Architecture & Design – July-September 2019

Building industry

reform redux

WORDS Michael Peck

Recently, a number of

troubling building failures

have highlighted the need

for construction industry

reforms that will better

protect the interests of

the community, and in

particular, the owners

and occupiers of multi-

residential buildings.

The Shergold Weir Report to the Building

Ministers Forum, presented in February

2018, made 24 recommendations for reforms

to the sector.

COntROlS OveR aRChiteCtuRal

SeRviCeS

In Australian jurisdictions, the Architects

Acts and other regulations combine with

educational and competency standards

to ensure that registered architects are

qualified – both to design and technically

document buildings to a high standard, and

to administer construction contracts ensuring

that buildings are completed to meet design

and technical documentation requirements,

codes and regulations.

Current legislation, as well as a long-

established body of Common Law, defines clear

boundaries for the responsibility and liability of

architects in the provision of their services. It

envisages a continuum of architectural services

from design through to the completion of the

building, providing professional accountability

and consumer protection.

Such arrangements ensure strict control

over every aspect of the building’s creation:

the quality of the design, working documents,

construction contracts, as well as the inspection

and certification systems.

These safeguards present virtually no

opportunity for those involved in constructing

the building to deviate from the documented

construction requirements, such as by

substituting materials.

CuRRent BuilDing inDuStRy pRaCtiCe

In contemporary apartment construction, the

comprehensive level of responsibility expected

is often addressed by dividing liabilities for each

part of the process. It is now common practice,

in apartment and other high-rise building

projects, to have the design architect’s services

terminated at the end of the concept design, and

then to have another practitioner appointed to

prepare the construction documents.

One aspect of this practice is that it has the

potential to lead to confusion over who is

responsible for the project as a whole. It is a

fundamental principle of good public policy

that those who make decisions about resource

allocation should bear the costs and receive the

benefits of those choices. Because many parties

are making decisions about which materials

and techniques to use, the costs and benefits of

those decisions are diffused, and sub-optimal

decisions are made – a classic case of market

failure, as it provides attractive financial

incentives for those involved in the construction

process to substitute materials and construction

techniques not originally specified.

Owners and occupiers also have to make

resource-allocation decisions; owners have to

decide how much they are prepared to spend, and

occupiers have to decide where they are to live. In

the case of cladding, owners and occupiers lack

the knowledge to determine if a material may be

inflammable, or properly attached to the building,

and the removal of the independent professional

architect or engineer from the process deprives

them of expert advice and assistance.

architecture & design /

plaCeS

/ jul-seP 2019

2

ADQ3_002_004_Building Industry Reform_V2.indd 2 26/7/19 4:46 pm