Submission 47 - Civil Contractors Federation

Public Cover Sheet
Inquiry into Housing Construction Sector and Related

Issues
Submission number: 47
Name of participant: Civil Contractors Federation
Date received: 7 March 2005
Number of Earlier Submissions:
Number of Pages:
Attachments submitted with this Submission:
Attachment A: Regional Inquiry Submission to VCEC
Attachment B: Letter to Regional Inquiry Re: Draft Report – Inquiry into Regulatory
Barriers to Regional Economic Development
Attachment C: Aboriginal Affairs Victoria – Cultural Heritage Advisory Note 1:

Consents to Disturb - Section 21U Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage
Protection Act 1984, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria – Cultural Heritage Advisory Note 2:
Consents to Disturb – Applications to the Minister - Section 21U Aboriginal & Torres
Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria – Cultural
Heritage Advisory Note 3: Land Development & Aboriginal Heritage Sites and
Places,
To obtain copies of these attachments please call (03) 9651 2211
K:\VCEC\Inquiries\Inquiry - Housing Construction\Submissions\47 - Civil Contractors

Federation\Submission 47 public cover sheet.doc
Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission
Inquiry
Regulation of the Housing Construction Sector
SUBMISSION
March 2005
Civil Contractors Federation

PO Box 6165
HAWTHORN VIC 3122
Phone: 03 9819 5170

Email: [email protected]
1. Overview
The Civil Contractors Federation is grateful of the opportunity to make

a submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission
in relation to its Inquiry into the regulation of the housing construction
sector.
The Federation welcomes this Inquiry and hopes that the Federation’s
contribution to the Inquiry is viewed not only in a positive light, but also
as a genuine attempt to influence current and future regulatory regimes
in the best interest of the people of Victoria.
The Federation seeks an opportunity to meet with the

Commission to elaborate on the matters presented in this
submission.
Through this submission and the formal presentation, the Federation

will outline to the Commission how the regulatory processes employed
by Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards, adversely
impact upon the cost of subdivisional works and hence the housing
construction sector.
To avoid repetition through this submission, the Commission is

referred to the following attachments:
A. Submission – Regional Inquiry

B. Response to Regional Inquiry Draft Report.
In summary:
a. Approximately 60% of the work undertaken by Federation

Members involve subdivisional works.
b. The costs of subdivisional works impact directly on the cost

of housing and, therefore, the civil construction activities
undertaken by Federation Members play a crucial role in the
housing construction supply chain.
c. Being at the end of the civil construction supply chain, civil

contractors’ margins are generally ‘paper thin’ and,
therefore, any cost imposts as a consequence of new
regulatory controls (both formal and informal) are invariably
passed through to the consumer.
d. There are a significant number of regulatory issues, both

formal and informal, that are impacting adversely upon civil
contractors, the consumer and the housing sector.
e, Many of the issues identified by the Federation through this

submission could be addressed through an adequate
process driven approach to the development of regulatory
controls that identifies precisely their impact upon all
elements of the civil construction supply chain before the
controls are imposed.
f. The Federation stands ready to be engaged by Government

agencies in regard to any proposed regulatory controls that
are likely to adversely impact upon civil contractors and the
the consumer.
2. Indigenous Artifacts Protection Legislation
The implementation of the requirements of this legislation has been

one of the most significant issues facing CCF Members over the past
12 months. Regrettably, until recently for reasons of ‘political
correctness’, CCF Members have been reluctant to speak-out about
the implementation of this legislation.
An outline of the relevant legislation and related administrative

guidelines appears on the website of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
The principal concern of Federation Members is that there is a very

high level of inconsistency in the application of the legislative
requirements at both State and regional levels, contributing to
increased costs to the housing sector.
Other concerns and issues identified by Federation members include:
a. The need for appropriate quantities of Indigenous

Surveillance Persons (ISP) to be trained and ready to
go; lack of same is causing delays in Gippsland.
b. ISP’s should meet the same training requirements as

any other worker on site i.e.:
(i) They should have completed Vic Red Card
Training.
(ii) They should attend appropriate site inductions.
(iii) They should be required to provide and wear
appropriate PPE (Safety Boots/High Visibility
Vest/Hard Hat/Safety Glasses/Hearing
K:\VCEC\Inquiries\Inquiry - Housing Construction\Submissions\47 - Civil Contractors Federation\Submission 47 - Civil 2

