HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:34): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the discussion paper on checking structural engineering calculations.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am disappointed that the minister has not today tabled the letters of complaint that he claims he received in relation to the current system, in particular, the checking of structural engineering calculations. He tabled one letter from the Port Adelaide Enfield council, and he claims that there are a number of other letters that he will table. Unfortunately, as yet, that has not happened. I can only assume that it has slipped his mind but that he will do so shortly.

I have read with interest this particular letter. In a previous answer to a question, the minister claimed that this letter, and all the others that he has received—which as yet we have not seen—are reasons why he has asked the Building Advisory Committee to circulate the discussion paper entitled 'Checking structural engineering calculations'. It is interesting to note this particular letter, written (I think) by the Director, Environmental Services at the Port Adelaide Enfield Council. I will briefly quote some of it, as follows:

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.

He goes on:

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 at—

and he has blanked out the address—

illustrates the problems that arise from this practice and is discussed below.

It continues with a commentary on particular issues that were raised. The example is:

On [a date] 2007 development approval was granted to an application for development approval to construct a four-storey apartment building with under croft parking and a retaining wall on [the said] land...On 19 April 2008 council received a letter from the owners and residents of the land adjacent...expressing concern about the construction works occurring on the land.

Council officers inspected the site and observed there were problems with the construction works that had occurred on the land.

Council's engineer reviewed the engineering calculations that accompanied the application and formed the view that the calculations had been made in error. This was raised with the developer's engineer who accepted an error had been made and cooperated with the council to work towards a resolution of the problem for the client.

The environmental services director goes on to state:

It is my understanding that while the private certifier who assessed the development application did have qualifications required under regulation 87 to enable him to assess the application, he did not have qualifications in engineering matters.

He states:

I have not been able to verify this belief. While Planning SA maintains a register of private certifiers for public inspection, it does not provide details of the qualifications or expertise of particular private certifiers.

He then goes on:

The engineer concluded that the cumulative effect of the errors could have led to possible collapse of the retaining wall.

At the end of the letter he states:

This letter does not comprise a complaint pursuant to regulation 99B.

In fact, regulation 99B has been superseded by regulation 103—Complaints relating to building work assessment. It provides:

(9) Subject to the operation of subregulations (6) and (7)—

which is whether the complaint is made by a member of the public or against the private certifier of the council—

the minister must, after receiving a complaint—

(a) refer the matter to an authorised officer for investigation...

My questions are:

1. Given that this is the only letter that the minister has tabled at this stage (and it raises some interesting safety issues), has he received any formal complaints in relation to and consistent with new regulation 103, which supersedes regulation 99B?

2. If so, how many complaints has the minister received?

3. What is the outcome of these investigations?

The PRESIDENT: The minister can answer those question if he understood them.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:38): I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to play catch up. I think the penny finally dropped when he read the letter. Since he has been going in to bat for those who want to remove these regulations and put things at risk, he is desperately trying to catch up, and now he has tried to make it look as though he is on the side of the angels and actually defending good practice within the building industry.

In fact, of course, the Leader of the Opposition was only too willing to attack, under parliamentary privilege, a member of my staff and the chair of the Building Advisory Committee, a person who is a fellow of the Institute of Building Surveyors, as I understand it, with some 30 or 40 years of experience. We will be addressing both of those matters. He is prepared to attack them when, in fact, those people are trying to deal with the very complex issue of assessing building calculations to ensure that they are safe. Not only that—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: More red tape.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: More red tape. Let that go on the record. Quite clearly, the Leader of the Opposition is saying that they are quite happy with the way things are. They think that people who are not qualified should be checking the calculations. That is his viewpoint, and he has used the words 'red tape'.

If I were a member of the opposition, I would be a bit concerned about what their leader is saying and what viewpoints he is putting in relation to their policy. Yes, I have tabled one letter from the Port Adelaide Enfield council—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: What about the rest?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: There is another letter from the Onkaparinga council about a serious matter. I am just getting—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I told the leader last time, if there are legal issues arising from it, those matters should be looked at. However, that related to a public structure in the southern suburbs, in the Onkaparinga council. If I delete some specific information, I may be able to table that letter very shortly. The point is that the Leader of the Opposition, presumably representing his party, is going in to bat for a group of people who are trying to say that a situation should continue which the Coroner has criticised and about which he has raised issues in relation to the tragic death of two people following the collapse of the Riverside Golf Club building.

If the Coroner's report states, 'You need to go out and check what is happening here and things need to be done,' I think that his recommendation should be given very careful consideration. There is a trade-off here between public safety and ensuring that there is proper risk management. We cannot afford to have over-regulation, which adds costs that are not commensurate with the risk being protected. We do have to have a balance here between public safety and risk, and that is why the government is giving very careful consideration to these matters.

This is a difficult issue, even for the Local Government Association, where even councillors are divided about the application of some of these measures. Again, they are striving to achieve the balance—you cannot check every single structure—so that appropriate scrutiny is given to structures that may put the public at risk. That has to be traded off against good risk management and ensuring that we do not have unnecessary red tape. In relation to the number of complaints I have had, councils have written to me complaining about certain behaviour. Unfortunately, as the act is worded at the moment, I have written back to the councils saying that they will need to provide statutory declarations so that I can take action. However, councils are reluctant to do so because of the amount of paperwork and other things involved.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That in itself raises issues of public interest, in which members of this parliament should be interested. Not only do we have the issue of what happens in relation to the checking, we also have the question of discipline. What happens if someone does breach these regulations in a very serious way?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, there are various degrees. If the council does not make a formal complaint, there is very little I can do, other than to write to the people concerned to tell them that a complaint has been made. The act, as the honourable member will find if he has a look at it, does not contain very detailed provisions about how one might deal with complaints. Indeed, representatives of the Institute of Building Surveyors, when they came to see me some time ago, told me that, if one of their members were to face disciplinary action, there is no formal measure for them even to know that has happened, let alone to take action.

When answering a previous question, I informed the council that in New South Wales there was a select committee in relation to the accreditation of building surveyors. In that state, it is not up to the institute to do this; rather it has been handed over to an arm of government, following concerns being raised. I am not proposing that such a thing happen at this stage but, quite clearly, there are important issues of public safety that need to be discussed. I suggest that, rather than listening to one group in the debate which has a particular axe to grind, the Leader of the Opposition should inform himself about the wider debate and perhaps make a contribution when the matter is introduced in this chamber, as it needs to be, because these are very important and complex issues. They involve a whole range of issues, not just the matter of checking structural calculations by non-engineers but also matters relating to discipline and the accreditation of people.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: But falsely representing their qualifications.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will be dealing with that shortly in a statement. I think that members opposite would be better advised to inform themselves of this quite complex issue and to contribute to the debate because it is important for the public of South Australia that we get the balance right here so that we do not have unnecessary regulation. But, at the same time, we can ensure that, on a proper risk management basis, the public is protected.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT