Discussion paper: National Registration Framework for Building Practitioners

Response 670718666

Back to Response listing

Personal Information

What is your name?

Name
Peter Golding

What is your organisation?

Organisation
Galvanizers Association of Australia

Which best describes your industry sector?

Which best describes your industry sector?
Please select one item
Building Commercial
Building Residential
Building Commercial and Residential
Building and plumbing products
Building Certification/ Surveying
Architecture and design
Engineering
Plumbing
Compliance, testing and accreditation
Legal and Finance
Specialist - disability access
Specialist - energy efficiency
Specialist - fire safety
Specialist - health
Specialist - hydraulic/ plumbing
Student/ apprentices
Trades and other construction services
Education
Ticked Community and Non-Government organisations
Government
General Public
Other

Please select your State or Territory

State or Territory
Please select one item
ACT
NSW
NT
Qld
SA
Tas
Ticked Vic
WA

On whose behalf are you making this submission?

Please select one item
(Required)
I am making this submission on my own behalf
I am making this submission on behalf of a business
Ticked I am making this submission on behalf of an industry body
I am making this submission on behalf of a government agency

General Questions

Does the proposed NRF deliver an appropriate and proportionate response to BCR Recommendations 1 and 2?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Unsure

Will the NRF, if implemented, enhance confidence in the building industry by ensuring that key practitioners in the building process are registered?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Unsure

Do you foresee any risks in implementing this proposal, noting that the states and territories are responsible for implementation of the NRF?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Unsure
Please explain your reasoning.
Risks arise in differences in interpretation of the proposal. This includes training and practical experience where different regions will have a natural tendency to focus on local matters of importance (e.g. cyclones in Darwin, compared to heating requirements in Melbourne). This means the NRF must consider restrictions on experts trading outside of their geographic expertise.

Do you think the proposed NRF will improve compliance with the NCC?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Unsure
Please explain your reasoning.
While the NRF will ensure a base level of training, ongoing training (not just reading) and practice in areas of importance are critical to compliance. Experts do not want to fail, and failure usually occurs through lack of knowledge or practice in a field.

Most engineering drawings currently list multiple Standards, without specific details. Our experience is that the drawings often conflict with the Standards and/or the practical application of the Standards, due to lack of detailed knowledge of the specified products.

Ongoing training (not reading) should be a requirement in the NRF.

NRF Discipline Specific Comments

Please provide your comments below.

Your comment relates to:
Please select one item
(Required)
Building design
Energy efficiency design
Disability access design
Geotechnical design
Ticked Structural design
Electrical design
Mechanical design
Hydraulic design
Plumbing design
Fire safety design
Fire systems design
Façade design
Building
Fire systems installation
Plumbing
Building surveying
Fire systems inspection
Project management
Registration levels
okay
Descriptions/definitions
okay
Scope of work
Needs to include aspects of durability (concrete, steel & timber)
Qualification requirements
okay
Experience requirements
Needs to show evidence of understanding of design for durability in at least the three key building materials of concrete, steel & timber. Any structural design involving less common building materials (e.g. plastics, aluminium) must also show knowledge and training in these aspects. It is not good enough to quote a Standard and pass these issues to the next level down.
Any other comments for this discipline
One of the challenges a structural designer faces is the NCC does not, in general, provide enough information on the level of durability for the asset being designed or the materials being used. While there are some guidelines, these are not compulsory.

Recommend that the building durability guidelines published by the ABCB become a mandatory part of the NCC. This will drive a greater focus on durability and improve structural design.

Would you like to comment on another discipline?

Please select one item
(Required)
Ticked Yes
No

NRF Discipline Specific Comments

Please provide your comments below.

Your comment relates to:
Please select one item
(Required)
Ticked Building design
Energy efficiency design
Disability access design
Geotechnical design
Structural design
Electrical design
Mechanical design
Hydraulic design
Plumbing design
Fire safety design
Fire systems design
Façade design
Building
Fire systems installation
Plumbing
Building surveying
Fire systems inspection
Project management
Registration levels
okay
Descriptions/definitions
okay
Scope of work
okay
Qualification requirements
needs to include ongoing training (not reading) requirements.

Any other comments for this discipline
One of the challenges a building designer faces is the NCC does not, in general, provide enough information on the level of durability for the building being designed or the materials being used. While there are some guidelines, these are not compulsory.

Recommend that the building durability guidelines published by the ABCB become a mandatory part of the NCC. This will drive a greater focus on durability and improve building design.

Add another comment?

Please select one item
(Required)
Yes
Ticked No

Other Comments

The ABCB is specifically interested in your comments on the registration levels for building surveyors. Do you agree with the criteria used to distinguish between with the two levels of registration for building surveyors and does it adequately accommodate the different levels of risk?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Unsure
Please provide your reasoning.
This is a clever idea and will stop people having to do extra work if they choose not to be involved. It will also allow them to concentrate and develop experience in the relevant field without restricting them from expanding their knowledge if they choose to do so.

Are there any other matters you wish to comment on?

Comments
Yes.
While this survey explicitly requested comments on Recommendations 1 and 2, these cannot be taken in isolation from the other recommendations. Having trained & approved people is only a start and these recommendations cannot be taken in isolation. Not including (at least) recommendation #3 in this consultation process is disturbing.