Contractors Federation.doc
Protection/long Sleeve Shirts/Trousers and Sun Hat).
c. They should provide a documented outcome report

signed off by the contractor (copy retained by
contractor) to verify any discoveries and action taken
and including start/finish times.
d. The coordinating body should provide documentation

detailing exactly what the ISP is to do on site.
e. The coordinating body should provide a detailed

procedure for the process of engaging ISP’s.
f. Legislation should clarify precisely that the Project

Principal (who owns the land) has the responsibility to
identify the need for ISP’s, engage them and pay
them.
g. The coordinating body should be charged with the

responsibility to provide suitably trained ISP’s and
have a liquidated damages clause written in to their
agreement to provide services, particularly where
delays in the provision of ISP’s cause costly delays
for the contractor.
h. The Project Superintendent should have the

responsibility on behalf of the Project Principal (who
owns the land) to undertake the communications role
between the coordinating body and the Principal.
Representatives of the Federation have recently met with the officers of

Aboriginal Affairs Victoria and have sought the following in order to
address these concerns:
• Clearly defined allocation of responsibilities to achieve

the objectives of the legislation.
• Formalised, consistent processes agreed after

appropriate consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

• Governance auditing and appropriate reporting of
process compliance.
• Potentially the development of a Code of Practice to

provide a nationally consistent guideline for management
of indigenous artifacts protection issues.
3. Slow Response to Rectifying Defective Legislation
The August 2004 VCAT decision in relation to the definition of building

work under the Domestic Building Contracts Act had the potential to
significantly impact upon the housing sector.
The Federation assumed a high profile role in endeavoring to address

an anomaly in the legislation through both the courts and the polity at
significant cost to Federation Members.
Although it was a minor legislative drafting matter, a legislative

resolution of the anomaly took some 9 months to achieve. In the
meantime, the housing industry was exposed to significant costs, the
vast majority of which was transferable to the consumer.
The lesson to be learned from this unfortunate case is that there is a

need for a ‘fast track’ process that can deal with simple, straight
forward legislative drafting matters to avoid unnecessary costs to the
housing sector and the consumer.
4. Security of Payments
A review of the Victorian Security of Payment legislation was

undertaken by the Building Commission during 2004 and it is
understood that the Review recommendations are to be presented to
Cabinet shortly.
The Federation commends the Building Commission for the extent to

which it had engaged with the Federation and its Members in relation
to the Review.
The Federation also appreciated being briefed on the likely

recommendations arising from the Review and is generally comfortable
with the recommendations, except in two areas that impact upon
subdivisional (hence housing) costs.
Firstly, Federation Members regularly experience long delays and/or

diminution in final payment for subdivisional works undertaken for
private sector developers. Indeed, this was the catalyst for the VCAT

case cited under Section 3 of this submission. Not unexpectedly,
contractors hedge against this situation through their prices for
subdivisional works.
It is understood that the Review recommendations have not addressed

this matter. Accordingly, the Federation has recommended to the
Building Commission (the Agency responsible for servicing the
Review) that the amending legislation should provide for a Council to
issue a Certificate of Compliance for subdivisional works only upon
receipt from the developer evidence of adherence to the Security of
Payment legislation.
The second area of concern relates to the extent to which Federation

Members have experienced substantial financial losses because of the
inability of Government agencies to protect sub-contractors’ interests in
the event of the principal contractor going into liquidation. Three such
cases, involving two water companies and one council, have been
referred to the Small Business Commissioner over the past 9 months.
Adequate contract management processes on the part of the
Government agencies should minimize the potential of such situations
recurring.
5. Road Management (Works & Infrastructure) Regulations 2004
In its Draft Report on its Regional Inquiry, the Commission

acknowledged the Federation’s concerns in regard to the lack of
consistency amongst local governments in relation to the processing of
applications for road opening permits.
Following the passing of the Road Management Act 2004 by the

