SCA Report

Body corporate issues and the upcoming election:

How can we work together?

We are now almost 12 months on from the deadline for relevant QLD buildings to engage a fi re engineer and register the details with the QBCC and around eight months away from the next deadline on May 3, 2021 to complete the building fi re safety risk assessment, fi re engineer statement and the combustible cladding checklist.

We are now over 12 months on from the last signifi cant update in relation to the progress of body corporate law reform in Queensland and over seven years on (yes, seven!) from the announcement of the review of property law (including body corporate legislation) by the then Att orney-General, Jarrod Bleij ie, on August 15, 2013.

Oh, and did I mention that the Queensland state election is looming?

I must admit that there has been a great deal of consultation by the government in relation to body corporate law reform. But, to date, there has been very litt le action. The strata sector is an incredibly important part of the State’s economy and community. With so many Queenslanders living, investing, working in, or servicing strata titled buildings, why are our voices not being heard loud enough?

We have not had signifi cant action on even the most simple and procedural reforms, such as the new Regulation Modules (as at the time of writing), let alone the other more controversial changes being explored in relation to the BCCMA.

Additionally, when reforms are made that aff ect our industry, they are implemented with litt le understanding of, or consideration for, the

James Nickless,

President, SCA, Qld

challenges and costs that are imposed upon the stakeholder’s strata titled buildings. Many of these issues aff ect lot owners, bodies corporate and management rights owners alike. They have the potential to cause great tension within buildings and costs to all stakeholders in the industry.

Take the response to fl ammable cladding as an example.

Of the 19,000 buildings identifi ed in October last year as potentially containing unsafe cladding, almost 17,000 buildings have been cleared of combustible cladding concerns by the QBCC. But for the approximately 2,700 buildings that are remaining, it means that they will not know the fate of their building until May 3, 2021. Well aft er the election.

The problem with the approach taken by the Queensland government is that it passed the responsibility, liability and cost of identifying the buildings which had dangerous fl ammable cladding on to the owners, who are the very people that have been disadvantaged by the use products in their buildings. Lot owners have been required to pay thousands of dollars to date in order to go through the process of registering their building, engaging a building industry professional to report on the type of cladding materials present in the building and

Why are our voices not being heard loud enough?

engaging a fi re engineer. This has narrowed down the buildings that require a fi re engineer’s report from potentially more than 19,000 to around 2,700. But that is still 2,700 buildings in Queensland that may have dangerous fl ammable cladding on their buildings and will not have a fi re engineer’s report until May 3, 2021, depending on availability of fi re engineers. That means that for these 2,700 buildings it will have taken around 3 years for them to be informed of how to ensure the safety of their residents. These 2,700 buildings have been at potential risk of a disaster like Grenfell Tower all this time.

The owners of these buildings have done nothing wrong here. They have spent a large amount of money to buy their homes and are now being required to spend more money to fi nd out the risks posed by the building materials used in their buildings and will be required to rectify any safety of non-conforming building

issues at their own expense. A motor vehicle is a much smaller investment, yet when they identify safety risks in motor vehicles, manufacturers must recall and repair those products at no expense to the consumers. Do we not deserve the same rights to safety where we sleep?

Also, all of this has been at the cost and risk of the owners and any rectifi cation works, which could be many millions of dollars per scheme, will also likely be at the expense of the owners. It is incredibly unfair. The statutory insurance scheme needs to be reformed to protect buildings that are over 3 storeys in height. There also needs to be a statutory duty of care introduced with retrospective eff ect in order to enable these owners to seek compensation of the costs of cladding rectifi cation from the responsible parties. We are seeking reform to the statutory insurance scheme as part of our election priorities that we have put to both sides of government.

The comparison of the NSW Government’s advancements in establishing a statutory duty of care under the Design and Building Practitioners Act really shows a huge step forward in protecting the rights of unit owners and it is one that the Queensland got should also take. We hope that others within the strata industry will join us in calling out for proper and meaningful change to consumer protection in Queensland strata buildings by the introduction of a fairer statutory insurance scheme and a statutory duty of care owed to bodies corporate and lot owners.

This type of reform will benefi t lot owners, bodies corporate and management rights owners alike. Please join the conversation and stand up for your buildings and your industry.

SCA (Qld) has published its Election Priorities ahead of the 2020 State Election and has called on the parties to address body corporate issues in the state, particularly the lack of room for self-governance in schemes. Read our full election priorities on our website: qld.strata.community.