Taking Responsibility !

The proposal to introduce a risk rating system on the building industry to try and eliminate the financial disasters which have befallen the buyers of units in Opel and Mascot Towers is certainly a worthwhile idea, but the issue still revolves around certification and the problem will not be solved until that certification process ensures that all the tenets of the building code have been complied with as the building progresses.

Several hundred Sydney buildings were clad with a flammable exterior cladding that did not comply with the state building regulations and now pose a threat of a fatal Grenfell Tower fire in this city.  All these buildings passed inspection and had a residential approval certificate applied that allowed the building to be occupied because this inspection only takes place when the building is complete.

The job of a certifier should start at the very foundation and follow construction so that each stage is signed off as complying with regulations, and that is the job of the council on whose land the construction applies.  In essence, that council certifier should be on the site daily and have the power to order work to cease if an irregularity is occurring.  The job  of the council certifier would be to ensure the new building complied with regulations.

With such a certification in place, the responsibility for fixing defects would lay with the council.  Someone has to take this responsibility and it is the council which approves building permits.  A council certifier would need to be a person of integrity who was paid according to the responsibility the job carried.  It would be up to the council to ensure that this was a person of integrity who measures up to the standard required.

The reason we are having these building problems is that certification is taken too lightly and when a defect emerges the responsibility for correction can not be legally apportioned.   We will only get building integrity when the body approving construction also has the responsibility of ensuring the correct building regulations are carried out - and carries the risk factor of fixing any faults that later emerge.

All other forms of certification should be invalid.  In particular, the very notion of the builder choosing an independent certifier is fraught with danger.  The reason we are having building faults is either builders taking short cuts that eliminate some aspect of sound building practice or are cheating on the quality weight of what is forming part of the building.   The objective is to save money and enhance profits.

When this whole problem comes down to basics, the need is for a certifier to sign off on ever aspect of the building process as the building arises.  It doesn't take the brain of Einstein to work that out  !