Incorporated Association Number: A0040917R
MINUTES OF MEETING #146
Held At La Trobe City Council
2 December 2016, Friday
Meeting Commenced:10:00 Hours
- Roll Call and Apologies
Members Present:Jeff Mills (Baw Baw), Andre Brewer (Cardinia), Jesse Jones (Cardinia), Mehran Khademollah (Casey), Mike Mettes (Casey),John Bordignon (Glen Eira), John Hoey (Hoeys Lawyers), Daniel Silfo (Hoeys Lawyers), Peter Jolly (Hume), Vin O’Brien (Greater Shepparton),Glenn Harvey (Loddon), Warren Brooker (Maroondah), Robert Skinner (Murrindindi), Steve Baxas (Port Phillip), Ryan Elliot (Mitchell),Barry Nicholl (Wellington),Leigh Collings (East Gippsland), Chris Carson (Baw Baw),John Anagianis (Kingston), Chris Watson (LaTrobe), Matthew Patterson (SouthGippsland), Owen Dunn (Wellington), Fraser Orr (LaTrobe), Anita Dorfer-Mehanic (Maribyrnong), Noel Creed (BassCoast) John Burt (Latrobe), Marcus Collard (Macedon Ranges), Asanka Kodikara (Boroondara)
Apologies:Graeme Geary (Private),Ashley Hanson (Brimbank), Laurie Slagter (Yarra Ranges), Neil Povey (Ararat), Peter Phillips
- Minutes from Previous VMBSG Meeting
Held at Greater Dandenong City Council on 8 July 2016
Moved:Leigh Collings
Seconded:John Bordingnon
- Matters Arising From Minutes
3.1.Nil.
- Inwards and Outwards Correspondence
4.1.All Inwards and Outwards Correspondence is posted on the VMBSG Webboard
- VMBSG Membership Applications Approved
5.1.Heshan Mendis, Member, Deputy Building Surveyor at Kingston City Council, Application Date: 12/08/2016
5.2.Fawzi Abdou, Associate Member, Building Surveyor at: Greater Dandenong City Council, Application Date: 28/07/2016
5.3.Phillip Wilson, Member, Building Surveyor at: Hobsons Bay City Council, Application Date: 23/08/2016
5.4.Dmitry Sorokin, Associate Member, Building Surveyor at: Frankston City Council, Application Date: 05/08/2016
5.5.Ian Chamberlain to replace Tony Cook, Member, Building Surveyor at: Bass Coast Shire Council, Application Date: 01/09/2016
- General Business
6.1.Conference Feedback
6.1.1.Went well. Everybody enjoyed themselves.Feed back was excellent. General question asked eg - how do you rate value – 27 High, 29 Med, nobody low. Good ratings for all aspects of the conference.100% said they would be back again. Next year will be 20 years for the VMBSG so let’s look at something special for next year in the way we do it. Comments etc will be put up on the web. Photos will be put up on new website. Have tried to source a later date but proving very difficult.
6.1.2.Meetings all set for next year including conference. Will be put on website.
6.2.Sunset Regs 2017 (latest news)
6.2.1.New Chair for BRACS. Subcommittee went and looked through Sunset Regs for 2 hours. Should be out in two weeks for comments by the end of January.
6.2.2.Major issues with several amendments.
6.3.Building Act Amendments
6.3.1.Will be presented to Government next week for the first reading. There is also some legislation being changed on insurance in the building industry but that’s possibly to tidy up the builders side of things.
6.3.2.Considering Part B now – some of the industry members have seen a lot or the Regs, however some have seen none. We have not seen the wording so unable to tell you a lot about it.
6.3.3.We should get to see the bill after the 2nd reading.
6.4.Owner Builder Commercial
6.4.1.Neil Povey still has concerns over owner builder commercial. We need to have a good discussion about this.
6.4.2.Jarod from VBA promised he would send advice that they have on this. Advice says that owner builder commercial can do nothing other than having a building permit that says he’s an owner builder. Our previous reading for many years in the old notes on building which described which category could do what, there was no restrictions on owner builder commercial which meant it didn’t matter if they had practitioners. They’re now saying that’s incorrect – they’ve just got a building permit. If they’re doing any work, then all people involved have to be building practitioners in the correct category.
6.4.3.In the country areas when there were no commercial builders within 200-300 kms the residential builder would generally be would employed to do that work. This is not possible under the new interpretation.
6.4.4.Two reasons –a domestic builders registration prohibits them from doing anything in another class. Second - the other interpretation from the VBA that the owner builder commercial can’t actually do the work.
6.4.5.Vin O’Brien comment – Disagree with interpretation of that. I don’t believe you can hire a domestic builder on a commercial job to do the work for you if you are an owner builder but there is nothing I can see in there that says the owner builders on a commercial job can’t hire someone to do work on the job as long as they don’t purport to be a practitioner, there’s no issue. And a practitioner doesn’t purport to be a practitioner outside of their capabilities or registration. I think the VBA have got it wrong.
