In July 2016 asbestos was found in composite roof panels at the new Perth Children’s Hospital. The roof panels were imported from China and classified as “asbestos free”, but testing by a National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory in Australia found they contained chrysotile (white) asbestos.
Asbestos has also been found in a range of imported building products across Australia, including fibre cement boards, expanded polystyrene panels and gaskets.
Contributing factors
All forms of asbestos containing materials have been prohibited imports in Australia since 31 December 2003.
Some countries still manufacture building products that contain asbestos, and classify the goods as “asbestos free” even though they contain a small proportion of asbestos.
Certification provided to importers from overseas manufacturers that goods are asbestos free has sometimes been proven incorrect or unreliable.
Action required
Importers from countries that still manufacture asbestos-containing goods should be aware of the different definitions and standards applied to asbestos in the country of origin.
Obtain product testing results from the overseas manufacturer or supplier that the goods do not contain any amount of asbestos (testing should be carried out at an accredited laboratory equivalent to NATA).
Arrange for an independent test of the building product before it is initially shipped to Australia. NATA accredited laboratories in Australia and international equivalent laboratories are listed on the NATA website.
Multiple shipments of the same building product will require additional random testing to check that the goods remain asbestos free.
Major reforms to improve the efficiency, productivity and consistency of the Western Australian building industry will progress further today as the Liberal National Government hosted its second Building Summit.
Commerce Minister Michael Mischin – along with Planning Minister Donna Faragher and Local Government Minister Tony Simpson – will provide a progress update on key issues and ideas raised at the previous summit, before leading more detailed discussions on building, planning and local government processes.
"The State Government is committed to turning ideas into action in order to cut red tape and deliver significant improvements to the building process, while also allowing and encouraging those who operate in the building industry to embrace innovation and come up with creative solutions to problems they may encounter," Mr Mischin said.
"To do this, we need to be confident the current process is understood, including what is working well and where there may be opportunities for improvement."
The following guides, reports and fact sheets provide general information for subcontractors as well as detailed descriptions of the rapid adjudication process for payment disputes.
Resolving payment disputes using the Construction Contracts Act 2004.
I have heard that adjudication is too costly?
While there are costs involved with using adjudication, typically these costs are far less than those involved in commencing court action. Most minor adjudications (e.g. disputes less than six or seven figures) have a cost of $3,000–$5,000. Compared to some other options this is likely to offer the best value for money.
What happens if I miss the 28 day timeframe?
If you miss the 28 day timeframe for applying for adjudication you will need to use other methods to resolve your payment dispute.
Do construction contracts need to be in writing?
No. There is no requirement that construction contracts be in writing, but it is good practice to do so. If you do not have a written contract then the Act will imply terms in your agreement. These terms cover how payment claims need to be made and assessed. Where there is no written contract:
a payment claim means a claim – (a) by the contractor to the head contractor (or principal) for payment of an amount in relation to the performance by the contractor of its obligations under the contract; or (b) by the head contractor (or principal) to the contractor for payment of an amount in relation to the performance or non-performance by the contractor of its obligations under the contract.
A payment claim must be in writing and meet the requirements specified on page 8 of this guide.
A claim for a progress payment can be made at any time after the contractor has performed its obligations.
The amount of the payment claim is to be calculated by reference to a reasonable amount for the obligations performed and detailed in the claim.
Payment of any undisputed payment claims, or undisputed parts of payment claims, must be made within 28 days after the head contractor (or principal) receives a payment claim.
If a head contractor (or principal) that receives a payment claim disputes the whole or part of the claim they must within 14 days of receiving the claim give the contractor a written notice of dispute.
Can the Building Commission resolve my contractual dispute?
No. The Building Commission cannot resolve payment disputes under construction contracts. However, the Building Commission can provide advice on options to resolve the dispute.
Can I get assistance preparing my application for adjudication?
Yes. There are a number of professionals who specialise in managing contract claims and disputes. These include legal practitioners, adjudicators and contract claim managers. These services can be found through a simple web search.
Can I lodge my application for adjudication online?
Some appointor organisations allow you to serve the application on them via an internet form or email. However, service of the application on the head contractor or principal needs to occur by registered post, or by courier to their business address. If they are an individual then you should use a process server.
Can I only seek adjudication for disputes over progress payments?
No. The Act allows for adjudication of any dispute over a payment claim made under a contract. This could include disputes over claims for the balance of the contract sum, claims for interim payment on account, claims for payment for additional work or variations, claims for payment relating to extensions of time or delay, and claims upon termination.
What should I do if I have not been paid while working on a Government project?