Victorian Government on 11th May 2004, regulations have been
developed to support its operation. The Road Management (Works
and Infrastructure) (Interim) Regulations 2004 commenced on 1st
January 2005 and will sunset on 30th June 2005. These Regulations
will be replaced by the proposed Road Management (Works &
Infrastructure) Regulations 2005 which are proposed to come into
operation on 1st July 2005.
These Regulations and a complementary Code of Practice now

regulate the issue of permits for opening roads. CCF did not have
any input into the development by VicRoads of the Regulations and
Code.
At the time of preparation of this submission, consultation is occurring

with VicRoads Officers in relation to the new Regulations and the
complementary Regulatory Impact Statement.

An initial examination of the material prepared by VicRoads would
seem to indicate that there will still not be a consistent approach by
Councils to the processing of applications for permits to undertake
works in road reserves.
This inconsistency invariably contributes to increased costs which are

passed on to the consumer.
The Federation, therefore, believes that the whole local government

regulatory regime should be the subject of a comprehensive review
aimed at achieving consistency in the processing of applications for
permits for like activities.
6. Prevention of Falls Regulations
The Prevention of Falls Regulations, made under the Occupational

Health & Safety Act, came into operation on 31st March 2004.
They were developed principally to address falls from heights in the

building sector.
At the time of their development, no consideration was given to their

application to the servicing and maintenance of earthmoving
equipment. Moreover, no Regulatory Impact Statement was prepared
in relation to the impact of the Regulations on the civil construction
sector and ultimately the cost of subdivisional developments.
Attachment C is a copy of a letter written to WorkSafe in response to

their proposal to address the matter of application of the Regulations to
the civil construction sector.
The Federation is seeking a meeting with the Minister for Work Cover
for the purpose of discussing a rational approach to the application of
the Falls Regulations to the servicing and maintenance of earthmoving
equipment.
This issue underscores the need for a more thorough approach to the
development and enactment of regulatory controls that have the
potential of having flow-on effects to the consumer not specifically
intended during the development of such controls.
7. ‘Over-engineering’
’Over-engineering’ of subdivisional works has been a concern

identified by Federation Members, and such instances include:

1. A water company specifying trench compaction
standards in excess of the requirements imposed by
sister companies in the metropolitan area.
2. Consulting engineers specifying outmoded means of

inspection facilities for sewerage mains.
3. A council requiring the use of rubber ring joints in

stormwater drains in identical situations where Melbourne
Water utilises lower-cost butt joints.
4. A council requiring the use of a higher class of

stormwater pipe than that specified in the relevant
Australian standard.
5. A plethora of differing standards of construction for

subdivisional roadworks in like foundation conditions.
The Federation submits that subdivisional (and hence housing costs)

would be reduced if all controlling agencies were to adopt common
infrastructure construction standards in circumstances where
individuality in subdivisional design and outlook is not compromised.
________________________________________________________________

Attachment A
Regional Inquiry
SUBMISSION
September 2004

PO Box 6165
HAWTHORN VIC 3122
Phone: 03 9819 5170

Email: [email protected]

Regional Inquiry
Overview
The Civil Contractors Federation is grateful of the opportunity to make a
submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission.
The Federation welcomes this Inquiry and hopes that the Federation’s
contribution to the Inquiry is viewed not only in a positive light, but also as a
genuine attempt to influence current and future regulatory regimes in the best
interest of the people of regional Victoria.
Through this submission and the presentation to be made at the public hearing at
Geelong on 17 September, 2004, the Federation will outline to the Commission
how formal and semi-formal regulatory processes employed by Government
agencies, Councils and Water Boards, adversely impact upon the businesses of
the Federation members as well as consumers in regional Victoria.
In summary, this submission demonstrates that:

