Submission cover sheet
- Name of organisation or individual making this submission
Questions on possible options
- Is the commencement date of 1 July 2020 for the proposed Regulation and the Act allowing for a 6-month transitional period appropriate? Why or why not?
6 months is sufficient time for everyone in the industry to ascertain what will be required of them and how the system will work.
- Do you support the Secretary being able to require an applicant to complete additional training and having discretion to recognise other training? Why or why not?
Definitely, yes. However training should meet Australian standards. Anyone trained abroad must undertake training in Australia.
- Do you support the grounds for finding that a person is not a suitable person to carry out certification work? Why or why not?
The purpose of buildings is to provide housing for people and animals and to provide sheltered work places. Therefore the safety of all kinds of buildings is paramount. Therefore if a certifier has done something wrong in the past whilst employed as a certifier, he must be deregistered for ever. Accidentally missing some aspect of faulty work or not knowing whether something is faulty should not be an excuse to being struck off because certifiers have the opportunity to consult others to assist in determining if work is faulty.
- Do you support the process and fee for a certifier to apply for a variation of registration? Why or why not?
- Are the requirements for professional indemnity insurance contracts and exclusions in the proposed Regulation appropriate? Why or why not?
No certifier must be excluded from having to be insured.
- Do you support the proposed prescribed conflicts of interest in clause 24 and exemptions in clause 25? Why or why not?
No builder, developer or tradesman must be allowed to use the same certifier more than once. That is, they must use different certifiers for every new development and every new build. To avoid conflicts of interest the Commissioners office should assign certifiers to each builder, developer and tradesman rather than them choosing their own. Then the Commissioners office can be sure that they use different certifiers for every new build and every new development.
- Do you support the list of particulars in clause 28, the requirement for a declaration and information sheet including the contents? Why or why not?
- Do you support the matters that an accreditation scheme must provide for in clauses 38 to 45? Why or why not? What other matters should be considered?
- Are the record keeping requirements, penalties and timeframes appropriate for registered certifiers, local councils and accreditation authorities? Why or why not?
- Do you support the exemption for registered certifiers employed by councils applying in relation to the payment of a penalty as a form of disciplinary action? Why or why not?
No certifier should be exempt. It is not who the employer is. Rather it is the quality of work, honesty and education of each certifier that matters.
- Do you support the particulars in clause 64 that must be included in the register of registrations and approvals? Why or why not? What other particulars should be considered?
- Do you support the proposed classes of registration certifiers, including the way they have been streamlined and what each class is authorised to do? Why or why not?
- Do you support the proposed duties in the code of conduct? Why or why not? What other duties should be considered?
- Do you support the qualifications, experience, skills, knowledge and continuing professional development requirements in the proposed Regulation? Why or why not?
Continuing education is a condition of having a licence or registration renewed in most other professions and industries. The building industry is lagging behind in this respect which is unacceptable.
- Do you support the proposed fees and penalty notice offences? Why or why not?
- Do you have any further comments regarding the proposed regulations?
Bad developers, bad builders, bad designers, bad tradesmen, etc., often trade under company names, trusts and other entities. It is difficult for the public to do company and other searches to find out who the shareholders (ie, owners), directors, secretary, accountants, chief operating officers, etc. of a company are. Companies are often voluntarily liquidated when a development or project has been completed. The same people then form a new company for new developments and projects. This means that it is unlikely that the public will discover if they have done shoddy work or shoddy developments previously. To stop shoddy tradesmen, builders and developers continuing and to stop phoenexing of bad builders, bad developers, bad designers, etc., all companies details should be able to be searched without charge by every member of the public. That is, everyone should be able to find out who they are dealing with BEFORE engaging them in any respect or buying buildings of any kind from them. Some developers create one company to own a property and another company to actual build but the shareholders, directors, secretary, etc., of both companies are one and the same - this should be banned. Taxation benefits for developers trading under two or more entities for the same development should not be a factor - it is protection of the public that matters.