which it puts forward arguments.

I have been contacted by a number of stakeholders, both private building surveyors and industry people, who are quite concerned about the nature of and language used in this particular discussion paper. In particular, I will quote from a letter that was sent to the minister from the Local Government Association specifically stating that the association has been likewise contacted by a number of individuals and industry associations, including the HIA. They raise a number of key issues, including the lack of a demonstrated need for amendment as proposed by this discussion paper, additional red tape that is inconsistent with an interstate approach, and the direct and indirect costs associated with third party certification. In this respect, by way of explanation, I point out that the discussion paper's option No. 1 favours building surveyors having their calculations checked by a third party. The LGA believes that there will be consequential delays to the approval process, which is in direct conflict with the proposals outlined in the state government's planning reforms package which the minister launched in June 2008.

It is also interesting to note that to require independent checking of every structural component by another engineer will place South Australia out of step with the rest of Australia, as well as going against the COAG principles of the National Building Code. In particular, I have a letter that was sent to the Institute of Building Surveyors from a senior academic here in South Australia who summarises the paper. He states:

The Building Advisory Committee discussion paper is one that has not been thought through clearly. Putting aside the poor grammar used in the paper; it has been written in a prejudicial manner and is lacking in cogent argument or substance. It conveniently ignores the existing safeguards that are already in place to cater for the issues raised and is clearly focused on a particular outcome. As such it does not provide a balanced discussion that is the normal requirement for such documents and the lack of evidence provided means that the paper has little credibility and should be dismissed.

It is also interesting to note that the current chair of the Building Advisory Committee, a Mr Demetrius Poupoulas, was at one stage involved an in the action City of Onkaparinga v Hassell Pty Ltd, Cox Constructions Pty Ltd, Dare Sutton Clarke Pty Ltd, D.P. Poupoulas and Associates Pty Ltd and Demetrius Photios Poupoulas, which demonstrated that the proposed regime would not serve to improve the current system.

In fact, in that situation the calculations done by the building surveyor, Mr Poupoulas, were found to be, on my understanding, not in line, whereby approval was granted but in due course the construction work ceased as the builder observed that significant deflections were occurring in the roof structure. Extensive redesign took place, resulting in extensive modification to the roof structure and the council sued for the losses that were suffered. My questions are:

1. In light of the considerable industry and academic opposition and that it will cause delay to the current system, why is the minister still considering option one?

2. Is the minister aware that the current chair of the Building Advisory Committee has also himself been the subject of poor performance?

3. Is the minister aware that one of his staff is introducing himself as a building surveyor at meetings when clearly he is not a building surveyor but an assistant building surveyor?

4. Is the minister aware of any personal friendships between a member of his staff and members of the Building Advisory Committee?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:52): The Building Advisory Committee has indeed been considering the issue of the checking of structural information by private certifiers who may not have engineering qualifications. The reason they are doing that is—and I will refer to several complaints that I have received from councils—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am quite happy to do that, if you like. I have one here, dated 3 June 2008, from the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, which states:

Dear Minister Holloway

Prescribed Qualifications in Building (Regulation 87 of the Development Regulations 1993)–Code of Practice (Regulation 97(3) of the Development Regulations 1993)

I write to express concerns regarding a practice that has come to my attention while performing my role as director, environmental services for the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. My concern is the certification or approval of structural engineering designs by private certifiers who do not have the qualifications or competencies to properly make such certification.

This practice reflects what appears to be a shortcoming within the legislation scheme that governs the authorisation and regulation of building work. The problem, as I understand it, is that while the Development Regulations 1993 require that private certifiers or building surveyors who assess applications for building rules consent have prescribed qualifications, they are not required to have qualifications or competencies in engineering matters, or to refer the assessment of engineering calculations to a qualified engineer for assessment.

In my experience, significant safety issues can and do arise from this practice. A recent example that has come to my attention in relation to a development...

And then there are examples given. I am happy to table that correspondence which was sent to me by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. I have had several others, but I do not have them here.

So, as one would expect, when one gets a letter from a council saying that there is a risk to public safety by a practice, the reason we have a Building Advisory Committee is to give the minister advice on such matters. As the honourable member said, the Building Advisory Committee has given some options. However, as he also says, he has received correspondence, as I have, from the Local Government Association. I do not have that with me, but it requested that I delay making any decision until it had had a chance to comment on it further, and I intend to do that because there are serious issues here.

I have certainly received advice from the Building Advisory Committee but, before I adopt that advice, I want to make sure that I get other views from people concerned. However, in the first instance, I think that, when one gets correspondence from local government bodies concerned about safety in such matters, it is entirely appropriate that one should get advice from the appropriate body, and I have done so.

At this stage, I am awaiting further advice from the Local Government Association. Indeed, I have also had correspondence from another body, so quite clearly this matter does need further consideration. It is a serious issue if there is a suggestion, as indicated in the correspondence I read out, that there are genuine safety concerns, and it would be irresponsible not to look at those concerns. However, at the same time, we do not want to engender so much red tape which, as the honourable member correctly said, would go against the thrust of our recommendations. I am having further work done in relation to this issue generally, and I will not make a decision until I receive that additional information.