Section 1: Increasing the uptake of remote inspections
On this page
The opportunity and benefits
The discussion document noted that remote inspections can make it easier, faster and cheaper to build by enabling BCAs to carry out more inspections per day. This, in turn, helps reduce inspection wait times due to greater availability of inspection slots. Benefits identified in the discussion document included reducing the need for inspectors to travel to building sites, greater flexibility and timeliness for inspectors and builders, and the ability for inspectors from one district to carry out inspections in other districts.
Submitters were asked if they agreed with the description of the above opportunity and benefits. Submitters were also asked if there are other benefits to remote inspections that were not included in the discussion document.
Most submitters (59%) that responded to the question agreed with the description of the opportunity and benefits, while 24% disagreed, and 7% were unsure. As shown in Figure 2, owners/developers and builders/other trades that responded generally agreed with the opportunities and benefits, whilst BCAs were circumspect.
Figure 2: Do you agree with description of the opportunity of increasing the uptake of remote inspections?
Data from graph
Other benefits identified by submitters included:
- cost savings due to fewer delays, easier re-checks, less repetitive follow-up documentation and reduced wait time
- better documentation of inspection data
- development and upskilling opportunities for practitioners and inspectors
- increased productivity and efficiency in the sector
- more trust in the building sector
- greater flexibility in the event of a national emergency.
The most common reason provided by those that did not agree with the description was because of the time and cost involved to carry out remote inspections currently. This is discussed in the next section.
Barriers and risks of remote inspections
Barriers to greater uptake
The main barriers to greater uptake of remote inspections listed in the discussion document were the costs to BCAs to establish systems, technology and training, the time it takes for the sector to become more confident in using technology, the suitability of remote inspections for certain building work and the risk of non-compliant work being missed during remote inspections.
BCAs that commented on the above barriers also discussed the duration of a remote inspection compared to an on-site inspection. A few of these submitters reported that real-time remote inspections can take longer than on-site inspections in some instances (eg where inspectors have to re-direct the builder on site) due to low confidence and competency in using the technology. Auckland Council reported that remote inspections can take 10-25% longer than on-site inspections (not accounting for travel time).
Other common barriers shared by BCAs were the upfront and ongoing costs for BCAs to adopt the technology, minimal interest from the industry and decreased levels of interpersonal connection during remote inspections.
Risks of greater uptake
MBIE described the key risks of remote inspections as decreased building safety and performance due to non-compliant work being missed, dishonest practices, liability issues and reduced public trust in the quality of buildings that are inspected remotely.
Submitters were asked if they agreed with the key risks, and if there are other risks that should be considered. Overall, most submitters across all submitter groups agreed with the description of the risks. See Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Do you agree these are the main risks associated with increasing the use of remote inspections?
Data from graph
While most builders indicated they had no concerns with partaking in remote inspections, some BCAs and industry submitters flagged that greater uptake of remote inspections could lead to low quality building work.
Submitters that supported the described risks agreed that non-compliant building work would be missed due to technological limitations (including poor connectivity issues) or deceptive behaviour during remote inspections. They also raised that some building work is not suitable for remote inspections and using remote inspections for that work could mean non-compliant work is not identified during the inspection.
The discussion document also sought feedback on the adequacy of the occupational regulation and consumer protection measures to mitigate any risks that could arise from remote inspections. Almost half of the submitters that responded to this question did not think that the current occupational regulation and consumer protection measures are adequate. BCAs raised concerns with competency levels and high inspection failure rates. They felt that it is challenging to deter deceptive behaviour currently because the penalties are either too low, the complaints process is too difficult to navigate, or prosecution is too expensive. A number of BCAs and builders suggested that the liability rules be changed to proportionate liability to ensure deceptive practitioners are held accountable, and that BCAs and consumers do not end up bearing the cost of non-compliant work.
Options to increase uptake of remote inspections and improve efficiency of inspection processes
MBIE consulted on 4 options to increase the uptake of remote inspections and improve efficiency of inspection processes. Submitters were asked for their most preferred option and whether MBIE should consider any alternatives. Submitters were able to select more than one preferred option.
The options consulted on were:
- Option 1 (non-regulatory): Review remote inspection guidance, address inspection failure rates and/or publish inspection wait times
- Option 2 (capability): Require BCAs to have systems and capability to conduct remote inspections
- Option 3 (default): Require BCAs to use remote inspections as the default approach to conducting inspections
- Option 4 (offence): Create a new offence to deter deceptive behaviour.
