(07) 3219 2777
Termite Issue
Government
Government departments have some ownership of the termite issue, largely through a lack of action, or inappropriate action. The pest control industry is administered by government on a number of levels.
Pest controller licensing is administered by the Health Department in Queensland. Their primary concern is health and safety. Treatment issues have hardly rated in over 20 years we are aware of. The issue of inadequate termite spraying has been raised with them personally on a number of occasions over the years with little result.
In later years, the Building Services Authority (BSA) got involved in licensing pest controllers doing work for the building industry. Don't think for a moment that having a BSA license is any suggestion that work will be done properly. For many years the licence system was but revenue generation, and it took the BSA until 1999 to launch a prosecution for improper termite works (Guardian Pest and Weed Control fined $4,000 for negligence and incompetence in relation to a treatment at Mogill). Their policing of the pre-construction section of our industry has been atrocious, with a heavy bias noted towards the larger builders. In some instances it has been poor investigative work, and in others inadequate enforcement of building standards in repairs. For some case histories, please visit our BSA Case History Page.
The photo on the left shows some studs replaced by a major project builder during repairs to termite damage at a home. The Building Services Authority has determined that even when the stud doesn't continue to the bottom plate, it doesn't constitute a defect requiring the builder's attention. The photo on the right shows some termite damage to a bottom plate. Extensive bottom plate and stud replacement was required to a substantial area of the home, but because the damage was behind a tiled wall of the bathroom, the damage didn't warrant the cost of removing the tiled wall to repair this area. The balance of the home has issues, with extensive bracing ply damage, and the builder's pest controller even drilled the shower tray, destroying the waterproofing of the shower.
With the termite issue gaining prominence, the BSA moved to increasing it's scope in relation to pest controllers. Termite inspection was included within the BSA's scope, and in order to be BSA licensed, a pest controller had to complete some additional formal training (As a footnote, an 18 year old with us for less than a week could develop the competencies for these new requirements). A glaring hole was that retrospective termite treatment was left out, and still has no BSA jurisdiction. This leaves the way free for many to charge the public exorbitant prices for ineffective treatments, with no policing.
The Queensland Building Tribunal has in recent times made some excellent decisions on behalf of home owners. The Tribunal is the court that addresses building issues for new homes and where a satisfactory result is not obtained through the Building Services Authority. Decisions made in the tribunal become precedents that the Building Services Authority must follow.
The Australian Building Codes Board operates through state offices as well, and in Queensland, the Building Codes Board adopted amendments in the termite issue that have certainly helped protect the homes being built in the future. It was a brave move to adopt these amendments in Queensland without waiting for the other states to join in, and Building Codes Queensland deserve to be congratulated for their foresight. The chemical manufacturers and distributors have lobbied long and hard for the concrete capping requirement to be removed, and we would encourage Building Codes Queensland to maintain their position. You got it right, and if anything needs to be changed, the requirements for chemical barriers need to be strengthened. Please visit our Concrete Capping page for more information.
The National Registration Authority (NRA) administer the registration of chemicals for use in Australia. A termiticide manufacturer must register their chemical(s) with them. We assume that the manufacturers have to produce some performance data to achieve registration, and with what we've learnt about the newer chemicals in recent times, we believe that one chemical at least has some grave concerns from a termite perspective.
Chlorpyrifos (marketed by Dow Agrosciences as Dursban) has been noted in a CSIRO study as having 90% degradation in 2 years in high alkaline soils. Chlorpyrifos was for a period, the only termiticide with registration in Australia following the cancellation of registration for the organochlorine termiticides effective 1st July, 1995. Soils in contact with concrete or mortar are high alkaline soils (almost every building site). Surely if these performance concerns were known to the NRA, then registration would not have been achieved for chlorpyrifos. This also begs the question if Dow were aware of these concerns and still persevered with registration. If these concerns had been known to the building industry and the NRA, perhaps we wouldn't have been quite so quick to remove the registration for the organochlorine termiticides until an effective alternative had been found.
The councils have some ownership of the termite issue, in accepting certificates from dubious pest controllers, and accepting termite barriers on some pretty flimsy ABSAC opinions. Concerns are also raised by the transition to private certification. We have no doubt that there are some excellent private certifiers out there. Our concern is that a private certifier is engaged by the builder. When councils were involved in approving buildings and practices, the council's only motivation was to enforce the appropriate codes as they knew. With private certifiers engaged by the builder, where a private certifier finds too many problems for a builder's liking, the builder will look for a certifier who is not so diligent for the next job. The really good certifier will go hungry. Perhaps building approval and certification should remain under the councils' control.
Self regulation of the pest control industry has failed. The time has come to regulate our industry effectively, and police it. The Building Services Authority is probably the best qualified government body to do this. The BSA legislation should be widened to encompass retrospective treatments. Perhaps a levy through BSA license fees could help pay for some effective policing. The BSA should also draw on appropriate external advice other than AEPMA on how best to police the industry. For more information on that, please visit our AEPMA page.
Chemical testing is a relatively simple process. To our view, where treatment failures occur where chemical barriers have been used, a chemical test should be done under the slab (where the home owner has had no impact), and where the chemical tests show that less than the required amount of chemical was applied, the applicator and their company should be charged with fraud. Rather than charge people with fraud through the Queensland Building Tribunal where direction and monetary penalties are applied, we believe they should be charged through the criminal courts where custodial sentences can be applied for repeat offenders.
Wouldn't that send a shock through the pest control industry. Wouldn't pest controllers suddenly be overwhelmingly motivated to do the right thing? It sounds like a harsh solution, but self regulation of the pest control industry simply hasn't worked. To those within our industry who look upon a solution like this as being bad for our industry, I simply ask if you have something to hide. If you've done the right thing, you have nothing to fear. We desperately need to get some integrity back into our industry, and if we don't do this, make no mistake, it will be thrust upon us.
The different bodies above in red are links to further information on each one. Please follow the links.
© Mark Porter 2002
Get it right the first time!
