Registration of residential building inspectors

To clarify my previous comments.
I am 61 years old and have held a builders & supervisors licence in SA & Vic for around 30 years, and I would qualify for the proposed licence.
Without dealing with the self-regulated real estate industry first, you are achieving nothing. All you are doing is making it look like you are doing something without dealing with the core problem the real estate industry. Real estate agents will still find someone with disclaimer after disclaimer to write them a favorable report. Most of the real estate agents in the South East even sell reports online and call them independent reports. So, Yes help the consumer, but start with the real estate industry where the problem starts

I have been providing pre-purchase building inspections for 30-plus years and have had no complaints from clients. The only complaints I get are from real estate agents. The problem with pre-purchase building inspections is the self-regulated real estate industry. Most real estate agents hand-pick an inspector who will write a favorable report and refuse access to properties to others who write more thorough reports. Real estate agents will arrange for reports to be written by their hand-picked inspector before the building is put on the market and call the report an independent inspection ?? I believe that the real estate industry needs to be held accountable before penalizing those who provide thorough reports. If the real estate industry is not held to account, penalizing inspectors achieves nothing.

I support regulation of building inspectors who undertake residential pre-purchase inspections. I am surprised this is not already regulated. I expect this lack of regulation attracts cowboys looking for easy money for churning out multiple inspection reports per day.

My experience with pre-purchase inspections is that glaring issues were missed which cost thousands of dollars to resolve after purchase. The report largely comprised many images with very little interpretation provided, almost as if the inspector new how to take photos but little about building codes and maintenance issues. The condition of the property was described as 'very good' which was not accurate.

The proposed regulations make no reference to the Mutual Recognition Act or pathways for interstate-registered building inspectors.

This is a major gap. Qualified inspectors who are already registered in other states (e.g., NSW) should be able to transfer their registration to South Australia without unnecessary barriers.

Almost every article and discussion online focuses only on builder licences and builder experience as the pathway to becoming a building inspector. This is a major concern. It creates a system where builders end up inspecting the work of other builders, which is a clear conflict of interest and does not protect consumers.

What is missing is recognition of university-qualified professionals—engineering graduates, building surveying graduates, and those with formal construction qualifications. These individuals bring strong technical and compliance knowledge, yet they are being excluded from the conversation entirely.

Favouring only builder-licence pathways repeats the same mistakes highlighted by the 30,000 cancelled VET qualifications—allowing easy, trade-based entry while sidelining those with genuine academic and technical training.

The regulations must introduce a fair, independent pathway for degree-qualified entrants, not just builder-licence holders. This is essential for improving inspection quality and rebuilding public trust.

Additionally, there is no discussion about training or transition pathways for existing building inspectors already operating in South Australia. If new regulations introduce higher standards, current inspectors should not be pushed out of employment. They should be given a fair opportunity to obtain whatever training or competencies they are missing, rather than being forced out of the profession.

A structured transition pathway is essential to maintain industry capacity, avoid unnecessary job losses, and ensure consistent inspection quality.

It is also important to acknowledge the current industry behaviour. Many individuals who already hold builder licences and long trade experience appear very satisfied with the proposed direction because it protects their own position and commercial interests.

These people have historically operated within a closed network, offering limited opportunities to young graduates and university-qualified professionals. Instead of addressing the real skills gaps in the industry, they are promoting pathways that maintain their advantage rather than strengthening the overall quality and independence of building inspections.

Their positive reaction on social media reflects this self-interest, not necessarily what is best for consumers or the future workforce.

New regulations must avoid reinforcing these closed networks. The focus should be on opening fair, transparent entry pathways for qualified graduates and ensuring the industry is built on capability, independence, and public protection—not on maintaining the status quo for those already benefiting from it.

There are also clear examples of qualified candidates being discouraged from entering the industry. One recent case involved a highly qualified applicant interviewing for a council role. Despite performing strongly, he walked out believing he would not be selected simply because he held higher qualifications than the interview panel itself.

This reflects a wider cultural problem: some in the industry resist hiring or supporting juniors who hold stronger academic credentials than they do. It is an uncomfortable truth, but it creates a system where capability is overlooked to protect existing positions.

This particular candidate has lived and studied in South Australia for ten years and is now considering moving interstate because the industry here is not open to new, qualified entrants. Losing such people is a direct consequence of closed networks and limited pathways.

New regulations should address these barriers by ensuring fair, merit-based entry and encouraging councils and private organisations to welcome qualified graduates rather than unintentionally pushing them out of the state.

This is a critical step in reforming the residential building industry that is expensive, untrustworthy and incompetent. Having a qualified and reputable building inspector is a MUST for any renovation and/or home build. Same with having a lawyer draft up a contract for a consumer rather than an HIA/MBA contract which is in the builders favour!