6.4.6.Council cannot be an owner builder as it’s is difficult to determine who the owner is. Owner builders cannot undertake commercial building work!
6.4.7.Still waiting on document from VBA to clarify.
6.4.8.There are some postings on website from Neil Povey
6.5.Lodgement of documents (format and fees)
6.5.1.Trying to get them to do as an amendment to the regs – to stipulate what format so that we’re not getting all different styles of format of lodgements.
6.5.2.Discussion on fees & format – are you doing lodgements in your building office or going through records management so therefore you don’t see them? Are you refusing to take applications because payments are not with them or it’s not in the format that you can accept.
6.5.3.One of the things that came out of the Sunset Regs was the department went out and employed Consultants to do some statistical analysis on what it costs to council to lodge an application. They came up with a spreadsheet that was ludicrous. It went to a few of us who filled it out. We had to know down to what it cost to run a desk, a computer system for the council – crazy stuff. Unfortunately what happened is that from the information they got they said that the evidence showed we get too much money for the lodgement which is not good because we were asking for more money but the evidence they got shows the opposite. If you get something like that come out to you, please try and do it or we will be stuck with either what we’ve got or reductions.
6.5.4.Length of retaining documents. Problems with the quality of electronic documentation provided. Some of these issues will be in the Sunset Regs.
6.5.5.Marcus Collard comment: a couple of issues is that building surveyors are not sending us a document, rather a link to a site which later expires. But that’s not lodging the documents and that’s not accompanied by a fee. It would be good if VBMSG as an organisation could develop a process for how we want this stuff lodged. Consistency of processes needed across all councils – especially re dealing with private building surveyors.
6.5.6.John Prendergast agrees – consistency is required and we as a group need to create agreed processes.
6.5.7.Warren Brooker comment – outlined Maroondah Councils process. Request made for him to send process to John Prendergast to look at and share.
6.5.8.A number of other councils shared their experiences re this issue and some of the software currently being used.
6.5.9.Electronic documents Act. Speak to MAV re consistency. Unsure where VBA is at with issuing building permit numbers although there is money being spent for further reference.
6.5.10.Another point on MAV – Gareth has left. VBA – a number of people have left and we are starting new relationships and dealing with their internal restructure.
6.6.Question to Members “What are you looking for from VMBSG?”
6.6.1.Input of the group is very important so that the committee can make decisions based on what you want.
6.6.2.Barry Nichol – physical workshops where we would pick a subject and have the committee organise a day for PD – eg Crossfire. Establish working groups to go through the new regs Knowledge based results out come when discussions on the website. We have talented people in our group – we should be hearing from them and encouraged to participate in website forum. Utilise the experience of the more experienced members to help support and encourage the new blood coming through.
6.6.3.Ask group for consensus of what workshops to have. For example after a conversation in the webboard - let’s create an outcome to create a knowledge base that people can readily find that information.
6.6.4.Topic ideas – POPE, ESM, Notice & Orders, S16 breaches.
6.6.5.Due to very little technical expertise at the VBA – this is something that the VMBSG should be assisting with. Would be good for the VMBSG to have more input into sharing the technical information, go to seminars, get more involved in the industry as a whole. We need to engage with our members, our members need to engage with the organisation, we need to advocate for the industry and we need to train everybody.
6.6.6.Upshot is that we are hearing that the VMBSG should take up some projects and attend some workshops.
6.7.New Website
6.7.1.In progress starting to set up and is user friendly
6.7.2.Vin O’Brien comment – because it’s free software can we have anybody to do repairs etc to it? Answer: the format it’s built on is free and then you have other attachments / plugins / widgets that have been paid for with upfront fee. There can be a fee each year, but if you don’t change the format then it’s free. Set up fee is very little because of that.
6.7.3.Old forum conversations will be archived and visible.
6.7.4.Also mobile and ipad compatible.
6.8.New PO Box Address
6.8.1.PO Box 4011, Ringwood 3134
6.8.2.Change of address notifications to be sent out.
6.9.VBA protocol for Code of Conduct – Marcus Collard
6.9.1.Building industry is providing theirown code. It is our suggestion that we adopt AIBS. Submission Closes today. The VBA is only a protocol for how they want the Code of Conduct to look like and address the issues in the protocol.
6.9.2.Part 11 of the regs of the Act has changed where an industry – the VBA can make a Code or an industry group can make a code. Once that code is made, that defines all practitioners in that category and class of practitioner and building surveyors can be sanctioned and disciplinary procedures can be taken against the practitioner if they have engaged in unprofessional conduct or failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. So it’s got some serious implications for everyone here when they’re introduced.