If you are having trouble being paid on a Government-funded construction project, then the same options to resolve the dispute with the head contractor should be pursued. However, you should also inform the Government principal about the issue so they can carry out a ‘spot check’ on the head contractor.
The head contractor (or principal) has told me I need to sign a statutory declaration saying I have been paid?
You should only sign the statutory declaration if you have been paid up to that time.
What should I do if the head contractor has become insolvent?
The Act does not provide a means for recovering outstanding payment claims if the head contractor (or principal) has become insolvent or entered administration. Where this has occurred then the laws on insolvency and bankruptcy will apply. If the head contractor (or principal) has gone into administration this does not prevent you from lodging an application for adjudication. However, it is important to be aware that any claim you may be awarded could be subject to the priority payment provisions in the bankruptcy laws should the head contractor or principal enter into liquidation. You should seek professional advice on your options if a head contractor (or principal) has become insolvent and owes you money.
Can the timeframes for adjudication be extended?
The only time limit that can be extended under the Act is the 14 days the adjudicator has to make a decision. This can only be extended with the consent of both parties.
Can liquidated damages be awarded as part of a determination?
Yes.
What should I do if I have not been paid for work carried out interstate?
All Australian States and Territories have legislation that allows for the rapid adjudication of payment claims under construction contracts. If the work was carried out in another State or Territory then an application for adjudication needs to be lodged in accordance with the legislation operating in that jurisdiction. It is important to be aware that the legislation operating in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory is different from the Act in a number of ways. You should familiarise yourself with the legislation in the relevant State or Territory before commencing an application.
Can I lodge an application for adjudication if I reside in another State or Territory?
The Act applies to construction work carried out on site in WA, or goods and services supplied for construction work carried out on site in WA. This means that even if you reside in another State or Territory you can still lodge an application for adjudication of a payment dispute for work undertaken or goods and services supplied in WA.
I have heard the Act is changing?
Yes a review has recently been undertaken of the Act, which has identified the need to make a number of reforms. Details about the reforms and regular updates will be provided on the Building Commission’s website.
It is important to understand that your right to be paid comes from your contract and you need to follow the payment process set out in contract. If the contract is not in writing the Act includes a schedule of payment terms that are implied in your verbal contract.
From time to time you may be involved in a dispute with a client over payment for work you have done on a construction project. The customer or client may be refusing to pay you, withholding security, or disputing the amount they owe.
If you find yourself in this situation, acting quickly to determine your options is the vital first step in ensuring you get paid for the work you’ve done.
The first option should always be to discuss payment with the client directly. This could be an informal verbal discussion to identify and resolve the reasons for withholding payment, or a formal letter demanding payment.
However, if this fails to resolve the dispute then you need to consider other options.
Using a mediation service
Mediation is a form of dispute resolution where parties voluntarily come together to discuss a dispute with the help of an independent mediator. It is a way of engaging in a negotiation with the help of an independent mediator to identify and work through options to resolve the dispute.
Mediation is a good first option where you and the client wish to maintain a good business relationship and agree that an independent party may assist in working through the issues. It is likely to be quick and cost-effective and may be used prior to, or in conjunction with, other forms of dispute resolution.
There are a number of organisations in Western Australia who provide a mediation service. Alternatively, if you operate a small business or your client is a small business, you can access the subsidised mediation service provided by the Small Business Development Corporation.
Using the dispute resolution clause in your contract
Most written contracts for construction work contain what are often called ‘dispute resolution clauses’. These clauses provide the method in which the parties agree to resolve disputes under the contract, including any disputes over payment. There are many different types of dispute resolution clauses that prescribe the methods the parties will use to resolve disputes, which may include mediation, expert determination or arbitration.
Generally, you will need to first notify the other party of the nature of the dispute, and the resolution will then proceed based on the chosen method of dispute resolution.
For example, the Australian Standards AS2124-1992 General Conditions of Contract and AS4906-2002 Minor Works Contract Conditions, both prescribe that the parties will notify each other of the details of the dispute and then proceed to formal negotiation and arbitration.
Where a contract contains a dispute resolution clause the courts will normally enforce these provisions by staying proceedings until the dispute resolution method has been observed.
But before using the dispute resolution clause in a contract, it is important to be aware of –
• the rules that may apply to the chosen method of dispute resolution; • whether a particular person or organisation has been nominated to act as the ‘independent umpire’; and • what timelines apply to the resolution process.
In many instances, the timelines under dispute resolution clauses can be lengthy, so it is important to also consider what impact this delay may have on your business or cash flow.
Court action
Where you do not have a written contract with the customer or client, or where the dispute resolution clause in your contract allows, another option may be to commence court proceedings to recover the money owed to you.
