This is a long reply and I apologise in advance, but the self-promotional gas from well-paid politicians in the place of action is always hard to take.



Nick Xenophon is absolutely clueless if he thinks that the diplomats in building regulation are any help to homeowners. As any home owner would know, there is absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, nil, that obliges a builder to comply with the Building Code, Australian Standards or the product manufacturer's use and installation guidelines. To take house showers for instance, there is no reduction in the incidence of serious deficiencies because the basic standards have not been complied with. Walk around new homes and see how many have the landscaping higher than weep holes or no weep holes where required. I was watching a new house being built near the local school, where the builder bricked around a supporting timber post (a path for termites). It was easy for him but a time bomb for the unwitting owner. It was an expensive multiple level home too. Up the road a builder couldn't be bothered using the recommended blunts rather than pointed nails for a cypress frame, which to make things worse had been left stacked in the sun for weeks while the builder was busy elsewhere. The regulators are diplomats, the 'standards' are voluntary, the government inspection (where conducted) is light on the ground and lack-lustre and rectification is reactive and through contract law, must follow final payment for practical completion. Even where you took photos of (say) absence of a damp course, you are obliged to wait for damage and obtain proof of cause.

The problem with caravans, houses and boats to take a few, but food outlets and other businesses could be included, is that there is a heap of regulations and bureaucrats, but politics get in the road. A home owner, boat buyer or caravan buyer may be making one of the largest investment of his/her life and accordingly is taking a high risk, but it is the representative body (union) of the businesses that will have the ear of politicians and hold sway when push comes to shove. They make the big political donations and they have friends. For similar reasons the media is not going to go to the root of the problem for fear that advertising will be withdrawn.

I owned a number of caravans when I was in my early to mid working career and now I hope to return to the lifestyle. The problems that were in evidence years ago remain and more have been added. Vans still leak and salesmen are still 'over-optimistic' concerning the towing ability of the client's vehicle, to give instances.Then as now it is ridiculous to expect that a member of the public would have the skills to decide which is a 'reputable manufacturer' and what vans have been built well. Like houses and boats, when the cladding goes on it can hide a multitude of sins that can take some years to evidence.

The difficulty of obtaining informed opinion/comment also remains and all here would be able to list the restraining forces involved, one being the natural reluctance to admit buying an expensive lemon. But practically speaking, the only thing that helps consumers is proactivity NOT reactivity from government, making any regulations and product use/installation guidelines obligatory as the minimum standard, with credible, properly trained professionals (not half-trained clerks) conducting regular, random, inspections. Inspection MUST be during construction. No excuses should be accepted for substandard work.

I am a lay person, probably more so than most here. Even though I have owned 17'-22' vans before, I can't say I have any particular skills that would equip me to pick well - apart from relying on my former approach of buying a popular, big selling van from a manufacturer that lives up to its warranty (from the word of mouth of owners). That will rule out all of the more expensive vans I might like but hey, if those fellows aren't interested in enforcing standards in their industry why should I take any more risks than I have to?

Thanks for your patience folks.