Dr Paulo Vaz-Serra is a Senior Lecturer in Construction Management at the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning at the University of Melbourne since 2014. He is a Civil Engineer and holds a master's degree in Construction and a PhD in Civil Engineering with a focus on knowledge management in construction companies and a postgraduate degree in entrepreneurship and innovation.
Australia plans to build an extra 1.2 million quality homes in five years, but we don’t have the people or regulatory processes to achieve this
By Dr Paulo Vaz-Serra, University of Melbourne
The federal government recently announced an ambitious plan to boost the Australian economy with an extra 1.2 million new houses in five years, including a $AU3 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility. How the government intends to execute this plan within the current regulatory climate remains unclear.
The plan will require building an additional 240,000 new houses per year, which is double the current capacity to build houses – even more than double if looking at the reduced projection of only 173,000 for 2025.
With the current shortage of qualified professionals and construction companies, achieving this goal will be challenging for all stakeholders, especially the final buyers.
Rushing construction significantly increases the risks to quality.
In a time of uncertain material supply and a shortage of qualified labour, last-minute changes and shortcuts can lead to disastrous consequences for quality, safety and costs.
Given these circumstances, it is crucial we acknowledge the current quality issues in construction to prevent a million homeowners ending up dissatisfied with the quality of their newly built houses.
Building a house is a complex process that starts with good design and engaging highly qualified and competent individuals for construction.
REDUCING CONSTRUCTION TIMELINES INCREASES THE RISKS
Here in my home state of Victoria, I have doubts about the capacity of building surveyors to manage the increased work.
Building surveyors ensure compliance with regulations and are currently crucial to the construction process. Registration as a building surveyor requires a minimum of four years of training and some years of experience.
The City of Melbourne says there are insufficient building surveyors to meet even the existing workload.
This shortage has left tens of thousands of ‘orphaned building permits’ – permits without building surveyors attached – leaving people unable to live in their finished homes. So how does the government plan to cover the requirements for 1.2 million new builds?
This increase in buildings will also add to existing issues with inspections mandated by the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) – an authority facing criticism for its “appalling culture” and ability to effectively oversee the sector.
These mandatory inspections are limited to only three stages of the structural work: before placing a footing; before pouring an in-situ reinforced concrete element; and at the completion of the framework.
Fire and smoke-resistant elements are also checked during the construction process and on completion.
At the completion of all building works a final inspection is limited to checking compliance with regulations.
Inspectors have spoken out about pressure to overlook faults to meet unrealistic inspection targets set by the VBA. This has led to dramatic outcomes, including conducting inspections from the sidewalk.
WILL THE NEW BUILDS MEET QUALITY STANDARDS?
The current regulatory system employs the National Construction Code (NCC) to determine quality based on how a building performs, rather than solely on materials and processes.
If it functions, it is considered compliant.
For instance, if someone turns on a tap, water must flow, regardless of whether the shower was constructed according to the design and expectations of the owner. In addition, owners have to accept cracks in walls if less than one millimetre as authorities consider that some movement of footings is ‘normal’.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that a contractor did not need to comply with a VBA ‘direction to fix’ because the VBA inspectors failed to detect the faults before the certificate of final inspection was issued. The owners were left to deal with the problem themselves.
This clearly ineffective level of inspections prompted the City of Melbourne to propose that inspections should be managed by an independent authority.
WE CONTINUE TO LOSE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION KNOWLEDGE
The terms ‘builders’ and ‘contractors’ are now used interchangeably when historically they hold significant differences and carry different implications.
Builders referred to companies with internal competencies to perform all construction aspects, possessed in-house trades capabilities and employed foremen as site managers with expertise in various trades including carpentry, plumbing and electrical.
Contractors referred to contract administrators or what are now known as ’main contractors’, people responsible for managing subcontractors. They employ ‘project managers’ who often manage subcontractors across different trades, but they may have no expertise in any of these individual trades.
The industry has largely switched from using ‘builders’ to using ‘contractors’ as they are more cost-effective. But this has led to the loss of design and construction knowledge.
THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The Victoria Building Authority’s system currently assigns primary responsibility to tradespeople, empowering them to make decisions that often diverge from original plans. Architects and engineers are not required to be on-site and are seen as an unnecessary cost.
But this leaves initial design quality control in the hands of less qualified people.
This leads to situations where tradespeople alter complex design systems, including drainage in hydraulic engineering systems, based purely on their practical experience.
This can result in problems like leaks due to non-designed penetrations in external walls, but also aesthetically undesirable and quality-compromising outcomes, like pipes in front of facades and windows.
BUILDING REGULATIONS – A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
This year’s amendments to the Victorian Building Act 1993 were a missed opportunity for reform.
Despite calls for changes and to increase the accountability of building companies, more responsibility has instead been put in the hands of building surveyors.
Investment in proper building design and the accountability of those responsible for the management and execution of works is desperately needed to avoid a potential catastrophe that could endanger lives.
The 2021 Champlain Towers building collapse in Miami and the devastation wrought by the recent earthquakes in Türkiye and Morocco are tragic examples of how inadequate building approval processes can increase the severity of disasters.
According to the VBA webpage, in Victoria, we have nine types of ‘building practitioners’ (each with up to 30 different subtypes): building inspector, building inspector (pool), building surveyor, quantity surveyor, draftsperson, erector and supervisor of temporary structures, project manager, domestic builder and commercial builder.
For end-users, these terms are difficult to distinguish and their responsibilities are unclear.
A SOLUTION TO CLEAR UP THE CONFUSION
With increasing concerns about apartment quality in Victoria, the Parliament of Victoria launched an Inquiry into Apartment Design Standards.
This inquiry aimed to address the challenges within the architecture, engineering and construction industries and received 53 submissions, including one from me and my University of Melbourne colleagues Steven Richardson and Dr Andrew Martel.
Our proposed solution, based on practices in other countries around the world, is to enhance the minimum competencies of builders before they are granted licenses. You can read our submission and the transcript of our appearance before the parliamentary committee.
The responsibility for compliance with design when delivering construction must be on architects and engineers who have the qualifications and competencies to sign off final works.
Therefore, to start a construction company, the Business Licensing Authority must require that contractors demonstrate that they have architects and engineers who are individually liable and accountable on their behalf for the quality of the work that they will perform.
This will allow a proper balance between the business owners of the company, who are focussed on costs and time, and the designers, who focus on quality and the protection of users, as well as public safety during construction.
This transition would address the current situation where a main contractor, often referred to as a ‘project manager’, delivers the project but possesses minimal responsibility and technical qualifications.
Additionally, if ongoing accountability for the quality of works belongs to architects and engineers, this will necessitate clients reevaluating their procurement methods and no longer relying on a ‘design on the run’ building process.
This should ensure they understand the importance of a high-quality initial design that gives them confidence in the outcome of the build.
This article originally appeared in The University of Melbourne Pursuit. Read it here.