If the building inspectors themselves arent appropriately qualified, where does that leave the homeowner/consumer? Once again, its their problem.

Trades/builders/lawyers/insurers EVERYONE wins when things go wrong EXCEPT for the consumer who is paying their life savings for something that ends up being a stressful nightmare. And CBS get constant complaints and meetings with no ability to enforce.

Having lived through a horrible experience with a "reputable" builder who was incompetent and had to complete the renovation twice, plus engaging lawyers and building inspectors out of our pocket, I would never complete a project without an inspector side by side every step of the way. To see a "builder" and "tiler" not understand BASIC building code requirements for a simple renovation was laughable. Without a qualified building inspector these so called "tradies" would have continued on their merry way with no oversight and babbling consumers with words that mean nothing. I feel sorry for other homeowners using them on projects. Lastly, wait till the trades get a hold of ChatGPT for their understanding of how to do builds...the "builder" was using it already!

Any increase in responsibility and accountability is a great improvement in the housing industry. Nevertheless, it is the councils that MUST be held accountable for what happens. My wife and I had to pay thousands of dollars to rectify faulty bathroom construction in a house we bought, simply because of a failure to fully and correctly inspect the house to ensure construction was up to approved standards. Failure to ensure builders complete construction correctly is one of the reasons Australian housing is substandard when compared to other jurisdictions like Europe.

I agree there should be strict qualifications and experience requirements and the inspectors should be licenced

Building inspectors need to have a consistent format for reports as very wordy, to excuse them missing anything. Needs to be in plain English and have more responsibility for actions eg couldn't see for furniture, insulation bats, pavers, etc. Then pull up a few.
Needs to be a detailed report to a minimum standard and not a list of excuses.
Need to disclose any conflicts of interest eg when they recommend tradesmen to do a quote or more detailed inspection of a problem.
Commonfaults should be checked eg lack of forticon protection (Has any house in SA had it installed correctly? - not by recent builds in Gilles Plains!) It cost me $16,000 to have a new membrane placed around my courtyard home due to damp edge (Thanks Higginbotham).
No check on age of plumbing hoses due to be replaced for age.
Need to use thermal imaging cameras across whole home in addition to moisture testers and knocking.
Should be a refresher course for all inspectors with an appropriate tests to any new standards.
Where property has been inspected a sticker with the inspectors name, reg. number and date should be put in the meter box. removal by any party to have a fine attached. Should also have a central register of all addresses inspected open to public so a check can be made if removed.

I work in housing finance and we recommend our clients obtain a residential building inspection. I have been told in the past by a reputable inspector that there are people in his industry that are either overcharging for services or charging a cheap price for an incomplete or poorly completed inspection. I would welcome this scheme, to have somewhere to refer our clients to obtain a qualified inspector.

As a retired Building Surveyor I would recommend that if you are going formalise these various Building Inspectors that you liaise with Aust Inst Building Surveyors (AIBS) and have them add these inspectors to the range of categories under their charter. That way would ensure that enducation and ongoing training for the inspector was provided in anorganised manner with them being included in the 'points system'.

Approve most for all summaries; however, summary 3.1 Building Inspectors. Must have held a Builders license for a minimum of 5 years, with proven 5 years working in the building construction industry and be registered on a National/State Building Inspector's register. Registered members must pass an eligibility exam on standard building construction knowledge.

Thank you for regular yourSay information received.

I was interested in the matter of registration of building inspectors.

Whilst this might not relate directly to this matter, I would like to draw attention to licensing and training of home rentals when self managed by the owners.

My wife and I are age pensioners and I am also her carer. We have owned our own homes in the past and have had experience in building our own home. We are now renting.

The home is being self managed by someone who lives more than two hours drive from Adelaide.

Reported issues that do not comply with certain regulations are being ignored. In short, the owner has no experience and makes contradictory statements, mixes up dates and appointments. Building issues that are potential health risks and a fire hazard aren’t comprehended and ignored.

We have submitted a request to CBS for assistance and are waiting on an outcome.

I understand that this may be in the jurisdiction in another area , but can some form of registration be implemented to ensure that owners self manage their property actually know what they are doing. It is evident from discussions I have had with other people get too are experienced similar issues.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed registration scheme for building inspectors in South Australia. I strongly support the intent of the reforms to improve consumer protection and ensure high-quality inspection services. I offer the following points for consideration:

1. Support for Mutual Recognition Pathways

Mutual Recognition should remain a core component of the proposed regulatory framework.
If a professional is already licensed, registered, and qualified to conduct building inspections in another Australian state or territory—such as NSW—those qualifications should be recognised in South Australia. This ensures consistency across jurisdictions and supports mobility of qualified professionals.
It is important to differentiate between restricting unqualified individuals from operating and unnecessarily restricting qualified professionals from working across state borders.