Before commencing court action you should seek legal advice to determine the likelihood of success, the costs involved, and the time it may take to complete the court proceedings.
Depending on the amount of money owed to you, court action will need to be commenced in the Magistrates Court, District Court or Supreme Court of Western Australia.
For claims less than $10,000, the Magistrates Court provides a ‘minor case’ process, where parties are generally not permitted to have legal representation during the court proceedings. Otherwise claims up to $75,000 may be heard in the Magistrates Court civil registry.
For claims up to $750,000 (not including interest), court action must be commenced in the District Court. Claims above $750,000 need to be commenced in the Supreme Court.
Rapid adjudication under the Act
Sometimes it may be too costly or lengthy to go to court or use arbitration or you just need the money now. This is where ‘rapid adjudication’ may assist in resolving your dispute.
Rapid adjudication is a dispute resolution process designed to help resolve disagreements between parties over payments for construction work. It’s quick, cost effective and may be an alternative to going to court or arbitration. Rapid adjudication under the Act operates in addition to your contractual and legal rights. A determination under the Act may be accepted by the parties to a contract, and the dispute resolved. However, if either party wishes, the dispute can still be dealt with more formally under the dispute resolution process in the contract, or through the courts. In this case a determination under the Act makes a payment “on account” pending the outcome of the formal process.
It doesn’t matter whether your contract is for carrying out construction work or supplying goods and services to the construction industry, or if you have a written or verbal agreement with the customer or client, provided it is for work carried out in Western Australia, or goods and services related to construction work carried out in Western Australia, you may be able to use the adjudication process under the Act.
Hillarys man Saad Soliman (reg. BP10488), as the sole director, nominated supervisor and secretary of liquidated building company Benchmark Designer Homes (BC10941), has been ordered to pay by consent a $5,000 fine and costs of $10,000 as a result of disciplinary action by the Building Services Board.
The Board determined that Mr Soliman did not properly manage and supervise a building service that he was responsible for managing and supervising at seven properties – one each in Mount Lawley, Floreat and Maylands and two each in Hillarys and Melville – between 2012 and 2014.
Benchmark Designer Homes was placed in administration in April 2015, triggering home indemnity insurance for home owners left with incomplete work.
As an initial step Benchmark’s liquidators consented to the Board suspending its registration. The suspension remained in effect until the registration expired in February 2016. The Board also placed a condition on Mr Soliman’s building practitioner registration as a precautionary measure while the Building Commission carried out its investigation.
The condition on Mr Soliman’s registration restricted him from being a nominated supervisor of another building company, partnership or body in which he owned shares or was a director, partner or member.
Following the investigation the Board was satisfied that the condition on Mr Soliman’s building practitioner registration could be lifted.
“In failing to manage and supervise the building services carried out by Benchmark Designer Homes, Mr Soliman has not met his obligations as a registered builder and has left himself open to action by the Building Services Board,” Building Commissioner Peter Gow said.
“The Board may have also pursued action against the company, however the appropriate outcome was achieved by the expiry of its contractor registration in February.
“The Building Commission will continue to hold to account and name those who put the public interest and the reputation of the building industry at risk.”
This application is used to apply for approval to commence training for a Restricted Electrical licence (Plumbing and gasfitting electrical work licence) or (Plumbing electrical work licence).
Northbridge builder Joseph Merenda (BP10668) has been fined $5,000 and refused renewal of his building practitioner registration as a result of disciplinary action by the Building Services Board.
The Board recently resolved that Mr Merenda, in his individual capacity, had committed fraudulent and misleading conduct and had failed to comply with orders of the Building Commissioner in the construction of two double-storey townhouses at a Doubleview property in 2009.
Mr Merenda’s conduct was fraudulent in that he knowingly entered into a building contract with an inflated contract price to allow the owners to obtain additional finance. His conduct was misleading in that he knowingly submitted a building permit application to the City of Stirling and the home indemnity insurer stating that he was to be the builder for all of the works when he was not.
Mr Merenda also failed to comply with two orders of the Building Commissioner in relation to the Doubleview property – one to remedy defective building work, and the other a subsequent order to pay the owners $44,225.50 for the cost of remedying the work.
In making its determination the Board took into consideration Mr Merenda’s conduct over a significant period of time both as a builder and as the sole director of liquidated building company MI Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd (BC12791).
The Board determined that Mr Merenda was not a fit and proper person to be registered and refused to renew his building practitioner registration.
Mr Merenda had previously been fined $13,500 by the State Administrative Tribunal in October 2006 for negligent and fraudulent conduct in relation to the carrying out of a building service.
“Mr Merenda’s conduct in relation to the Doubleview property and as sole director of MI Constructions in general demonstrates that there may be an ongoing risk to consumers and other third parties should he maintain his registration as a building practitioner,” Building Commissioner Peter Gow said.