1. Civil construction activities undertaken by Members of the Federation play a
crucial role in the civil construction supply chain.
2. Being at the end of the civil construction supply chain, civil contractors’ margins
are generally ‘paper thin’ and, therefore, any cost imposts as a consequence of
new regulatory controls (both formal and informal) are invariably passed through
to the consumer.
3. Unnecessary and poorly implemented regulatory controls have a negative impact
upon the viability of the businesses of civil contractors, with the greatest impact
on civil contractors located in regional Victoria.
4. There are a significant number of regulatory issues, both formal and informal,
that are impacting adversely upon civil contractors, the consumer and economic
development in regional Victoria.
5. Many of the issues identified by the Federation through this submission could be
addressed through an adequate focus on and commitment to existing
competition policy.
6. A comprehensive review of the tendering and contract management practices
undertaken by Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards is necessary.
7. As an interim step to recommendation 6., Government agencies, Councils and
Water Boards should be required to comply with the Department of
Infrastructure’s Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry.
8. If existing competition policy were to be strongly supported by appropriate and
structured quality processes, many of the concerns outlined in this submission
would be ameliorated.
9. The Federation stands ready to be engaged by Government agencies in regard
to any proposed regulatory controls that are likely to adversely impact upon civil
contractors.

The Civil Contractors Federation
The Civil Contractors Federation is a not-for-profit, member driven, employer

association developed to promote and protect the interests of civil engineering
and construction industry employers. It is a decentralised National organisation
with branches in all States and Territories.
From its humble beginning at a meeting in Kensington in September 1943, the

Federation has grown to represent some 2000 members nationally, ranging from
the smallest operation to some of the largest construction companies in Australia.
The Victorian Branch represents more than 540 members involved in developing
and maintaining the States infrastructure.
Today, the Federation still upholds its original aims of improving the civil
construction industry and providing a voice for civil contractors at all three levels
of Government.
It also provides a range of member services that includes an extensive training

program, OH&S, human resources and industrial relations consultancy advice,
as well as the sale and implementation of integrated quality management
systems.
Based on a recent survey, members of the Victorian Branch:

• Represent approximately 45% of civil contractors working in regional Victoria
• Undertake more than $2.5 billion works annually
• Employ approximately 15,000 staff
• Utilize some 11,000 items of construction plant
In addition:
• 53% of Members have a turnover of less than $5 million (25% have a turnover of
between $5 million and $20 million)
• 34% of Members employ less than 10 staff (almost 50% between 11 and 50
staff)
• 35% of Members own/operate less than 10 items of plant (50% own/operate
between 11 and 40 items of plant)
The principal works undertaken by Members include:

• Earthworks 79%
• Roadworks 60%
• Drainage 55%
• Water supply and sewage 41%
• Concrete paving, etc 33%
• Dams 27%
• Asphalt and sealing 23%
• Quarrying 21%

Reflecting one of the reasons for its establishment, the Federation seeks to
influence public policy in the areas where new legislation or departmental policy
are likely to adversely impact upon the viability of Federation Members,
particularly in regard to:
• Strategic direction for the Civil Construction Industry

• National Training Framework
• Standards and Industry Standard specifications
• Government regulations and policies
• Industrial Relations and Workplace Safety
• Infrastructure funding
• Industry codes of practice
• Contracts and Tendering Procedures
• Taxation Issues
• Small business viability
• Urban and rural planning and development
• Contractor Accreditation/Prequalification
In summary, the Federation strives to be seen as a credible and relevant industry

association capable of influencing the political landscape to the benefit of
contractors and the people of Victoria alike.
Further information regarding the Federation may be found on its web site at
www.civilcontractors.com.
The Threat of Over Regulation
Contractors have always exhibited an independence of spirit, a positive approach

to a challenge, and a “lets-get-the-job-done” attitude.
However, this is being threatened by the veritable explosion of Government

policies, regulations, rules and constrictions creating unreasonable pressures on
contractors.
Indeed, the continued viability of the civil construction sector is being questioned,
which in turn is directly impacting upon the State’s economic development,
particularly in rural and regional Victoria.

