AIBS Autumn 2016

AUSTRALIAN

www.aibs.com.au

COVER STORY

AUTUMN 2016

ABCB

INNOVATION

MEET THE MEMBERS

NEW TIMBER REQUIREMENTS

MATTHEW WILSON

National Construction Code Updates

The Forefront of Construction Solutions.

From Student to Senior Building Surveyor

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SURVEYORS

Need More Performance?

MGAC is expert in accessibility of the built environment.

We prepare performance (alternative) solution reports for building code access and DDA compliance. We have prepared reports for a comprehensive and diverse range of projects over all classes of building.

Our ability to look at AS1428 compliance problems in a variety of ways stems from our deep functional knowledge of Codes and Standards, as well as the broad range of talent and skills in our team that includes construction managers, builders, architects, civil engineers and interior designers, all experts in access and DDA matters.

Morris Goding Access Consulting (MGAC) gives you solutions not problems.

Phone: 02 9692 9322 info@mgac.com.au

www.mgac.com.au

CONTENTS

FOREWORDS PRESIDENT’S REPORT

2

REPORTS AIBS NEWS

3

FEATURES AND UPDATES

STEEL COMPLIANCE TECHNICAL UPDATES PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE IDENTIFICATION OF PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES BUILDING PRACTITIONER MISCONDUCT FUTURES AND INNOVATION NEW TIMBER RELATED REQUIREMENTS MEET THE MEMBERS MEMBER SURVEY RESULTS CONFERENCE CALENDAR CHAPTER UPDATES ON THE BUILDING SITE

EMAIL: trish@crowtherblayne.com.au ADVERTISING SALES: Paul Baird, Trish Riley, Vivianne Reiss and Scott Sharples STUDIO MANAGER: Byron Bailey EDITOR: Jessica McCabe

4 6 8 12 16 20 22 24 28 30 32 34 36

PRINT: Newstyle DISTRIBUTION: Newstyle CONTACT DETAILS PO Box 824 Surfers Paradise QLD 4217 TEL: 1800 222 757 FAX: 1800 063 151 EMAIL: publications@crowtherblayne.com.au WEB: www.crowtherblayne.com.au

LAYOUT: Michelle Triana GRAPHIC DESIGN TEAM: Andrew Crabb, Danny McGirr PRODUCTION: Brooke Travers

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SURVEYORS 15 Bridge Street Pymble NSW 2073 Phone 1300 312 427

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR ARTICLE SUBMISSION PLEASE CONTACT US

Phone 1300 312 427 nat.editor@aibs.com.au

ADVERTISING

Crowther Blayne Media Specialists Phone (07) 5553 2800

Australian Building Surveyor magazine is produced by Crowther Blayne Media Specialists on behalf of The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors. Australian Building Surveyor is the official magazine of The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors.

DISCLAIMER: No person should rely on the contents of this publication without first obtaining advice from qualified professional persons.

The publisher and the authors, consultants and editors, expressly disclaim all and any liability and responsibility to any person, whether a purchaser or reader of this publication or not, in respect of anything, and of the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon the whole or any part of the contents of this publication. The publisher is not responsible for claims made by advertisers or opinions expressed. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied or duplicated without the written consent of Crowther Blayne Media Specialists and The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors.

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

1

PRESIDENT’S REPORT

From the AIBS President

JEFFREY BROOKS JEFFREY BROOKS National President & QLD/NT Director

WELCOME TO OUR FIRST EDITION OF THIS YEAR’S MAGAZINE AND THE FIRST UNDER OUR NEW PUBLISHERS CROWTHER BLAYNE MEDIA SPECIALISTS.

We look forward to working with Crowther Blayne Media Specialists in developing this magazine as an ever better way to keep you, the member informed and updated on key happenings in our profession and the industry. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of Copyriot, our previous publishers, for their work and contribution over many years to the AIBS magazine.

On February 27th, the Board held their first meeting for the year in Sydney. The Board meet face to face each quarter and are supplemented by teleconferences when the need arises to deal with a range of business, or as crucial matters arise.

The first meeting for the year is always a critical one where the Board conduct a strategy session in order to determine their priorities for the upcoming financial year and provide direction to the CEO in the development of the annual operational plan and budget. The next scheduled Board meeting in May is where the CEO reports back to the Board and presents the Annual Operation Plan and Budget for their approval to commence on 1st July.

This year, the Board identified the ongoing development of a Professional Standards Scheme as one of our main priorities.

Associated with this will also be a review of the AIBS Accreditation Scheme and our membership structure, both of which will be integral to the development of our Professional Standards Scheme. Other priorities are a review of our governance

2

structures, which you will already be aware of through our consultation both electronically and via mail, and also the role of a specialist Technical Consultant on the staff of AIBS. Some of the key responsibilities of this role will be to work with the Board and CEO in the development of AIBS policy and the management of technical information throughout the Organisation, along with supporting the development of AIBS submissions nationally and across jurisdictions. The role will support the key work of the National Technical Committee and will also provide assistance in the development of the National Training Program. A full job description is currently being developed and we anticipate advertising the role nationally in May for commencement in July/August.

This year is also election year and this current Board, along with our colleagues on the Chapter Executive Committees, will end their term at the AIBS AGM scheduled for Melbourne on Friday 11th November. Just how the new Board and Chapter Committees will be elected will be determined by the outcome of the Governance review, but I encourage any members who are looking to make a contribution, to consider volunteering for a role with AIBS. We know the reality is volunteers have less time available and have become more prudent in what activities they choose to become involved with outside of their main priorities of work, family and any hobbies they may have.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

However through our Governance review we are seeking to make the structure of AIBS more dynamic to allow members to make a contribution with the limited amount of time they have in areas that may be of a particular interest. While elections for the Board and Chapter Committees are scheduled to be held through August and September, even if these roles do not appeal, keep an eye open for our key advisory group and other opportunities that may be of interest throughout the year, and become involved in your Institute.

On a final note, you will have observed through our correspondence over the past months that the issue of non-conforming products continues to remain at the forefront of industry issues as evidenced by the outcomes of the Building Ministers Forum in February. While external cladding has been the most visible product brought into question through reports from the MFB and the VBA in Victoria, my advice to members, as it has been in the past, is to continue to be alert and keep checking that products you deal with, conform. If you have any doubt please raise it with the Regulator in your respective jurisdiction.

I look forward to seeing you at our conferences throughout the year so please take the opportunity to come up to the CEO or myself and let us know your thoughts, both good and bad, on the direction of AIBS. JEFFREY BROOKS AIBS National President

NEWS

WELCOME TO YOUR NEW

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR MAGAZINE

AIBS ARE PLEASED TO SHOW YOU THE NEW LOOK FOR THE AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR MAGAZINE, WHICH IS NOW PUBLISHED BY CROWTHER BLAYNE MEDIA SPECIALISTS. THE MAGAZINE WILL STILL CONTAIN ALL THE REGULAR FEATURES AND ILLUMINATING CONTENT THAT IT ALWAYS HAS, AND WE STILL WELCOME OUR READER’S SUBMISSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS TO NAT.EDITOR@AIBS.COM.AU

JEFFREY BROOKS RECEIVES

AIBS

TRAINING

AUSTRALIA DAY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD AIBS is proud to announce that Jeffrey Brooks, who is in his eighteenth year as a volunteer at AIBS and is currently serving his fourth year as our National President, received the Australia Day Achievement Award for his many contributions in Building Industry and policy.

Over his 34 year career, Jeff has made a substantial contribution to the building industry in Queensland. Jeff joined the Department of Works (as it was then) as a Clerical Assistant in 1981 and has since completed a plumbing apprenticeship, a graduate diploma in Building Surveying and a Masters in Construction Management.

This has allowed him to work in a range of public and private sector roles, where he has worked tirelessly to ensure the safety of Queenslanders in the built environment.

Jeff ’s most recent work has seen him come full circle and take a leadership role in ensuring Queensland’s plumbing laws and policies maintain public health and the environment. Jeff is highly regarded and respected by his colleagues, being both easily approachable and able to resolve complex issues through negotiation, analysis and hard work.

Though the year is still in its early months the AIBS Training Calendar is already full of a great range of training events across the country, with a number of sessions already completed and many still to come. Upcoming sessions include Mid Rise Timber Buildings presented by WoodSolutions and The New Australian Standard presented by the Australian Window Association, among others.

We would like to remind our members that the full day national training price has been reduced from $450 to $360, which represents a reduction of $90 per day for our members.

To view the most up-to-date list of training events please view the Training Calendar on our website www.aibs.com.au.

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

3

BUILDING STANDARDS

HOW TO ENSURE

COMPLIANCE OF STEEL

AUSTRALIA IS PART OF THE GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN FOR BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS. Increasingly, evidence suggests that suppliers of products, regardless of their origin, may not be providing suitable verification that they meet Australian Standards and building requirements, hence may not be ‘fit for purpose’.

Non-conforming building products undermine the sustainability of construction projects, compromise the integrity of design intent and put public safety at unacceptable risk.

A report on non-conforming building products published by The Australian Industry Group (AiG) in 2014, The Quest for a Level Playing Field, suggests that non-conforming building products have been allowed into the Australian market due to “inadequate surveillance, no audit checks, limited testing and enforcement and inadequate first party certification”.

The report found that non-conforming products impact on safety and business sustainability and can escalate deterioration rates in buildings, reduce asset value and increase maintenance costs. According to the report, the collective framework for product conformance, which includes regulators, regulations, codes of practice and standards, does not operate effectively. The Report indicates that best practice national and

4

international industry and regulatory examples should be sought and examined with a view to implementation in Australia.

The initiatives and resources listed below offer assurance to the Australian building and construction industry that the structural and reinforcing steel products used in their projects meet the relevant Australian Standards; The Australasian Certification Authority for Reinforcing and Structural Steels (ACRS) administers a JASANZ accredited third party product certification scheme. This scheme certifies reinforcing, prestressing and structural steels to Australian Standards. ACRS Certification gives the supply chain confidence that the manufacturer of the products used in their project has been rigorously assessed by an independent body. ACRS Certification also means the manufacturer consistently manufactures to and meets the requirements of the Australian Standards.

The Australian Steel Institute (ASI) recently established the National Structural Steelwork Compliance Scheme (NSSCS) is Australia’s first dedicated quality compliance and certification system covering supply,

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

fabrication and erection of structural steelwork. The NSSCS is compatible with design Standards AS/NZS 4100 (structural steelwork), AS/NZS 5100 (bridges) and supports Australian Standards for welding, bolting and corrosion protection.

A new independent certification body, Steelwork Compliance Australia (SCA) commenced certification of fabricators in 2015. SCA certifies fabricators to one of a range of levels, each corresponding to specific ‘Construction Categories’ defined in the ‘Steelwork Fabrication and Erection Code of Practice’ (CoP). The CoP is the primary input to Australian Standard AS/NZS 5131; “Steelwork Fabrication and Erection” - the first draft of which is planned for circulation and public comment in early 2016.