“The Board’s fine and refusal to renew Mr Merenda’s registration is a reminder to builders who fail to maintain proper standards or who act inappropriately that significant penalties apply.
“The Building Commission will continue to hold to account and name those who put the public interest and the reputation of the building industry at risk.”
MI Constructions (WA) was placed into liquidation on 6 February 2014 owing creditors approximately
$7 million. The company’s building contractor registration was cancelled in March 2014 with the consent of its liquidator.
Wangara builder Jeffrey West (reg. BP101011 & BC100818), the sole trader of Kameleon Homes, no longer holds a builder registration in Western Australia.
At its August 2016 meeting, the Building Services Board approved Mr West’s request to voluntarily cancel his contractor registration but refused his application to renew his building practitioner registration.
The Board’s refusal to renew Mr West’s building practitioner registration was on the grounds that it was not satisfied that he met the legislative requirements to maintain registration in Western Australia.
The Board also considered a Building Commission investigation into Mr West’s conduct and resolved to pursue disciplinary action against him through the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The Building Commission is unable to provide specific details of its investigation or the disciplinary action being pursued against Mr West in the SAT at this time.
“The Building Services Board does not make a decision to refuse the renewal of a builder’s registration lightly and the protection of consumers who engage builders’ services is paramount,” Building Commissioner Peter Gow said.
“In considering the Building Commission’s investigation into Mr West’s conduct, the Board could not be satisfied that he met the requirements to be a registered builder and that consumer interests would be adequately protected if his registration was renewed.
“Consumers should avoid engaging Mr West’s services for building work that requires a registered builder.”
“Registered builders are reminded that it is the Building Commissioner’s role to monitor and regulate the building industry and there are obligations and responsibilities they must continue to meet to retain their registration,” Mr Gow said.
“The Building Commission will continue to hold to account and name builders who put consumer interests and the integrity of the building industry at risk.”
The Building Services Board has fined Willetton building company Build West Pty Ltd (reg. BC10002) $5,000 and its director and nominated supervisor Shaun Middleton (BP37114) $2,500 for negligent conduct and failing to properly manage and supervise its work.
The Board determined that, in contracting for and carrying out home building work at properties in Churchlands and Riverton between 2013 and 2015, the company and Mr Middleton committed the following disciplinary matters under the Building Services (Registration) Act 2011:
Build West was negligent in relation to home building work it carried out at both sites.
Build West failed to ensure that the building service at the Riverton site was properly managed and supervised and Mr Middleton, as the company’s nominated supervisor, failed to properly manage and supervise the work.
Mr Middleton was negligent in relation to home building work the company carried out at the Riverton site.
Valued at $315,976, the Churchlands home building work contract involved renovations to an existing dwelling. The Riverton home building work contract was valued at $305,634 and was for extensions to an existing dwelling.
The disciplinary matters committed by the company relating to both sites included demanding a deposit before providing the owners with a certificate of home indemnity insurance for work; demanding non-genuine progress payments; carrying out building work that did not meet the requirements of the National Construction Code; and carrying out building work contrary to the approved building plans.
The disciplinary matters committed by Mr Middleton related to the Riverton site only and included carrying out building work that did not meet the requirements of the National Construction Code; and carrying out building work contrary to the engineer’s drawings and the approved building plans, and that was unacceptable and unsatisfactory.
“Build West Pty Ltd and Mr Middleton’s negligent conduct and failure to ensure the work was properly managed and supervised put the home owners’ interests and safety at risk,” Building Commissioner Peter Gow said.
“Home owners who believe they have faulty building work and are getting an unsatisfactory response from their builder may be able to lodge a complaint with the Building Commission.
“The Building Commission will continue to hold to account and name those who put the public interest and the reputation of the building industry at risk.”
An interim report into the discovery of asbestos in the new Perth Children’s Hospital (PCH) has found the procurement processes used by principal contractor John Holland Pty Ltd to be comprehensive and consistent with industry practice. However, industry and government must improve processes for detecting and preventing the presence of non-conforming and hazardous products in buildings.
Released by Building Commissioner Peter Gow today, the interim report concluded that:
John Holland appropriately managed the response after asbestos was confirmed, but the task risk assessment process should have more clearly addressed the dust hazard;
the procurement processes used by John Holland were comprehensive and consistent with industry practice;
the manufacturing process used by Yuanda allowed non-specified and non-conforming products to enter the supply chain; and
the remediation plan proposed by John Holland includes safe and suitable processes to replace affected components within the unitised roof panels and verification that they will be fit-for-purpose.