Relevant Regulatory Issues
Since early January, 2004, the Federation has been aggressively pursuing some
40 advocacy matters that impact upon contractors and, in many cases, the
consumer.
The key matters that are relevant to this Inquiry are:

Security of Payment
Level of Contract Securities
Use of Surety Bonds
Temporary Hose System Use
Unguarded Drill Rigs
Falls Regulations: Trenches; Plant; Standpipes
‘No-Go’ Zones Implementation
Trench Compaction Standards
Drilling Rates
Standard Specifications and General Conditions of Contract
Contract Management Skills
Industry Entry Numbers
Tendering/Contract Management by Government Agencies
Introduction of Class 1 Signage
Domestic Building Contracts Act
Cultural and Heritage Requirements on Contract Works
Non-compliance by Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards
with the Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry
Produced by the Department of Infrastructure
Inconsistencies in Standards Across The Water Sector
Road Opening Permits
Reimbursement of Tendering Costs When No Tender is Accepted
Cross Border Issues Relating to Red Card, Traffic Management, etc
Dial Before You Dig and Private Services
The Federation’s Submission
At the public hearing on 17 September, it is proposed to expand upon those

particular matters where it can be shown that either formal or informal regulatory
processes by Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards are:
impacting upon the Business outcomes of Federation Members; and/or
impacting upon the consumer and in turn, regional economic
development.

The specific issues that will be discussed at the public hearing include:
1. Compliance Costs – Unnecessarily high contract securities, inappropriate
road opening permit fees, unrealistic permit fees for indigenous features
inspections.
2. Barriers to Investment – Unnecessarily high contract securities, inability to
use surety bonds.
3. Industry Skill Gaps – Insufficient focus by Governments on addressing the
serious skills gaps in the civil construction sector (e.g. plant operators,
front-line managers, contract managers).
4. Direct Costs To Address Deficiencies in Implementing New Regulations,
e.g. Falls Regulations (vis-à-vis trenches, plant maintenance, water stand
pipes) and ‘No-Go’ Zones (constraints on issuing permits).
5. Higher Overheads Due to Inconsistency in Contract Documentation and
Specifications.
6. Non-compliance With Competition Policy – Failure to comply with
Government Purchasing Policy, return to in-house provision of services
without adequate consideration of all costs, non-compliance with National
Competition Policy.
7. Unnecessary Over-emphasis of Environmental Objectives – insufficient
use of a risk-management approach to determining environmental
requirements.
8. Restrictions on Innovation – Antiquated tendering and contract
management practices, e.g. use of sewer inspection shafts in lieu of
expensive manholes.
9. Insufficient Use of e-commerce by Agencies – Issue of road opening
permits by Councils.
10. Costs Incurred to Understand New Regulations – Member bearing costs
for educational programs.
11. Cost of Delays – Inadequate inspectors for ‘No-Go’ Zones, time taken to
award tenders, issuing of Final Certificates.
12. Over-engineering – Trench compaction standards, Falls Regulations,
inadequate use of risk management practices, transfer of risk for design
and quantities.
13. Unnecessary Paperwork – Inappropriate use of ‘Non Conformances’ and
quality control processes.
14. Inadequate Security of Payment Legislation and its application.
15. Costs to Defend Inadequate Legislation – Domestic Building Contracts
Act.
16. Cross-border Issues – Red Card, Recognition of approved courses.
17. Insufficient Pre-planning for Regulatory Requirements – Red Card,
Class 1 Signage, Falls Regulations, ‘No-Go’ Zones, Unguarded Drill Rigs.
18. Cost of Tender Preparation – Tenderers not reimbursed costs when
project abandoned or scope significantly varied.
19. Inconsistent Approach to Enforcement – With respect to OH&S issues,
long service leave provisions (CBus), Red Card.

20. Inadequate Dispute Resolution Processes – Emphasis on costly legal
processes rather than partnering, conciliation and the traditional arbitration
system.
21. Insufficient Regulation – Application of Dial Before You Dig to private
services.
22. Costly Use of Client Equipment – Temporary Hose System.
23. Non-compliance by Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards
with the Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry
produced by the Department of Infrastructure.
Tendering and Contract Management
It will be observed through this submission and the presentation at the public
hearing that informal regulatory controls imposed by Government agencies,
Councils and Water Boards through their tendering and contract management
processes impose unnecessary costs on civil contractors and ultimately the
consumer.
By and large, civil contractors had welcomed the competition reforms introduced
by the Kennett Government in the early nineties, i.e. outsourcing, Compulsory
Competitive Tendering, service charters, etc. The resulting tendering and
contract management regimes had introduced the level of rigor necessary to
increase genuine competition within the civil construction sector, culminating in
reduced costs and enhanced quality and service delivery.
Regrettably, however over recent years, civil contractors have witnessed a