Key benefits of SCA to the construction market are a reduced risk of rework and project delays, improved workplace health and safety and a reduction in the time and cost associated with prequalifying structural steel fabricators. Visit SCA’s website (www.scacompliance.com.au) for more information, including the certification status of audited fabricators.

A Guide to Achieving Compliance (second edition) published by the Australasian Procurement and Construction Council in 2015 provides accurate information on ‘safety critical’ products. The Guide recognises 34 industry led product accreditation schemes and industry generated guidance materials across various building product categories, including reinforcing and structural steel, cementitious materials for concrete and fire safety services.

REVISED AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS Australian and New Zealand Standards which cover the manufacture and use of structural steels have been revised to incorporate more rigorous requirements due to concerns around compliance.

The following Australian and New Zealand Standards have been updated: • AS/NZS 1163:2009 – Cold-formed structural steel hollow sections • AZ/NZS 3679.1:2010 – Hot-rolled bars and sections • AZ/NZS 3679.2:2010 – Welded I Sections • AS/NZS 3678:2011 – Hot-rolled plates, floorplates and slabs

These four Australian Standards include mandatory requirements for: • A specific rolled-in mark, painted mark or label (product dependant) to be placed on the product at defined intervals at the time of manufacture, • Specific and minimum information to be included on; –– Test Certificates for products manufactured to AS/NZS 1163, AS/ NZS 3678 and AS/NZS 3679.1, and –– Compliance Certificates for products manufactured to AS/NZS 3679.2 • Mechanical and chemical testing to be performed by laboratories with thirdparty accreditation from a signatory to International Laboratories Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), such as NATA. These mandatory requirements provide improved quality, identification, certification and traceability of structural steel products manufactured to these Australian Standards.

Mandatory compliance criteria have the ability to mitigate the risks associated with product substitution, misrepresentation and noncompliance. This makes it easier for you to check that the steel you specified, certified or used in your project satisfies the requirements of the respective Australian Standards, including the Structural Steel Code (AS4100).

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO TO ENSURE THE COMPLIANCE OF THE STEEL USED IN YOUR PROJECTS? Firstly, check if the steel has ACRS certification, via www.steelcertification.com.

All OneSteel manufacturing facilities supplying product to AS/NZS 4671, AS/NZS1163, AS/NZS3679.1 and AS/NZS3679.2 have achieved ACRS certification. By choosing to have our products third party certified by ACRS, OneSteel demonstrates its commitment to supplying quality products compliant to Australian Standards.

Also, check the Test Certificates for the structural steel in your project. OneSteel has produced a checklist (available via www.buildwithstandards.com.au) of the Australian Standard’s mandatory requirements for the manufacture of structural steel, allowing you to easily determine the compliance status of the steel.

Finally, if you would like further information on how to ensure the compliance of steel in your projects, or assistance with reviewing the compliance of Test Certificates, go to www.buildwithstandards.com.au.

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

5

TECHNICAL

NATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE UPDATE

IN THE WINTER 2014 EDITION OF TABS, ADELAIDE CITY COUNCIL BUILDING SURVEYOR, JEREMY TURNER, IN HIS EXCELLENT REPORT, INTRODUCED READERS TO THE AIBS NATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. He succinctly detailed the roles and responsibilities of the Committee, how to submit a request for comment on technical issues and that participation and the involvement of AIBS members is encouraged. Since that report the faces around the table may have changed and the diversity of qualifications and experiences have changed but the quality of advice and recommendations have not.

When we find that something needs changing such as an Australian Standard or a section of the BCA, it is always hardest to convince somebody that change is needed.

Much of the advice and recommendations that the Committee make is about change.

Whether that is proposed amendments to existing Australian Standards, the development of new Standards, and the annual changes to National Construction Code, (now every three years), or providing support to an allied body seeking change to a particular interest, it’s all about change.

So from potentially a single person’s desire for change, change can happen that affects a nation and we have seen that over the years with changes to our Standards and Codes.

I recently read a quote from Robin Sharma’s, The Leader Who Had No Title: A Modern Fable on Real Success in Business and Life; who said “change is hardest at the beginning, messiest in the middle and best at the end”, in my mind this adequately expressed how we go about initiating change and the role that the Technical Committee plays.

6

This is where the Committee comes in to play, and then the ABCB may get involved and it becomes a little bit messy as more committees and advisory bodies become involved and then if we get our way the end results are great.

In my 12 months as the Western Australian Director, Board member, and Technical Committee Member I have been privy to numerous proposed changes to Australian Standards and the NCC. Since April 2015 to February 2016 there have been 36 issues that have been formally considered by the Committee. Issues that have been of particular interest and created the greatest discussion pertained to: • non-conforming building products, • when is a Class 1 not a Class 1 but a Class 2 & or Class 3 and visa versa – short term versus long term, renting an apartment for holiday accommodation etc, and • farm sheds

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

Discussion soon established that these issues are not peculiar to one State or jurisdiction but a National issue.

In the past three months the Committee has not been overly stretched with the only issues for consideration being: • Request that the Technical Committee consider supporting the provision of Advice Notes pertaining to issues coming out of the Engineers Australia South Australian Footings Group.

These being: a. Advice about the use of hollow core clay bricks and the suitability of and types of fixing used in these types of bricks; b. Lack of movement/articulation jointing within double brick construction against window and door framing; and c. Changes to the truss installation / residential timber framing codes to take account of footing deflections.

• Senate enquiry – Domestic Smoke Alarms This matter was brought to our attention in mid-January and was concerning as it appeared that AIBS had not been initially approached to provide comment when it was first considered on 25 June 2015.

The issue of concern by the proponent is the use of smoke alarms to prevent smoke and fire related deaths, with particular reference to: a. the incidence of smoke and fire related injuries and deaths and associated damage to property; b. the immediate and long term effects of such injuries and deaths; c. how the use, type and installation set-ups of smoke alarms could affect such injuries and deaths; d. what smoke alarms are in use in owner-occupied and rented dwellings and the installation set-ups; e. how the provisions of the Australian Building Code relating to smoke alarm type, installation and use can be improved; f. whether there are any other legislative or regulatory measures which would minimise such injuries and deaths; and g. any related matter The CEO addressed this matter by requesting feedback from our membership in the AIBS newsletter of 21 January 2016, pertaining in the main to points e) and f ).

• Proposed Standard AS1428.4.2 – Wayfinding The main purpose of the draft standard is to specify the minimum wayfinding design requirements to enable pedestrians, particularly those who are blind or vision impaired, to enter, to leave

and to navigate within premises in a safe and independent manner.

Basically, what this standard hopes to address is braille signage within shopping centres and activity centres, kerbing or as the proposed standard calls it “shorelines” along travel paths, etc.

The proposal also included estimated costs of providing the wayfinding signage within buildings.

• Request for support from the convenor of the Australian Network for Universal Housing Design (ANUHD), to review AS4299 – 1995 Adaptable Housing to align with the 2010-2020 National Disability Strategy (Liveable Housing Design).

AS4299 is not a Standard referenced in the NCC as this Standard is predominantly called upon by Planners to satisfy their conditions of approval for adaptable housing for the aged or disabled.

If the proposal becomes widely accepted there is a proposal that it be adopted in the NCC and that housing by the year 2020 have the provisions of AS4299 incorporated in their design.

• A request for support from AIBS for the proponent to lodge with the ABCB a “Proposal for Change” (PFC), in respect to amending the BCA to permit “Tabular Formatting” similar to part D3 where complex and confusing text has

been tabulated for simplicity and ease of reading. It is proposed that Emergency Lighting E4.2 be considered firstly.

As can be seen, the Technical Committee is all about change. Some may argue not for the better, but in reality the majority of the changes that we are instrumental in helping bring about, do make a difference.

DUNCAN WILSON FAIBS

Duncan Wilson is the Principal Building Surveyor at the Shire of Kalamunda and is the WA Chapter’s Director and currently chairs the National Technical Committee

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

7

LEGAL

PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY

AS BUILDING SURVEYORS, FROM TIME TO TIME YOU WILL ENTER INTO CONTRACTS AND THE ONUS IS ON YOUR INSURANCE BROKER TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ADVICE ON THE IMPACT A CONTRACT HAS ON YOUR INSURANCE PROGRAM. Contracts are largely drafted by lawyers acting for the Principal Contractor/ Consultant (Principal). Typically it is the Principal who engages your services. One common objective we have identified in these contracts is to shift liability from the Principal to you, the building surveyor.

The means, by which this objective is achieved, is through indemnities, hold harmless and waiver of rights clauses, warranties and guarantees. Each of these are typically very onerous for the Consultant and are often referred to as your “assumed” liability. Assumed liability is liability that you assume under the contract and which otherwise would not have applied to you.

One clause that appears in a high percentage of contracts in various forms is a Waiver of Proportionate Liability Legislation clause.

The introduction of Proportionate Liability Legislation in every State and Territory in Australia was an attempt to curb rising insurance costs for professionals by minimising your liability and hence the claims paid by insurers. What this legislation

8

essentially means is that by law you cannot be held responsible for more than the amount you contributed to the loss. Prior to the introduction of Proportionate Liability Legislation, liability was joint and several, therefore a claimant could sue any one party for 100% of their loss (as long as that party had some liability for the loss).

This fact meant that the party with the highest insurance coverage was often targeted, rather than the party with the largest proportion of liability.

Unfortunately, some States included a provision in their legislation which allows parties to exclude the operation of the legislation in a particular contract. Therefore since the legislation was enacted, a high percentage of contracts contain these clauses to allow the Principal to recover 100% of their loss from you even though you may have only carried a small proportion of the liability for that loss. The exclusion of Proportionate Liability is often agreed by Building Surveyors without a full understanding of the implications of doing so.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

The problem this creates for you is that almost every professional indemnity insurance policy will not indemnify you for this assumed liability under such contracts.

This creates a significant uninsured risk for building surveyors who agree to “contract out” of Proportionate Liability Legislation.

Many policies will profess to cover your contractual liability, however when read in detail, exclude the “assumed” portion of your contractual liability. An example of typical exclusion under a professional indemnity policy reads as follows: Any CLAIM arising from or directly or indirectly attributable to, or in consequence of any duty or obligation assumed by the INSURED by way of warranty, guarantee, indemnity, contract or agreement, unless the INSURED would have incurred the liability in the absence of such warranty, guarantee, indemnity, contract or agreement.

A far more acceptable Contractual Liability extension is as follows: We will indemnify the Insured against civil liability the Insured incurs in respect of a Claim under an indemnity and/or hold harmless term of a contract to the extent such civil liability results from the Insured’s performance of Professional Services.

Usually these clauses are only offered as an optional extension to the insurance policy and are not offered as an automatic extension. As with any policy extension that significantly widens the scope of the insurer’s liability, it can be expensive to insure, and many insurers refuse to offer such cover due to the high losses they believe it exposes them to.

