Just to clarify….
I wasn’t suggesting that the E/C or other residents should conduct an audit to comply with the requirements of the WH&S Act (in fact they can’t), but rather that it would be a prudent option if anchorage‘s Plan was entirely residential and any audit was therefore discretionary, and the E/C et al. is “active”.
Again, I wasn’t suggesting that if such an audit was legally required under the WH&S Act, such as where anchorage‘s Plan was mixed-use or where the O/C directly employed someone such as an on-site Building Manager, that the SM’s advice should be ignored. Rather, I was suggesting that if an audit is legally required, that the O/C ensures that any contractor recommended by the SM was one that’s appropriate to the needs of the Plan (not just “preferred”) and that they don’t merely conduct an audit, but additionally identify and prioritise all risks and corrective actions in such a way that the O/C can stage its subsequent expenditure – over several years if necessary.