Discussion paper: National Registration Framework for Building Practitioners

There should be no exemptions for owner builders to perform building works on domestic buildings. Likewise there are other exemptions in WA for which registration is not required eg. construction of a farm building ..., and production of a prefabricated or transportable building in a manufacturing yard. I believe that having these buildings being built "unregulated", that is not built by a registered Building Contractor, does not provide confidence in their construction; particularly the structural, electrical and hydraulic aspects of these buildings.

Most importantly there is no need to have subcategories for builders. Let the market place sought it all out. Is it the absence of builder sub-categories that causes non-compliance with the ncc? Will builder sub-categries improve compliance with the ncc? To both questions, NO. There is just vested interest at play here . The "larger" builder does not want the "smaller" builder nipping at their heels in the tender process and lowering the cost of the project. The market place is unlikely to allow a builder with little or no experience in high rise commercial undertaking a project of this level. How do you think the larger builder ever got to this level - by starting as a smaller builder and working their way up. How is a lower level builder ever going to move to higher level? A mountain of paperwork will be required to justify a higher level; and then it will be take forever and a day to get approved. Again it is about vested interest . A monopoly of builders at the higher levels (very difficult for anyone else to ever "break in" to the higher levels). And again the community will suffer with higher prices and it will not ensure that there is greater compliance with the national construction code.

Also these levels are not clear. For example level 3 - single residential (class 1 and 10); is class 1b included or not.

But again there is no need for sub-categories of builders. The existing, and proposed regulations and mechanisms are enough to ensure compliance with the ncc.

In theory it all sounds good, but in practice the key practitioners will find additional ways to become risk adverse/"pass the buck" in order to keep the costs down. If not the costs of implementing many of the recommendations will increase greatly. The key practitioners will then be forced to pass the costs onto the consumer.

More red tape. Therefore ultimately it will only be the larger key practitioners who will "survive". Without the smaller enterprises there is less competition and therefore the cost to the consumer increases. Also the Government will increase the builders levy, and all that will happen is the bureaucracy increases but really no additional skills to implement these proposals. The white collar workers believe they know what is required and never getting out of their office. Creating more red tape/paperwork to justify their jobs. That's all that ever happens. And what really annoys me is that the cost of implementing the proposal comes from an increased levy not consolidated revenue fund or better still the regulatory body just working a bit harder.

It's all in the detail. And will people work as a team or continue to be risk adverse.

Over the years the quality of drawings as decreased. With CAD drawings there is too much cut and paste from other projects. Often the information is not even pertinent to the building, however it "bulks" up the quantity of drawings and therefore the client feels they get value for money. Also the very basics of drafting (knowing the information the builder requires to construct) is not provided. Too much clicking and dragging of measurements and too much information on one drawing are just a few problem areas.

Also the use of the NATSPEC for all buildings. Basically it is just a document which references all possible standards and part ncc. Not much is project specific, or if it is it gets lost in the quantity paperwork.

Just make sure there are no vested interests are at play. That is, practitioners are primarily concerned only about their business and not the industry as a whole.

Everything must be totally transparent and concise.