Asbestos was discovered in unitised roof panels supplied by Chinese company Yuanda during the construction of the building’s atrium ceiling in July 2016. Shortly after the discovery, Building Commissioner Peter Gow announced he would undertake an independent audit of the PCH and other WA buildings containing Yuanda products. To date, no new products containing asbestos have been found.
“I am satisfied that the response to asbestos at the new Perth Children’s Hospital site was managed appropriately by John Holland and that the remediation plan to remove asbestos-containing material at the site is adequate,” said Building Commissioner Peter Gow.
“I am also satisfied that in sourcing the unitised roof panels for the Perth Children’s Hospital project, John Holland used an experienced subcontractor, correctly specified that the product must be asbestos-free and had evidence that led it to believe that the product complied with the specification.
“However, it is clear that despite a certificate labelling the fibre-cement sheeting as asbestos-free, the product supplied by Yuanda did not meet John Holland’s specifications and the fibre-cement sheeting ordered by Yuanda was substituted by a product containing asbestos.
“This and other related circumstances show that specifiers, builders and suppliers must be vigilant about the products they use during construction and must satisfy themselves that the products they use do not contain asbestos.”
Work currently underway by the Building Minister’s Forum and other government-industry bodies is addressing the problem of non-conforming building products.
Waterman’s Bay licensed plumbing tradesperson Gary Clayton Hummerston (TL11472) has been successfully prosecuted by the Plumbers Licensing Board (PLB) for failing to comply with a condition of his licence.
In the Perth Magistrates Court on 26 August 2016, Mr Hummerston pleaded guilty to the charge and was ordered to pay a fine of $500 plus costs of $200 to the Board.
The Board had renewed Mr Hummerston’s plumbing tradesperson’s licence on 28 July 2014 on the condition that he supplied an updated National Police Certificate on or before 27 July 2015. Mr Hummerston failed to provide the updated certificate by the due date.
The Building Commission did not receive an updated National Police Certificate from Mr Hummerston until 14 January 2016.
“The requirement to provide a National Police Certificate as part of a licence application is in place to protect consumers who engage the services of a licensed plumber,” said PLB Chairperson Howard Croxon OAM.
“The licensing system provides consumers with some assurance that the person they are allowing to enter their property is a fit and proper person with the necessary skills and qualifications to carry out work to an appropriate standard.
“The Plumbers Licensing Board, through the Building Commission, will continue to hold to account and name those who put the public interest and the reputation of the plumbing industry at risk.”
The 2016-17 financial year sees the Australian Building Codes Board embarking on a significant suite of work relating to the advancement of the Energy Efficiency Provisions in the National Construction Code (NCC). These changes will be considered as part of NCC 2019.
The ABCB’s latest update provides an overview of the initiative scope, why the work is being undertaken, initiative timeframes, working group participants and how to have your say on the proposed changes.
The Liberal National Government today introduced legislation into State Parliament to protect payments to subcontractors in the construction industry.
The Construction Contracts Act 2004 provides a useful mechanism for resolving contractual payment disputes and provides building contractors, subcontractors and suppliers with a right to be paid within a reasonable period of time, and a low cost method of enforcing that right.
Introducing the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill 2016, Small Business Minister Sean L'Estrange said the legislation was the first part of a 'whole of Government' approach to improving payment protection for subcontractors.
It will enhance the operation of the scheme and make it easier for subcontractors to access the rapid adjudication process for resolving construction payment disputes.
With Acting Commissioner for Consumer Protection David Hillyard
Watching The Block might have inspired you to get cracking on some home renovations but unlike the TV show contestants you won’t have access to host Scotty’s ‘black book of trades’. So, how do you go about finding trustworthy, reliable tradespeople who’ll do a good job for the right price? We’ve got some tips to help you avoid tradie trouble.
Experience tells us consumers in WA have a tendency to accept tradespeople on face value and often they’ll pay large amounts of money up front without anything in return.
A typical scenario involves a home-owner finding a tradesperson, who is previously unknown to them, via Gumtree or a community Facebook page. During a first meeting at the property the consumer agrees to a deal on gut instinct because they “like” the tradie and think the quote is value for money. They pay a deposit, sometimes as much as 50%, by direct bank transfer (we advise against this!) and then there are delays or the work isn’t up to the expected standard, if it is carried out at all.
On the flipside we have people, often those who are senior, who get a well-known, heavily advertised company out to quote and feel pressured during a slick sales pitch. They sign a contract on the day to get a supposedly limited-time offer, perhaps with deal sweeteners, such as price reduction offers for displaying signs promoting the business etc. In reality if they’d said no and shopped around they could have got the same job done for a more competitive price.
