The media has been rife with stories about non-conforming building products – poor insulation in particular – but according to at least one industry leader there will be no real action until we get third-party certification.

According to chairman of Insulation Australasia Scott Gibson this will be the only way to be certain you are getting what you paid for.

Gibson says the risks of using non-conforming products are legion, including reputational damage, building failure, increased fire risks, poorly performing buildings and erosion of property values.

The problem is the extent of gaming of test results, misleading statements of performance and counterfeiting of paperwork in the industry, he says.

“While there are many good manufacturers, there is a plethora of fly-by-night trading companies and importers bringing in products that are less than the standards require,” Gibson says.

Gibson is also the managing director of Kingspan Insulation, and says the company’s technical department has uncovered numerous examples of false claims, overstated thermal performance, doctored testing documents, golden sampling methods and fraudulent product labelling.

Unfortunately, none of the authorities to which the company has reported non-conforming products have taken action, he says. The Victorian Building Authority, for example, said it was a matter for the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission. The ACCC said it was a matter for the Victorian Building Authority. The VBA then said it was a matter for Consumer Affairs in the Victorian Department of Justice, and that department said it was not within its capacity to investigate.

The Senate Inquiry into Non-Conforming Building Products equally proved something of a dead-end, seeking one final extension to report, which was granted, until two weeks after the double dissolution resulted in the Inquiry being disbanded. Senator Xenophon’s office has declined to confirm whether the senator plans to see the inquiry re-established.

“All we see is headlines by ministers and no one doing a thing,” Gibson says.

For the legitimate industry players, this is frustrating, and for builders and certifiers it means the only protection they have against dodgy products is ensuring the paperwork is checked.

The third party system used for certification of product performance and meeting of applicable standards needs to be one that is JAS-ANZ accredited, Gibson says. Any testing needs to be undertaken by a facility that is accredited by NATA or an equivalent offshore source of oversight.

Insulation Australasia has proposed a product conformance scheme that would make third-party certification mandatory for insulation products sold in Australia.

Gibson says broad estimates put the cost of such a scheme to trade at less than one per cent, considerably less than the costs incurred by the industry and building owners when non-conforming product is installed in hospitals, shopping centres or private homes.

“Their house is the most expensive thing most people buy in their lives,” he says.

“And the public invest in large infrastructure buildings like hospitals – they deserve to know that safe and effective products have been used.

“The only way to provide adequate consumer protection and a level playing field for manufacturers is through the protection offered by a third party certification.”

The Building Products Innovation Council, which includes associations representing insulation products, also advocates strongly for action on non-conforming products.

BPIC chair Elizabeth McIntyre says the organisation supports the need for many building products to be certified under third-party public or private schemes that comply with AS 17065, including JAS-ANZ.

“This is currently one pathway under the BCA requirements,” McIntyre says.

“A number of BPIC members have established schemes which meet these requirements to assist their members and the building industry have confidence in the products certified under those schemes.”

In terms of validating compliance, McIntyre says it is a matter for everyone in the building supply chain.

“Builders and buyers need to be more aware of the standards products should meet. Manufacturers and suppliers need to ensure they can provide proof that products meet the relevant standards and as part of the building approval process, building certifiers should be requiring information that shows products meet these standards.”

Where a company has knowingly placed products on the market that are not “fit for purpose” in terms of the NCC or other applicable codes, the ACCC does have scope to act in relation to claims of false and misleading conduct, McIntyre says.

However their powers are limited and successful findings do not always lead to a product being withdrawn from the market place.

“The ACCC and the state counterparts should have the ability to act on decisions by the ACCC and have building products removed from the market place when they are found to be non-conforming.”

Not only do non-fit-for-purpose products hurt complying businesses, they also create downstream costs and safety concerns that are ultimately borne by building owners and taxpayers.

And rectifying work is time consuming, costly and unproductive.

Worse is that many consumers only find out there are non-conforming products in their building when there has been damage to the building, for example when the product fails or where it has poor durability.

There are also associated costs such as being deprived of using some or all of a building, higher insurance premiums and potentially lower property values.

McIntyre says BPIC strongly supports the re-establishment of the Senate Inquiry into Non-Conforming Building Products.

“BPIC members are raising this issue with a range of government, opposition and independent politicians to seek support to reconvene the inquiry,” she says.

The organisation’s members are also committed to improving standards and code compliance within their respective industries, she says, while also ensuring that manufacturers are responsible for the quality of products they produce and the claims they make about the performance of those products.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

  1. The simplest solution is the best, get rid of dark roofs and compulsorily require white roofs on all buildings, the same with brickwork and cladding only one colour that’s white.

  2. Thank you 5th Estate for this important article. But what is missing in the equation – yet again – is that Product Certification is an expensive deception on the public unless and until the insulation standards tell the truth.

    Since the key insulation standard AS/NZS4859.1 (2002) was published, the public has no idea what are the best suited insulation materials for the particular climate.

    In the 2014 Pitt & Sherry report “National Energy Efficient Building Project”, it was revealed by building designers that bulk insulations were not suited in ceilings in the Tropics, and that double layers of RFL foil insulations should only be used.

    Every time this point is presented to the relevant Standards Committee, there is stony silence. And abject silence from the wider industry and bureaucrats. One can conclude what this all means. For hints of an answer, read the Interim Report of the 2016 Senate Inquiry: Non-Conforming Building Products, that was officially reopened last week and will now report by May 2017.

    The bias for bulk insulations has been running for 60 years in Australia and has to stop, once and for all. Bulk products are excellent in ceilings for retarding the escape of winter heat but have weaknesses against incoming high intensity roof space radiation because the thermal test method (for R-values) is inadequate and not suited for the dominant hot climates of Australia and mild winters compared to the very opposite of Europe and parts of the USA.

    This subject has been exhaustively dealt with in the 2010 Senate Inquiry -Home Insulation Program, with the definitive Recommendation No.6:
    “The government should establish a dedicated and industry-independent program to research insulation systems and help develop efficient and effective policy.”

    But once again, total refusal of Standards, the ABCB, or even the Consumers Federation of Australia who sit on Standards, to say or do anything.

    This is an intolerable situation, and made even worse because both sides of politics are guilty of wilful negligence, over 15 years. The politicians are employed and accountable to the Public, which they routinely forget.