Architectural Practice (Continuing Professional Development) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 November 2019.)

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:30): I rise to indicate SA-Best's support for this bill and that we are also pleased to see its speedy progress through parliament. Frankly, I am surprised that the Architectural Practice Act 2009 did not already mandate continuing professional development as a condition of ongoing registration as a practising architect in South Australia, given that all the architectural registration boards agreed to this initiative in 2006.

Public confidence in the wide range of professions and trades involved in our building industry has been severely shaken in recent years, as the national Building Ministers' Forum's Shergold Weir report into building confidence and media about substandard building standards and materials have identified. This bill should assist architects to protect and maintain their standards of professional conduct to increase public confidence in the construction industry.

However, the bill only deals with one profession within the building supply chain and highlights the need to prescribe continuing professional development for all those in the construction industry, from developers through to planners, building surveyors and certifiers, fire safety and other engineers, tradespeople, and licensed builders. So why are we only just dealing with architects here?

Architects tell me the issue is often clouded by the builders they need to deal with, specifically when it comes to novated contracts. I have spoken with one I have known for more than 40 years and he is extremely well respected in the state. He says the novated contracts force architects to work for and under the control of the builder. How is it beneficial to force personal development on an architect who then may be forced to do the will of the builder, who has not done personal development?

Architects may be made to make cost cuts against their best judgement just to retain the commission they receive on projects. Further personal development should most definitely be mandated on building designers and draftsmen of all types. In Australia, there are not enough controls over these design practitioners. These people can design multistorey buildings. They need to be included in this personal development bill.

The detail of what is done under personal development also needs addressing. It is not serious if only the concept is enacted. This includes things like meaningless seminars, paying lip service, or studying how carpet is made or how tiles are laid. It should be about construction detail, cost benefit, material selection, building life cycle issues like repairs and maintenance during the economic life of the building, the effect of certain materials on the environment, thermal issues, orientation of the building, fenestration and on it goes.

Whilst the national Shergold Weir report identifies a range of deficiencies that jeopardise the public's confidence in the building industry, finding that there was no effective regulatory oversight of the commercial building industry, we have plenty of South Australian examples of the nature and extent of failures of those professions and the need for better compliance and enforcement of various licensing and accreditation, as well as the need for improved education, training and ongoing professional development.

My office is confronted on a daily basis with horror stories of the huge financial and emotional costs of the failures of building companies, such as Coast to Coast Homes, which went into administration with unfinished and underinsured houses, some of which were completed only to the concrete slab stage, leaving the poor homebuyer with an uninsured and incomplete project that they will somehow have to sell or finish via another builder. Worse still is where the building company goes into administration or ceases to trade and the workmanship on the work they have completed is shown to be completely substandard and in some cases has prevented occupation of the home for years.

It is still far too easy for an unqualified person to gain a builder's licence and undertake significant construction work. Take the case of Coast to Coast, run by an unqualified builder called Steven Craven, one of the worst dodgy builders I have come across—and I have exposed a few in my time. He has left a trail of destruction, materially, in the rubbish he built and in the mental and financial anguish he has left on the home owners, as well as some of the tradies he exploited who now have to wear the cost of unpaid work and materials.

One constituent who came to see me has been forced to move into their incomplete and fault-riddled house because they have nowhere to go. The repair bill is more than $200,000. Insurance the builder had taken out covers only $80,000. What is even more disturbing is the lack of action from our supposed consumer watchdog, Consumer and Business Affairs, a watchdog with no teeth and with a meek bark. This constituent had raised the alarm about Coast to Coast at least 18 months before it went bust. How can they get away with unlicensed and unqualified work on the home, not built to architectural plan drawings or the required standards, for example, inadequate roof trusses?

Then there is the case of SA Quality Home Improvements, whose owner-director, Mr Vincent Barry, sold the operations of the business and placed the corporate entity under external administration, owing creditors more than $1 million. You might recall their incessant annoying TV ads. This family-owned business described itself as the most experienced and trusted home improvement company in Adelaide and South Australia. There have been some unhappy clients who would question that claim, like Nouveau Homes. Here is what managing director Jonathan Slee had to say about them in a post to the Master Builders Association six months ago:

SA Quality Home Improvements were the roofing and guttering contractor for a residential medium density project we built in metropolitan Adelaide. During construction, we had a substantial leak and since hand-over, a further 3 leaks have been identified. SA Quality Home Improvements have failed to reimburse our expense to rectify the defects resulting from their sub-standard workmanship. SA Quality Home Improvements construction manager refuses to return our phone calls or reply to our emails. Needless to say, we have not and will not use SA Quality Home Improvements again as the values and principles you would expect from a reputable business are non-existent. Are these the values and principles you would like to see when deciding which business to proceed with for your next home improvement project?

