HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Ministerial Statement

BUILDING SAFETY

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:21): I seek leave to make a statement on building safety.

Leave granted.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: On several occasions, the Hon. David Ridgway has asked me questions about regulations relating to building approvals and structural engineering and, more specifically, the rules relating to the verification of engineering calculations by qualified engineers. This is a very sensitive area of law, where mistakes in structural engineering have the potential to put lives at risk if later they lead to building work that is unsound.

In June 2006, the Hon. Mr Ridgway asked a question about the appointment made by me to a ministerial task force on trusses that I had established to implement the Coroner's recommendations in relation to the tragic roof collapse at the Riverside Golf Club. That task force was charged with outlining a range of proposed changes to the design, manufacture, approval, handling, installation and inspection of roof trusses in South Australia. In particular, the Leader of the Opposition questioned the level of building surveying accreditation of the Chairman of the task force.

The appointed Chairman, Mr George Vanco, was and is a member of my staff. I informed the Legislative Council at the time of Mr Vanco's appointment to that role, which was suggested by the Master Builders Association and supported by the Housing Industry Association. The task force has only recently completed its final recommendations, after working through the various submissions received in response to a widely circulated discussion paper.

On 10 and 25 September 2008, the Hon. Mr Ridgway alleged that Mr Vanco had misrepresented his professional credentials. He produced a statutory declaration sworn by Mr Peter Jankovic alleging that Mr Vanco had introduced himself as a building surveyor. Mr Vanco categorically denies that he made such an introduction.

Subsequent to the allegations raised in this document, I received a letter from Mr David Gaffney, the Executive Director of the Housing Industry Association. Mr Gaffney led the delegation of five housing industry people that was lobbying that day against the recommendations of the Building Advisory Committee's discussion paper. I am advised that Mr Gaffney was in the presence of Mr Vanco and Mr Jankovic during the discussion to which the statutory declaration refers. Mr Gaffney wrote:

Given recent events, I feel it necessary to provide my recollection of comments made by Mr George Vanco during our discussion on 22 July 2008. Personally, I have no recall of specific comments made by Mr Vanco as to his level of qualification. The impression I took from the conversation was that Mr Vanco is someone who possesses building qualifications and practical technical expertise. In any event, I am disappointed this discussion has resulted in a personal attack on your adviser...

I share his disappointment, and I table Mr Gaffney's letter.

Under the national accreditation framework adopted by all jurisdictions, including South Australia, building surveyors in Australia are classified under two categories, simply called level 1 and level 2. Mr Vanco was accredited to what is referred in the South Australian Development Regulations as an assistant building surveyor, that is, a building surveyor practitioner able to assess and approve building work of up to three storeys and 2,000 square metres. The national accreditation framework also outlines that a building surveyor, level 2, is limited in his or her statutory functions to buildings of three storeys and 2,000 square metres; in other words, an assistant building surveyor is also known as a building surveyor level 2.

The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors is currently revising its accreditation scheme to reflect the more modern nomenclature and has issued a draft for comment. I note that clause 5.2 on page 6 has the heading 'Building Surveyor Level 2' and in brackets it says 'Assistant Building Surveyor'. I table a copy of that page. To argue that level 2 accreditation does not permit a professional in this field to be called a building surveyor is a slight on all those building surveyors currently working in South Australia and throughout the nation with equivalent level 2 accreditation. I table a copy of Mr Vanco's accreditation, which was current from 16 August 2003 to 16 August 2006.

Mr Vanco's appointment to chair the ministerial task force on trusses was made in June 2006, so it covered the accreditation period. In any event, his qualifications in the field of building surveying are not necessary to chair such a task force. Mr Vanco has advised me that he chose not to renew his accreditation after 16 August 2006 as he no longer performs statutory functions in local government. I trust the tabling of Mr Vanco's accreditation will put an end once and for all to the Leader of the Opposition's unnecessary—and in any case totally irrelevant—attack on a member of my staff.

The question of checking structural engineering questions was raised by the Building Advisory Committee in response to allegations that a private certifier was issuing certificates of structural adequacy when they were not a qualified engineer. I understand it was also raised in the context of the Coroner's inquest into the tragic deaths at the Riverside Golf Club. It is important for members to note that one of the recommendations arising from the Coroner's inquest was for the government to ensure that an independent appraisal is conducted of structural engineering aspects of a proposed building.

The Leader of the Opposition claimed in an explanation to one of his questions on this subject that there was no demonstrated need for such a proposal, and he then went on to attack a member of the Building Advisory Committee, who also serves as a commissioner on the Environment, Resources and Development Court. On 25 September 2008 I tabled a letter I had received from the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. That letter concerned a retaining wall that allegedly was incorrectly designed by an engineer acting for the applicant and subsequently approved by a private certifier, who I am advised does not have the appropriate engineering qualifications. The council became aware of the situation after receiving a complaint from an adjoining nursing home that was experiencing problems arising from that allegedly problematic retaining wall. The council, at its expense, sought a review by an independent engineer, who alleged the certifier merely accepted the calculations on the basis that the engineer designing them had engineering qualifications.

Section 33 of the Development Act is explicit. A relevant authority, be it council or a private certifier, must assess a proposed development against the provisions of the building rules. This is the primary reason a building consent is required: to ensure the health and safety of occupants of buildings. The obligation on the applicant is to seek approval. The obligation on the relevant authority is to make sure it is checked. The Leader of the Opposition wanted further examples.

The Chief Executive Officer of the City of Onkaparinga wrote to me in relation to another incident that arose as a result of work undertaken by the council's building fire safety committee. I table a copy of the letter from the City of Onkaparinga. I note that information that will identify the property or the individual has been deleted. This is a further example of an alleged design error that was not properly identified by a private certifier before his approval of those works. I am advised that the certifier does not have appropriate engineering qualifications.

I also recently received correspondence from two other councils, Marion and Barossa, concerning allegations of questionable practices by private certifiers in relation to approval processes. Although these issues relate to matters other than structural calculations, they illustrate increasing concerns raised by approving authorities about the practices of some certifiers. One relates to inconsistencies between a development plan consent issued by the council and the building rules consent issued by the private certifier.

The council, in that instance, makes it clear that its correspondence does not constitute a formal complaint pursuant to the former regulation 99B (which has recently been re-numbered as regulation 103.) The other is a formal complaint under that regulation. It relates to a number of alleged breaches of the act by a private certifier. To ensure that natural justice is afforded to all concerned, I do not propose to table those letters, but the Rann government takes the issue of safety very seriously.

This is a complex area that requires clearer rules for authorities and professionals. Further to the recommendations of the planning and development review, the Department of Planning and Local Government is currently developing a process for improving the quality of private certification in South Australia, including appropriate sanction for poor performance.

The input of the Building Advisory Committee and stakeholders such as the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors is to be considered as part of that process. My intention is to take a considered view when making decisions that affect the safety of the community as well as the need to carefully balance risks and ensure the best outcome for the people of South Australia.

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