Two crucial initiatives to clamp down on unsafe building designs are yet to see the light of day, five years after the Kaikōura earthquake.
Dr Richard Templer, chief executive of Engineering NZ Photo: Phil Pennington
At the same time, the number of complex complaints about commercial building structural design is rising.
The Structural Engineering Society said the problem with substandard designs is "unacceptable".
"We've been campaigning for change to prevent quality issues," Structural Engineering Society president, Michelle Grant said.
"We've ... strongly voiced our recommendations for greater scrutiny and tighter assessment of structural engineers."
Such is the increase in complex investigations landing at Engineering New Zealand (ENZ) that it has had to hire more engineers and lawyers to tackle the backlog. The body receives between 45-50 complaints each year.
Between 45-50 complaints are received each year. Photo: Supplied
"We have seen an increase in the number of complaints around buildings which have been inadequately designed," ENZ chief executive Dr Richard Templer said.
"And that is, of course, a fault both in the building design, in the peer review of the building, and also ultimately the certification of that building at a local government level."
'Mistakes may still go undetected'
The problems evident in the run-up to and after the Christchurch 2011 quake and Kaikōura quake of 2016 - poor communications or relationships on projects, insufficient checks and balances, and patchy peer reviews, among them - persist, the ENZ said.
"We know that some basic mistakes may still go undetected," Templer said.
Five years ago his organisation launched an unprecedented inquiry into poor design. It has still not been made public.
It also joined the Structural Engineering Society in trying to set up a new database to track design problems, which councils could use to spot flaws in plans submitted for consenting.
That has not worked. "If you're going to make a difference, you have to do it before the building is constructed" but had to occur within the 20-working-days consent period.
"And so that's just too difficult to task," Templer said.
Structural Engineering Society president Michelle Grant Photo: Supplied
Grant said a database could not be set up when key data was missing.
"We are still in the same position we were in in 2019, we still don't have quantitative data on the quality of engineering design," she said.
It was up to government to do it, she added.
The society has made submissions calling for this to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, in 2019 and just recently.
'Sooner the better'
Grant has not seen a draft of the investigation into flawed design practices, which began in 2016.
"No - we would like to see it though. As soon as possible. We want to see change.
"We want the report, the sooner the better," she said.
The investigation was sparked by the discovery of a slew of quake-prone buildings in Masterton, and later Palmerston North.
"We can't release the report, because there are both an ongoing complaints process and ongoing civil litigation," Templer said.
But they had used it already to work on changes in the occupational regulation process, how ENZ gave technical input, and improvements being made to the Certified Professional Engineers system, he said.
"We would have liked to see things moving faster.
"But more importantly, is to get things right."
ENZ was at least consulting on these changes arising from the unreleased inquiry's findings, Grant said.
Change is coming, but slowly. The ministry is having its third run in eight years at tightening up on structural engineers. Its proposals include compulsory registration and licensing high-risk disciplines; they are open for consultation until 25 June.
The proposals this time were better than in 2014 and 2019, both Templer and Grant said.
The ministry said its previous consultations had a narrow focus looking at building safety, and provided the evidence required to develop the proposals now being consulted on.
Submissions in 2019 showed that "other engineering disciplines have the potential to harm public safety and wellbeing, and should be included in any new regulatory regime", it said.
The two-tier regime it proposes is that high-risk engineering disciplines be licensed, and that all engineers be registered.
"This is complex area of regulation, and we intend to progress legislation to put in place the new regulatory regime for engineers in 2022."