I have been following James Kitto’s coverage of the mouldy South Hobart public housing complex. The problems that arise one after another reminds me, metaphorically speaking, of Nataly Dawn’s rendition of “Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head”.

Kitto, J. (2020a, July 3). Unit’s test corroborates public housing concerns. The Mercury, 4. 
Kitto, J. (2020b, July 4). Outrage over mouldy units. The Mercury, 12. 
Kitto, J. (2020c, July 15). Mouldy unit ‘not an issue.’ The Mercury, 10. 
Kitto, J. (2020d, August 12). Tenant battles to break the mould. The Mercury, 12.

It was previously reported that Matthew Rooke’s GP has linked his ailments to the mouldy conditions in his home. It is encouraging to learn that this physician has been able to make a connection between the built environment and the patients’ symptoms. I don’t think the presentation of illness and their association with environmental toxicities are all that well understood by many conventional doctors.

However, eventually it is not even the GPs who are able to make the determination if a building is fit for occupancy. Depending on which state one is in, the law differs on who get’s to call that shot.

In states that have adopted the National Model Building Act in entirety, such as Victoria, the Building Act has provisions for a building surveyor to serve a building notice if a building poses danger to the “health of any member of the public or any person using the building”. Tasmania’s modified acceptance of the Model Building Act in 2000, on the other hand, omits the clause on health. That is not to say there is no recourse for a Tasmanian in an unhealthy building.

In Tasmania, the Public Health Act empowers the environmental health officer (EHO) to make  the determination whether “premises are so unhealthy that no person can safely occupy them”. Following this determination, an interim closure order is issued until a building surveyor provides a rectification report, for which the building will have to be either rectified or closed.

The severity of such a decision, one which could condemn a building, places profound responsibility on the EHO. The Department of Health and Human Services published a “Guide to Assessing Unhealthy Premises” (DHHS, 2015) that explained the procedures for decision making, and even provided a metric for determining the severity of mould — under 1m², up to 10m², over 10m², and possibly hidden — but did not categorically state which one of these would make the premises so unhealthy that nobody could safely occupy them. This lack of guidance leaves the EHO open to legal challenge should the building owner or property developer contest their decision in the courts.

The difference between the Victoria Building Act and Tasmania Public Health Act boils down to this: is the building unhealthy to anyone, or to everyone? Is there a problem if 1 in 10 occupants suffer, or only when all 10 in 10 do? It can be seen that in the context of ensuring that buildings are fit for occupation health wise, the precautionary principle is more prominent in other states like Victoria. Unfortunately, for tenants like Matthew Rooke, the legal framework in Tasmania becomes very problematic as he has to bear the burden of proof that his condition is not from his personal disposition to being particularly sensitive to mould, but that everyone else residing in his apartment has also gotten sick.

It is therefore very impressive that action by the Housing Department has nevertheless been taken in his case, and I can only imagine that the tenacious coverage by The Mercury and the presence of political leaders weighing in on the matter have decisively contributed to this outcome. Many others in Tasmania do not enjoy the same providence.

It is for this reason that a federal parliamentary inquiry into Biotoxin-related Illnesses in Australia was undertaken in 2018: to raise public awareness of the biotoxicity of water damaged buildings. One of the conclusions was:

“The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with states and territories to conduct further research into the adequacy of current building codes and standards related to the prevention and remediation of dampness and mould in buildings.”

In 2019, the National Construction Code introduced new provisions for “Condensation Management”. This was a major development, yet at the same time it also reflected that all buildings prior to these enforcements could well be code-compliant and still be mouldy from condensation.

A mould problem is always a moisture problem. In an earlier report, Martin Bohata from Healthy Homes Tasmania had attributed the moisture problem at the public housing complex to condensation. Without being present I am not able to corroborate that, although I would think it is definitely plausible.

When mould arises from condensation it differs from mould arising from other building defects. Mould, in itself, is explicitly excluded from home and content insurance. However, the insurer is responsible for restoring a building to a state prior to a listed event covered by the policy. So with the right coverage, one could be covered for water ingress from damage to the roof or arising from plumbing leaks. In such cases there will be compensation by the insurer.

However, with condensation it could well be a problem with building design and construction, for which there is no listed event, and no prior state to ‘restore’ something to. Mould remediators who are not familiar with identifying condensation causes may temporarily remove the mould, only to have it reappear next winter. The amount of condensation that occurs in buildings can be profuse, amounting to an indoor drizzle. One just has to take a peek in the roof space on a cold morning. In the case of many houses built between 2010-2019, raindrops from condensation might be falling on your head. 

2010 was the year 6-star energy efficiency provisions were mandated, and from which period condensation in buildings became much more commonplace. 2019 being the year when condensation provisions were first introduced.

But do be careful if you enter a roof space, non-compliant wiring is common in this part of houses as was discovered by the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program.

I would have liked to have given a picture that was less gray, less “rainy”. I wish I had the solutions. The thing is that architectural scientists can only manage what we can monitor, and monitor what we can measure. Without research funding we just don’t have enough answers as to how to solve the building-mould-health problem. I think the step that needs to be taken is that the public needs to make this a research priority with the State’s departments of health and state growth. Public funds need to be directed to research into making buildings, new and old, safe and healthy. Because at the end of the day, the consequences of unhealthy buildings fall on the public.