6.9.3.You all got an email about the protocol saying it was open and discussions were flying. It now closes on 9th December because they realised that we can actually send VBA mail out – we can actually inform more practitioners, we can put it on as a media article so you can find it if you’re looking for it. It appears to me that they’re trying to push this stuff through without proper consultation and they’re doing everything they can to hide information from industry and from the public – allegedly.
6.9.4.John Prendergast comment – they are consulting , industry stakeholder group, that a number of VMBSG members are part of – this has been tabled several times. The issue is getting it out to the members to actually comment.
6.9.5.The thing with the Code of Conduct is that the VBA has put out this protocol on how industry will create codes of conduct. They have said previously that the VBA won’t create codes of conduct. They want the industry groups to do it. The problem is that once you start creating the code of conduct – what they want in the code of conduct is that they want the industry to engage with all the other industry groups for those classes and categories of practitioner and then they want that industry group to enforce or monitor that code. So if you’re not an AIBS member, the AIBS can hold an enquiry into your conduct via their code of conduct and send it to the VBA. So they’re forcing the industry groups to have to prove that they’re going to monitor and enforce the code of conduct.
6.9.6.Comment: It’s important that VMBSG has a voice at the table in the final Code of Conduct which is approved by the VBA.
6.9.7.John Prendergast comment: Conversation has been started this week about being involved.
6.9.8.The Code of conduct is developed by the professional associations in consultations with the VBA who ultimately approve it. There will only be one. So there won’t be one for AIBS, there won’t be another one for RICS and there won’t be one for VMBSG. Hypothetically VMBSG and AIBS don’t go down the path of having it approved and RICS do – the RICS one will become the Code of Conduct under the Act. The reason why they’re doing it is because the VBA don’t profess to be experts in professional conduct in relation to each of the various practitioners. That is something that the professional associations are more expert in.
6.9.9. AIBS are developing professional Standards which will form part of the code of conduct. The VBA will require the relevant body to enforce the industry profession to monitor and make enquiries in to a person has failed to comply with that code. CBD points the building industry associations don't want numbers for example a practitioner only has to read an article and they would be re-registered rather than having to attend seminars etc.
6.9.10.We need to go back and get clarification on requirements of VMBSG re monitoring etc.
6.9.11.This document appears to be trying to make the industry organisations put in their code of conduct that the industry led associations may not want to do – monitoring compliance – and that they may not have the power to do in relations to Act provisions. I think AIBS really needs to seriously have a look at this and what the implications are. Other issues could include things that are applicable to private building survey may not apply to MBS.
6.9.12.John Prendergast comment: I have taken notice and will take actions out of that.
6.10.Organisational Reports
6.10.1.Report from Hoeys Lawyers
6.10.1.1.Recent prosecution in City of Whittlesea. The prosecution related to building work carried out without a building permit at two large commercial sites. Charged 5 corporate entities and an individual. Two corporate entities own one site and one of the corporate entities owned the other site. All the companies formed part of a corporate group for a large manufacturer of smallgoods.
6.10.1.2.The building works consisted of a partial construction of a steel and concrete structure on one side which was 130 m2 and the partial construction of a 1200 m2 building and each company there was charged with two breaches of section 16/1 as a secondary offender and the building work at the other site there was a 900 m2 building, 400m2 building and a 78 m2 building. That company was charged with three breaches of Section 16/1 of the Act as a secondary offender.
6.10.1.3.The other corporate entities and the individual were also charged as there was some basis in the evidence to charge those accused. However in negotiations, to see who was more responsible for the building work carried out, the owners of each site put their hand up and pleaded guilty. The matter was heard last week at Heidelberg Magistrates Court and all three companies were fined $40k each, $5k costs so the total fine and costs $150,000. It was a good result.
6.10.2.Report from BRAC - John Prendergast
6.10.2.1.New Chair asked what is BRAC’s function. They have poduced a document outlining what BRAC is and what they do. The chair has set out terms of reference on what they do specifically which is very promising. . The decision was that they should look at the regs and report back to the minister.
6.10.2.2.We need to look at who is going to be a new BRAC representative going forward.
6.10.3.Report from VBA–Dennis Hogan
6.10.3.1.No report.
6.10.4.Report from CFA – David Kearsley
6.10.4.1.No report.
6.10.5.AIBS – Peter Jolly
6.10.5.1.No report.
- Items Without Notice - General around the table discussions/issues and items without notice
7.1.Response to Owner Builder Commercial from Jared
7.1.1.In response to your request for clarification of the VBA position on only registered building practitioners can undertake building work that is not domestic work, being commercial work, ie owner builders in a commercial context are unlawful. General principle is that the registered building practitioners can undertake building work as established under 24A of the Building Act with the specific exemption of domestic building work where the applicant has been issued the Certificate of Consent. The relevant specific details are contained in the Building Act .