Question Time

PRIVATE CERTIFIERS

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the establishment of a select committee in the House of Assembly.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a copy of a letter the minister sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors dated 1 April 2009. The letter states:

I write to inform you of the government's intention to establish a parliamentary select committee in the House of Assembly...to investigate the roles and duties of private certifiers pursuant to Part 12—Private Certification of the Development Act 1993.

The minister goes on to say:

As you would be aware, on 1 June 2005, a coronial inquest into the deaths of Ms Johanna Heynen and Ms Marilyn McDougall handed down its findings. I intend to ask the committee to consider the recommendations raised by the above coronial inquest.

The letter further states:

Issues related to the structural integrity of buildings have been the subject of broad debate in the parliament and the building industry. The government's primary concern throughout the course of this debate is public safety. Whilst the government recognises the need for industry to operate without unnecessary red tape, the safety of South Australians is of paramount importance when it comes to the integrity of structural buildings.

It is interesting to note that when one looks at the findings from the coronial inquest one can see that a number of references are made to local government but, in fact, no mention is made of any processes employed by private certifiers. In fact, the Coroner recommends the investigation of councils and does not mention private certifiers. The Coroner's recommendations state:

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 the 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 proposed buildings, not requiring vital information about the structural integrity of the roof in a proposed building, assuming without verification the adequacy of commercially available software programs for the design of structural components in a building, not carrying out random or, indeed, any inspection of building works and not requiring an independent verification that the roof has been constructed in accordance with the plan.

The Coroner goes on to say:

If such omissions are widespread, I recommend that the Minister for Local Government should consider how they might be addressed either in relation to reviewing the Local Government Act, reviewing the financial resources of local government to enhance their capacity to act, or in other ways.

Members would know that I have a longstanding interest in the Building Surveyors Act, particularly a document called the 'Discussion Paper into Structural Engineering Calculations'. I find it quite confusing that the minister responsible for the Development Act, the Hon. Paul Holloway, is in this place, as well as me, the shadow minister. I find it almost unbelievable that the minister and the government would establish a select committee in the House of Assembly. My first question is: what is the government trying to hide by establishing this select committee in the House of Assembly? I am sure that members can read the Notice Paper, but why is there no mention of the recommendation in relation to the Coroner's recommendation about local government in the terms of reference moved in the House of Assembly today?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:34): Mr President, I assume it is in order for me to comment on that matter. I want to ensure that I abide by the standing orders of this place, even if members opposite do not. As the honourable member said, notice has been given by my colleague in another place in relation to the establishment of a select committee of the House of Assembly to look at the very important subject of private certification.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: There's no mention of the coronial findings.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, read the terms of reference of the select committee. I will be happy to read them for the member, because there are a number of issues in relation to that. It was my intention to make a ministerial statement on this matter tomorrow at the same time that my colleague the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, who represents me in that place, will be moving this motion.

There are a number of reasons I believe a select committee of the House of Assembly needs to be established to look at the general subject.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Infinitely. We all know why select committees are established. We have had more select committees than members in this place, and I do not think a single one of them has ever come up with a conclusion of any value. I would like the members of the House of Assembly who deal with these issues to look at them and produce a report that has some value and some worthwhile suggestions in relation to the very important subject of private certification.

The honourable member would know from the questions he has asked that four or five councils have written to me in relation to issues that have arisen from private certification. The honourable member should also be aware that the planning review last year made recommendations in relation to private certification. In particular, the members of the planning review felt there should be a greater role for private certification. However, before that could come about, consideration would need to be given to the auditing and other issues relating to private certification, and that is a matter that I would like the committee to look at. In particular, the terms of reference that will be established for this committee, should the House of Assembly agree, include:

1. The committee will inquire into the operations of Part 12 of the Development Act (private certification) and, in particular, the framework under the Development Act to handle complaints made against private certifiers. (Clearly, there are deficiencies, and I have highlighted these issues previously.)

2. The current process for accrediting private certifiers in the state of South Australia. 3. Whether the current methods of accreditation for private certifiers is appropriate and/or whether other streams of accreditation should be considered.

4. The appropriate qualifications required by private certifiers to undertake tasks related to the structural integrity of buildings.