Cover may not be available under every insurance policy. In order to ascertain whether this coverage is available to you we recommend speaking with your insurance broker.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR BUILDING SURVEYORS? For a profession that is already exposed to high volumes of litigation where it seems that you are the major target on every project, we believe it unwise to open further avenues for claimants to recover against building surveyors.

By contracting out of Proportionate Liability legislation you gift to claimants the ability for them to recover against you in the event of a loss. Therefore in our opinion, contracts with these clauses should be rejected, or an appropriate amendment negotiated.

Whilst it may be possible to purchase insurance cover for these exposures, is it something you wish to expose your insurance policy to? The legislation is there to protect you against unreasonable claims for compensation and therefore we recommend you stick to your guns and resist every attempt for the removal of this very important level of protection.

Unfortunately, in certain circumstances, we acknowledge it can be commercially very difficult to resist such impositions.

If you find yourself in such a situation we recommend you speak with your insurance broker about arranging adequate insurance protection that will respond.

To the extent that any of the above content constitutes advice, it is general advice without reference to your needs or objectives and therefore cannot be relied upon. Before acting on the above information you should obtain advice specific to your needs.

PATRICK BEAUMONT

Manager of the Professional Risks unit with Bovill Risk & Insurance Consultants Pty Ltd (BRIC) patrickb@bric.com.au

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

9

Renault TRAFIC

The van you need.

Guaranteed.

Australia’s most awarded builders deserve Australia’s most awarded van.* *As voted by Delivery magazine. †Warranty & Roadside Assistance valid for 3 years or 200,000km (whichever comes first) from new. Demonstrator vehicles receive balance of new vehicle warranty and Roadside Assistance. Roadside Assistance terms and conditions apply. Call our Customer Service Team on 1800 009 008 or view the Terms and Conditions statement at www.renault.com.au/drivingpeaceofmind for details. ^First 3 scheduled maintenance services capped at $349 per service on new and demonstrator Trafic III models, based on standard scheduled servicing from new and on normal operating conditions. Scheduled maintenance services required every twelve (12) months or up to 30,000km (whichever occurs first). However, Trafic III is subject to adaptive servicing requirements, as determined by the Oil Condition Sensor, and may require servicing prior to the standard twelve (12) months or 30,000km service interval. If vehicle is not presented within three (3) months of when the scheduled service is required, right to that capped-price service under the program is forfeited.

• Internal / External Application • BAL-FZ Fire Rated • Domestic. Commercial

INEX FLOOR™

• High Impact Resistance • Simple Tongue & Grove System • Lightweight / High Strength

INEX DECKING™

• High Acoustic Properties • Excellent in Wet Areas • Low Carbon – Eco Friendly

INEX RENDERBOARD™

INEX WEATHERBOARD™

For more information visit www.ubiq.com.au or call 1300 00 UBIQ

E N G I N E E R E D

S E L F – T A P P I N G

S C R E W S

FIX it

RIGHT ...or FIX it!

CLEVER TIPS FOR BUILDERS & CERTIFIERS Tried and tested Engineered Building Products are only as strong as their weakest link. So how you fix an EBP is critical to its performance…and structural integrity.

That’s why MiTek developed two specially designed and engineered ‘self-tapping’ Plus, neither will ‘ream-out’ like cheaper off-the-shelf screws.

No-one wants costly call-backs or issues on site…so here are two tips: use MiTek screws!

To find out more about MiTek’s Engineered Self-tapping Screws, call your local state office or visit: mitek.com.au VIC (03) 8795 8888 NSW (02) 8525 8000 QLD (07) 3861 2100 SA (08) 8234 1326 WA (08) 9412 3534 New Zealand (09) 274 7109 Malaysia (603) 3176 7473

MGB0551-2013-TABS

screws, which will drill through metal plate and timber – without the need to pre-drill.

COVER STORY

KEEPING UP-TO-DATE WITH

THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE THE AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CODES BOARD (ABCB) PRODUCES A VARIETY OF RESOURCES TO KEEP YOU INFORMED AND UP-TO-DATE WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE (NCC).

When you register for the NCC online (www.abcb.gov.au) you will have the option to opt-in to communications which includes the Australian Building Regulation Bulletin (ABRB).

The ABRB provides technically based information directly relevant to the building and plumbing industry and the community.

Hot topics such as NCC changes and amendments are examples of what you will find within this online publication.

Read on for the latest information on NCC changes for 2016.

NCC 2016 – OVERVIEW OF CHANGES NCC 2016 brings some significant changes which will affect all users of the code.

For readers who have not yet had the opportunity to get across it, this article provides an overview of the most important changes, including new General Provisions for all three Volumes, and major technical changes for both the BCA and PCA.

12

THE NEW NCC GENERAL PROVISIONS – ENGENDERING A PERFORMANCE MINDSET The General Provisions, in Section A of each Volume (Section 1 in Volume Two), describe how the NCC operates; what the mandatory requirements are, and how they are met. In NCC 2016, the General Provisions have been re-written to make the performance-based format easier to understand by clarifying that only the Performance Requirements must be met — using the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions is just one option for doing this.

The changes mainly cover Part A0 (Volume Two, Part 1.0) which is now consistent across all three Volumes, and includes simpler descriptions of how the performance-based NCC applies, updated terminology — Alternative Solutions are now called Performance Solutions — and a new diagram to help understand the NCC compliance structure. See Figure 1.

These changes flow on to the performance ‘hierarchies’ at the beginning of each Part of the NCC. Also, as part of the focus on performance, the Objectives and Functional Statements for Volume Figure1: NCC Compliance Structure One have been moved to the Guide; in Volumes Two and Three they are PERFORMANCE now Explanatory Information. This REQUIREMENTS reflects the intention of the Objectives and Functional Statements, which is to provide guidance on the mandatory PERFORMANCE and/or DEEMED-TO-SATISFY SOLUTION SOLUTION Performance Requirements.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

Restructuring these parts of the NCC has helped put the focus back on performance, and is a key part of the ABCB’s drive to engender a performance mindset and promote innovation throughout the building, construction, and plumbing and drainage sectors.

NCC 2016 CONSOLIDATED REQUIREMENTS As part of the NCC Suite for 2016, the ABCB has released an updated NCC Consolidated Performance Requirements which includes the new General Provisions and performance hierarchies for all three Volumes.

CHANGES AFFECTING VOLUMES ONE AND TWO Structural Robustness Verification Method A new Verification Method for structural robustness has been included as an option for compliance with the NCC. The Verification Method is a consequence of the Quantification of Performance Project.

Consistent with other Verification Methods in the NCC, the new Verification Method is not a mandatory component, however may be used to demonstrate compliance with the Performance Requirements, where use of

the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions may not be appropriate for a particular design. The structural robustness Verification Method complements the structural reliability Verification Method which was introduced into NCC 2015.

Ventilation Verification Method The Quantification of Performance project has also developed two new Verification Methods for ventilation. The first is specific to Class 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9b or 9c buildings or a Class 4 part of a building. The second Verification Method is specific to carparks and is only included in Volume One. Both Verification Methods consider the amount of outdoor air required to ensure contaminate levels of certain pollutants do not exceed the values specified in the Verification Method.

Stair going and risers Clarification has been provided for what constitutes as ‘constant’ for stair going and risers. The amendment acknowledges atmospheric moisture change that affect material dimensions or movement in materials that impact the finished stair dimensions.

Referenced Documents A number of new referenced documents including Australian Standards have been adopted for NCC 2016, in addition to a large number of amendments to existing referenced documents. For a consolidated list of the amended referenced documents, refer to the list of amendments at the back of each Volume of the NCC. CHANGES AFFECTING VOLUMES ONE In addition to the changes listed above which affect Volumes One and Two, there are a number of changes specific to Volume One, including the following: Effective Height Clarification added to the definition of effective height. The determination of the lowest storey providing direct egress to a road or open space has always been subjective. The defined term now refers to the determination method used to identify the lowest storey included in a calculation of rise in storeys. This simplifies the calculation method and aligns the two calculation methods. Identifying the highest storey remains the same.

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

13

COVER STORY Timber Mid-Rise Buildings New provisions have been included to permit timber mid-rise buildings. Buildings which are Class 2, 3 or 5, sprinkler protected and not more than 25m effective height can be built from timber provided the new Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions are followed.

This means that timber buildings which were limited to three storeys can potentially be built to eight storeys.

Class 10a Smoke Alarms Where a smoke alarm is installed in a Class 10a private garage and is likely to cause spurious signals (false alarms) an additional option has been included to allow any other alarm deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 provided smoke alarms are installed elsewhere in the Class 1a building.

This option is consistent with similar provisions in Volume One.

Group Number Determination The group number determination for the fire hazard property provisions now refers to a new referenced standard, AS 5637.1.

The new standard contains a process to determine the most appropriate test to undertake for a certain product.

CHANGES AFFECTING VOLUME THREE – PCA AND WATERMARK For 2016, there are two major changes to Volume Three: these are the restructuring of Parts A2 and G1 to implement the improved WaterMark Certification Scheme; and the adoption of the 2015 editions of AS/NZS 3500 Parts 1 to 4 within the PCA Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions.

Carparks The concession under C3.1 to exempt a vehicle ramp opening to comply with the protection of openings provisions of the Part has been amended. The concession now only applies if the connecting floors comply as a single fire compartment for the purpose of other Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions in Section C, D and E. This may affect provisions such as E1.5 -Sprinklers.

Visibility in an Emergency The Quantification of Performance project recognised that EP4.1 was potentially preventing innovation by limiting visibility in an emergency to that provided by lighting only. Therefore ‘lighting’ has been replaced with ‘visibility’ to enable innovation through alternative systems.

Farm buildings and Farm Sheds Provisions for farm buildings and farm sheds have been introduced in a new Part – Part H3. The provisions provide a number of concessions to the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision in Sections C, D, E and F. The new Part acknowledges that certain farm buildings may require additional levels of safety than a Class 10a building, however may not require the level of stringency of a Class 7 or 8 building.

CHANGES AFFECTING VOLUMES TWO In addition to the changes listed above which affect Volumes One and Two, there are a number of changes specific to Volume Two, including the following: Dwelling above a non-appurtenant Class 10a private garage Prior to NCC 2016, Volume Two did not have specific fire-separation provisions where a private garage was located below a non-appurtenant dwelling. A new provision has been included to require fire-separation for the floor separating the non-appurtenant dwelling and private garage.

14

Parts A2 and G1 restructured The improved WaterMark Certification Scheme — supported by the Building Ministers Forum in July 2015 — will, among other things, create a single level scheme and consolidate the myriad scheme administrative documents into a single source, within the ABCB website. For the PCA, this means that Part A2 now includes at A2.1 a delineation between which products require WaterMark certification and which products are excluded, and at A2.2 separate evidence of suitability requirements for included and excluded products.

Table A2.1 has been removed as its role has been consolidated into the website.