In late September, Quality Roofing Services, trading as SA Quality Home Improvements, offloaded contracts and transferred staff to a newly created WPC Home Improvements, all this going on while legal action and cost recovery against Mr Barry's company, QRS, were still afoot. Yet, the company director, Mr Barry, sent a letter to customers explaining his 'exciting news'. Let me quote from his letter:

I would like to point out that my reasoning for this change is to get all our projects promptly and expertly installed, achieve the best possible outcome for all our clients, continue strong relationships with our suppliers and maintain ongoing employment for our loyal and valued employees.

You will still get the same quality goods from the same quality suppliers, you will still be dealing with the same company representative, the same company project manager and your project will still be installed by our existing expert building crews and WPC HI will be trading from the three existing SA Quality Home Improvements display centres six days a week so you will always have great access to our staff for ongoing service.

How convenient. Only the owner has changed, with everything else unchanged. The demise of QRS/SAQ could not entirely be blamed on the downturn in the building industry, as Mr Barry likes to make people think, but perhaps more of his own doing. In fact, in court proceedings Mr Barry has also shamelessly attributed some of the blame on me, because I was at Channel 7's Today Tonight and investigated the lack of SA quality in one of his home improvement projects that led to the court matter I referred to earlier.

Mr Barry's company, QRS, as it turned out, was not appropriately licensed to do this verandah type of work. The approved development plans did not match the construction and the council ordered the structure's demolition and removal. It went to the ERD Court where the judge ordered QRS pay the council 70 per cent of its costs, and 30 per cent had to be paid by the client as the landowner, pending court action in the District Court. The client then won a subsequent appeal unanimously in June this year.

Facing the prospect of significant costs in the region of $1 million that would destroy his business, Mr Barry put in train a series of actions to avoid his burden. Let me list them here:

on 5 September, WPC Home Improvements ACN 636 012 998 is registered;

on 30 September, QRS director Vincent Barry sells the business names, plant equipment and transfers employees to WPC Home Improvements;

on 2 October, Quality Roofing Services Pty Ltd changes its name to CAN 008 289 183 Pty Ltd;

on 9 October, business name SA Quality Home Improvements is transferred to WPC;

on 13 October, business name Quality Roofing Services is transferred to WPC;

on 23 October, ERD Court hearing as to costs;

on 7 November, QRS goes into voluntary administration, and they have appointed Clifton Hall;

on 15 November, ERD Court cost decision is handed down. The clients did not get final orders from the District Court due to QRS liquidating;

on 16 November, Vincent Barry is working for WPC Home Improvements, the reborn entity, and provides a quote on SA Quality Home Improvements letterhead, which he should not have been using, for a verandah system for a customer.

I seek leave to table the quote signed by Mr Barry.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I continue:

On 20 November, the clients reported Vincent Barry to Consumer and Business Services and were told that nothing could be done due to liquidation. In an email, CBS confirmed that, as of 8 November, WPC, the new entity, was not even registered.

Little has changed except the shuffling of corporate responsibility by Mr Barry. This has the odour of phoenixing, and this type of activity must be investigated and stopped by our regulators. These cases, and discussions with the Master Builders Association, have all inspired me to develop legislation to deal with these long-term and seemingly intractable problems in the building and construction industry.

I intend to introduce a private members' bill that will mandate the need for continuing professional development for a wide range of occupations within the building and construction industry to include continuing professional development for site supervisors, licensing classes 1 and 10, and to include CPDs in:

roof trusses;

wet area waterproofing;

certificate of occupancy;

building codes and standards;

construction of buildings;

timber framing code;

building with light gauge steel; and,

understanding licensing and approvals.

My private members' bill will also address any of the 24 recommendations in the Shergold Weir report that remain outstanding, particularly in regard to building product safety and standards, the integrity of private building surveyors, the adequacy of documentation, and inspection regimes.

Security of payments also needs to be addressed to prevent losses caused to contractors and tradies when building companies go bust, leaving a trail of debt. Just today, liquidators for Unique Urban Built at Mawson Lakes have revealed how their director, Nathan O'Neill, and his wife, spent almost $1.2 million of company funds for personal expenses, luxury holidays and other questionable transactions.

There also needs to be tougher sanctions imposed on rogue builders and directors. They should be banned for a stipulated period from working in any capacity in the building and construction industry. With that, SA-Best supports the bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (17:47): I thank honourable members for their contributions on this relatively small but important bill, the Architectural Practice (Continuing Professional Development) Amendment Bill 2019.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (17:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 17:50 the council adjourned until Tuesday 3 December 2019 at 14:15.