OPINION: BUILDERS hate red tape & regulation, but more is inevitable.
However, over the past two decades we have witnessed the decline of the national building industry and as a result we see thousands of the buildings we delivered riddled with defects with some so serious demolition appears the only choice.
While that sounds disastrous it is for those buildings but even more so for the affected consumers who thought they were buying a compliant property but that was only an illusion resulting in years of despair with many being financially ruined in an attempt to seek justice.
Be mindful over the same period the legitimate industry delivered thousands more buildings that were built according to the regulations and fully compliant.
It is the failed buildings (industry fault) that has left the Government with no alternative other than to consider their position resulting in a new Building Commission and upgraded and expanded regulations. Been there before but this time we must get it right and common sense must play its role.
The Victorian Government’s recent announcement has sparked a variety of responses from different stakeholders, including builders, consumers, trade associations, industry experts, and let us not forget the developers.
Builders acknowledge that changes are desperately needed to address poor workmanship and safety concerns. They also believe stricter regulations could lead to improved standards and greater accountability among contractors. However, many builders are concerned about the increased compliance costs and administrative burdens these regulations may impose.
Consumers have generally welcomed the new regulations as a positive step toward enhancing consumer protection in the building sector while being concerned any additional costs may be passed onto them. However, most consumers prioritise quality and safety over cost when it comes to their homes.
Developers have the view it is necessary to improve building regulations for safety and sustainability reasons, they also express significant concerns regarding increased costs, extended timelines, compliance complexities, potential impacts on housing affordability, and possible hindrances to innovation. However, some see the potential changes as a barrier, while others see them as an opportunity to differentiate themselves in a competitive market by promoting higher-quality builds that meet or exceed regulatory standards.
Conclusion
There is a consensus that reform must take place and while stakeholders may have concerns about costs and timely processes there is no alternative other than accept them and move forward.
The Building Code of Australia (BCA) is a critical regulatory framework that sets the minimum necessary standards for the construction of buildings in Australia however it is only available through SAI Global a private company and most practitioners believe the cost is an unreasonable financial barrier.
Builders are legally required to comply with the code when constructing buildings; however, if they cannot afford access to the Code/BCA, it creates a paradox where compliance becomes challenging or even impossible. This situation could lead to unintentional violations of the code due to lack of knowledge or access, potentially resulting in legal repercussions for practitioners.
Many issues reside within the national building such as the above not to mention the embedded culture in entities such as the VBA where a name change has been flagged but that will do nothing if the culture is not dealt with.
We have a long way to go to return the industry back to the once proud building industry we were part of all those years ago.
By Phil Dwyer, President of the Builders Collective of Australia.
