I am reading this one for the first time, and...here we go!
(Planning to cross post this to the NS forum thread, btw)
Recognising that the building quality of buildings varies immensely across WA member nations,
First of all, using building as an adjective and as a noun in the same sentence is going to turn a lot of people off. I find it bearable, thought I would prefer "structural quality of buildings". Even then, "quality" doesn't sound correct. Something just feels off here, but I can't think of a replacement right now.
Concerned that in many WA member nations either through lack of government, lack of government intervention, wilful neglect or sheer ignorance, regulation of the construction of buildings either doesn’t exist or is woefully insufficient,
That is a mouthful. And has a terrible grammar structure. With "either" appearing twice in one sentence, I can't seem to comprehend this unless I take a piece of paper and write down, clause by clause, in bullet form, what this is trying to say. That is not something you would expect someone to be doing, especially when your point is just "concerned that regulations concerning the construction of buildings is lacking in member nations". I don't say my English is fantastic, but at least this is more towards the point.
Anxious that this lack of regulation is leading to serious building collapses with resulting injuries and fatalities
The World Assembly is "anxious". Is there a better word to use here? Also, nothing sounds grammatically correct in this sentence. I am tempted to correct this, but at this rate I am going I should be writing a completely new proposal and submit it.
Maintaining the belief that greater regulation of the construction of buildings will bring many benefits to the wider architectural community by increasing public confidence in the safety of all buildings,
"Maintaing the belief"? Innovative attempt, but sounds terrible as compared to "Believing that". Also don't understand how regulations can be "greater" or smaller. Also, increasing public confidence isn't many benefits.
1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
a. a 'building' as a structure that has a roof or walls which either permanently or semi-permanently remains in a single position;
Now, that is an interesting definition for a building. I believe that a huge tentage set up at a place for months is going to be called a building by this. Because we have no idea what is "semi-permanently", and a tentage has a top covering, so I believe that is a
roof.
b. an 'independent building assessor' as an individual appointed independently and acting independently from the personnel and organisations responsible for the construction of buildings to objectively assess the construction quality of the building;
I didn't know you can use different forms of the same word to define a word. Surely using the word "independently" to define what is an independent building assessor is not saying anything that helps me understand what you mean by "independent".
c. 'hazardous material' as being any substance used in the construction of buildings that is generally considered to be harmful to the health and well-being of any individual;
On paper it sounds okay, but there are potential issues because this is quite vague. Let me take note of this definition, and refer to it when this phrase is being used.
d. 'negligent construction work' as construction work that fails to take the adequate steps or care to prevent harm from occurring to any individual.
But...construction work can't take steps to prevent harm! The idea is there, but the Subject-Verb agreement is not making sense. Also, potential problem similar to that of the previous definition.
2. Requires:
a. the construction of all buildings to be performed in a safe and non-hazardous manner with the greatest possible steps taken to limit harm to construction workers;
"(S)afe and non-hazardous manner" sounds repetitive. How do you intend to quantify "greatest (sic) possible steps taken"? Furthermore, saying that these steps are only taken "to limit harm" suggest that construction is harmful to workers, and without suggesting in what aspects should harm be reduced, I can very well argue that some forms of harm cannot be reduced. Can you reduce the physical harm to your body caused by...say pushing the wheelbarrow of bricks? Or that caused by operating the machinery for hours straight everyday? Do you intend to address those issues too?
b. the construction of all buildings to be reviewed by an independent building assessor as determined by the national and subnational governments of WA member nations;
You mean, review the construction process? Or review the building itself?
c. the independent building assessor to compile an objective appraisal of the quality of the construction work of all buildings and provide this information to the responsible government or authority of each WA member nation;
Now you are suggesting that this building assessor is assessing only the building quality, the structural integrity, etc. I don't see the same in the previous clause. And also, "requiring the assessor to provide this information to the responsible government of each member nation" doesn't make sense. Even the alternative, which was to "(require) the assessor to provide this information to the responsible authority of each member nation" isn't any better. The word "responsible" is terrible. Try "relevant authorities" or "relevant government agency". But definitely not passing the information to the government, because politicians can't be the ones looking at building reports.
d. construction work found to be faulty by the objective appraisal is required to immediately cease until structural and safety improvements are made as determined by the independent assessor;
Incoherent. Firstly, construction work can't be faulty. Secondly, the "objective" appraisal can't find something to be faulty. Also, the use of the word "objective" is just awkward. Drop it, or change the sentence phrasing.
e. citizens and organisations who suffer from the negligent construction work of personnel and organisations responsible for the construction of buildings to have the right to sue for damages under the law of each WA member nation;
Okay, so I am required to give my people the rights to sue for damages. Sure. They have the rights to bring up lawsuits, but if there is no law that states that the company must pay damages, it is still useless. Also, remember that I was complaining that the definition of "negligent construction work" is vague? Here is one example - a man who is unable to walk, comes to work in this building everyday using a wheelchair, decides to sue the construction contractors because the man "suffers from inconvenience" caused by having to go one big round in order to get to the lift which brings him to his office. Sounds ridiculous, because this is a building design issue, and therefore, it is the fault of the developer and building designer. But because the building is a production of the construction work undertaken by the contractors, therefore, I can say that this is "negligent construction work" under the definition. Go figure.
f. the greatest possible steps be taken to ensure that the materials used in the construction of buildings will not cause harm to any individual who uses buildings;
I think I talked about the "greatest possible steps" bit. Or maybe not. But the phrase just sounds weird. Firstly, the missing article in the part "to any individual who uses buildings". Also, I don't know any individual who uses a building, maybe you can enlighten me about it? That isn't even the worse part. The worse part I that, I am free to use sub-standard brick tiles that are hollow, and I still won't get punished. Why? Because the brick per se isn't going to cause harm. The brick doesn't produce toxic fumes, for instance. But it affects the structural integrity of the building, which in turn affects the well-being of the occupants. Not covered under this clause, even though I believe that is what is intended.
3. Prohibits:
a. personnel and organisations responsible for constructing buildings in WA member nations from offering inducements, payments, gifts or bribes to independent building assessors in order to secure a positive appraisal;
The only readable clause in the entire proposal. Finally!
b. the use of hazardous materials in the construction of buildings.
Defining "hazardous materials" in front, only to use a different phrasing to say the same thing in 2f, and then repeating that particular clause with the phrase "hazardous materials" here. Again, look at my example for 2f.
With all of that comments? You know my answer. That is a hard against.
The Crowned Republic