diminution of the benefits that had accrued through the competition reform,
including a move away from the truly competitive environment and the
maintenance of a level playing field.
Being at the end of the civil construction supply chain, the margins for civil
contractors are severely constrained, albeit ‘paper thin’. Accordingly, increased
costs incurred by civil contractors as a consequence of poor tendering and
contract management practices are invariably passed through to the consumer.
The Federation, therefore, submits that this situation must be addressed, as a

matter of priority, in the best interest of the wider Victorian community. To that
end, the Federation believes that a comprehensive review of tendering and
contract management practices undertaken by Government agencies, Councils
and Water Boards is not only necessary, but will also remedy many of the
informal regulatory issues that are adversely impacting upon civil contractors,
regional economic development and the consumer.
Such a review is currently underway in New South Wales and the experiences of
that review would undoubtedly be adaptable in the Victorian context.

In the interim, however, explicit compliance by Government agencies, Councils
and Water Boards with the Code of Practice for the Building and Construction
Industry would go a long way toward addressing many of the issues raised
herein.
The 1999 edition of the Code was developed by the Department of Infrastructure
and released by the Minister for Planning and Local Government. In addition to
the Minister, nine employer organisations (including the Federation) are
signatories to the Code.
It is understood that a review of the Code is substantially advanced.
Quality Control
Recognising the importance of quality management processes to the

construction and maintenance of infrastructure, about 5 years ago the Civil
Contractors Federation developed a highly effective, low-cost quality
management system for use by civil contractors for works up to $3m in value. In
fact, VicRoads, Water Authorities and Councils readily accept contractors having
achieved certification of the CCF system as meeting their prequalification
requirements. The system, which has proven to be extremely popular amongst
contractors and a number of Councils across Australia, is capable of certification
to either the Civil Construction Management Code and/or international quality
assurance standards. The system is also now being rolled-out in New Zealand.
In demonstrating a commitment to quality management, civil contractors find it an

anathema that many Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards do not
themselves genuinely pursue the positive outcomes achievable through
accredited quality management systems, i.e. the elimination of waste, rework,
duplication and non-value-tasks.
If existing competition policy were to be strongly supported by appropriate and

structured quality processes, many of the concerns outlined in this submission
would be ameliorated.
Consultation and Engagement
The experiences of the Federation and its members over recent time have
highlighted the impact that inadequate engagement with the relevant
stakeholders can have in regard to the implementation of regulatory controls,
both formal and informal. The Falls Regulations, ‘No-Go’ Zones, trench
compaction standards are but a few of the new regulatory controls that were
introduced without sufficient input from the practitioners to which they apply.
It is accepted that in some instances, the Federation may have been consulted in
regard to proposed regulatory controls; in other instances it was not. But

consultation without adequate engagement will almost certainly lead to the
situations that have been the catalyst for the concerns expressed herein.
For its part, the Federation has recently developed an effective internal process
to ensure that it can move quickly to respond to any invitation to be engaged in
regard to proposed regulatory controls.
It is now incumbent upon Government agencies to establish and structure their

consultative processes to ensure that the Federation is adequately engaged prior
to imposing new regulatory regimes.
Bob Seiffert
Executive Director
10 September 2004

Attachment B
4th February 2005
Regional Inquiry
G.P.O. Box 4379
Melbourne Vic 3001
Dear Sirs,
DRAFT REPORT – INQUIRY INTO REGULATORY

BARRIERS TO REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the aforementioned Draft Report.
We appreciated being able to present a submission to the Inquiry and we note

with satisfaction that a number of aspects of our submission have been included
in the Draft Report.
Generally, we support the tenet of the Report and the resulting

recommendations, however, we make the following comments in relation thereto:
1. The recommendations regarding the administration of land-use

planning are appropriate but unless the performance pay of Council
CEO’s and State bureaucrats are directly linked to the specified
performance measures, the recommendations will be ineffective.
2. We would have preferred to see a specific recommendation that
required the Local Government Division of the Department for Victorian
Communities to establish a taskforce, which should include the CCF,
to examine and identify ways in which there can be a consistent
approach to administering the issuing of permits common to all
councils.
3. A similar approach to 2 should apply to permits issued by water
companies.

