nairbe, "The building industry is well regulated in this country."

Superficially it might appear that way. Why is it though that a builder is under no obligation whatsoever to meet as an absolute minimum standard the (less-than-onerous) BCA - Building Code of Australia?

"The Building Code of Australia is produced and maintained by the ABCB on behalf of the Australian Government and State and Territory Governments. The BCA has been given the status of building regulations by all States and Territories."

http://www.aib.org.au/buildingcodes/bca.htm

Why is it that a homeowner is obliged under the HIA and Master Builders home building contracts and by available contract law to pay in full for practical completion of a house where there is evidence that the building is seriously deficient when compared with the Building Code and the recommendations of the relevant State building standards authority? Examples could be (in addition to those provided earlier): a damp course with drain holes either completely blocked or below the surface of the landscaping; and balustrade anchored to a compressed fibre cement sheet floor (ie not to flooring joists)?

The public is being hoodwinked into believing that there is a certain approved acceptable standard of building that must be attained and that regulators are active and proactive in enforcing those standards. However nothing could be further from the truth - a poor builder can do whatever he wishes and the onus is on the homeowner not only to cite and prove damage as a result of poor building practices, but in so doing to invoke and defend building standards. The onus of proof is always on the home-owner even though he has photographic proof and professional inspection during construction that clearly identified sub-standard work.

As for electrical trades the same problem occurs.

After completing any electrical or insulation work in the ceiling, its always a good idea to put a flock of geese in as part of the testing process. If they can handle it and nothing too radical happens, it should be fine.

This might have to do with the Gov authorizing every Tom, Dick, and Harry to do the insulation. Many of the installers had not existed prior to the program.

What is there to say that installation prior to or after the government's initiative was/is in accord with the BCA? I have given examples that prove the opposite.

I do not object to politicians making political capital out of the government's errors but neither side of politics has undertaken to correct the systemic problems in the home construction industry that not only allowed problems to occur to occur but made it a certainty.

The systemic deficiencies remain, they didn't just go away with the withdrawal of the insulation scheme.