It’s worth noting that under consumer law, if a salesperson comes to your home to quote but enters into negotiations to supply, you get a 10 business day cooling off period to think about it, check prices and if it’s not what you expected you can cancel the contract.
Before hiring a tradesperson or services-provider and handing over any money, there are things you should consider doing to protect yourself.
Get as many quotes as you can, preferably from personally recommended or industry association recognised tradespeople. Getting multiple quotes may take time but could result in significant savings and you’ll be more likely to pick the right person for the job.
Verify claims. Ask to see previous work and speak to past clients. Don’t rely on photos or written testimonials. Sight any public liability insurance policy they claim to have.
Check that the business is registered at www.asic.gov.au and if it’s a licensed profession, such as an electrician or plumber, carry out a licence search on the Department of Commerce website: www.commerce.wa.gov.au.
The Australian Consumer Law requires services to be carried out with due care and skill and in a reasonable amount of time but some operators flout the law. For example there are air conditioning suppliers, concreters and tree loppers who have been on our radar for a number of years, are consistently complained about and have faced previous legal actions.
When entering into any trades or services agreement we recommend that you:
Get for the cost of the job and timeframe for completion of work in writing.
Only pay deposits if absolutely necessary. We recommend no more than 10% of the total before work has started or any materials have been supplied. Remember for building contracts above $7,500 it is illegal for more than 6.5% deposit to be taken.
Ask if the business will take credit card payment. If they do, this could offer a safeguard because of the possibility of getting a chargeback (transaction reversal) if the work is not carried out or the business folds.
Obtain a record of any payment made and ensure the receipt or invoice has the business details on it.
For assistance from Consumer Protection, call: 1300 30 40 54 or email consumer@commerce.wa.gov.au. Depending on the nature of your enquiry we may refer you to our colleagues at the Building Commission.
David Hillyard smiling at desk.jpg, by CP Media
Acting Commissioner for Consumer Protection David Hillyard
More mobile base stations have been rolled out under the alignment of the State’s Regional Telecommunications Project with the Commonwealth’s Mobile Black Spot Program, with Borden in the Great Southern region launched on Wednesday, 28 September.
Naraling, Nabawa, Kununoppin, South Yuna, East Yuna, Grass Valley and Popanyinning are the next sites to be switched on as part of the 130 new or upgraded mobile base stations in the Mobile Black Spot Program.
Wilyabrup is up and running
Wilyabrup RTP presentation, by ggodsman
Wilyabrup presentation
Telstra State Manager WA David Ridgway, Department of Commerce Project Manager Penny Griffin, Minister for Regional Development the Hon. Terry Redman, Department of Commerce Director General Anne Discroll with a framed photo of the Wilyabrup tower under construction.
Wilyabrup, was officially launched on Friday, 30 September with a celebratory gathering near the site. It represents the final base station to be delivered under an agreement between the State and Telstra covering 23 new sites, funded under the RTP.
Regional Development Minister the Hon. Terry Redman presided over the opening, marking the successful deployment of all 23 base stations. These are delivering immediate benefits to regional Western Australia.
“The new tower at Wilyabrup, made possible by Royalties for Regions, will allow businesses to grow and become more competitive, support improvements in emergency services response times, and help bridge the digital divide between metropolitan areas and regional communities,” he said.
The new coverage includes the immediate locale at Wilyabrup and extends along Caves Road between Gracetown and Yallingup, plus a portion of the Margaret River coastline.
Borden powers into the digital age
Borden base station, by ggodsman
New Borden base station commissioned
Local Borden resident Nicky William, Gnowangerup Councillor and Great Southern Development Commission Board member Fiona Gaze, Member for Wagin the Hon. Terry Waldron, Telstra Area General Manager Boyd Brown, WA Police Supt Garry Cunningham, Federal Member for O'Connor Rick Wilson.
Nestled in the scenic Gnowangerup shire, the town of Borden is celebrating improved mobile coverage from a new base station on Chester Pass Road.
The town, an important grain handling centre in the Great Southern region, now has convenient access to mobile voice and broadband services.
Minister Mischin noted the importance of high speed connectivity for the town.
“The new service will greatly support visitors to the beautiful Stirling Range National Park, as well as local businesses and farmers in the grain sector, for which the area is an important hub,” he said.
Borden is the first of 25 locations in the Great Southern where new or upgraded mobile base stations will be established over the next two years.
New mobile project promoted at popular rural event
Dowerin Field Day, by ggodsman
Dowerin Field Day
New mobile project promoted at popular rural event
One of Australia’s biggest agricultural expos, attracting up to 24,000 people annually, provided the perfect opportunity for the Department of Commerce’s Penny Griffin and Sue Cairns to answer questions about the rollout of the Regional Telecommunications Project and learn more about black spots in the vicinity.