Moving these parts of the scheme out of the PCA and onto the website will enable it to better keep pace with the rapid changes in plumbing products technology. For the same reason, the procedural and administrative content from Part G1 has now also been consolidated, meaning that Part of the PCA has also been removed. Explanatory Information has been retained in its place to give a general overview of the scheme.

Transitional provisions – WaterMark It is important to note that while PCA 2016 will take effect in all States and Territories from 1 May, the improved WaterMark Certification Scheme is not expected to be fully implemented until later this year.

To cover this, a transitional clause (A2.0) has been included in the PCA to allow the content of Part G1 from 2015 to continue to be used until this time.

AS/NZS 3500 Parts 1 to 4: 2015 adoption Since 2011, the PCA has referenced the 2003 editions of AS/NZS 3500 Parts 1 to 4. Following a review by the ABCB, these Standards have now been revised and re-issued by Standards Australia, with many

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

changes made to improve their suitability for regulatory use and their compatibility with the PCA. From 1 May 2016, the revised Standards will be adopted by the PCA (see Table A3.1) and as such will be able to be used wherever a PCA Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision refers to the Standard.

Importantly, there are some requirements (e.g. flushing volumes) which aren’t in the Standard anymore; this does not mean they have been abolished, only that they are now regulated directly through the PCA (e.g. B1.5).

Unlike the 2003 editions, these new Standards are intended only to be used in combination with the content of the PCA, not as stand-alone documents, so from 2016 it’s going to be more important than ever to be familiar and up to date with both.

Please visit our website at www.abcb.gov.au to register for free online access to the NCC or for more information on any of the above.

Can you take the risk that you might be using non-compliant steel?

Liable. (adj.) Legally obliged or responsible; answerable. Liable to happen.

• • • • •

As construction professionals using non-compliant steel could be your worst decision.

Engineers, certifiers or suppliers have the responsibility and power to refuse the use of unidentifiable or non-compliant steel.

You manage the risk to human safety, reputation, livelihood and cost. Control your risks of non-compliance.

Reduce your liability through simple web downloads of ACRS Certificates at www.steelcertification.com Check your steel products’ compliance to AS/NZS Standards and building codes.

ACRS rigorously certifies steel product compliance at over 150 locations in 15 countries and is accredited

by JAS-ANZ For more detail, register for STEEL CERTIFICATION NEWS at www.steelcertification.com

Non-compliance is just not worth it. Get the facts.

Demand the ACRS Certificates of Product Compliance.

Call ACRS on (02) 9965 7216, email info@steelcertification.com or visit www.steelcertification.com ACRS – The Australasian Certification Authority for Reinforcing and Structural Steels Ltd ABN 40 096 692 545

PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES

IDENTIFICATION OF PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES –

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION

THIS BRIEF PAPER SETS OUT THE FOUR PRINCIPAL MEANS OF IDENTIFYING PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES BASED UPON INFORMATION ECONOMIC THEORY. As described by this paper, the level of consumer information asymmetry is directly related to the ability of consumers to self assess product attributes.

Broadly put, the greater the inability of consumers to self-assess product attributes the greater the reliance on product testing or certification. In these circumstances the testing or certification authority acts as the consumer’s quality assurance proxy.

An understanding of product attribute identification is relevant to building surveyors in two respects. Firstly, this information helps explain why building surveyors are no better placed than consumers to assess product compliance for a number of critical building products. Secondly, an understanding of the product attribute hierarchy provides a framework to describe how building surveyors are related to building certification.

BACKGROUND In order to understand the importance of identifying product attributes, it is first necessary to describe how these attributes relate to product testing and certification.

Product certification has been defined as ‘the (voluntary) assessment and approval by an (accredited) party on an (accredited) standard’ (Albersmeier et al., 2009, p.927). Quality disclosure, as an output of certification is defined as ‘an effort by a certification agency

16

to systematically measure and report product quality for a nontrivial percentage of products in a market’ (Dranove & Jin, 2010, p.936).

The aim of product testing and certification is to provide a reliable disclosure mechanism that provides information on product performance in a recognised, repeatable, reliable and valid format. With respect to product certification, the building surveyors can find that they are both a certifier (certifying the building) and a consumer (reliant on others to certify the range of products within the building). It is the nature of this compliance structure that makes it imperative for building surveyors to have a more detailed understanding of the hierarchy and description of product attributes.

Figure 1:

The relationship between consumer knowledge and product attributes

Reliance on Independant testing or certification

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

IDENTIFICATION OF PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES Regardless of the conformity assessment pathway chosen (testing or certification), the intent of the testing or certification process is to identify and communicate product attributes in a reliable and repeatable format, particularly in relation to a products search, experience, credence and Potemkin (or hidden) attributes (Emons, 1996, Srinivasan & Till, 2002, Jahn et al., 2005). These attributes represent a hierarchy of direct and indirect product assessment; the greater the level of information asymmetry between seller and buyer, the greater the potential for opportunistic behaviour to occur on the part of the seller. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between decreasing consumer knowledge and the reliance on independent testing or certification.

Reliance on Independant testing or certification

Information Asymmetry between manufacturer and consumer

Ability to self-observe product attributes

Initial inspection and assessment of products directly observable characteristics by consumers are defined as search attributes, being described (Srinivasan & Till, 2002, p 418) as ‘ones that can be verified prior to purchase through direct inspection or readily available sources’. The second level of product certification are described as experience attributes, defined as features that can be readily identified after consumption. In the case of search and experience attributes no independent certification of product claims are necessary as consumers are capable of making individual ex ante or ex post judgements of product suitability.

The third level of product attributes identified are credence attributes, product characteristics that cannot be experience by consumers ex ante or ex post consumption.

Credence attributes are defined as ‘claims about characteristics that cannot reasonably be checked by consumers at all, even after the item has been used or consumed’ (Victoria Department of Justice, 2010, p.6). It is credence attributes that are the focus of third party certification, acting as a quality proxy for consumers as these hidden attributes ‘cannot be judged by the consumer even after inspection and use. The only way to verify the characteristics of credence attributes is through inspections carried out by external organisations, public authorities,

or competitors’ (Albersmeier et al., 2009, p.928). Assuming a hypothetical neo-classical economic model where consumers and manufactures are equally informed and third party certification is carried out by independent experts to recognised standards, credence attributes could be treated as experience attributes ( Jahn et al., 2005).

However, this theoretical model is not always reflected by experience, with sub-optimal third party certification identified in a number of credence markets including; financial auditing (Baron & Besanko, 1984, Dranove & Jin, 2010), bond rating agencies (Dranove & Jin, 2010, Zhang & Xing, 2012) and the food supply chain (Albersmeier et l., 2009).

These market failures have the potential to lead to a loss of confidence in third party certification or mutual recognition of overseas testing agencies as a reliable and valid measure of credence attributes.

This is particularly the case with the move from domestic governance of Australian manufacturers to a more fragmented regulatory governance structure attempting to regulate the emerging global supply chain.

Increasing global trade has the potential to create an environment where the inability of domestic regulatory bodies to directly or indirectly monitor overseas manufactured products has undermined consumer confidence in stated product quality.

The effect of this emerging organisation structure makes reliance on quality statements (test reports or certification) supplied with imported products problematic. This observation is supported with reference to increasing anecdotal examples of non-conforming building products identified within the Australian market (Australian Industry Group, 2013).

The challenges identified for global product testing and certification are particularly the case in in relation to Potemkin, or hidden attributes. Potemkin attributes are ‘characterised by the fact that neither the buyer nor external institutions are able to carry out controls through laboratory analyses at the end product level’ ( Jahn et al., 2005, p.55). This creates a situation where product attributes may be unknown to either third party certifiers or testing authorities. This has the potential to create an environment where product fraud or misrepresentation may be more likely to occur. This circumstance differs from credence attributes, where under an optimal conformity assessment model, critical stages of the manufacturing process are subject to regulated testing or third party audit process controls. Lacking an independent auditing or testing presence at key stages of the production process means that the identification and certification of critical product attributes does not occur.

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

17

PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES EXPLAINED – THE CASE OF THE APPLE App

le

Organic Search Attributes

Experience Attributes

Credence Attributes

Reliance on self

The relationship between product attributes and consumer knowledge can be explained by the example of an apple. Search and experience attributes are known to buyers either before consumption (freshness or appearance) or after consumption (flavour, shelf life) and no third party certification is required by consumers to assist in making these decisions. However, if the buyer is interested in purchasing organic produce for example, the existence of pesticides represents an example of a credence attribute. As the presence of pesticides cannot be detected before or after consumption by the purchaser, verification that the apple contains no pesticides can only be carried out by testing or certification by independent third party agencies.

Thus the buyer of the organic apple is reliant on the effectiveness of the certification or testing process. However a range of product attribute claims such as fair trade, rainforest timber certification or dolphin friendly tuna represent classic Potemkin attributes as they cannot be verified without constant monitoring and testing. In the case of the organic apple, in the absence of stringent ongoing and regular testing it is not possible to guarantee that no pesticides have been used and indeed the consumer is unable to determine the existence of pesticides either pre or post consumption.

This compliance environment can invite fraud or misrepresentation.

Indeed Albersmeier et al., (2009) identified that despite certification schemes, systemic fraud had been identified in Chinese textile firms and social justice certification schemes in emerging economies. The issue is not however confined to emerging economies. In a 2001 audit of organic corn sold in Germany, 10% was found to be obtained from conventional sources in spite of being certified organic ( Jahn et al., 2005).

This paper has thus far described how product attributes are defined and some potential issues with the general conformity assessment framework. However, relevant to building surveyors is an understanding of the BCA conformity assessment framework, an area which will now be described.

18

?

Potemkin Attributes

Reliance on others

THE EXISTING BCA CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK Under the Building Code of Australia, product compliance is achieved when a material satisfies one of the compliance options specified in Clause A2.2 (Volume 1) or Clause 1.2.2 (Volume 2) Evidence of Suitability. In summary the evidence of suitability provisions of the BCA require that manufacturers provide documentary evidence to support that the use of a material, form of construction or design meets a Performance Requirement or a Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision. The evidence of suitability options available under Cause A2.2 or Clause 1.2.2 may be in the form of one or a combination of the following; • A report issued by a registered testing authority (third party certification of credence attributes), • A current certificate of conformity or certificate of accreditation (third party certification of credence attributes), • A certificate from a professional engineer or other appropriately qualified person (first or third party certification of credence attributes), • A current certificate from a Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand product certification body (first or third party certification of credence attributes), • Any other form of documentary evidence that describes the materials properties and performance (first or third party certification of credence attributes) (ABCB, 2014).

