Submission to Building Professionals Board re: accreditation of swimming pool certifiers
Submission from: anonymity requested
We commend the State governments efforts to improve pool safety in NSW. These changes have been a long time coming. The faster they are implemented, the less child drownings we will see in pools across NSW.
I have been in the pool safety inspection industry for a number of years now, and would like to voice my concerns. I am also a licensed builder, building consultant and inspector , and building expert witness
The recent proposals released are a step in the right direction, but we hold grave concerns about many of the issues facing our industry, as well as where this industry is heading after the implementation of the new E1 certification.
You will find below a list of issues I wish to address:
1) The concern of the influx of so-called pool safety experts and consultants into the industry
I am concerned that the new laws will introduce an influx of unqualified people who have limited training and experience, as well as limited knowledge of interpretation of the BCA, Australian Standards as well as local government laws. The lack of training that individuals will have, will open up the industry to litigation, and will tarnish the good name of those currently doing their utmost in this industry.
I am also concerned that due to the interest these changes have caused, that the industry will become unregulated which will increase the number of people who are 'part-timers' who want to do pool safety inspections 'on the side' as a 2nd job. These types of people are not welcome in this industry, as we need people who are dedicated to pool safety fulltime who have the right qualifications to interpret the BCA and EPA.
Part of my concern stems from the pink batts scheme, where hundreds if not thousands of unruly and unlicensed individuals and companies ravaged and ruined an industry, leaving it in tatters many years later. We need to prevent such behaviour in this industry, and the best way to prevent such behaviour is by keeping the bar high in terms of eligibility to become an E1 inspector.
I am concerned that the training courses which I am assuming will be 1 week long at most will encourage individuals into the industry that are fly by nighters, who have no regards for the damage they can cause. The people we should be seeking are Degree qualified individuals who will be around long enough to be answerable in every inspection they make. The influx of those other than that, would be detrimental to the industry, as ill-qualified individuals would consume the industry, give incorrect advice based on interpretations of codes and standards they are not qualified to give.
Whilst greater competition is encouraged, I hold grave concerns if the flood gates were opened, similar to what happened in the pre-purchase inspection industry where anyone who wanted to become a pre-purchase building inspector can become one after doing a 2 day course. An influx such as this would attract people who are only here to make a few bucks on the side, instead of having a desire to help NSW achieve zero drownings in NSW.
2) Training courses - There is currently a serious lack of training in the pool inspection industry in NSW. I have come across numerous cases where people have misinterpreted AS1926 incorrectly and the desire to have courses that are detailed, technical and cover all bases when it comes to pool barried inspections is required. The courses need to cover interpretation of the standards, as well as the relevant laws. They should also cover recent cases of common law and how this will effect the inspection and compliance of the pool barrier. one such case in the Land and Environment Court http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2014/1006.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=swimming%20pools
I hold concerns whether such cases will be introduced into the courses and the content of the courses. They definitely need to be a lot longer than 2 day courses, and definitely long enough so that people cannot do them as part time courses on weekends so that fly by nighters are not encouraged into the industry. I would say that a 2 week course is a minimum requirement for a length of course.
Another concern I have is what I have heard in the industry, that those inspectors from queensland are able to travel to Sydney and get a mutual recogition E1 accreditation, and will not be required to meet the requirement that people in NSW will be subjected to. This will again introduce cowboys into the industry who cannot gain an E1 qualification, who will be forced to go to QLD and get an accreditation and then come back to NSW and get an E1 accreditation. The eligibility for inspectors should be across the board regardless of which state you live in.
There are courses being formulated currently that would like to not have an eligibility criteria for the E1 certifier. ie. namely, the builders license. Such views are irrational, and would introduce a pink batts type euphoria into the industry. We NEED eligibility criterias. Training organisations that want to lower the eligibility criterias do it in order to increase their own profits and get more people through their doors.the completion of a course, doesn't mean that you are now an experienced pool safety consultant and inspector, and will be putting children at risk. Our main concern should be about getting competent indivduals with the necessary skills to inspect barriers in accordance with the codes and standards, rather than getting people through the door at training organisations..
3) CPD - There has been no mention of a CPD program for individuals who can get E1 accreditation. This is important to keep inspectors up to date with laws, court cases and relevant information to the industry.
4) Builders license required to hold E1 accreditation - Builders already have the burden of paying hundreds of dollars per year for individual and nominated supervisor licenses for themselves and companies.this alone amounts to $1000-2000 dollars per year depending on the length of licensing required. I believe that making builders pay an additional $1500 for E1 accreditation on top of what they already pay is unfair and will keep individuals out of the industry that would otherwise be an asset to the industry. The fee for builders should be waived, however, those other than builders that do gain E1 accreditation should pay a fee for their E1 accreditation.
5) The queensland pool inspection industry has a number of checks implemented to stop cowboys into the industry. One such policy is the pool safety council, where inspectors can turn to for advice as well as be held accountable to. They should have the authority to audit pools and be able to reprimand inspectors in the same way that queensland has done in the last few years.
Currently there is no one inspectors can turn to when they have a question regarding AS1926. This means that many inspectors are interpreting standards as they see fit. introducing a council would ensure a consistent application of the standard across the board. It would also ensure that those inspectors with questions can get advice from the pool safety council.
Thank you for your time and consideration and I hope that the industry welcomes well qualified and trained individuals that are an asset to the industry rather than an influx of ill trained and incompetent people looking to cash in on a new industry