Page 1575 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are some problems with this. It is not common for builders to have faxes with them on site, although these days it is common to have a telephone, whereas once it was not. It would be particularly advantageous if the builders could now book inspections by telephone. Someone working at Palmerston would have a 40-minute trip into and out of the city to arrange an inspection. The inspection has to be arranged at least three hours before the inspection time, and that could mean that a builder has to come into the building section by 1.00 pm to book a concrete inspection for the following morning. Many of these builders obviously start at 6 o'clock in the morning, but the section does not open until 8 o'clock. It may not be convenient for the builder.
Also, there appears to be some inconsistency in these regulations. It would appear that some inspectors say, "I understand that three hours' advance notice may be a problem. Just come along, and we will see whether we can fix it up immediately". There are two possibilities: Firstly, that it is not required or, secondly, that it is. I think that could be ascertained. One example of what goes on at a building inspection on site is perhaps worthy of note. There is a vibration of concrete requirement which is fairly new. Prior to its introduction, it would appear, there was not fair and adequate consultation with the industry. That is borne out by the fact that most people do not, or did not, know about it.
I have been informed that that particular requirement to vibrate concrete in slabs is not required for residential buildings. I have been told that overvibration could damage the slab integrity. Also, someone who is not well trained in vibrating concrete could puncture the membrane associated with the slab. So, even if the vibration of concrete were a requirement, it would be beneficial to builders if some training were carried out prior to this happening, so that they would know exactly what is required. It would appear that there are a number of situations in which increased training would be beneficial.
I feel that the HIA and the MBA could be even more involved in training builders within the industry. I think a very beneficial idea would be for those who set the regulations to work with professional organisations such as the Institution of Engineers, the Australian Standards Association, the Cement and Concrete Association and others that can supply wonderful knowledge in relation to building. If we did more in that area, I think all people on both sides would benefit. I think what it really comes down to is greater consultation. Prior to the implementation of regulations, builders should be informed of them so that some builders do not continue building under an earlier code, but those who have had random inspections now have to build under a new code.
There are some questions that I feel are relevant to building inspections. We understand that buildings need to be structurally sound; we need affordable buildings; and we need a profitable and time-efficient industry. It was mentioned in the media not so long ago that 330 inspections had been done, and there was some suggestion that all 330 had failed. I would like to know how many inspections were done and how many failed, and I would like to see some itemisation of the characteristics and faults divided into their relevant areas. I think it would be useful to find out what tests were done in these areas and what were the results of those tests. I understand that one of the tests involved the pushing of a 10-millimetre or 12-millimetre steel rod into subgrade underneath the slab area. There is a specific series of questions here. Is that test covered by an Australian standard? Could such a test damage plumbing or other services underneath the subgrade?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .