Giorgio Marfella
Hello everybody and good afternoon.
My name is Giorgio Marfella and I'm the chairperson of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria.
We have another webinar today and as always, I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land in which we are meeting. In particular, I'm acknowledging the people of the Kulin Nation and the Wurundjeri People and I pay my respects to the Elders, past, present and emerging.
So today we have the final Webinar for this financial year.
So in a way, we'll somehow closing a cycle, which is also valid for your CPD, and in particular today's topic deals with selection of materials and specification of materials, but with a with a particular focus on how the national Construction Code provides systems to ensure evidence of suitability.
Now, as always, this is a valid for your formal CPD.
You can start to log in into a form with some questions that will be provided to the webinar using the QR code here and you will also be able to provide responses to this questionnaire also in the next 24 hours, and then submit that to the ARBV for proof of attendance and the ARBV will then submit back a certificate of attendance.
I’ll also take the opportunity to remind you, of course that CPD is mandatory in Victoria and we audit also how that's done on a significant number of architects every year, so it's important that we'll consider that as a core duty of being an architect.
And I'll presenter today is Frances Hall.
Fran has collaborated before with us.
You will recall probably some of us webinar on performance solutions and Frances is a Lawyer, Senior Counsel at Weir Legal and Consulting.
So today's purposes is primarily focused on understanding how the national construction code provides mechanisms to ensure suitability.
We will not deal specifically with which materials may be compliant or not to be clear.
But we would like to give you more high level guidance on how to ensure evidence of compliance. Now as usual format of this webinar, we will be collecting some questions that are pertaining to the topic through the Q&A button. We might not be in a position to answer them all.
We'll select some towards the end to conclude and have some general remarks.
So with this I can just lend over to Fran from now on.
Thank you.
Frances Hall
Thanks very much, Giorgio, and thank you for joining me today for this webinar.
So this is an outline of the topics that we're going to cover today.
So what we're going to look at is how the use of building product is governed in Victoria.
What the Architects Act in Victoria requires of architects in terms of specifying compliant products and materials.
What specific steps or processes architecture would have in place to make sure that they're fulfilling their obligations in relation to product suitability and also potential future developments in building product regulation?
So, there's no disputing the need for building product innovation, and incorporating innovative building products into Architectural design.
Climate change means that there is an increasing need to ensure that buildings are liveable in a context of higher rainfall, higher temperatures, greater variability in weather patterns, or also facing a shortage of housing across the country and use of building products that might make construction easier and quicker is a necessity.
And we're also in facing a context where the cost of building work has increased significantly over the last five years and one of the reasons for that is a global increase in the cost of materials. And so use of innovative and new building products might reduce or help to reduce the cost of building work and so in that context, it's appropriate for architects and building designers to consider new and innovative products and materials when they're preparing a design.
But there are some constraints around how you choose a product.
So, there are some risks to architects when specifying materials or products.
The products that are used have to be used in a way that meets legislative requirements, and architects also have professional conduct obligations when they're specifying materials or products.
So that's what we'll look at today.
So I guess the big question is why does regulation of building products matter?
And I've got a couple of examples here of why they matter.
So this is an advertisement from, I believe the early 1970s, it's as you can say, it's a picture of the World Trade Centre, Twin Towers in New York, and it's an advertisement for asbestos.
When those towers were constructed in the late 1960s, asbestos was used extensively in those buildings on the steel beam structure for as an insulator and also as a fire retardant.
And then when the towers were destroyed in 2001, an incalculable amount of asbestos was released into the air in lower Manhattan. At the time that asbestos was applied to the steel structure in the World Trade Centre, there was already a great deal known about the potential risks of asbestos, and it was already starting to be phased out as a building product, so use of asbestos in kind of extensive way is an example of how product regulation didn't keep consumers safe and regulation didn't keep up with the developments in knowledge about the risk of use of asbestos in buildings.
Many of you may also recognize this photo.
This is a photo of the Grenfell building in London.
The photo was taken at dawn on the 14th of June 2017. At the time that photo was taken, 70 people had died inside that building.
Another two people died in hospital later. That fire burned for 60 hours before it was fully extinguished.
This is a timeline of the regulatory failure at Grenfell. The the tower was built in 1972.
It was actually quite an old building. It was a 24 Storey tower block. Constructed in 1972. Completed in 1974 and then in 2015, it was renovated. It had new Windows installed, thermal insulation and new ACP cladding on the exterior walls.
Fire broke out on the 14th June 2017 and it went up the exterior walls.
There has been extensive investigations since that fire and the phase two report in relation to those investigations was released in September 2024.
It's pretty grim reading. It was highly critical of, amongst other things, the certification process of the building products that were used.
So the cladding that was used externally and also the insulation products that were used in the walls, it was also very critical of the product manufacturers conduct and we'll come back to this in a bit more detail a bit later on.
So this is an overview of how legislation in Victoria governs product suitability.
So we've got the national construction code, which as you all know is updated every few years.
That intersects with the Victorian Building Act.
Section 16 of that act says that building work must be carried out in accordance with the Act. The regulations in any building permit issued for the building work.
The building regulations themselves incorporate the NCC. So that means in order to comply with the Act and the Regulations, the building work has to comply with the NCC.
You then have separately the Australian Consumer law, which sort of sits off to off to one side, I suppose, and it requires that products must be fit for their purpose.
This and additionally, there is also in the domestic Building Contracts Act, which is a Victorian act that requires a builder to provide warranties about the suitability of the products that they use when they carry out building work.
So there are a range of kind of different laws that sort of all intersect to require compliance with the NCC.
So I guess the question is what do we mean by building products? We don't mean every single product that is used in or on a building or when carrying out building work.
The products that are regulated, are products that are relevant to whether or not the applicable performance requirement in the NCC is met.
So if you need to use a particular product or a particular product is necessary to achieve the applicable standard, then its use will be regulated by the NCC, so that can range from a single item, like a fastening to a system like a Hebel wall system.
So what the applicable requirements will be, will always vary depending on the class of building that is being constructed and the type of construction that applies to that particular class, which as you may be aware will vary depending on its height and other factors.
So these are some examples of building products that are regulated under the NCC. The most obvious and topical one is external wall cladding.
Any building that is required to be constructed using type, A construction will require external cladding products to be non-combustible.
Another example is plumbing products used for drinking water. They have Australian standard that must be met.
Wall systems are also products which are accredited to demonstrate compliance with the NCC.
So just as a sort of a side note, there are, there is increasingly prefabricated components used in buildings or modular construction used in buildings, and there is a lot of talk about modern methods of construction and how this can increase housing supply.
I guess the point to be made there is that there is no, there are no kind of different requirements that apply to prefabricated components or modular construction or off site construction.
The same elements and products have to meet any applicable NCC requirements.
So considerations about building product specification, you have to turn your mind to those for prefabricated components, just as you do for any other type of building product or element.
So there is a there is a pathway that is specified in the NCC.
So part A2G1 says that compliance is achieved by complying with the applicable performance requirements, that can be met either by using a deem to satisfy solution or by a performance solution.
The assessment of compliance might require evidence of suitability of a material, product, form or construction form of construction or design.
And then part a 5G3 of the NCC sets out six pathways to document evidence of suitability for volumes one and two of the NCC.
There is also a separate pathway for plumbing products.
But I will just primarily be focusing on building products for the purpose of this webinar.
So, there are 6 suitability pathways for building products, and we're going to go through in a small amount of detail. Each one of those pathways.
So that's CodeMark, Certificate of Accreditation, Certificate from a certification body, a test report, an engineer's report or other evidence like a product technical statement.
And the suitability pathways for plumbing, will include a test report, a water mark license, a certificate, and also a risk assessment and then evidence that shows that the design either meets the deem to certify provisions or a certification of the performance solution.
So, there are a number of different suitability pathways as I've, as I've just shown, and there is good and bad to that.
The good is that this offering a variety of suitability pathways recognises that not all products are the same, they can be used in many different ways and so you might use a different product in a different way, and there might be a different a different pathway that is appropriate to demonstrate suitability for that particular purpose.
It also means that not all products need an expensive certification process, and it also allows for innovation.
It means that new products can be assessed and used without there being a really long time for it to come to the market and be accepted as being compliant.
The downside of having these sort of six pathways of suitability is that it really is very complicated, and test results and certification might be misunderstood, they might be misrepresented, or they might be misapplied.
So there is a lot that can go wrong in the current process.
So this brings us to our first quiz question.
Question one.
Which codes or laws govern building product compliance in Victoria?
A. Is it the Australian consumer law?
B. The building act
C. The National construction code.
D. Or all of the above, depending on the context.
I'll just give you a few seconds to put your answers in there so that you can complete your CPD requirements.
Okay, hopefully that was enough time for everyone.
The answer to that question is all of the above, depending on the context.
So turning now to the first of the six pathways for evidence of suitability, this is the CodeMark Certification Scheme.
It's probably the most well known out of this sort of certification processes.
This is administered by the Australian Building Codes Board.
It's nationally accepted and under that scheme a certificate of conformity can be issued by a approved conformity body, and that certification is then listed on the JASANZ register. Which is a publicly searchable register, and that's useful to know if you wish to Kind of make sure that a product that you're considering has a CodeMark certification. You can do a search for that.
This is an example of what a Certificate of Conformity will look like.
And there you can see there's quite a bit of detail on there.
One thing to always be mindful of is that these Certificates of Conformity will have a date of issue and a date of expiry and you should really pay attention to the date of expiry because products and product ranges will change over time and NCC requirements will also change over time and so a certificate doesn't last forever.
And so if you're being asked to rely on a certificate of conformity, then you need to check whether it's still in force. And the other thing that you should do is to check the clauses that are referenced in the Certificate of Conformity.
So has the certificate been issued for the relevant parts of the NCC that you need to satisfy yourself of?
Is the use that is described in the certificate the use to which you're proposing to put this product?
And are there any limitations or conditions on the certification that you should be aware of?
So it's always worth reading these certificates carefully.
The second pathway is a BRAC Certificate of Accreditation.
BRAC is the Building Regulations Advisory Committee in Vic.
It accredits building products, but just be aware that that accreditation is for Victoria only, it's not Australia wide.
The Certificate of Accreditation is proof that a product meets the performance requirements of the NCC and a building surveyor must accept the use of that product where the use complies with a BRAC accreditation, so it's a useful accreditation to have.
So the third pathway to suitability is a certificate from a private certification body.
So, the joint accreditation system of Australia and New Zealand, which is JAS-ANZ as I've referred to just a minute ago, accredits sort of private certification bodies, which can then certify building products.
There are numerous certification bodies in Australia that certify building products.
The things that you need to look for when presented with a CABs certificate, what does the certification relate to?
What use is it for and does it match your proposed use?
Does the certificate reference the applicable Australian standard or NCC clause?
And is it current or has it expired?
This is an example of a certificate issued by private certification body which is BSI and you can see it has this similar sorts of information to the CodeMark Certification.
So pathway four, the, is a test report from an accredited laboratory.
So there may be some provisions in the NCC that require that a product that is used must meet an applicable test and an obvious example is the non combustibility test for external wall cladding products so, where the building is required to be of Type A construction, then the product used has to meet the test in AS1503.1.
And so in that circumstance, you're not looking for a certification, but you're looking for a test report.
And so the test report needs to come from an accredited test laboratory.
This is an example of the sort of test report that you might be looking for.
Again, you would be looking to make sure that it references the applicable part of the NCC that you're considering.
And that it matches the use for which you intend to use the product and that the test certificate is still current.
So Pathway 5 is a certificate or report from an engineer or other qualified person.
So this will be a report. It's usually prepared by an engineer, although it can be prepared by another qualified person.
The, it will set out the basis on which suitability has been verified, and it will reference the standards and other documents that are being relied on in verifying the suitability.
So under Section 238 of the Building Act in Victoria an engineer or other qualified building practitioner can issue a certificate of compliance in relation to building design compliance.
So a building surveyor can accept either of those documents in in terms of verifying the suitability of a particular building product.
So the 6th pathway is a product technical statement that is material provided by the manufacturer of the building product.
It's a declaration of compliance.
It is a technical document, so it's not the sort of advertising material or brochures that might be prepared by the manufacturer.
It is a technical document and what it needs to do is state the applicable provisions of the NCC, the basis on which the conclusion that its compliant has been drawn, a statement of the application and intended use of the , and the limitations and conditions of the state of compliance.
So that is the the 6th pathway for verification of suitability.
So there are some limits to certification. As I've mentioned a couple of times, the certification is limited to the use that specified in that certification document.
So if you're proposing to use a building for a different propose, proposing to use a building product for a different purpose, you can't assume that it's compliant for that alternative purpose.
It is also separate to green and sustainability sort of certification that is sort of outside this kind of certification regime. It's limited to the time period that's specified in the certificate. And one thing to be careful of, and this is something that was made clear coming out of the sort of combustible cladding issues that we've seen over the last few years that there might be different products within a range made by the manufacturer.
So the certification must apply to the exact product type that you're intending to use.
Because the products may differ in their composition and where they differ then certification for one composition won't suffice to be certification for the other type of composition.
So that's something to be really careful about.
That takes us to question two in our quiz.
How can an architect satisfy themselves that a building product is compliant?
A. Rely on product manufacturer information.
B. Assess any product certification material and raise it with the builder.
C. Assess any product certification material and raise it with the RBS. That is relevant building surveyor, I should say, and
D. Assess any product certification material and raise it with the client.
I'll give you a moment to answer that.
Okay, so in the interests of moving on.
The answer to question two is, assess any product certification material and raise it with the building surveyor. They are the person who is signing off on the compliance of the design and that's who you should raise the issue with.
Okay, so case study. We're just going to look at what the Grenfell report tells us, and I note that there is actually a Netflix documentary that has just been released about Grenfell.
I haven't seen it yet, but I'm told that it's good, so you might want to keep an eye out for that as well.
The Phase two report focussed on the regulatory regime for building work and building products in the UK, that's relevant for our purposes because the UK system is very similar to the Australian system.
And what we know from that phase two report is that there were failures at every level of this development, so this was a government owned building and we know from the report that there were significant failings by the Government Department who procured the redevelopment of the building.
They were warned about ACP and they did not heed that warning.
There was also a failure by the testing laboratory that was testing the cladding products.
There was a deliberate manipulation of the testing process.
And then a misrepresentation of the test data, by those who both manufactured and sold the relevant products. There were also, according to this report, false advertising claims about the products and their compliance.
The certifying bodies which certified these products failed to rigorously check the material when they certified the products, and then there was a failure by the building inspectors who inspected the building work and who did not turn their minds to the question of whether or not these products complied, so it's a really disappointing story about regulatory failure.
In the last few years, many of you would be aware of the establishment of Cladding Safety Victoria.
So as well as replacing the combustible cladding across an enormous number of buildings over the last few years, they have also, I suppose, in the process of doing that, reviewed plans and permits and collected data and reviewed that data to see what it tells us about the compliance of building design.
They came to some conclusions about building design, which was that unfortunately, a very large number of the designs for the apartment buildings were not compliant in terms of the cladding products that were specified. There were some instances where the builder had substituted a compliant product for a non-compliant product, but in many many instances the design specified a non-compliant product.
In addition to that conclusion the CSV report tells us that the deem to satisfy pathway for compliance was not well understood and so I think that's a really important learning coming out of that report that as that, that everyone who is involved in the building industry needs to really understand the compliance pathway.
So how does that all apply to architects and their obligations?
So what we have is the Architects Act and the Architects Regulations, which incorporates a Code of Conduct.
The Act and the Code of Conduct impose obligations on architects to carry out their work carefully and competently, professionally and to the standard of a competent member of the profession.
In addition to that, at sort of the stage of initial registration of an architect, the national standards of competency which set the criteria for registration, impose knowledge requirements for the application of building codes and standards.
So it is to be expected that architects will know about the NCC and what it requires as part of their sort of competency as a professional.
I guess the $1,000,000 question is how much knowledge do you need to have?
The Architects Act doesn't specify a level of knowledge of the NCC. All that it requires is that you are competent and professional in your conduct, so that doesn't of itself impose a standard of knowledge of the NCC, that is equivalent to a building surveyor, and I think it's evident from the way the NCC is created and the way the Building Act works that it's not expected that those who design a building will have full and complete knowledge of every provision of the NCC.
Not even building surveyors are expected to know every provision of the NCC. The way the Building Act works is that the building surveyor will assess whether a design is compliant, but they might rely on reports from engineers.
So that might be structural engineers, that might be Mechanical Engineers, that might be fire engineers, and that's a recognition that the provisions of the NCC require very specific and detailed knowledge. So it's not being suggested that architects should somehow have that knowledge, but a competent and professional architect must have enough knowledge of the NCC to know how compliance is achieved and also to take steps to make sure that their design is properly assessed.
So what architects need to know is they have to have a level of knowledge of the NCC that enables them to understand the evidence of suitability pathway, to prepare a design and specification that accounts for NCC requirements and to liaise with other consultants, and with the building surveyor, to ensure compliance.
So that takes us to question 3.
This is a true or false question.
When a product has been on the market for a while and its use is accepted, you don't need to verify its compliance.
So I'll just give you a moment to put your answer in.
Hopefully that's a straightforward one for you.
The answer, of course, is false. Compliance should always be verified.
And combustible cladding is an example of where a product was widely accepted but was not compliant for certain types of construction.
Okay, so what steps should architects take to comply with their obligations in relation to building product suitability?
You should turn your mind to the question of compliance of the product.
Look at any certifications yourself and critically assess what is being relied on.
You should ensure that your design and specification requires that the product to be used to be compliant.
Raised the question of compliance with the relevant building surveyor and make sure that they've signed off on it, and in particular I would say if you have any concerns about whether or not a particular product is compliant, take steps to raise that with the building surveyor and to document that you've done that, and if you can have an internal quality assurance process or just a checklist that ensures that you follow those steps for every project and that you sort of document that that process has been followed.
Whose responsibility is it to ensure compliance?
So this is not a straightforward question.
So architects have obligations under the Architects Act to carry out their work competently and professionally.
Building surveyors have the statutory function of assessing compliance of designs and completed building work.
Builders have their statutory warranty for domestic building work, that requires them to use products that are suitable and fit for purpose.
They also have obligations to carry out work that complies with the Act and the Regulations, which includes the NCC.
And then it's possible for all of those parties to be held to owe a duty of care to an owner or to a subsequent purchaser where compliance has not been achieved.
And that is also the case in terms of a contractual obligation in addition to statutory obligations and duty of care obligations, there may also be a contractual obligation depending on the terms of the contract that you've signed.
So what about in a design and construct procurement?
Where a builder seeks approval for a material or product, if you as architect are involved in signing off on the use of that material or product, what should you do?
You should have the builder provide any relevant certifications or test reports.
You should ensure that those certifications match the proposed use for this particular project.
You should assess it against any compliance requirements that are in the specification, and if the product is a proposed substitution on what has previously been approved by the building surveyor, you should refer it to the building surveyor to make sure that they've considered whether or not it's compliant.
And also whether or not a building permit amendment is required, because really for any substantive change to a design, a building permit amendment is required.
So that takes us to question 4.
Whose obligation is it to ensure that building products used in a project are compliant?
A. Is it the architect, because they've specified the products to be used.
B. Is it the builder? Because they're required to construct a building that is compliant with the NCC and to use products that are suitable.
C. Is it the building surveyor? Because they are required to assess whether the design and the building work are compliant.
D. Or is it all of the above?
Okay, so the answer is D. All of the above.
So what are the things that architects can do to mitigate their risk in relation to the building product compliance process?
The things that you can do are to liaise with the relevant building surveyor and any other consultants such as engineers to ensure that they are aware of the proposed use of the product, and have incorporated that into their work.
So an example of that might be if there is for example, a proposed change in product, you might wish to consider does the fire engineer need to be made aware of this proposed change, as well as the relevant building surveyor, so you might want to think about, whoever else’s design might be impacted by the use of this product or the substitution of this product.
Another step you can take is to keep yourself informed about the compliance regime for products.
So lookout for VBA or Australian Building Codes Board warnings or guidance documents. You should ensure that your staff are trained on these issues.
You should keep notes of your processes in incorporating specific products into your design.
And you should ask questions of the building surveyor where you're unsure.
And you should document that those questions have been asked.
So that takes us to question 5.
What is the best way to avoid risk in building product selection?
A. Is it to document your process of product selection?
B. Is it to liaise with consultant engineers and with the RBS?
C. Is it to carefully read all relevant certifications or assessments, or
D. All of the above?
OK. So hopefully that was a straightforward question for you.
The answer is D. All of the above.
So moving on now to how does the system improve, noting that the existing system is reasonably complicated and not well understood or applied at present.
There are some existing changes that have been made to the Building Act.
Many of you might be aware of the requirement, that is just being implemented now for a building manual that has to be issued for each new building of a certain class, but basically apartment buildings.
So when the occupancy permit is issued, a building manual has to be prepared.
That includes the as built documentation for or the, as the as built drawings and other documentation for the building product information certificates and commissioning. This sort of addresses the problem that was evident during the combustible cladding crisis, which was that the owners of a building who had purchased it from the developer or from previous purchases didn't have access to complete information about how the building had been built. So quite often it was the case that it wasn't known what exterior wall products had been used unless there was destructive testing carried out to verify that.
So this sort of aims to create a better state of knowledge for owners about how the building has been built, what products have been used, how it's been commissioned and that should make it easier when problems arise to identify how those issues can be rectified.
The system can also improve by better documentation and coordination by architects and by building surveyors.
There are still some changes that are required to make the certification process easier to understand and to apply, and to also make building product information more accessible.
The downside of the current certification system is that it can be quite difficult to access useful information about a particular building product.
So there have been some legislative developments in this regard. So in 2020, there was a federal Senate inquiry into non-conforming building products and then in 2021 the ABCB published the Building Product Assurance Framework which was aimed at kind of improving building product compliance, and the building ministers meeting in June 2024, which is a meeting of all of the building ministers from the different States and territories, directed the ABCB to prepare a proposal for a National Building Product register, which would require mandatory information and registration of building products and also mandatory product labelling and traceability, which would be incorporated into the existing certification schemes. I think this would be hugely beneficial for the system and National Register, would mean that it is easy to identify a product and what kind of certifications and information pertain to that product, and then the product labelling and traceability means that when a product is purchased and used, you then have access to information from the manufacturer about that product.
There are also proposed reforms going on overseas in the UK following the Grenfell investigation.
There are some proposed reforms, a little bit similar to the Australian reforms, but they go a bit further.
So this would create a government library for product information, a digital product passport for hazardous products, obligations on supply chain participants. So that's an obligation that applies to people selling a product, not just those manufacturing it or builders who are using it on a building, stronger third party testing and certification and creating an onus on manufacturers, and a consumer ability to seek compensation for misleading behaviour or faulty products.
In the EU there is a proposed law that would create a digital product passport.
It's currently at consultation stage.
It would include information on origin, materials and environmental impact of every product. It would have a unique product identifier and compliance documentation, user manuals and other information.
So what are the benefits of reform?
It would reduce complexity, which would then hopefully reduce expense.
It would lead to an increased quality of products used.
It would avoid the flow on costs of remediation or replacement of inappropriate products and very importantly, it would avoid the danger that is associated with the use of certain non-compliant products.
There has been a cost benefit analysis which would show that the benefit of reforms in Australia would be at least $1 billion.
So that takes us to our last question six, true or false: Likely reform in Australia to building product regulation will require a digital product passport.
I will just give you one minute to consider that.
So the answer to that is false.
It is the EU which is implementing a digital product passport. Australia is implementing a product registrar and mandatory labelling and traceability.
So my last slide here are just some links, to useful websites that have building product information in them.
That takes us to the end of our slideshow.
So I will now take us back to Giorgio and see if there are any questions that anyone would like to ask.
Giorgio Marfella
Yes, there are.
There's quite a list of questions, so I apologise on this. We won't be able to run them all, I'm afraid in 6 minutes or so, so I've selected some that I suppose are probably more pertinent. Some of them are very interesting, but they're not necessarily, we can probably come back and deal. I mean other context, but the ones that are more specific with this presentation now.
The first one is a question relates specifically to CodeMark, but not necessarily.
It's about the expiring date.
So the question is if a product is expiring is that expiry at the point of specification during design or is there at the point of installation? How should architects sort of manage that because they may be doing this years in advance for the actual.
Frances Hall
Yeah.
Giorgio Marfella
Putting in place.
Frances Hall
Yeah, that, that that's a really good question and it's sort of dealt with in the building regulations, So what the building regulations say is that, the version of the NCC that applies to a design is the version that's in force when the design is sort of substantially developed.
And I would say the same thing applies here.
So the time at which you specify the product and it's being considered by the building surveyor, that's when it needs to be in force.
So if there’s a gap in time between, say, the issue of the building permit and the completion of the building work and the certificate is expired during that period, I don't think that's a cause for concern.
And I think the certificate just needs to be enforced at the time that it's being considered by the building surveyor.
Giorgio Marfella
Yeah.
And I suppose I mean that probably good reasonable practice would be also if the, if a product is about to expire to follow up with the manufacturers and ask questions, why, is it because it's in the process of being updated to something like a new standard or, is it because there's been issues with it so, so it probably be incumbent still to do some phone calls or so gets gather some evidence for those who the manufacturers?
But the bottom line is like that there is also, it the irrelevance of a particular version of the NCC that will determine whether this will be applicable.
And you might also reference to the building regulations.
Frances Hall
Hmm.
Giorgio Marfella
There is suggestion also, because often we speak about the NCC, but there was a good point also in the questions that it would be useful to also talk about the building regulations here in Victoria, which are the specific set of rules as was that apply and then that that are often they're not neglected necessarily, but I'm saying we tend to probably sometimes forget that they're also a very critical for local practice.
Frances Hall
Hmm.
Yep.
Giorgio Marfella
Another question is a search through JASANZ and the question is, can we use JASANZ to also find products in general?
But my understanding is JASANZ primarily assistant to find accrediting body is not, although through which then you are able to determine if a product has been adequately certified.
Is that correct?
Frances Hall
Yeah. Look, I. So, so JASANZ doesn't certify products itself, but I do believe that there it has links on its website to lists of certified products.
So if you go to JASANZ you can then kind of work your way through to seeing what products are certified and what aren't, yeah.
Giorgio Marfella
Yeah, yeah.
And it's also I think in part this is answered by the, there seems to be an effort now for the future in the Communist to have a building product register.
We also spoke about initiatives in other countries that seem to be going in digital passports and other methods, so hopefully we might be in a position in in the future to have more a straightforward way to verify the compliance of products at the moment we live in this sort of hybrid space where there's different pathways.
Frances Hall
Yeah.
I think that's right.
I think in the past there has been an emphasis by manufacturers on trying to protect their proprietary information, and that has meant that it's been hard to access the information that everyone needs. But I think governments are now accepting that there needs to be a lot more kind of transparency and this sort of information just has to be far more accessible.
Giorgio Marfella
Yeah, another question.
I think you touched in part of it's implicit in some of the questions that were put in our questionnaire, and yes, by the way, we did notice there was a swap 4 to 5, but I think ultimately they were all there. But no, no, no, not a big.
Frances Hall
Oh, OK.
Apologies for that. Yep.
Giorgio Marfella
Deal, I suppose.
But the question is, how can architects best protect themselves with products that specify are changed?
Frances Hall
Hmm.
Giorgio Marfella
By the builders or slash declines.
Frances Hall
Mm hmm.
Giorgio Marfella
Without the architect’s agreement.
Frances Hall
Yeah, I mean, look, it really depends on the extent to which the architect has involvement during the during the construction phase.
So if the architect is part of the process.
Giorgio Marfella
Hmm.
Frances Hall
For signing off on product selection then you can take an active role at that point and require the provision of certificates, refer it off to the RBS, raise it, raise any concerns that you might have.
