For the past two decades NSW has resisted any push for reform of the industry and sidelined those who spoke out when the new consumer protection system was introduced in 2002 by the Housing Industry Association on behalf of the governments of Victoria and NSW.

Many industry players saw this 2002 system as the downfall of the industry at the time and forecast very accurately the outcomes we see today that have been played out via cladding, Opal, and Mascot towers not to mention the tens of thousands consumers either paralysed or financially ruined by this draconian system.

Why did it take so long for our industry managers to wake up to the fact the industry was on its knees, and it is usually money that maintains the status quo and that’s certainly the case in this scenario as too many derive income from flawed legislation that gives them an income stream.

The Minister for Better Regulation suggests the NSW reforms are a mammoth undertaking, and their single focus is on turning this industry around using the six reform pillars.

It is disgraceful the building industry has been allowed to fall into such disrepair, and hurt so many, and while the legislation that would allow the registration of building and design practitioners is held up by the parliament suggests something is wrong with it because if it was common sense legislation it would have passed by now however much outside this legislation could be done if Mr Anderson had the will to do so.

This Collective has called for the registration of all trades including designers and architects as part of our platform for decades, and we are bewildered as to why they, and trades such as engineers are not part of the building system.

Mr Andersons six pillars of reform to turn the industry around are:

1. Building a better regulatory framework
2. Building rating systems
3. Building skills and capabilities
4. Building better procurement methods
5. Building a digital future
6. Building the reputation for quality research

Looking at each pillar positively we make limited comment on each.

No 1. ‘Building a better regulatory framework’

This pillar must take place as the existing over the past two decades have failed the consumers, the industry, and the government as their management of the industry has been dismal.

No 2. ‘Building rating systems’

This could be an advantage to consumers, builders, architects, designers, if it were to be public however it is the authors understanding this information may be confined to government alone.

No 3. ‘Building skills and capabilities

Improving accreditation is a must as is questioning the role of RTO’s who look at the income stream only. Short courses should be removed.

No 4. ‘Building better Procurement methods’

Transparency is imperative

No 5. ‘Building a digital future’

This is already some years behind

No 6. ‘Building the reputation for quality research’

This is an area that has been seriously lacking and confidence is at an all-time low.

Rebuilding confidence will take many years even if all initiatives were successful.

NSW like the other States and Territories have ended up with building industries in dire straits and require a total rebuild of all aspects of the industry from the ground up, and fiddling will not rectify the issues we face.

What has not been broached is the fact we are one industry that operates under one code being the BCA/NCC and accordingly there are not categories such as commercial builders, domestic builders, architects, and so on, and this is where the system is wrong as there are to many influences affecting the single building code.

One of the biggest failures is the consumer protection regime that only provides limited assistance to so few but its abuse by those that see it as an income stream or those that wont participate such as the big builders who have their own side deals to accept the regime that then forced it upon one sector being the domestic builders, and the commercial builders provide zero consumer protection under the 10 point plan of 2003.

This fragmentation between classes of practitioners is a joke and makes a mockery of consumer protection.

Consumer Protection should and must be a single statuary fund based on first resort with all practitioners included and all contributing on an equal basis that would provide genuine consumer protection and this is precisely where confidence can be found.

Minister Anderson suggests a risk rating tool to be run for profit by ratings agencies. Not hard to guess where this concept came from!

The NSW regulator of the past has failed dismally whereby compliance has not been regulated or enforced, and its role has not inspired any confidence in the consumer sector let alone within the industry. Any form of regulator for the building industry must have the confidence of industry and its consumers and should only be answerable to a singular political portfolio as being governed by multiple portfolios is part of the failure to date.

NSW appointed a Building Commissioner last year and David Chandler’s heart is in the right place and he knows the building industry, and well placed to provide the right input for reform but it is obvious at this stage there are many influences that may sideline those well placed thoughts.

A robust regulator is essential to police the initiatives Mr Anderson speaks of such as investigative powers to audit questionable builders however it appears there wont be a name and shame regime which means it will not be of value to consumers nor of value to the industry who do not want the questionable operators such as builders, developers and those prepared to use the role of the So-called “illegal phoenix activity” as a business tool where an operator may close one business with considerable debt only to reopen under another entity a short time later. Such operators see this method as a means to retire considerable debt at the expense of industry trades, financial institutions and consumers.

Conclusion:

Will the Anderson reforms turn the industry around?, Unfortunately we don’t believe so, and that belief is based on the fact that the initiatives will be handed to private enterprise and that’s the very concept of the past that has delivered such an acute failure of the building industry we see today.

We believe the industry must be managed by the one body under one political portfolio that would include a robust regulator that can operate without fear or favour, a registrar of all practitioners, together with a consumer protection regime based on first resort that is supported by all the industry practitioners.

We now know that self-regulation does not work, and human nature is such that if opportunity presents it will be taken advantage of even if it tests the boundaries of legality.

We have the opportunity to start the reform with a clean slate and a clear mind and remove the concepts and influences of the past.

Private enterprise entities must not play a role in the building industry as their influences are not driven by the desire to have a compliant well regulated industry.

This is solely the role of Government to manage our industry under professional business guidelines