Submitters were asked which option(s) they preferred and invited to suggest other options for consideration.
Preferred options:
Overall, 106 submitters supported option 2 (capability) and 87 submitters supported option 4 (offence). Option one (non-regulatory) was supported by 60 submitters, and 44 submitters supported option 3 (default). This is shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Preferred option by submitter type
Data from graph
In terms of preferred option combinations, 55 submitters preferred the capability option as a standalone option, while a further 45 supported a combination of the capability and offence options. Figure 5 below shows the preferred option combinations by submitter type in greater detail.
Figure 5: Preferred option combinations by submitter type
Data from graph
The flexibility and discretion of the capability option to BCAs was the most cited reason for preference among submitters that supported this option. BCAs, industry groups and builders stated that it is important that BCAs retain the choice of inspection method to ensure good quality building work, and that risks are maintained.
Submitters that preferred the combination of the capability option and the new offence option generally suggested it would provide similar benefits to that described above, whilst also ensuring that deceptive practitioners are held accountable. While there was strong support for the creation of a new offence, some submitters noted that it is only good in principle, and it would be difficult to prove ‘deliberate’ actions to hide, disguise, or otherwise misrepresent non-compliant building work. Additionally, some BCAs noted that they rarely prosecute due to the time and cost to prosecute outweighing any fines that might be recovered.
The non-regulatory option was seen by supporters as useful to implement and they noted that consistent guidance is necessary. BCAs that supported this option shared that it has low financial impact and would give BCAs the discretion to operate how they see best. Industry submitters shared that this option would allow for greater uptake of remote inspections without imposing it on the sector. A number of these submitters also suggested implementing this first to gather ideas on the best practices for remote inspections.
Across all submitter groups, builders showed the most support for the option to require remote inspections by default. However, builder preference was relatively split between this option, requiring BCAs remote inspections capability and the creation of a new offence. Submitters that supported the default option felt that BCAs are too risk-averse, and this option is necessary to ensure more uptake of remote inspections by BCAs. They also shared that this option would provide more efficiency and consistency across BCAs. Submitters that opposed this option raised that it would override professional judgement, open BCAs to liability issues, and decrease the quality of building work. A few submitters were also concerned that the industry currently does not have the necessary skills for this option to work well in practice. Overall, while submitters agreed that remote inspections would increase efficiency and productivity in the sector, it was advised that it should be approached with care.
Alternative options suggested by submitters
Setting a maximum wait time for inspections
Several BCAs proposed a key performance indicator (KPI) for inspection wait times as an alternative option to incentivise BCAs to prioritise timely provision of inspections. Submitters noted that inspection delays can affect the overall build project costs and timelines. They highlighted that while the Building Act sets out a timeframe for processing building consents, it does not impose similar requirements for inspections. They suggested a KPI for wait times would increase efficiency in the inspection process, reduce uncertainties for builders and support more predictable project timelines. Additionally, it would support business cases for BCAs to gain more resources to meet the required timeframes.
Other suggestions
As mentioned earlier, submitters felt that the current liability rules make it challenging to hold dishonest practitioners accountable for defective building work. A few submitters were concerned that increasing the use of remote inspections could make this issue worse. To address this, they recommended changing the liability settings to ensure those responsible for defective building work are held accountable, and that BCAs and homeowners do not carry most of the risk.
Addressing inspection failure rates
Inspection failures impact BCA efficiency and timeliness due to time spent on re-inspections. Rework as a result of failed inspections also adds time and cost to a build.
Submitters were asked what can be done to help reduce inspection failure rates. 184 submitters responded to this question.
The most common suggestions were:
- Providing practitioners and inspectors with more education and training to improve understanding of the Building Act and associated regulations. This would also ensure builders are better prepared for inspections and create consistency in inspection approaches.
- Standardised inspection checklist for inspectors and practitioners to ensure builders are well prepared for inspections.
- Identifying and publishing common reasons for inspection failures to provide the sector with better information to reduce failure rates.
- Stricter punishments for practitioners that carry out non-compliant work by imposing infringement fines or license suspensions.
- Changing the liability rules from joint and several liability to proportionate liability to ensure dishonest practitioners are held accountable. One submitter shared placing more liability on the people carrying out the work would incentivise the sector to maintain a high standard of work.