The Part A2.2 compliance paths represent the framework for the assessment of building materials within the BCA. In relation to testing or certification, these conformity assessment options provide proponents with a flexible range of options that include self or third party certification and testing by registered testing authorities. However, there is no requirement, or even expectation that these certification processes be undertaken

by Australian entities. Indeed testing or certification can be undertaken by mutually recognised overseas laboratories or certifiers.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

As evidenced by a number of studies that examined product certification in a range of areas, the effectiveness of individual product testing or certification processes is closely related to the expertise of the certifier, the relevance of the reference standards and the transparency of the production process (Tanner, 2000, Jahn, 2005, Albersmeier et al., 2009). In relation to building materials, as the following section will show, it is possible to say that any concerns existing in the performance of domestic testing and certification regimes are amplified with non-domestic entities. In order to understand the potential magnitude of the problem confronting building surveyors in relation to non-conforming building products it is useful to examine some examples, to which this paper will now turn.

EMERGING CONCERN WITH THE CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK In relation to building products, reliable validation of credence attributes and institutional confidence in the validity of Potemkin attributes is of critical importance from a durability and life safety perspective.

Structural or material attributes are not possible to be visually inspected ex ante or ex post by even informed consumers (such as engineers or building surveyors) leading to a reliance on independent certification or testing to demonstrate compliance. However, the difficulty presented to building surveyors in attempting to assess product compliance can be seen in a wide range of building materials.

For example, in 2009 concerns first emerged in Florida (US) of foul odours associated with drywall internal lining board imported from China. Whilst it remains unclear whether significant health effects are associated with the odours, sulphur emissions have been associated with the oxidisation of copper pipes and wiring leading to a settlement agreement between the manufacture and the owners of over 300 homes in Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi (Corkery, 2009). Closer to home an investigation into imported building materials by the Australian Industry Group (2013) identified a number of non-compliant products that had been imported into the Australian market including; steel specified at 450MPa actually tested at 338MPa, electrical cable supplied with non-compliant insulation and PVC pipe containing lead based stabilisers.

In these cases, third party certification was provided, however opacity in the manufacturing process suggests that whilst audited credence attributes prima facie demonstrated compliance, critical Potemkin attributes were not part of the audit process, leading to substandard or non-conforming products.

RELEVANCE TO BUILDING SURVEYORS As previously stated, understanding the classification of product attributes is of relevance in two areas of practice for building surveyors. Firstly, as demonstrated by the Australian Industry Group (2013), many of the product defects identified are Potemkin attributes, that are hidden to all but the original product manufacturer. This means that in assessing product conformity or suitability, building surveyors are no more informed or qualified than lay consumers to prima facie determine product compliance.

However, there appears a general expectation that building surveyors are able to somehow warrant compliance on the vast range of manufactured components that comprise the contemporary building. In the case of both Potemkin and credence attributes this is not the case – building surveyors are reliant upon an efficient and transparent product certification and testing regime to ensure fit for purpose products are being installed to Australian buildings. Lacking confidence is such a system it is not possible for any group or individual, least of all building surveyors to warrant product compliance.

With reference to inspections, building surveyors act as the consumer’s quality surrogate and inspect those credence attributes that are deemed critical to the safety and integrity of the building.

With reference to the relevant statutes, it is possible to identify those credence attributes that the legislature has deemed critical – mandatory stage inspections.

For example, Section 24 (3) of the Queensland Building Regulation 2006 lists six mandatory inspection stages (broadly footing, slab, frame, and final) for single detached class 1a dwellings – these are the only relevant credence attributes of this product (dwelling) that the building surveyor certifies. All other aspects of the dwelling that are not mandatory inspections (for example fixing roof sheeting, brick tie spacing’s) are hidden from the building surveyor, not part of the mandatory inspection regime and thus should be correctly characterised as Potemkin attributes.

Responsibility for the fitness of purpose of these aspects should therefore be the responsibility of the manufacturer, in this case the builder.

The second area where an understanding of the classification of product attributes is of relevance to building surveyors is in providing a framework for explaining our role to the construction industry and broader community.

CONCLUSION A transparent, valid and reliable product testing and certification system is a vital component in reducing consumer knowledge asymmetry and maintaining confidence in the existing product

REFERENCES Albersmeier, F., Schulze, H., Jahn, G., & Spiller, A. (2009). The reliability of third-party certification in the food chain: from checklists to risk-orientated auditing. Food Control, 20(10), 927-935.

Corkery, M. (2009). Homeowner problems with Chinese-made drywall spread. The Wall Street Journal. Access from: http://online.wsj.com/news/ articles/SB123993444645927999

Australian Industry Group. (2013). The quest for a level playing field. The nonconforming building products dilemma.

The Australian Industry Group, Sydney NSW. Baron, D. P., & Besanko, D. (1984).

Regulation, asymmetric information, and auditing. The Rand Journal of Economics, 15(4), 447-470.

Dranove, D., & Jin, G. (2010). Quality Disclosure and Certification: Theory and Practice. Journal of Economic Literature, 48(4), 935-963.

conformity assessment systems. However, increased globalisation has created a compliance environment where a body of anecdotal evidence (Australian Industry Group, 2013) indicates increasing occurrences of product non-compliance are occurring. This situation has the potential to create real risks to both consumers and building surveyors and as such must be addressed.

A necessary first step is for building surveyors to be aware of the nature of the problem facing the construction sector and the relationship between building surveyors, builders and consumers. In describing this organisational environment it is perhaps beneficial to understand and be able to describe the nature of product attributes, something this brief paper has attempted to do.

Finally, imported construction products represent an emerging, although growing, section of the Australian market. However, statistical data of product failures and noncompliance is at this stage anecdotal rather than empirical. This represents an area that requires additional research to quantify the extent of the problem and start identifying possible solutions.

DARRYL O’BRIEN

Chair of the Educational Review Panel (QLD)

Queensland Building Regulation 2006 Srinivasan, S., & Till, B. (2002).

Evaluation of search, experience and credence attributes: The role of brand name and product trial. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(7), 417-431.

Emons, W. (1996). Credence Goods and fraudulent Experts. The Rand Journal of Economics, 28(1), 107-119.

Victoria Department of Justice.

(2010). Credence Attributes: Making honesty the best policy. Consumer Affairs Victoria, Department of Justice.

Melbourne, Victoria.

Jahn, G., Schramm, M., & Spiller, A. (2005). The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool.

Journal of Consumer Policy, (28) 53-76.

Zhang, l., & Xing, Y. (2012). Brief Analysis on Conflicts of Interest of Credit rating Agencies. Canadian Social Science, 8(4), 144-149.

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

19

ARCHITECTURE

BUILDING PRACTITIONER MISCONDUCT:

WHAT THE ESSENDON SUPPLEMENTS SCANDAL TELLS ARCHITECTS

AS REGISTERED CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONALS, ARCHITECTS CAN BE SUBJECT TO PRACTITIONER MISCONDUCT INQUIRIES IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS OTHER PRACTITIONERS SUCH AS BUILDING SURVEYORS AND REGISTERED BUILDERS. The only difference tends to be the forum where the investigation proceeds. In Victoria for example, practitioner misconduct inquiries have customarily been the domain of the Architects Registration Board, with other construction professionals having to face the Building Practitioners Board.

The duty to carry professional indemnity (“PI”) insurance generally carries with it the obligation of some form of professional registration. Both concepts (insurance and registration) are geared towards regulation of professional standards and the protection of the community from unsafe building practices.

As we know, the laws of professional misconduct advocacy can apply across a wide field, and principles applicable to building practitioners (including Architects) can apply also to investigations for lawyers, doctors, veterinary surgeons and other professional disciplines – including professional athletes.

The writer has over the last five years participated occasionally on a disciplinary tribunal hearing misconduct allegations against soccer players, club officials and members. It is true that many of the concepts that I argue when appearing as a legal advocate before the Building

20

Practitioners Board, including the onus of proof of “reasonable satisfaction”, and matters relevant to a plea in mitigation (like a discount on penalty for remorse, or for pleading guilty) are also fundamental to sports misconduct tribunals.

Furthermore and particularly given the importance of sport in the Australian psyche, professional misconduct in sport tends to be very high profile and a magnet for media attention. One needs only look at the likes of the Lance Armstrong case and more recently, the players at the Essendon Football Club.

As many will know, the latest decision involving the AFL players was handed down at the start of the year by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) and it overturned an internal AFL tribunal decision that exculpated the players.

While it certainly appeared that the football club had ‘done the wrong thing’, at least in terms of a lack of governance (and this is basically acknowledged by the club recently pleading guilty to a charge of failing to provide a safe ‘work place’), what is the duty on the players as professional athletes and did they fail in that duty?

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

In the CAS decision as at the earlier AFL tribunal hearing, the onus of proof for the prosecutor to prove was that of “comfortable satisfaction” that the players had breached the rules/regulations regarding supplement use.

In other words, could CAS be “comfortably satisfied” that the players were indeed guilty of the charges as alleged by WADA? While most professional discipline case law refers to the onus of proof as being that of “reasonable satisfaction” (see the 1938 matrimonial misconduct case of Briginshaw v Briginshaw), I would argue that this slight difference in terminology employed in sports misconduct really means little; the test is basically the same thing whichever of these two phrases is employed.

The trier of fact does not need to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” that the charges are proven, as would be the situation in a criminal case, but at the same time more proof is needed than just a “balance of probabilities” (that is, more likely than not).

I would argue that the AFL players would have been in a far better position now if they had “fessed up” to a breach much earlier in the process and then had legal advocates present a ‘plea in mitigation’, with the aim of obtaining the lightest possible penalty.

This would have allowed them to explore the virtues of contrition and remorse and a more favourable disposition would have emanated from the triers of fact (in this case, CAS). In short, they would have been in a position to mitigate and obtain a more positive outcome.

As professional individuals, clearly the players’ interests were not exactly the same as that of the club or the coach, and nor were their responsibilities as professional athletes under the WADA and ASADA regimes that had been signed up to.

In circumstances where you had evidence of a lack of due diligence by the players (they could not say for sure what they had taken, merely they had been assured by some within the club that it was ‘above board’ without apparently even going through the club doctor), and evidence of a problematic substance showing up in urine samples, this did not auger well for contesting the charges.

Added to all this, was evidence of admissions of a lack of proper governance by the club’s sports science department and apparently incriminating emails between individuals within the club and others.

It is hard to fathom how the prospects of a successful defence would have been better

than 50/50 and on those grounds the best option would have been a plea in mitigation.

This effectively means a full and proper explanation of what had occurred (rather than saying as little as possible), and highlighting all the good and positive steps that had in fact been taken. There would have been emphasis on ‘honest mistake’ and an explanation geared toward showing a lack of intent to be dishonest – if in fact omissions were more due to honest mistake or over reliance on the advice of others.

In addition to all this, significant time, costs and stress are added if it is deemed necessary to contest allegations – the hearing time alone would be significantly increased, in addition to necessary preparation.

I would suggest that all of these concepts are just as relevant for building practitioner misconduct, including for Architects, when one makes the decision at an early stage on whether to contest or not contest misconduct allegations.

There are other aspects to a successful plea in mitigation that are geared toward receiving the lightest possible penalty. These include arguments about having a ‘clean slate’ of no prior offences, steps taken to mitigate harm or prevent a re-occurrence of mistakes, and any available arguments about lack of public harm occasioned by incidents.

