Response 813455037

Back to Response listing

Information collection

By making a submission to this consultation you agree to the collection of the information you provide in your submission; and the use and disclosure of the information you provide in your submission as outlined above.

Please select one item
(Required)
Publish response
Publish response anonymously (this will remove personal identifiers including, name and organisation)
Do not publish

Personal information

What is your name?

Name
Mark Riordan - Principal Building Surveyor

On whose behalf are you making this submission?

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

What is your organisation (if relevant)?

Organisation
Western Australia Government - Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety 303 Sevenoaks Street Cannington WA 6107 Phone 08 6251 1221

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
Community and Non-Government organisations
Government
General Public
Other

Please select your State or Territory

Please select one item
ACT
NSW
NT
Qld
SA
Tas
Vic
WA

Preferred Terms

1. Do you agree with the definitions for the preferred terms detailed in the discussion paper Glossary?

If not, what preferred term/s do you disagree with and why? How should they be changed?
The proposed definition for building product is perhaps too broad and could be taken to capture loose furniture and non-built in elements.

Changes should be made so that it is clear that building products are limited to those required to comply with the NCC.

Element 1 – NCC evidence of suitability requirements

2. Do you agree with the description of the issues relating to the NCC Evidence of Suitability provisions? Are there other issues to be considered?

Please provide detail.
Yes, further comments are provided below.

3. Do you agree with the proposal to set minimum and consistent information requirements across each evidence of suitability pathway (Proposal 1.A)?

Please provide detail.
Yes. However consideration needs to be given to its practical application and implementation.

4. Do you agree with the proposed changes to increase the rigour across each evidence of suitability pathway? (Proposal 1.B)

Please provide detail.
Yes.

5. If any, what are the issues with requiring a statutory declaration being provided as part of another form of documentary evidence (Proposal 1.B)?

Please provide detail.
In the context of the details required by A5.1 (3) (as per Appendix C) we have no issues identified. However, the use of the word declaration in several terms may be confusing. Consider alternative terminology for the use of the word elsewhere. For example instead of "Declaration of NCC compliance" a "Statement of NCC compliance" could be considered.

6. Please provide feedback on the further comprehensive changes to the evidence of suitability that are proposed (Proposal 1.C), including other changes that should be considered.

Please comment.
All the considerations appear to have merit.

7. Are the proposed changes to the Evidence of suitability handbook appropriate? (Proposal 1.D) Are there other changes that will improve its usefulness?

Please provide detail.
The proposals appear satisfactory.

Element 2 – Information obligations for manufacturers and suppliers

8. Are the identified challenges with establishing product conformity accurately detailed, and are there other challenges that should be considered?

Please provide detail.
Yes.

9. If any, what are the issues with respect to the availability of building product information that should be addressed?

Please list.
No comment.

10. In relation to Proposal 2.A, please select a preference.

Please select one item
I agree with the proposal to require “all products intended to be associated with a building” be accompanied by a mandatory minimum level of information.
The requirement be broadened to “could reasonably be used in a building”.
The requirement should be limited to products intended to be used in higher risk applications, such as structural and fire related applications.
Other
If other, please provide detail.
The proposal to roll out these requirements starting with high risk products seems sensible.

11. Do you agree that the required information should be based on the example provided by Product Technical Statements? If no, what would be the right information? (Proposal 2.A)

Please provide detail.
Yes however note comments under question 3.

12. Have all the costs to manufacturers and suppliers from requiring Product Technical Statements been considered? (Proposal 2.A)

Please select one item
Agree with costs as described
Disagree with costs for manufacturers
Disagree with costs for suppliers
Disagree with costs for manufacturers and suppliers
Unsure

13. Is there value in facilitating the development of industry conformance schemes (Proposal 2.B)? Are there additional services these schemes could offer that would support compliance?

Please provide detail.
If relied upon the framework rules, agreements and packaging of the schemes may need
regulatory oversight.

14. In relation to the proposal for minimum product conformance assessment for certain manufactured building products (Proposal 2.C), please select a response.

Please select one item
I agree with the proposal for minimum product conformance assessment for certain manufactured building products
There are additional triggers that should be considered
There are additional assessment paths to determine conformance
Other
Please provide comment to support your selected response
Consideration would need to be given as to how products could be identified prior to supplying them to the market.

Element 3- Product labelling and traceability

15. Do you agree that there is a need for improved product labelling and/or traceability?

Why?
Yes.

16. What are the gaps/shortcomings in the existing labelling requirements? If any, what are the particular products or, classes of products that need priority attention?

Please provide detail.
Some products such as insulation may be hard to label.

17. Do you support mandating labelling requirements in accordance with Standards Australia Technical Specification 5344:2019 across building product standards (Proposal 3.A)?

Why?
Yes, noting that the SA TS may not be directly transferable to all building products.

18. What opportunities are available with digital technologies to enhance building product traceability (Proposal 3.B)?

Please list.
No comment.

19. What else can be done to improve product labelling and traceability? Are there examples where it is being done well?

Please provide detail.
No comment.

20. The options under consideration in this part would require regulatory impact assessment, and that cost would be offset against current costs to rectify problems with some products. With that in mind, do you have information that might help point to the costs or benefits involved?

Please provide detail.
No comment.

Element 4- Research, surveillance and information sharing

21. If anything, what is needed to improve research, surveillance and information sharing across the product assurance system?

Please provide detail.
More funding and resources.

22. Will the tasks listed in Proposal 4.A help achieve improved oversight and coordination of the product assurance system? What additional tasks should be considered?

Please provide detail.
No additional tasks identified. However, it is unclear on the delegation of responsibilities.

23. Is there value in having a central information portal and, if so, what information should it contain (Proposal 4.B)?

Please provide detail.
Yes there is value in a central information portal and it is probably essential to realise proposal 2C. To avoid inappropriate reporting, clarification is required as to what is deemed a failure and how this is substantiated . There would need to be a mechanism/s that results in consistent appropriate action to deal with reported failures.

As proposed, having a register for product testing obligations may assist with the implementation of Proposal 2C.

24. What additional guidance and training would assist with ensuring that products are appropriately supplied and specified (Proposal 4.C)?

Please list.
Targeted training aimed at providing a more comprehensive understanding of the various forms of evidence of suitability may assist.

Element 5- Compliance and enforcement

25. Do you agree with the description of the current compliance and enforcement regime?

Please provide detail.
Yes.

26. Do you support additional enforcement on the supply of building products (Proposals 5.A & 5.B)? Do you see any barriers to their implementation?

Please provide detail.
The capacity to implement the framework would be subject to the availability of funding and resources.

It is reasonable to suggest that the Draft framework would benefit from a federal legislative response, which would also be Western Australia's preference.

27. Are there any other measures that would improve enforcement and compliance of building products?

Please list.
No comment.

28. Are there any final comments that you have on the scope and implementation of a National Building Product Assurance Framework?

Please comment.
No comment.