Structural engineers want the fines for substandard designing boosted, warning that poor buildings are still slipping through.
The Structural Engineering Society would welcome the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment introducing stronger deterrents for substandard designing (file image). Photo: 123RF
They are less than impressed with the case of structural engineer Kevin O'Connor, fined $3500 - with $35,000 in costs - for signing off on half a dozen Masterton buildings below earthquake standard.
Structural Engineering Society spokesperson Dr Nic Brooke said the fine was in line with a current cap of $5000.
"Those involved have to work within the laws that cover it. Obviously, compared to the potential consequences, that's really not much more than a minor inconvenience," Brooke said.
The society strongly backed moves to raise the penalties as part of overdue moves to set higher professional thresholds.
It would welcome the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment "to push forward ... and look to alter the law so there could be more deterrent," Brooke said.
"Anecdotally, there still are numerous cases of buildings that don't pass muster."
He could only speak "anecdotally" because "there is no quantitative data about the proportion of building consents that are issued with mistakes within them, or representing buildings that have mistakes".
This had been a frustration for a long while, he said.
If there were such a database, it would help councils know what to watch out for.
Engineering New Zealand told the government more than two years ago the country needed a national auditing system to stop "basic mistakes that aren't being picked up".
It has not happened. A ministry consultation to strengthen regulation of engineering closed for submissions mid-year.
Engineering New Zealand backed the ministry's proposal for a new regulatory system - as long as it could be the regulatory service provider.
But the Masterton Lands Trust which owned the six buildings compromised in the O'Connor case, said the five-year saga and wet-sop of a penalty showed ENZ was too weak to be the regulator.
Brooke said it was unclear when regulatory changes would be made.
They were "not happy" with how long the O'Connor investigation took and now the job was to tell engineers how to avoid a repeat.
On that score, ENZ had for the first time invited SESOC to help disseminate the lessons from a disciplinary case, Brooke said.
The aim was to change "both the systems that let these buildings through, and also the systems that have just been demonstrated as not providing much deterrent".
A wider report into the systemic problems has been underway for years, but ENZ said it could not release that yet due to litigation around some of the cases in it.
This report is meant to help with setting up the missing auditing system.