The Dowerin Field Days, held in August in the Central Wheatbelt town, provide a valuable shop window for the farming community and attract exhibitors from information technology to lifestyle and leisure products and services, manufacturers and distributors of farm machinery, allied equipment and rural services.
“Commerce’s successful attendance at the event achieved the goal of raising awareness of the State’s $85 million Royalties for Regions investment in mobile telecommunications infrastructure, which will see the delivery of 266 new or improved towers by 31 December 2018” Ms Griffin said.
“Sixteen towers were constructed in the Wheatbelt region under the previous Regional Mobile Communications Project, which was completed in September 2014, and another 40 are planned by the end of 2018 through Royalties for Regions with co-funding from the Commonwealth Government, Telstra and Vodafone.
The importance of a single tower
The Nilemah tower in the Shire of Shark Bay was completed in June and has already made a significant difference in the region.
Positioned between Denham and the North West Highway along Shark Bay Road, the Nilemah tower provides continuous coverage along this key access route, which is greatly appreciated by motorists and has improved public safety.
Additionally the tower is benefiting businesses in the area, in particular the Hamelin Pool Caravan Park which is located along Shark Bay’s picturesque shoreline.
There was no service in the caravan park prior to the tower’s construction, but now with the new base station, locals and tourists alike are taking advantage of the new service.
“Tourist numbers have increased, with visitors staying longer in Hamelin Pool because of the connectivity as they no longer need to press on to Denham or go back to the highway,” Hamelin Pool Caravan Park owner Patricia Cox said.
“It has also been useful for our volunteering Wwoofers from Australia and abroad to stay in touch with family and friends – it has been life changing in this area.”
WWOOF is a worldwide movement linking volunteers with organic farmers and growers to promote cultural and educational experiences based on trust and non-monetary exchanges, helping to build a sustainable global community.
The Hamelin Pool area is home to the stunning stromatolites, one of only three sites on Earth where these living fossils have survived for over 2,000 years. Stromatolites are formed by the layering of lime-secreting cyanobacteria that thrive in the high salt conditions of Shark Bay. A 200 metre boardwalk guides tourists along the stromatolites’ marine site and enables visitors to capture their beauty in the clear blue waters of the bay. Now tourists can instantly upload their photos to Instagram thanks to the new mobile base station. Visitors have been uploading images on the spot directly from their phones with the hashtag #stromatolites and #hamelinpool.
Nilemah has a long history in telecommunications, harking back to the 1880s when the Hamelin Pool Telegraph Station, originally named the Flint Cliff Telegraph Station after a local landmark, was an important link in the line between Perth and Roebourne. The old station is now a museum and open to visitors daily.
Hamelin Pool, by ggodsman
Stromatolites at Hamelin Pool
Image credit: George and Shelly
Premier’s Award
The Department of Commerce’s hard work to improve mobile connectivity in regional areas has been recognised as a category finalist in the upcoming Premier’s Awards.
The Regional Mobile Communications Project has been selected in the Revitalising the Regions category. This category recognises projects that achieve better outcomes for regional Western Australia, or stimulate and sustain regional investment, or strengthen regional businesses and communities. The Premier’s Awards were launched in 1996 to stimulate and inspire agencies to strive for excellence in their delivery of services to the community.
The winners will be announced on Wednesday, 2 November 2016.
We wish the best of luck to project team members Penny Griffin and Sue Cairns.
Helpful apps
Apps for grain farmers
New Apps designed for mobile devices to support grain farmers in the field have been developed by the Grain Research and Development Corporation.
Some of the apps available from the Grains Research and Development Corporation
Coverage apps
Have you ever wondered where your nearest mobile phone tower is located and what services it supports? Perhaps you want to know how fast 4G Internet speeds are in your area and how far the signal reaches?
Well this app is for you!
Regularly updated with the latest tower information from the Australian Communications and Media Authority, this app presents all you ever wanted to know about mobile phone towers in a fun and interactive format. Not only that, it’s free to download and comes without advertisements.
Changes to demolition notifications save building industry time and money
Fewer restrictions on building surveyors, reduce fees for home owners
Plumbers can access drainage plumbing diagrams online at a fraction of the cost
Western Australia's home building industry and new home owners are continuing to enjoy savings, as more outdated requirements are removed from the State's building regulations.
The next reforms include reducing the number of utility providers, demolition contractors must notify before undertaking demolition work. Building surveyors will also be allowed to certify new home buildings and alterations.