By contesting allegations where the contest is unlikely to be successful, one loses the potential benefits for ‘fessing up’ at an early juncture and showing contrition for laws that have been broken. After all, how can one say you are contrite if you have attempted to deny and combat allegations, or indeed attack the prosecutorial system, throughout the process?

JUSTIN COTTON

Partner and head of practitioner advocacy at Lovegrove Smith & Cotton, construction and commercial lawyers. He is one of the foremost practitioner misconduct lawyers in Australia in the field of construction practitioner advocacy. He appears regularly for building surveyor clients at the Building Practitioners Board in Victoria and also represents building certifiers in other jurisdictions including NSW, the ACT and Queensland.

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

21

FUTURES AND INNOVATION UPDATES

AIBS

FUTURES AND INNOVATION TEAM

THE FUTURES AND INNOVATION TEAM IS A NEW VOLUNTEER GROUP OF AIBS MEMBERS WHICH HAS A FOCUS ON PIONEERING AND PROMOTING INNOVATION IN AND DEVELOPING THE FUTURE OF BUILDING SURVEYING. The efforts of this team are directed into three different core function areas. The first, Technology, is about promoting the use and understanding of technology to AIBS members in order to advance the development of Building Surveying.

The second area is Promotion and Communication which aims to create

greater awareness and understanding of both the AIBS and the profession of Building Surveying. Lastly the Innovation core function area focuses on creating an environment which encourages innovation and future development of AIBS, Building Surveying and young Building Surveyors.

The Team has generated a number of key actions in each core function area, which will form the basis of the Team’s activities in the coming year. A regular report on the team’s successes and other updates will be published in the Australian Building Surveyor magazine, and our members will be kept up-to-date with all important information.

MEMBER MAIL

AS A RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE ‘AUSTRALIANS URGED TO LEARN THE FACTS DURING ASBESTOS AWARENESS MONTH’ IN THE SUMMER 2015 EDITION OF ABS, GREAEME GEARY HAS SENT THIS RESPONSE. I have been a Life member of AIBS since 1996 and a former President of the Victorian Chapter. I am also a member of Asbestoswise committee of management in Melbourne. For your information Asbestoswise is a non for profit organisation that relies purely on donations from Industry and the public to be able to operate with the primary purpose of providing assistance and support to those people and their families with an ARD (asbestos related disease).

22

I unfortunately am one of those such persons being diagnosed with a cancer named mesothelioma in 2013 for which there is no known cure. I have been in the building industry since 1963 as a first year carpentry apprentice. Having undergone surgery and chemotherapy at Cabrini Hospital, Malvern. I am currently in remission according to my oncologist. I warn anyone that may find themselves in an environment where asbestos may be present to take all precautionary measures possible.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

Since my diagnosis my wife and I have received tremendous assistance from the Asbestoswise support group by attending their monthly meetings in a South Melbourne community centre where other like sufferers meet and share experiences with one another.

Please see the Asbestoswise website (www.asbestoswise.com.au) for more information or to make a donation.

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE Bovill Risk and Insurance Consultants (BRIC) has more than 18 years experience in arranging professional indemnity insurance for Building Surveyors and Certifiers.

Our Service Guarantee is to: •

Organise a policy that will satisfy your regulatory obligations;

•

Identify with you those risks peculiar to your business;

•

Negotiate a policy with the best possible cover for you;

•

Generate the most competitive premiums available;

•

Keep you informed in a timely manner; and

•

Fight for the best possible claim result for you.

Contact us to discuss your professional indemnity insurance.

BRIC

Bovill Risk & Insurance Consultants

P: 1800 077 933 E: pi@bric.com.au W: www.bric.com.au

Proudly Recommended By:

WOODSOLUTIONS

RECENT TIMBER-RELATED CHANGES

TO THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE

RECENT CHANGES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED TO HELP OUR BUILDING CODE REMAIN AT THE FOREFRONT OF INNOVATIVE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS. To understand the implications of the recent timber-related changes to the National Construction Code (NCC) and how they affect different parts of the design and building process, Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA) spoke to Greg du Chateau, a principal of building surveyors, du Chateau Chun, Kevin Ezard from Frame Australia, FWPA Managing Director, Ric Sinclair and FWPA Marketing and Communication Manager, Eileen Newbury.

Changes to the National Construction Code (NCC) Building Code of Australia (BCA), effective from May 1st, will enable buildings of up to 25m in Classes 2 (apartments), 3 (hotels), and 5 (offices), to use Deemed-to-Satisfy (DtS) provisions rather than the potentially more onerous and costly alternative solutions or performance solutions for both timber framing and massive timber building systems. Typically up to eight

24

storeys and referred to as mid-rise construction, the residential applications of these buildings are expected to play a significant role in urban infill in Australia’s larger cities.

“You’ll find differing views in the industry, he said, but I’m an advocate for prescriptive, DtS solutions,” he said, “because they are usually easier for designers, engineers and builders to understand and implement.

Building surveyors, through the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors (AIBS), are part of the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) and sit on the the committees that manage and approve proposals for changes to the BCA.

“In terms of the recent changes relating to timber framing and massive timber systems, it’s important that the building code and the DtS provisions are updated and that the code remains at the forefront of innovative and design solutions so that they don’t need to be separately assessed as alternative solutions.

Commenting on the recent changes involving timber construction, Greg du Chateau, a principal at building surveyors, du Chateau Chun said that it was a new initiative in the BCA which building surveyors will need to become familiar with, particularly the new deemed to satisfy provisions.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

Asked about the expected uptake of the changes to the code, Greg said that experience showed it was up to the market to determine, but there are a range of benefits in using timber frame and massive timber construction, which will initially be assessed and evaluated. Similar situations in the past have, owing to planning and other approval

processes, led to a time lag of up to two years or more before the changes fully flow through the design and build system.

Greg also added that the nature of the changes, and the requirements of the DtS provisions of the new code could, initially at least, lead to the need for more detailing of design documentation.

“I expect the building surveyors will be asking for more detailed documentation than what they traditionally might require, at least until the industry develops standard details that can be relied upon for approval. Experience with other changes has shown this to be the case.

Considering the implementation of the new code requirements, Greg also stressed the importance of site inspections to ensure that design details have been accurately implemented.

“While states and territories do vary in their processes, in some cases there is a statutory requirement to inspect fire rated walls. It is not uncommon to rely on the builder or the contractor to confirm that construction is in accordance with the BCA. However, due to the amount of detailing, corners, junctions, etc., it would be prudent for a builder to engage someone, probably an architect, engineer or a building surveyor, to ensure that projects relying on the new timber framing construction initiative in the BCA are constructed to comply with the BCA.”

Kevin Ezard from Frame Australia, commented that the DtS approach is set to significantly reduce current regulatory requirements, lower costs of engineering and architectural and planning documentation, and should encourage improved productivity through prefabricated construction solutions for both lightweight and massive timber building.

Kevin’s opinion is reinforced by the results of FWPA’s Market Access research project “Increasing demand to satisfy height limits for timber construction - Cost

“I’m an advocate for prescriptive, DtS solutions, because they are usually easier for designers, engineers and builders to understand and implement.”

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

25

WOODSOLUTIONS benefit analysis” that estimated in 2013-14 the market value of multi-residential construction between four and eight storeys was $6.6 billion and office building within the same height $2.8 billion, a total of $9.4 billion.

Over the next decade, the project estimate for market share penetration of timber framed construction was 5%. The estimate for annual growth in multi-residential was also 5%, and that of office construction 3%. Using these annual growth rates the value of multi-residential timber framed construction was modelled to rise to some $510 million per year.

“An important factor in our success,” explains Ric, “was that we had already built relationships with the key building specifier organisations through our WoodSolutions program.” This meant groups like the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, Engineers Australia, and the Property Council of Australia were consulted and their needs accommodated. This resulted in a better proposal that was not only more likely to achieve the desired code change, but also to be more workable and well received into the future.

“I’d also like to thank the Australian Building Codes board because they were very receptive to our process,” Ric concluded.

“This Code change is one of the biggest things that’s happened in the industry for 30 years,” says Eileen Newbury, Marketing and Communication Manager at FWPA. Momentum for the Code change started more than three years ago, with a discussion about the Building Code and the timber industry, explained Ric Sinclair, Managing Director of FWPA. “We realised the move to three storey timber buildings was significant, but it needed to go further.”

The team, lead by Boris Iskra, National Manager Codes and Standards for FWPA, Paul England from EFT Consulting, and Andrew Dunn from Timber Development Association of NSW, set about formulating a strategy for their Proposal for Change (PfC). Their aim was to take an evidencebased, consultative and inclusive approach.

The PfC solution was based on extensive research and comprised the use of appropriate layers of fire-resistant plasterboard – fire-protected timber – and the installation of compliant fire sprinkler systems.

26

“This Code change is one of the biggest things that’s happened in the industry for 30 years,” says Eileen Newbury, Marketing and Communication Manager at FWPA. We need to provide specifiers with the knowledge to confidently implement the NCC changes.”

Eileen and her team’s plan for effectively and efficiently communicating the change involves a range of approaches and resources, launching with a national workshop series in March.

Up to thirty CPD workshops will be delivered under the WoodSolutions’ program in tandem with many of the same stakeholders involved in the Code change process. “We’ll work with the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors (AIBS) because it’s so important building surveyors

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

know what they’re looking for,” says Eileen.

“We’ll also work with the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA), Building Designers Australia (BDA), the Building Designers Association of Victoria (BDAV), and with fire engineers through Engineers Australia.” FWPA is aiming to work closely with all these associations to up-skill their members by the time the Code comes into effect on 1 May 2016.

Boris Iskra, and Paul England will be delivering the CPD workshops as they were involved in the development of the NCC proposal and were an integral part to the Code change being accepted, says Eileen. The WoodSolutions technical support team positioned in each state will support some workshops with general WoodSolutions’ presentations providing informative and practical timber related information. “These generic presentations were at the request of the associations,” says Eileen, “because they saw the need for continued education of their members - not just with what’s happening with the Code change, but to help them understand more about wood as a building material in general.”

Alongside the workshop series, the team is also working on two Technical Design Guides that will be available through the CPD series and online through the WoodSolutions website.

One Technical Design Guide will look at the Code for fire engineers or those requiring a fire engineering analysis in particular, while the other will outline the details of the Code and how the buildings are to be constructed under it. The guide will address fire provisions, including floor/ ceiling systems, wall systems and lift/shaft details, as well as stair construction and emergency stairs, and fire-grade plasterboard requirements and sprinklers.

SPECIFYING AND USING ONESTEEL PRODUCT REDUCES YOUR RISK.

REDUCE YOUR RISK

OneSteel supplies a comprehensive range of steel sections to Australian Standards. These products are available with test certificates and ACRS third party certification.

The test certificates demonstrate that the product conforms to the requirements of the Australian Standards and ACRS certification is confirmation from an independent authority that OneSteel manufactures products to the Australian Standards, and does so consistently.