5. The system of auditing approvals provided by private certifiers and the adequacy of the current processes of enforcement in the event of a breach of the Development Act 1993.

I have already indicated, in answer to a number of other questions and other discussions we have had in this parliament, that I believe there are some deficiencies there, and this is a matter that a select committee should—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, the Development Act has been around for a long time. There have been a number of ministers for urban development and planning since the Development Act came into force in 1993, and many more in relation to its predecessor, which had similar provisions. In relation to private certification, as I have indicated previously, the problem the minister faces is that, after you have given the person who is complained about natural justice under the provisions of the act, you really have only two choices—you can either effectively put them out of business, or do nothing. I think that is a deficiency of the act. There are also issues in relation to auditing, and these are the things I would like the committee to expeditiously and comprehensively examine. Then the next part is:

6. Any other matters directly relevant to this part of the Development Act.

We have so many select committees here that they rarely meet because it is so hard to get a quorum nowadays when you have dozens of select committees going, and I hope that will not be the case in the other place.

The second term of reference is that the committee will inquire into whether undue influence has been exerted on the building advisory committee or any of its members in the performance of their statutory duties.

The honourable member referred to the coronial inquest into the causes of the death of two people due to the collapse of the roof of the Riverside Golf Club on 2 April 2002. That event, as members in this place would be aware if they have followed this issue, led to the establishment of the minister's task force on trusses. The purpose of that task force was to identify possible reforms aimed at ensuring that rigorous yet practical measures were developed and implemented in conjunction with industry to prevent similar tragedies.

The task force identified a number of areas where industry practice was very poor in defining the various roles, responsibilities and accountability of individuals involved 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 by this task force in November last year. As part of the broader issues related to the 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'. This report was given to me in April 2008.

The Building Advisory Committee is a longstanding and well respected committee created under statute to advise the government 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 greatest concern to the BAC 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. The BAC discussion paper argues that this could lead to poorer assessment of buildings, thus putting the community at risk. For many years the committee has taken on an important safety role for the South Australian community. The committee and its members need to be assured that they are able to operate in an environment free from external influences or negative consequences when providing its advice to the government. It is the view of the government that differences of opinion, when exercised appropriately, strengthen the quality of debate.

I have just been advised that the chairperson of the Building Advisory Committee has had his life membership forfeited after a difference of opinion with some colleagues within the AIBS (Australian Institute of Building Surveyors). Members of the committee are encouraged by this government to comment on the operations of the act, knowing that the discussion points they raise will not have negative consequence for them in their professional life.

To ensure the government can continue to have confidence in the quality of advice from the committee, it is critical that the events surrounding the release of the Building Advisory Committee discussion paper and the punitive measures taken by the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors against the chairperson of the Building Advisory Committee be investigated. The events warrant the establishment of a select committee to explore the facts and circumstances around this event.

One of the main reasons I have asked a select committee of the House of Assembly to do that is so that I will not be involved in the process. As the minister, it is appropriate that I should not be part of it. When you have a situation where an institute takes action against one of its members for no reason, other than apparently chairing a statutory committee set up under a house of this parliament, it is an intolerable situation. If members opposite wish to defend that, so be it. The government will ask in the House of Assembly that a select committee be established to look at not just the general issues in relation to private building certifiers and some of the deficiencies that have become apparent in the act over its operation in recent years—the question of auditing needs to be addressed and the recommendations of the Planning Review Committee need to be further advanced, which is an important task—but in particular I would like this committee to look at the actions taken by the AIBS in relation to one its fellow members, who was the chair of a statutory body advising government in relation to building safety.

They are very important matters and I trust that the select committee in another place will diligently turn its attention to that and provide advice to this parliament in relation to those very important matters. Rather than having anything to hide, I believe it is appropriate that the body is clearly seen not to involve myself or the shadow minister (who has asked a number of questions) who could, I think, be regarded as being prejudiced in relation to the stance of the AIBS. I believe it is better that that be removed from this situation and that these very important matters—which go to the heart of the safety of buildings, and what could be more important than that—be looked at in that sort of environment. I look forward to the report of the select committee.