Peter, if government as the consensus representation for the interests of the population are such an unnecessary disaster then are you suggesting what. Anarchy, tribes like in Afganistan. I would like to hear your suggestion for the future of humanity. In the mean time i am comfortable with my assertion that the best lies in a balance between free market and governments otherwise it is like a game of footy with no ref.

Cornflower, The minimum standards for building in Australia are 'Building Code of Australia' and 'The Australian Standards'. These must be read together and carry specific methods of construction that are accepted and offer performance provisions for the effective proof of alternative methods. Building standards in Australia are good but the industry does suffer from too many cowboys and B/S artists. Your comment on European building being so much better is somewhat miss directed as the building needs due to climate and geotechnics are very different. If you view the standards for cyclonic zones and alpine areas you will note the difference as to what can be done compared to say Sydney suburbs. I do agree that the finishes that are accepted leave much to be desired, but this is not structural and is driven by the "ME" generation and their need to have it all now as well as the mega profits that building groups want to show share holders.
As for the inspection process, remember that this has been decentralised away from local government and can now be done by licensed building surveyors. You can debate the pro's and con's of this system but in the end if a plan is approved then the inspector cannot challenge the design, their job is to ensure that the building is built to plan.

nairbe,

Precisely what forces builders to comply with any of those 'Standards'?

The home owner can write compliance with those standards and with the installation requirements of manufacturers into specifications for work, but if the builder does not meet any of them he (the home owner) does not have a leg to stand on because he then has to prove in a Building Tribunal that the non-compliant work had actually resulted in damage.

To take an example, a building could be constructed with the weep holes in brickwork below the level of landscaping - which is an obvious cause for concern. However it is not sufficient to take that evidence plus information from the 'Standards' you have quoted plus (even) reports from the Building Standards Authority proving how such poor work is a common cause of mold and damage to structure to the Tribunal. What the home owner must do in addition is to obtain engineering and other evidence to prove that damage has actually been sustained during the insurance period.

The complaint being proved, the Building tribunal might require remedial work to the area proved, or it might just award an amount for repairs and the owner is left with that and wondering what other areas will also fail.

Taking another example which is a common source of complaint, which is the tiling of wet areas and even shower floors over timber chipboard and without compressed cement fibre sheeting between (floor movement will cause damage to the waterproofing membrane). There is nothing to prevent builders from such shoddy, un-tradesmanlike practices and again, the owner must wait to detect moisture elsewhere and hope to prove its source. How would most owners know until many years later that the strange smells are from water leaks?

What is required are Standards that are Standards that MUST be complied with as a minimum, no ifs, buts or maybes. If it is not done right, tear it down and start again.

Once again we witness an author duck-shoving the market's failure onto an inexperienced government whose intentions were for the common good.

The racketeering 'insulators' ripped off the government, ripped off the consumers and killed off a few others.

The author should consider writing an article on BHP Billiton who has killed some fifty people in less than a decade - 17 deaths in the '03/'04 financial year under Mr Howard's 'free' market ideological regime.

Where's the huffing and puffing about a 'free' market that's out of control - lest we forget?

Cornflower.
It is illegal for a builder to allow landscaping to be built against a concrete slab or brick work without the required waterproofing measures and ventilation. If they do the building surveyor should refuse the occupation certificate. What home owners do after they take possession is another issue all together as not all homes come landscaped.

The standards are surveyed and confirmed in the approval process. If a builder fails to meet those standards then they have acted illegally. Certainly a shower recess should never be built as you suggest and there are very strick regulations involved in the construction of wet areas. None the less you are right and shoddy workmanship goes on. But how do you suggest the standards are enforced without extra costs. We suffer mechanics that charge for parts they don't replace and even worse we tollerate super funds that charge us to let them make money out of our money and then can hardly even say sorry when they loose it. Imagine the mess if we let someone we have no idea of come in to our home and install insulation just because its free.

Please explain how you can stop the cowboys in all industries? While the consumer is greedy and unrealistic about cost and don't do any homework on the reputation of the builder they employ the shoddy work will continue. The tribunal may not be perfect and might improve with some more clout but where ever lawyers are involved it will always be expensive and outcomes shaded in confusion. It's a problem of law not the building codes.

Protagoras,

you so passionately take up cudgels against big business citing strings of safety infractions from decades past and damning them to hell, yet when a government puts in place a patently flawed system with no checks and balances in spite of multiple warnings, and as a direct result 4 young people are dead, and nearly 200 homes are burnt down, suddenly you are defending them because they meant well?

I smell the stench of hypocrisy.

I'm amazed that no one, anywhere, has bothered to mention this was originally an Obama scheme. Our innovative, progressive and thoughtful politicians have simply said "well the Yanks are doing it, so it must be good, right?"
Fortunately (for them) the Americans have had a branch of the Dept. of Energy doing this sort of thing for 30 years, so Obama's 5 billion injection wasn't quite as off the wall as the Australian model.
Rudd appears guilty of following Gough's example, in trying to do too much, too soon.