Why take the risk, insist on OneSteel product.

To find out more about how OneSteel product reduces your risk, visit www.buildwithstandards.com.au An Arrium Company

MEET THE MEMBERS

Matthew

WILSON MATTHEW WILSON Senior Building Surveyor

MATTHEW WILSON IS A BUILDING SURVEYOR WHO TURNED A CADETSHIP INTO A CAREER. THE RECIPIENT OF THE AIBS YOUNG BUILDING SURVEYOR OF THE YEAR AWARD FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA IN 2015, HE EARNED HIS ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH NINE YEARS OF HARD WORK SINCE HE TOOK HIS FIRST STEPS AS A BUILDING SURVEYOR. FROM STUDENT TO SENIOR BUILDING SURVEYOR I became a Building Surveyor through a Cadetship with the Whyalla City Council.

I started with the Whyalla Council in 2007 as a Building Assessment Cadet under the supervision of Brenton Thomas and Noel Modystach. I commenced my studies with Tas Tafe before later that year enrolling in the Associate Degree of Building Surveying with Central Queensland.

Before obtaining my cadetship with the Whyalla City Council I can honestly say I had no idea what I was getting myself into as a Building Surveyor. Before Building Surveying I had undertaken a traineeship in structural and mechanical design and was working as a Draftsman for a local contractor.

I knew I was more interested in residential design and drafting than the industrial work I was doing at the time, when the Cadetship opportunity arose with the Whyalla Council it seemed like the next

28

best thing. It didn’t take long for me to realise that Building Surveying was something that I enjoyed and had the potential to be a long term career.

Near the end of my cadetship in 2011, I was able to obtain a position with the Adelaide Hills Council as a Building & Compliance Officer under the supervision of Zig Osis who was the Team Leader of Building Services at the time. Whilst working with the Adelaide Hills Council I was able to complete my studies with CQU, after taking a year off of study I made the decision to enrol in the Graduate Diploma in Built Environment with Uni SA to further my qualifications.

In 2014, I was successful at gaining the position of Senior Building Surveyor with the Whyalla City Council who I am currently employed with, and in 2015 achieved my Graduate Diploma in Built Environment in 2015 from the University of South Australia.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

I am currently accredited as a Level 2 – Building Surveyor Limited (Assistant Building Surveyor, SA Development Regulations).

THE CHALLENGES OF A REGIONAL BUILDING SURVEYOR The biggest challenge for regional Building Surveyor is the fact that we have to wear so many hats. In a larger metropolitan Council, it is not uncommon to find Building Surveyors tasked with a specific role whether it’s Development Assessment, Inspection or Compliance and Enforcement, but more often than not, as a regional Building Surveyor you are all of the above and sometimes more.

We are tasked with ensuring the day to day assessment work is undertaken in a timely manner, we are responsible for monitoring and inspecting building work around town, we are responsible for carrying out the required enforcement matters for building work that is non-compliant. That is not even considering the Building Surveyors out there that are undertaking dual roles

between Planning or Environmental Health. Add these core to functions to the additional administrative duties required in SA, final truss calcs, Supervisor’s Framing Checklists, Statement’s of Compliance, you can find yourself very busy and bouncing between roles quite often.

TRIUMPH AND TEACHERS I would consider triumphs for me in Building Surveying to be the times when I have been able to achieve a successfully compliant outcome while still maintaining customer satisfaction, which is not always easy. We do unfortunately at times get painted as the bad guys when legislation prevents someone from being able do what it is they set out to do. Being part of a successful outcome has always been rewarding to me.

Some personal triumphs for me have been the completion of my final studies last year and gaining my Graduate Diploma. After many years of studying whilst working full time I was very glad to hand in my last assignment.

I would consider triumphs for me in Building Surveying to be the times when I have been able to achieve a successfully compliant outcome while still maintaining customer satisfaction, which is not always easy.

One of the most rewarding things for me to date though, has been receiving the AIBS Young Building Surveyor of the Year for SA in 2015. It really meant a lot to me to win an award such as that from an industry and peers that I have so much respect for.

It is not something that I would have ever expected nor would I have been able to achieve, without the many mentors and support I have had over the last few years, both at work and at home.

MOVING TOWARDS TECHNOLOGY The biggest change that I would like to see in our profession is one that is already underway in the continuous integration and inclusion of new technologies and systems.

As an industry we, are constantly finding new ways in which to utilise new technologies and systems to our benefit whether it’s the use of mobile devices for inspecting and certifying or those that have taken up the use of systems like Building Information Modelling on larger scale jobs.

Technology is something that is always rapidly evolving around us and I would encourage anyone given the opportunity to try something new to not be afraid to do so.

MATTHEW WILSON

Senior Building Surveyor working with the Whyalla City Council. www.whyalla.sa.gov.au

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

29

MEMBERS SURVEY

2015 MEMBER SURVEY RESULTS

IN SEPTEMBER 2015, AIBS LAUNCHED A MEMBER SURVEY TO GATHER FEEDBACK FROM OUR MEMBERS. to focus on attracting younger Building Surveyors, in addition to guiding young people towards the profession.

3%

TAS

21%

Another positive statistic to emerge about our membership was the even distribution between Building Surveyors in the private sector and those in Government roles; which reinforces that AIBS represent all Building Surveyors, not just those in a particular sector.

24%

NSW

VIC

13%

24%

SA

QLD 12%

WA Where respondents were located.

We received an excellent response with approximately 25% of our total members providing feedback. The age, location and member type demographics of those who completed the survey represented a good cross-section of our member base.

We utilised this survey to gain insight on a range of topics: the demographics of our member base, AIBS training and conferences, our service in the AIBS office, online communications, and the areas feel it is important for AIBS to represent Building Surveyors. We even asked the likelihood of taking on a cadet; which, interestingly revealed that 80% of respondents would take on a cadet under favourable circumstances.

Overall the feedback was very valuable, especially from those who left detailed comments to particular questions.

over seven years, many over fifteen. We thank those members for their long term loyalty, yet it raises concerns over the lack of younger members coming into AIBS and the profession. This issue is further compounded where only 7% of respondents indicated they are under thirty.

5.87%

12 months or under 9.71%

1 to 3 years

While our more experienced members are extremely valuable to the profession, our future viability rests with our younger members and therefore there is a need

In relationship to our membership, we noted that over half of our surveyed members have been with the AIBS for

30

With our training and conference programs, both location and cost play a noticeable role on attendance. One fact that emerged was the provision of regional training is of great concern to a number of respondents as access was difficult and costly for those in regional areas. This is understandable, as the question of “Do you pay for your own training?” indicated a fairly even split between those who do and those who don’t, but as raised by some sections of the membership previously, we note

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

12.42%

4 to 6 years 27.54%

7 to 15 years 44.47%

over 15 years

How long respondents have been members of AIBS.

The age, location and member type demographics of those who completed the survey represented a good crosssection of our member base.

Six or More

Three to Five

Less than Three

3%

38%

59%

How many training sessions respondents attend per year on average.

that many local governments have, and are, reducing training budgets creating issues for sections of the membership.

On the issue of cost of training, the Board, being cognisant of feedback, have already reduced the cost of national training in 2016 from $450 to $360.

The feedback received on the service provided at the national office was encouraging.

35% of respondents rating the service they received as above average, while only 17% chose to comment. Comments ranged from compliments on the dissemination of information to recommendations for improving the clarity and speed of certain processes. Due to the implementation of a new record-keeping and member access system in the first half

of 2016 we are seeking to make our member services more member friendly and efficient with a simpler, more streamlined process for accreditation, CPD, membership renewal, event registrations and more.

Of the services that AIBS provides to our members the area providing the most value is training, followed by member information and professional representation on legislative issues.

Though nothing was indicated as being of overwhelming little value to the respondents, the services with the lowest scores in that regard were the Chapter Executive Committees and National Accreditation Scheme.

Our respondents also made a number of suggestions for other services they would like to see, including: • mentoring linked to educational providers; • e-learning for remote sites; • advice on legislation and interpretation of regulations.

• advice on work experience and employment for those new to the industry. Best practise models; support and training in using technology assistance with day-to-day technical enquiries; and education of the public.

Once again, we thank the members who provided this feedback. This information will be valuable for use in strategy sessions where the Board set the direction in which to take the Organisation in the short and long term and also ensure that services identified as valuable to members, can continue to be efficiently and effectively delivered. The full results of the survey are available to view on the national page of the AIBS Members Area.

CPD Program National Accreditation

33% 21% 34%

Conferences

Affilation with The AIBS Brand

15%

Professional Representation on Legislation Member Information & Alert emails Branch Meetings

Retired or Unemployed 4%

54%

Training

A Chapter Executive Comittee

40% 85.78%

43%

13% 10%

Government 43% Private Enterprise 53%

What sector respondets were employed in.

The percentage of respondents who rated each service as something they “highly value”.

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

31

CALENDAR

AIBS

CONFERENCES

SOUTH AUSTRALIA CHAPTER CONFERENCE WRAP UP

AIBS Award Winners Troy Olds, Kirk Pascoe, Stan Fuller, Luke Trento, SA Chapter President Zig Osis, AIBS National President Jeff Brooks, John Mazzarolo, and Mike Thomas.

On Thursday the 17th and Friday the 18th of March the South Australia Chapter Conference was held at Adelaide Oval, with over 130 delegates in attendance each day. The presentations given by each of the thirty plus speakers were engaging and informative, and during breaks in the conference proceedings the Exhibitor’s Hall was bustling.

32

This conference covered the topic of The Quality and Safety of Building and Construction Products, and the presentations given covered all aspects of this issue across the two days. With concurrent sessions running on Thursday afternoon, delegates had the option to focus on the regulations and

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

testing of building materials and products or industry and technology reforms. The speakers presented on a wide range of topics from various perspectives and all imparted valuable information to those in attendance.

The Gala Awards Dinner was held on the Thursday night, with the always entertaining Guy Newman as the MC and wonderful

music provided by fabulous string quartet Aurora Strings followed by local band Keep The Change. The Adelaide Oval at night made for a stunning venue where those who attended could mingle and network while enjoying great food and an even better ambiance. A photo booth, complete with red carpet, allowed everyone to let loose and have a little fun. The dancefloor was populated well into the night with some fabulous couples in particular pulling some very polished moves.

Of course, no Gala Awards Dinner is complete without awards, and they were received by the following individuals: • Troy Olds: Service to the AIBS • Mike Thomas: Service to the AIBS • Trento Fuller: Building Surveying Team of the Year • John Mazzarolo: Building Surveyor of the Year • Kirk Pascoe: Young Building Surveyor of the Year • Victoria Akkermans: UniSA Student Under Graduate • Jason Reichelt: UniSA Student Post Graduate

Once again this year Camp Quality is the AIBS national charity, and across the two days of the conference we raised $605 with our Camp Quality raffles. There were many great prizes, including clothing vouchers donated by Eleven Workwear and a bottle of fine whisky donated by TBA Firefly as well as prizes of chocolates, wines and training/conference vouchers from AIBS. A number of delegates went home with prizes and big smiles, some even with two prizes, especially John Best whose name was drawn not once, but twice! John claimed the vouchers for a day’s training and full registration for next year’s conference.

