It's a relatively small section of the industry that is responsible for the riskiest construction outcomes in the residential market. These players are a contagion that affect everyone.

I revisited the projects reported in my last article this week. For those who think there is nothing new to learn about the root causes of the construction industry’s problems, time at the workface provides more salutary insights. While construction across Australia steams ahead because of its importance to the economy and jobs, some are prepared to put this at risk. Nothing much had changed – but its pleasing that industry associations are on the case.

I interviewed supervisors and trade contractors on these projects. All were driven by the need to get work done as quickly as possible and to get their invoices in and be paid. They all spoke of the uncertainty of the times and the stresses they were under – to house and feed their families and to make sure they got more work in the future. All described a situation where they had to compete on a lowest cost basis and having to be part of making buildings where short cuts were the norm. They spoke of the consequences of pushing back – being tagged as a trouble maker and not being rehired. All felt oppressed by the situation and pleaded that they should not wear the brunt of turning the current industry situation around. Unsurprising to me was that all of the people I spoke to were qualified, and new what should be done. So again, it was not a lack of skills, it was deeper forces driving behavior.

Again, all were able to point to inadequate design documentation as the point where those prepared to cut the most corners were able to disrupt the proper pricing of work. The low bidders have attitude as well, not unsurprising they say, ‘ don’t think you are getting more than what you paid for and don’t give us a hard time or we will just stop turning up…. So if you want your job done fast get out of the way.’ So suck it up or find someone else.

For those supervising the situation is often horrible. They feel powerless to stand up and demand that work is done properly. In many instances they do not have proper documents to define what is required. If they push back to hard they lose their jobs. It’s challenging to start at this frontier to turn things around. It reminded me of similar frustrations the industry had in dealing with the Builder’s Labourers Federation in the 1980’s when all of their disputes were resolved by caving in employers off-site. But a stand had to be made then and it has to be made now. This is no way to make quality buildings and its not an environment to attract smart future construction practitioners.

There is a clear nexus between Developers who deliberately set out to cut corners and the attitude to safety on site. In all of the cases where I have observed unacceptable building outcomes, it is possible to trace a linkage back through a poor Occupancy Certificates, inadequate design, low bidding and as a result builders looking to get away with poor quality or non-compliant construction work. These challenges may explain the standard of work being produced by the most risky players, but they cannot be used to explain unsafe work practice. Drawing a line in the sand must involve an aggressive recalibration of both the start of construction procurement and safety standards on site. Both must be tackled.

The image here is an example of where the screwing of trade contractors and safety intersect. There was no safety handrails on the formed deck – a fall of 5 meters. But look at the formwork. Two barely fit for purpose props in a mid-span of approximately 5 meters. The builder assured me that he will have an engineer check out the formwork before concrete is poured. I showed him a video of a recent formwork collapse during a concrete pour in Canberra. This link is pretty graphic so be warned. I hear the builder on this job claimed that all of the required checks were done before this pour – investigation will tell.

The message must go out. Get safety on site right or there will be consequences no matter how oppressed or screwed you feel you may be. As for contracting to undertake sub-standard work, do this at your peril. And for the developers who are responsible for setting up these chains of compromise, the game will start coming to an end when new reform facing legislation passes in NSW. The formula needs to and will change once this occurs.

There is a lot of miss-information around about how new compliance and enforcement powers will be implemented. The intent of these powers, have been well canvassed with all industry stakeholders. There will be no surprises. All agree that the riskiest players must be forced to change their ways or wear the consequences. The tools to achieve this will be pretty blunt. They will have their greatest impact when a poorly contrived Occupancy Certificate is uncovered. Occupancy Certificates are an instrument that cause purchasers to shift from being depositors to owners. It is a widely held view that for every $1 a developer might save by cutting corners, when embedded defects later show up as problems for purchasers the cost of rectification is $10. Developers who think that lifting the standards of construction in NSW is a tax on their profits; they are not. The effect will simply be redirecting cost shifting practices of the past back to where they are better applied. This is not an attack on entitled profits, it is an attack on un-entitled margins from cutting corners.

Changing the status quo will be challenging. But the task is scaleable. The focus will be on the 10 to 20-percent of the most risky developer + builder + certifier combinations. They will be given a reasonable opportunity to change their games once the new reform packages become law. A Certifier’s Practice Guide (CPG) is being prepared to make it plain to developers, builders and certifiers that a best practice approach must be adopted as projects are made and certified. To ensure this message is understood, a risk rating tool will be applied to select projects which may have more risky player combinations. These project teams will be given guidance as to the standards already required by the Building Code of Australia. No new requirements, just demonstrated compliance. An audit process will be implemented for selected projects during the last 6-months of construction prior to an Occupancy Certificate being made. Experienced industry practitioners will work with certifiers to verify that clear evidence is used to demonstrate trustworthy buildings.

There will be no surprises, just a collaborative effort to re-establish confidence amongst purchasers to buy apartments in NSW. But there will be consequences for those projects who feel they can ignore the winds of change now building. And these winds will not just effect the project players. A new level of engagement will be required from the state’s regulators. There will be powerful new tools to assist. The focus will shift from mostly dealing with compliance and accountability after the horse has bolted, to being proactive and getting in front of the game. There will be fresh blood or boots on the ground to develop new capabilities and practice. Work has already started on implementing this transformation. There will be new public facing dashboard reporting to demonstrate that the regulator is increasing its touch points and impact. There will be a dashboard to observe the impact of more effective regulatory intervention and how lifting customer confidence align.

Rebuilding sustainable new capabilities and confidence in the NSW market is a multi-faceted challenge. At the core of this will be raising accreditation and governance standards amongst the industry’s professional bodies. Both vocational and higher education providers will also be challenged to bring more to the table. Early collaborations has started. Educators have agreed that new modern learning content is required and they are up for delivering this content as it is developed. One of the reform working groups is dedicated to lifting the industry’s capabilities. Industry recognises that this is a long overdue reset that needs to provide future facing career pathways and skilling as a more modern industry is shaped over the next few years. The signs are encouraging as the state faces building a modernised workforce that is attractive to the over 100,000 new entrants that will be needed by 2030.

Greed + Speed + Oppression will not a formula to enable the transformation that will be needed to make good buildings and rebuild purchaser confidence to re-enter the market. That is why the messaging will be clear to those who might put all this at risk. The vast majority of good players want the industry’s brand for trustworthy buildings to be reinstated. For the first time in many years there is unequivocal support for the compliance focus moving up front to deal with the most risky players who have created most of the problems. But, from the outset, there should be no doubt that safety standards need to lift – no excuses.

This article was originally published on LinkedIn by NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler