‘Too expensive: pressure on to roll back ‘Opal Tower’ laws

The NSW government is under pressure from the construction industry to wind back some of the tough legislative requirements that came in the wake of the Opal Tower and Mascot Towers calamities.

The NSW government is under pressure from the construction industry to wind back some of the tough legislative requirements that came in the wake of the Opal Tower and Mascot Towers calamities.

The Master Builders Association of New South Wales (MBA) says the legislation introduced “negative impacts” on the residential sector.

“The pendulum has now swung too far the other way, resulting in an unnecessarily complex and often confusing legislative framework which in turn is increasingly elevating the front-end costs of construction projects,” it suggested.

“NSW now has one of the most administratively burdensome and expensive regulatory systems for the construction of apartment buildings in Australia.”

MORE: Aus pub’s $500m collapse, staff owed $7m

The NSW government is under pressure from the construction industry to wind back some of the tough legislative requirements that came in the wake of the Opal Tower and Mascot Towers calamities. Picture: David Swift.

The Public Accountability and Works Committee of the NSW parliament is conducting a review into the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020.

The MBA submission accuses strata owner corporations of issuing “unjustified defects lists and noncompliances, some even after 10 years.”

It suggests “construction is not perfect,” and even cars that are built in a controlled environment don’t have endless maintenance obligations to their purchases.

“Most defects and noncompliances are not material and are issued as extortion to gain a cash settlement,” the MBA claims.

MBA suggests the legislation goes against one of the NSW government’s mainstays in “reducing red tape” and hinders the ability to meet new housing supply quotas.

MORE: Locked in – these borrowers miss out on rate cut relief

Shady Eskander is the chairman of the body corporate of the Opal Tower at Sydney Olympic Park. Pictured in his apartment in the tower, Shady said he had no idea that the certifiers had done this cosy deal with the Building Profesionals Board to downgrade their punishment. Picture: Jonathan Ng

The MBA says the heightened requirements arose from “too much focus being put on Mascot and Opal Towers, that tarred the remainder of industry with the same defective brush.”

Initially the DBP Act focused on new large-scale apartments higher than four storey, but now encompasses three storeys and lower.

In December 2023, the investigation and enforcement powers of Building Commission NSW were extended to include single dwelling houses.

The legislation also applies to the renovation and maintenance of existing buildings.

The MBA alleges builders are quitting the industry in part because of an inability to obtain indemnity insurance. “It is so risky that insurers won’t participate despite assurances before the commencement of the DBP Act.”

The MBA is concerned that the builder bears the majority of the liability for other trades, consultants, designers, engineers, certifiers, architects, shortfalls, “as they are not held to the same level of accountability.”

MORE: ‘Absolute chaos’: Rate cuts’ instant impact

Mascot Towers were initially evacuated due to structural concerns. Picture by Damian Shaw

“Many established builders in NSW are considering leaving the industry,” it notes.

“The constant complaint we hear is that state and federal governments have changed so much legislation that the industry participants cannot keep up with this change.”

The MBA supports reforms including increased focus on training, formalising supervisory skills requirements and developing quality assurance programs.

The post ‘Too expensive: pressure on to roll back ‘Opal Tower’ laws appeared first on realestate.com.au.