Overall the conference provided a great platform for knowledge sharing on the issue of The Quality and Safety of Building and Construction Products, and also gave attendees a number of opportunities to network both during the conference and at the Gala Awards Dinner.

TONY TRAVAGLIONE & ZIG OSIS SA Chapter Conference Committee

AIBS QLD/NT CONFERENCE 2016

UPCOMING CONFERENCES

FACING THE CHALLENGES

NSW / ACT 2016 Chapter Conference 25-26 July 2016 Dockside, Darling Harbour - NSW WA 2016 Chapter Conference 20-21 October 2016 Crown Perth, Perth - WA VIC 2016 Chapter Conference 10-11 November 2016 Crown Melbourne, Melbourne – VIC

Australian Institute of Building Surveyors

9 - 11 June 2016

Hotel Grand Chancellor, Brisbane For registration information visit aibs.com.au

Please go to aibs.com.au for more information

CEC UPDATES

AIBS

CHAPTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES

EVEN THROUGHOUT THE HOLIDAY PERIOD THE VOLUNTEERS OF THE CHAPTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES CONTINUED TO REPRESENT THE PROFESSION AND AIBS MEMBERS IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. BELOW ARE JUST SOME OF THE MEETINGS, WORKING GROUPS AND MORE THAT CEC REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ATTENDED.

NSW/ACT November 2015 • The NSW/ACT Chapter was represented by a CEC member at a meeting of the Cross Agency Advisory Group regarding swimming pool barriers with the BPB. • The November meeting of the swimming pool safety working group at Westmead Hospital was attended by a member of the NSW/ACT CEC. January 2016 • The swimming pool safety working group at Westmead Hospital held their January 2016 meeting and AIBS was represented by a member of the NSW/ACT CEC. February 2016 • The NSW/ACT Chapter was represented on the NSW Department of Planning Building Regulation Advisory Committee.

WA December 2015 • An industry meeting was held by DFES and a member of the AIBS WA CEC represented AIBS at this event.

February 2016 • Two WA CEC Members represented AIBS at the Building Industry Summit held by the Building Commission which had attendance from approximately 65 Industry, State Government and Local Government representatives.

34

QLD/NT November 2015 • Two of the QLD/NT CEC members represented AIBS at the NATSPEC shareholders meeting.

• The QLD/NT Chapter was represented at a meeting of the Pool Safety Consultative Group with the BCQ. • The QLD/NT Chapter was represented at the QBCC Fire Protection Working Group meeting.

SA November 2015 • An informal meeting with NATSPEC was held to discuss the role of public works and the progression of BIM in Australia, with AIBS being represented by a SA CEC member.

TAS December 2015 • A member of the TAS CEC attended the Building Legislation Review with the North West GM Local Government and Minister.

February 2016 • The Department of Justice Building Industry Reference Group meeting was attended by a TAS CEC representative.

• AIBS was represented by a member of the TAS CEC as a speaker at HEDRA Success & Failures of AS2870 and State Inspection Systems.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

VIC November 2015 • Members of the VIC CEC represented AIBS at an introduction meeting with the Hon. David Davis (Shadow Minister for Planning).

• AIBS was represented at the Industry Course Advisory Committee meeting for Holmesglen by a VIC CEC member.

December 2015 • A meeting with the VBA was held and attended by members of the VIC CEC. • A VIC CEC representative attended a Building Advisory Council meeting.

• Minister Department meetings were held at which AIBS was represented by a member of the VIC CEC. February 2016 • Members of the VIC Chapter met with Hon David Davis in a follow up meeting to represent the AIBS. • The VIC Chapter of AIBS was represented at the VBA Industry roundtable briefing on the External Wall Cladding report.

• A member of the VIC CEC attended a Building Advisory Council meeting.

• AIBS was represented a Minister Department meetings by two members of the VIC CEC.

ON THE BUILDING SITE

A ROYAL FLUSH

WHERE NO-ONE WINS

ON THE BUILDING SITE THIS TIME IS THE TALE OF TWO TOILETS, SUBMITTED BY OUR MEMBERS FROM EACH END OF AUSTRALIA’S EASTERN COAST.

WHAT SIGHTS HAVE YOU SEEN

ON THE BUILDING SITE? TALE 1 Don’t put your foot in it!

Bruce Jeffrey of the Melbourne City Council sent in this unusually positioned staircase found in a small two level city shop.

“How’s this for a staircase? Utilize the WC room to start and up it goes! The stair case goes to a room that seems legitimate, for some strange reason it had ‘lost’ its regular staircase. It’s beyond me where it ever was.

Upon questioning the tenant I was told the aluminium foil in the bowl was placed to stop people using the WC, I assume it was used with the stair in place which is why the first steps are off to the side…”

36

TALE 2 Not quite…

Our second porcelain gem was sent in by Paul Eltringham, who works for Stonehenge Consulting in Queensland. “Ambulant toilet handrails – not quite,” Paul wrote. “by the way – hope they weren’t trying to pull the old glad wrap over the seat trick too.” We can only agree with that!

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | AUTUMN 2016

Thanks to Bruce and Paul for spotting these problems, taking some pictures and contributing to the magazine.

We always welcome contributions to “On The Building Site” as it is an excellent way to have a laugh and maybe start a discussion around some of the issues that arise, and what the solutions to them may be. So if you see something unusual, please take some photos and send it in to nat.editor@ aibs.com.au along with a brief write-up of the situation.

WHAT’S NEW

SEEK OUT CERTIFIED SCIENTISTS WHEN SEARCHING FOR SOIL ADVICE

NEW RENAULT TRAFIC: YOUR LOYAL WORK-MATE The new Renault Trafic mid-size van is the most versatile tool in any surveyor’s armoury.

Sure it’ll carry 5.2m3 or 6.0m3 of equipment and supplies, but it’s also a comfortable and spacious mobile office complete with multiple lockers and bins, a hide-away for your laptop, and under-seat storage for valuable gear you need to keep out of sight on site. There are power sources and cradles for your mobile phone and tablet, too.

While the front is all-new, the load area is broadly similar to the last version, so all your old fittings slide straight in.

And with a through-loading flap in the standard bulkhead, items more than 4m long can be carried securely inside.

The new Renault Trafic is a very efficient work-mate, sipping only 6.2-litres of diesel per 100km, and travelling up to 30,000km between services, with the first three services capped at $349 each.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Website: www.renault.com.au Follow us on Twitter : @RenaultAU

Grain growers and their advisers in the southern cropping region are being encouraged to seek out suitably qualified soil scientists when looking for soil management advice and support.

The recommendation comes from Professor Mike McLaughlin who has just been appointed Chair of the Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS) Board.

Professor McLaughlin, who works for the University of Adelaide and CSIRO, says soil science is a highly specialised field and it is imperative that soil science professionals have the capability and experience to provide sound advice on sustainable soil management.

“Engaging soil scientists with CPSS accreditation gives grain growers, consultants and other industry personnel peace of mind,” Prof McLaughlin said.

“Management of our precious agricultural soils requires professional oversight, and that is a task best performed by CPSS-certified scientists.”

CPSS accreditation is only available to members of Soil Science Australia who have recognised training in soil science (at least four courses) at a university level and have five years of professional experience in soil science assessed by CPSS examiners against the Standards for Professionals in Soil Science.

CPSS-accredited members must continue to undertake ongoing

professional development each year (at least 50 hours) to maintain their accreditation. Professionally certified soil scientists are permitted to use the initials CPSS after their name.

The CPSS accreditation program distinguishes the professional scientist members of Soil Science Australia from other soil science practitioners by their academic qualifications and work experience in the field of soil science.

Prof McLaughlin has been a member of Soil Science Australia for more than 30 years and has been CPSS accredited since 2002. He is the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) Southern Regional Panel Deputy Chair.

Soil Science Australia is a not-for-profit organisation that serves as the peak body for soil scientists across Australia, and seeks to advance soil science in the professional, academic and technical fields. It is a member of the International Union of Soil Sciences.

A register of certified soil scientists can be found on the Soil Science Australia CPSS website at http://www.cpss.org.au/.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Phone:03 5635 2370.

Website: www.soilscienceaustralia.org.

AUTUMN 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

37

Know you’re OK with the AWA Don’t get caught with non-compliant products.

COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

Use AWA & WERS Members.

is a participating member of the AWA Accreditation Program, provides a 6 year Guarantee against faulty workmanship and materials (refer to Manufacturer’s Warranty), is committed to the Industry Code of Conduct and has met the requirements of the annual AWA Compliance Audit.

The manufacturer certifies that the windows and doors supplied to: Delivery address:

Delivered on: have been manufactured to comply with the Australian Window Standard AS 2047 and Glass Standard AS 1288 including human impact requirements as specified in the order. The windows and doors have been manufactured to comply with NCC energy efficiency and bushfire requirements as specified by the purchaser.

Look for this certificate & ask for:

The windows have been manufactured to comply with: Housing

NCC Compliance

Energy Rating

WPR Pa

ULS Pa

WPR Pa

SLS

Pa

600

150

C1 600

1800

150

ULS

Pa

N2 400

900

150

C2 800

2700

200

WPR

Pa

N3 600

1400

150

C3 1200

4000

300

N4 800

2000

200

C4 1600

5300

450

N5 1200

3000

300

N6 1600

4000

450

SLS Pa

Australian Standard Compliance (AS 2047 & AS 1288) Independent Third Party Accreditation

Other Construction ULS Pa

N1 400

SLS Pa

AUSTRALIAN WINDOW ASSOCIATION GUIDE SERIES

Note: For corner windows, the next highest rating pressure applies.

A GUIDE TO WINDOW AND DOOR SELECTION

Energy Performance Ratings, AFRC Results: U Value, Uw Solar Heat Gain Co efficient, SHGCw Refer to attached schedule Bushfire Rating:

BAL 12.5 BAL 40

BAL 19 BAL FZ

Methodology:

Tested (AS 1530.8.1)

Tested (AS 1530.8.2)

Signed: Window Company

The inspection services of the AWA are accredited.

Inspection Agency Number 13739

Prescriptive (AS 3959) Date:

The builder/installer certifies that the windows and doors supplied have been installed correctly in accordance with the requirements of the National Construction Code and the human impact glass located in the correct openings.

Signed: Builder/Installer

Date:

For accreditation details, visit www.awa.org.au Document No. AWA.CC.A2014

Download our Window & Door Selection Guide: Visit www.awa.org.au for information on NCC Requirements.

BAL 29 Not required/specified

AN INDUSTRY GUIDE TO THE SELECTION AND CERTIFICATION OF WINDOWS AND DOORS

www.wers.net