By Radley de Silva, CEO

The issue of non-conforming and non-compliant products is not new; the acronym ‘NCP’ wouldn’t exist were it not for prior trouble with the performance of building materials and efforts to police their use. Recently, however, aluminium cladding in particular has come to be portrayed as the epitome of all that is wrong with the building products industry, and it is worth some clarification.

The intensity of the current public concern is understandable. Images of London’s Grenfell Tower, charred and windowless, are regularly offered as a horrific illustration of what can happen when a building material is used the wrong way. The papers routinely echo the message that the residents of Lacrosse Tower are lucky not to have had their homes suffer the same fate. But this is in spite of the fact that the Victorian Building Authority and even the Melbourne Fire Brigade have concluded that, while there are numerous buildings that feature improperly-installed aluminium cladding in Melbourne, there are no Grenfell-like events possible, such is the difference in the quality of construction and fire protection here in Victoria. Since then, however, an enormous amount of attention has been devoted to ferreting out where else potentially hazardous aluminium cladding might be presenting a latent safety threat to communities throughout our state.

To feel alarmed is natural, but too often emotional reactions are allowed to cultivate outrage and panic instead of solutions. The Grenfell event has prompted speculation about the likelihood of, and discussion of ways to prevent, similar catastrophic events here in Australia. Many elected officials and members of the public have reacted by jumping to the conclusion that there are inadequate protections in place to keep us safe, and that drafting more rules and regulations is the way to solve the problem. On the surface, this may appear to be the answer. After all, if sufficient rules and regulations are already in place, how is it that so many Victorian buildings have been labelled as officially vulnerable to disaster?

I’d like to remind everyone in the building and construction industry of the importance of taking appropriate measures to ensure the materials they use are suitable for the building work they are performing. The existence of non-conforming and non-compliant products is a major concern for the building and construction industry. I believe firmly that it does not need more regulation but better enforcement, greater clarity and faster access to information.

One thing many people inside and outside our industry do not understand is that availability for sale is not a reliable indicator of suitability for a given project. More responsibility must be borne at the front end by, for example, manufacturers and suppliers. But building contractors also need better tools to ensure they use the right product in the right place. This can be achieved only if government is able to bring the existing array of information and certification tools together into a single coherent system with appropriate oversight, transparency and enforcement. Industry and government must work together to offer a single readily-accessible repository of information about certified products and how to use them. Right now, good information is too scattered and hard to find quickly.

Better certification processes and a single portal for all product types—one that building contractors can use with ease and confidence—would assist in enabling all building practitioners to use all building products appropriately, without misunderstanding or guesswork that could lead to undesirable consequences—from the annoying to the disastrous.

I am pleased to report that in July, Master Builders was appointed to a stakeholder reference panel for the newly formed Victorian Cladding Taskforce, which will be chaired by former Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu and former Deputy Premier and Minister for Planning John Thwaites. Now that we are equipped with the terms of reference for the taskforce, Master Builders will emphasise the need for a clearer set of rules, a central certification and information system for all building products, as well as more vigorous oversight of regulations already in place. We are committed to advocating for a centrally administered national building certification system with clear, accessible information available to all. I look forward to having Master Builders be a part of the solution at both national and state levels, promoting a transparent audit process and practical solutions to problems identified across the built environment.

It’s important to be aware that builders have been operating according to the rules that have been made available to them and their industry. If the ‘rule book’ is re-edited to deliver information more effectively and plainly, they will embrace that, too. But simply adding more chapters won’t solve the issue. We must ensure everyone in the construction chain—manufacturers, suppliers, designers, importers, builders, wholesalers, surveyors and regulators—has access to clear, consistent and reliable information about building products and the appropriate uses for them.

I’d like to add that implementing the appropriate uses for cladding and wall systems that proliferate in the industry these days underscores the need for mandatory trades registration in Victoria, as they already have in New South Wales and Queensland, to ensure they are trained in the use of all types of products to use them safely.

In the meantime, I remind Victoria’s building and construction industry that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) can be helpful resources for announcements about non-conforming products and product recalls.

A true commitment to safety means understanding and following the rules that are already laid out. Churning out superfluous legislation, without helping practitioners understand and adhere to regulations already in place, protects no one.