The mixed responses to my above question prove the law is ambiguous.
I am strongly against putting a second lot of locks on my sliding windows which already have locks. (There is no law which says you must open your windows.)
Firstly, I would have to replace all my window furnishings. Not only would it be impossible to operate vertical drapes with the window locks my SM wants, it would also be impossible for me to get any air into the rooms, because I have fixed material drapes down each side of my windows which are wider than 12.5cms. (I have shown my SM the $5 locks available from Bunnings, as mentioned above, and he reckons they don’t comply.) I have my windows fully open in Summer and want to continue to do so. It would be much cheaper for me to pay the fine than replace all my window furnishings.
Secondly, is the matter of fire danger as mentioned by Winston above. I could easily climb out of my second storey bedroom window and exit via a tree in the case of a fire, but not if the window opening was limited.
Thirdly, I have my ensuite window fully open all the time to prevent mould. I’m not prepared to limit the opening.
Fourthly, there are NO children in my townhouse. When there were, years ago, I was more than capable of making sure they didn’t fall out a window.
This law discriminates against strata dwellers. It implies we are incapable of supervising children, as opposed to home owners who don’t have to install window limiters. There are far more children living in two storey houses than there are in townhouses. I can’t find one example on the net of a child falling from a suburban townhouse.
Frankly, I can’t believe that I am being told how far I can open MY windows in MY home just because some parents in CBD high rise buildings can’t supervise their children.