4. The question of when a RIS is required needs to be put beyond doubt.
At a recent meeting of the Government Reference Group, it was stated
that an RIS was not required for the new Worksite Safety Traffic
Management Code of Practice. Whilst the CCF supports the
objectives of this Code, it will nonetheless add costs to projects
(estimated to be upwards of 6% in some cases) which will be passed
on to the consumer.
5. The non-compliance by Government agencies, water companies and
councils with Regulations and Codes is impacting negatively upon
CCF Members, causing increased costs to be passed on to the
consumer.
I would be more than happy to elaborate on these issues to assist you in

preparing your final report.
It is accepted that it was not in the Inquiries Term of Reference to review the
tendering and contract management practices of Government Agencies, water
companies and councils. However, as you will observe from the attached
document, which provides case summaries of questionable tendering and
contract management practices, this issue is having a considerable impact on the
efficient delivery of projects in Victoria.
Accordingly, we submit that there is urgent warrant for the Commission to

institute a Review of the tendering and contract management practices of
Government agencies, water companies and councils. We submit that such a
review would result in substantial benefits to the people of Victoria through
savings generated in delivery of construction and maintenance projects.
To assist to the Commission to understand the gravity of the problem, I would be

pleased to arrange for Commission representatives to meet with a group of CCF
Members, at a time and venue convenient to the Commission.
Yours sincerely
Bob Seiffert
Executive Director
Encl. Case summaries – Questionable Tendering and Contract Management

Practices

ATTACHMENT C
14th January 2005
Ms Liz Holzschuster
WorkSafe Victoria
Construction and Maintenance Program
Level 23, 222 Exhibition Street
Melbourne Vic 3000
Dear Liz
Re: Draft Guidance Note – Mobile Plant
Thank you for providing an email copy of draft guidance note dated 5 January 2005 and
we wish to take the opportunity to provide some initial comments before a more complete
submission in the near future.
I must however, express my concern about how this matter has progressed to date.
This matter was raised July 2004 and as a result of discussions directly with WorkSafe
staff, a joint grant proposal with the Australian Associated Equipment Distributors
(AAED) and the Civil Contractors Federation (CCF) was submitted in August 2004 to
WorkSafe in an attempt to deal with this matter proactively within this industry.
Even after numerous enquiries as to its progress, no formal advice has been received
regarding its status. It is assumed that it has been unsuccessful.
The matter of consultation generally is also an area of concern. It has taken several
months for WorkSafe to produce a guidance note with only superficial contact with major
parties in the industry and yet a response is sought by WorkSafe within one week’s
turnaround. The guidance note itself has been produced without any input from CCF and
this is reflected in the current draft.
It would seem that any early comments made at previous meetings have been ignored.
The current draft is too broad and attempts to cover a diverse range of industries without
addressing any satisfactorily, particularly in the earth moving sector.
Accordingly, the draft guidance note provided is totally unacceptable in its present form.
CCF’s current position, as expressed by our members, is that earthmoving equipment
should be exempt from the Falls Regulations.
There are a number of other reasons for this position. Firstly, plant and equipment seem
to be adequately covered by the Plant Regulations and we do not believe it was the intent