If, as an architecture, you're not involved in the construction phase, then you really can't control what happens, but neither would you have liability if somebody, if you're not involved in construction phase and somebody you know effectively changes your design by using different products, then you're not going to be liable for that.
Giorgio Marfella
Yeah. So I suppose it's difficult to give a straightforward answer about this because it might depend on the contractual arrangement that has been put in place, even in the context of partial services, architects might still maintain a role of within the process with which might be given
Frances Hall
That's right.
Giorgio Marfella
to the builder or the client of both.
Good practice again would be if made aware of a particular shortcoming of a product, it would be in common for the architect to flag it.
And depending on the circumstance, it might not be necessarily, there might not be in a position to approve or not, or determine the final outcome, but certainly architects could be in a position to at least turn their mind and raise the issue and record it. Of course, yeah.
Frances Hall
Yeah. I mean, I think I think you're right.
I think that the crucial phrase is turning your mind to the issue and raising it, and so even if you don't have ultimate power or control over it, if you've taken active steps then that's, that's the appropriate thing to do.
Giorgio Marfella
And another very interesting question I felt is the issue of products coming from overseas.
It's a very significant issue because Australia is globally integrated, particularly large and complex projects. Thinking of glass for example, it's always almost in in large compass coming from overseas.
So the question is, what kind of steps then should architects take when they are confronted with these global supply chain problems.
Frances Hall
Yeah, I mean, it is a really tricky issue, but products that are used in Australia, will still have to have, they still need to meet one of those pathways of suitability.
Giorgio Marfella
Hmm.
Frances Hall
And so if there are any certifications available or test reports depending on what the context is then compliance can't be demonstrated and the product shouldn't be used.
Giorgio Marfella
It shouldn't be used, yeah.
Frances Hall
That that was certainly, you know, without kind of wanting to, to flog the combustible cladding thing that that was, that was really evident with cladding products.
Giorgio Marfella
Hmm.
Frances Hall
There are a lot of cladding products that came from overseas and test reports were relied on that didn't really go to the requirements that applied in Australia, so yeah.
Giorgio Marfella
Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah. And so it's also probably safe to assume that whilst many products may be manufacture overseas, they will have representatives here in Australia that distribute them that they should be able to provide those certifications and if not, it's probably wise to
Frances Hall
Yes.
That's right.
Giorgio Marfella
look elsewhere.
Frances Hall
All right. Yep.
Giorgio Marfella
Now one final comment, which is probably the first question concerning the Grenfell I think it's probably going to help us to wrap it up.
It is, it was remarks, you know, the one participant that ultimately the exit stairs of the building and now fire protection. There was no, and so there was only one stair in that particular building, that certainly contributed to the loss of life.
The cause however, is well known.
Frances Hall
Hmm.
Giorgio Marfella
It was the combustibility of the facade.
But it's an important to remind that ultimately these matters are not simply the products, they still have to be suitable for the context in which they are.
And there's also broader picture, which is the fire strategy of a building so.
Frances Hall
Hmm.
Giorgio Marfella
There’s different ways to achieve good outcomes in the national construction code, and so particularly when we're talking about fire safety, we have to consider that the suitability of those products in the context of the broader picture, that includes other strategies and tactics, to provide safety.
And whilst it's true that perhaps people could have survived with two stairs that were fire hazard related in Grenfell, for sure their building would have loss of property damage that would have been significant, which was equally a problem.
Frances Hall
Hmm.
MMM.
Yeah, look, I mean, it's a really good point.
Grenfell was an old building, as you say, it only had one exit staircase. If it was a more modern building and it had other, you know, passive fire resistance elements in it, even if a fire had occurred, it might not have resulted in the same sort of loss of life.
So the assessment also always needs to be carried out in the context of the individual features of the specific building that that you're looking at.
Giorgio Marfella
OK.
Thank you very much for and I hope this was useful.
I have confidence it was, and I'd like to take opportunity to thank you again for participating in this webinar, several times Fran and also thank all the attendees. We were surprised positively by the very high level of attendance of this webinar series. And so we will commit to continue also next year.
So I very much look forward for the next opportunity to see you all.
Thank you and have a good afternoon.
Frances Hall
Thank you.
Updated