Commerce Minister Michael Mischin said the reforms, which featured on the Liberal National Government's 2016 Red Tape Reduction Report Card, would continue ongoing work to free the building and plumbing industries of unnecessary red tape.
"The Government is continuing to turn ideas into action in order to cut red tape and deliver meaningful improvements to the building process," Mr Mischin said.
"Soon demolition contractors won't have to notify certain utility providers prior to undertaking demolition work. The Government is removing outdated notification requirements made superfluous by the success of the free national referral service, Dial Before You Dig. This reform is expected to save the home building industry at least $700,000 a year in administration costs.
"We are also reducing restrictions on, and clarifying, the types of buildings and incidental structures for which a building surveyor with a level 2 or building surveying technician qualification may sign a compliance certificate. The reform is expected to increase competition for such work without compromising the quality of certificates. Home owners will save an estimated $270 in building surveying fees."
This reform will apply to low-medium risk building work, including residential buildings and incidental structures such as retaining walls, carports or swimming pools, which would normally be certified by a level 1 building surveyor.
Plumbers are also benefiting from recent reforms and can now download drainage plumbing diagrams from the Building Commission website at a fraction of the previous cost. This online functionality will save the plumbing industry time and money.
"These reforms build on work done at two Building Summits this year, where the building industry, local government and key State Government departments came together to identify opportunities to create a more efficient building process," Mr Mischin said.
Finance Minister Sean L'Estrange said a more efficient building process meant lower costs for business, government and ultimately, consumers.
"Well-designed regulation can provide adequate protection to the community, while removing unjustifiable inefficiencies and inconsistencies. It can support industries to innovate and adapt to changing practices and industry demands," Mr L'Estrange said.
Fact File
Read the Government's 2016 Red Tape Reduction Report Card here
Submit your ideas to reduce red tape and #shredthered here
Francesco Di Labio (reg. BP7903 – expired), as the nominated supervisor of Dianella building company Frayson Pty Ltd (BC8331 – cancelled), has been ordered by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) to pay a fine of $15,000 and costs of $1,000 as a result of disciplinary action by the Building Services Board.
In a settlement finalised on 28 September 2016, the SAT agreed that Mr Di Labio was guilty of several disciplinary breaches under the repealed Builders’ Registration Act 1939 and the Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 in that he:
did not properly manage and supervise building services that he was responsible for managing and supervising between December 2005 and February 2015;
engaged in misleading conduct in connection with the carrying out of building work or a building service between February 2006 and February 2015 by representing to the Board that he was acting in the capacity of a nominated supervisor of the company when he was not; and
was negligent in connection with the performance of building work or carrying out building work between December 2005 and February 2015 by failing to manage and supervise the work.
“In failing to manage and supervise the building services carried out by Frayson and engaging in misleading and negligent conduct, Mr Di Labio has not met his obligations as a registered builder,” Building Commissioner Peter Gow said.
“Mr Di Labio’s conduct left him open to action by the Building Services Board and, having withdrawn his application for renewal as a building service practitioner in July 2016, he no longer holds a builder’s registration.”
Mr Di Labio’s disciplinary breaches relate to building work Frayson carried out at 20 Perth properties – three each in Menora and Churchlands, two in Nollamara and one each in Canning Vale, Dalkeith, Fremantle, Hillarys, Inglewood, Maylands, Mosman Park, Mount Claremont, Mount Hawthorn, Nedlands, North Perth and South Perth.
The Board took disciplinary action against Frayson in April 2016, which resulted in its building contractor registration being cancelled, its sole director and secretary Armand Noor being declared an ineligible person for one year, and both being fined and ordered to pay costs totalling $20,000. Read the media statement at www.commerce.wa.gov.au/announcements/building-commissioner-condemns-companys-conduct.
“The Building Commission will continue to name and hold to account those who put consumer interests and the reputation of the building industry at risk,” Mr Gow said.
The Building Commission is strongly advising home owners against carrying out their own plaster testing.
The advice follows recent media reports and social media posts suggesting the use of a tape adhesion or “sticky tape” test to determine whether plaster has been correctly applied.
Home owners are warned that testing their own walls could damage the plaster or paint.
Tests should only be conducted by an experienced practitioner (a builder, plasterer or painter) who has knowledge of the relevant standards and of how the tests should be carried out.
Tape adhesion tests require the use of specific types of tape for both painted and unpainted surfaces.
If dust, paint or plaster fragments are found on the tape, it does not necessarily indicate a problem with the plaster – only that further testing may be required.
Home owners who have concerns about their plaster should contact their builder. If they are dissatisfied with the response, they should seek expert advice. If based on that expert advice they still have concerns, they should contact the Building Commission on 1300 489 099 or email bcinfo@commerce.wa.gov.au.
