Shonky Apartment Buildings ~!

An enquiry into the New South Wales building industry starts this week and high on the agenda should be the disaster that has engulfed the one hundred and thirty two families who have the misfortune to be owners of apartments in Mascot Towers.   These are now homeless people because they have been locked out because building faults have been discovered and it will take at least a ten million dollar levy to make the complex once again habitable.

All the concerned authorities who have input in how this has been allowed to happen seem to be whistling " Dixie " and studiously avoiding questions about who is financially responsible for clearing up this disaster.  Eventually, that is something that will have to be decided in a law court.

As things stand, individual apartment owners are being asked to contribute their share of that ten million dollar repair cost or walk away from the investment, but even so they could be pursued by the body corporate and face bankruptcy.   The alternative would be decided by gaining approval for such a loan and undertaking the weight of its repayment for the rest of their lives.

As a matter of common justice the area of responsibility is quite clear.  The building regulations that apply in this state are put in place by the parliament and over the years that has been  the province of changing political parties.  Those laws divest responsibility to councils to apply the law and they in turn require compliance from builders, building product manufacturers and statuary bodies such as the fire brigade.  Each is required to sign off on the finished building to signify it is ready for human occupation.

Quite obviously that procedural requirement has failed in the case of Mascot Towers.  The government is the body with the power to enforce the regulations it puts in place, and so the rectification cost of returning this building to habitability lays at parliaments door.   The fact that an unknown number of buildings may have similar faults does not alter that responsibility.

The one certain outcome of putting this rectification on the public purse is the motivation for the parliament to tighten its oversight of building regulations to ensure building stability.and that is the expectation that citizens have when they sign up for the biggest purchase of their life when they buy a home.

It is the lack of adequate supervision that has allowed building practice to deteriorate and only the government has the deep pockets to pay for rectification.  The people who bought apartments in good faith have a right to expect protection.

The government enacted the building code. If they didn't enforce it they are stuck with the job of fixing the outcomes  !