of the Falls Regulations to incorporate plant and equipment. This is demonstrated by the
significant reference to the housing sector in the regulations and no reference to plant and
equipment.
Exemptions appear to be nothing new. This can be demonstrated by the fact that roof
workers can work up to 3 metres with only the establishment of a clear area around a
potential fall zone. These workers can work a full shift with this exposure where as
workers in the earthmoving sector will have only minimal exposure. We would therefore
argue that the controls that have been developed by the industry adequately address any
potential risks.
Secondly, there have been no demonstrable examples of a falls issue in this sector with
the available information.
Thirdly, implementation of some of the suggested controls in the draft guidance note (i.e.
attaching platforms to plant and equipment) may create secondary safety issues and are
solutions to a problem in one sector that do not translate to another readily. Even if
certain fixed items were recommended to be fitted by a guidance note, it is arguable that
the Plant Regulations should have priority whereby the working environment and the age
of the plant and equipment would make it inappropriate to fit such items in some
circumstances.
In summary, the proposed draft guidance note is unsatisfactory in its current form. The
earthmoving sector should be dealt with separately and exemptions should be
considered. CCF would welcome the opportunity to engage with WorkSafe to progress
this matter in a meaningful way involving true engagement.
Yours sincerely
Bob Seiffert
Executive Director


Submission 47 - Civil Contractors Federation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Submission 47 - Civil Contractors Federation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Submission 47 - Civil Contractors Federation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Cover Sheet

Inquiry into Housing Construction Sector and Related

Name of participant: Civil Contractors Federation

Date received: 7 March 2005

Number of Earlier Submissions:

Attachments submitted with this Submission:

Attachment A: Regional Inquiry Submission to VCEC

Attachment C: Aboriginal Affairs Victoria – Cultural Heritage Advisory Note 1:

To obtain copies of these attachments please call (03) 9651 2211

K:\VCEC\Inquiries\Inquiry - Housing Construction\Submissions\47 - Civil Contractors

Regulation of the Housing Construction Sector

Civil Contractors Federation

Phone: 03 9819 5170

The Civil Contractors Federation is grateful of the opportunity to make

The Federation seeks an opportunity to meet with the

Through this submission and the formal presentation, the Federation

To avoid repetition through this submission, the Commission is

A. Submission – Regional Inquiry

a. Approximately 60% of the work undertaken by Federation

b. The costs of subdivisional works impact directly on the cost

c. Being at the end of the civil construction supply chain, civil

d. There are a significant number of regulatory issues, both

e, Many of the issues identified by the Federation through this

f. The Federation stands ready to be engaged by Government

2. Indigenous Artifacts Protection Legislation

The implementation of the requirements of this legislation has been

An outline of the relevant legislation and related administrative

The principal concern of Federation Members is that there is a very

Other concerns and issues identified by Federation members include:

a. The need for appropriate quantities of Indigenous

b. ISP’s should meet the same training requirements as

K:\VCEC\Inquiries\Inquiry - Housing Construction\Submissions\47 - Civil Contractors Federation\Submission 47 - Civil 2

c. They should provide a documented outcome report

d. The coordinating body should provide documentation

e. The coordinating body should provide a detailed

f. Legislation should clarify precisely that the Project

g. The coordinating body should be charged with the

h. The Project Superintendent should have the

Representatives of the Federation have recently met with the officers of

• Clearly defined allocation of responsibilities to achieve

• Formalised, consistent processes agreed after

K:\VCEC\Inquiries\Inquiry - Housing Construction\Submissions\47 - Civil Contractors Federation\Submission 47 - Civil 3

• Potentially the development of a Code of Practice to

3. Slow Response to Rectifying Defective Legislation

The August 2004 VCAT decision in relation to the definition of building

The Federation assumed a high profile role in endeavoring to address

Although it was a minor legislative drafting matter, a legislative

The lesson to be learned from this unfortunate case is that there is a

A review of the Victorian Security of Payment legislation was

The Federation commends the Building Commission for the extent to

The Federation also appreciated being briefed on the likely

Firstly, Federation Members regularly experience long delays and/or

K:\VCEC\Inquiries\Inquiry - Housing Construction\Submissions\47 - Civil Contractors Federation\Submission 47 - Civil 4

It is understood that the Review recommendations have not addressed

The second area of concern relates to the extent to which Federation

5. Road Management (Works & Infrastructure) Regulations 2004

In its Draft Report on its Regional Inquiry, the Commission

Following the passing of the Road Management Act 2004 by the

These Regulations and a complementary Code of Practice now

At the time of preparation of this submission, consultation is occurring