2. Concerns About Current Franchise-Based Entry Models

Many building inspection businesses currently operate under franchise models where individuals can enter the industry by meeting only minimal qualifications and paying substantial franchise fees (often between $100,000 and $200,000).
This creates a barrier for highly trained professionals who have invested significant time and money in formal study but cannot justify or afford such franchise payments.
The regulatory framework should focus on ensuring inspectors are genuinely qualified—through recognised education and experience—rather than through financial buy-in.

3. Limited Industry Access Due to Family-Based Business Structures

A large proportion of building inspection businesses are family-run or operate within closed networks. These businesses often recruit only through personal references, limiting opportunities for new, qualified professionals to enter the industry.
If the proposed scheme recognises formal qualifications and technical competency (rather than personal networks), it will open pathways for university-trained professionals and others with legitimate credentials to participate in the sector.

4. Opportunity to Improve Professional Standards

By prioritising qualifications, experience, and demonstrable competency—as outlined in the discussion paper—the new regulatory system can:

improve the overall standard of building inspections in SA

increase fairness and transparency in employment and contracting

reduce reliance on unqualified or minimally trained individuals

encourage mobility of skilled inspectors across Australia

Conclusion

I support the introduction of a clear, competency-based registration scheme that recognises both formal qualifications and interstate licences under Mutual Recognition.
Such an approach will strengthen consumer protection while ensuring that qualified professionals have fair access to the building inspection industry in South Australia.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Submission Regarding the Regulation of Building Inspectors in South Australia

1. Introduction and Core Argument

The current regulatory framework for private building inspectors in South Australia requires urgent reform. The role of a building inspector is distinct from that of a builder or tradesperson; it is a profession of assessment and compliance that should require specific qualifications in building surveying. While trade experience is valuable, it should not be the sole pathway. The primary qualification for an inspector should be expertise in evaluating building performance against the National Construction Code, a skill set fundamentally different from that of constructing or installing.

2. Personal Experience: A Case Study in Systemic Failure

My professional journey underscores the deficiencies in the current system. I have pursued a dedicated educational path to become a building inspector, including:

· A Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) from Flinders University.
· A Postgraduate Diploma in Building Surveying, where I gained comprehensive training in compliance checks for buildings of all classes.

Despite these qualifications, I discovered there was no direct pathway to registration for private building inspection in South Australia. To gain formal recognition, I:

· Completed the UTS certification course and obtained registration as a Building Certifier – Building Inspector in New South Wales.
· Applied for mutual recognition in SA via Plan SA, believing my NSW registration and advanced qualifications demonstrated my competency.

The outcome was both surprising and frustrating. My application was refused. I was informed that:

· The NSW Building Inspector role is not equivalent to the SA Building Level 4 accreditation (which is designed for council inspectors).
· Crucially, no registration or accreditation is required whatsoever to operate as a private building inspector in South Australia.

3. The Professional Dilemma and Consumer Risk

The official response from Plan SA, while clarifying the law, creates a significant professional and ethical problem. It states, in effect, that my extensive qualifications in engineering and building surveying place me on the same regulatory footing as an individual with no formal training.

This creates a three-fold problem:

· Devaluation of Qualifications: I cannot leverage my qualifications through a formal title (e.g., "Registered Building Inspector"), as no such protected title exists for private practice. This eliminates a key market differentiator for qualified professionals.
· Unfair Competition: The system incentivizes operating without the burden of obtaining costly and time-consuming qualifications, creating a race to the bottom on price at the expense of quality and expertise.
· Consumer Protection Failure: Homeowners are left without a reliable means to distinguish between a highly qualified professional and an unqualified practitioner, exposing them to significant financial and safety risks.

4. Recommendation for a Reformed System

The analogy to nursing is apt: one completes a nursing degree to become a Registered Nurse. Similarly, a person with a Civil Engineering and Building Surveying qualification should be eligible for a Registered Building Inspector licence.

I propose the following reform:

Establish a mandatory registration scheme for private building inspectors, with eligibility based on competencies specific to building surveying and compliance, not solely on trade experience.

This would:

· Protect consumers by ensuring a baseline of competency.
· Create a fair and transparent market where qualifications are recognized and valued.
· Elevate the professionalism and standards of the building industry in South Australia.

It is illogical that a professional qualified under a stricter regulatory regime (NSW) is deemed ineligible in a jurisdiction with no regulatory requirements for the same service. This situation undermines consumer confidence and discourages investment in specialized education. I urge a review of this policy to align South Australia with national best practices in professional standards and consumer protection.