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?
Yes, this time frame gives enough time for everyone in the industry to educate themselves on the new laws.
- 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?
Yes, without a doubt the Secretary must have this authority. Also continuing education should be undertaken annually by everyone in this industry and be a prerequisite of licence renewal. Please refer to the NSW Law Societys licencing requirements for renewal of solicitors licences.
- Do you support the grounds for finding that a person is not a suitable person to carry out certification work? Why or why not?
- Do you support the process and fee for a certifier to apply for a variation of registration? Why or why not?
Variation of registration must depend on proof that additional education has been undertaken.
- Are the requirements for professional indemnity insurance contracts and exclusions in the proposed Regulation appropriate? Why or why not?
No certifiers should be exempted because the public must be protected.
- Do you support the proposed prescribed conflicts of interest in clause 24 and exemptions in clause 25? Why or why not?
Developers, builders and tradesmen must not be permitted to choose their own certifiers. Instead, the Commissioners office should allocate certifiers to everyone in the building industry - a different certifier for every new development/building work. An application form for allocation of certifier/s would be filled in each time new building/development works of any kind are commenced. This arms-length system would go some way to prevent conflicts of interest.
- 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?
Yes, continuing education must be a prerequisite for accreditation.
- 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 certifiers should be exempted. It is not who the employer is that matters. Rather its the competency and honesty of the 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?
Yes, see previous replies above.
- 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. In fact, when each new development is being marketed the sales contract should disclose both the names of the people who own and/or run the owner/developer company and of the building company. Some developers create one company to own a property and another company to do the actual building work 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.