If you've watched the news in the past few years, you've seen the headlines. Cracking towers. Combustible cladding. Buildings evacuated overnight. Owners facing six-figure special levies for defects no one saw coming.

These stories are shocking. But they're symptoms of deeper, systemic problems in how buildings are constructed, certified, and managed in Australia.

The building management industry has a trust problem. And until we're honest about what's broken, we can't fix it.

What's Actually Broken

The problems in Australian building management aren't random failures or isolated bad actors. They're structural — built into how the industry operates.

The Severed Link Between Construction and Management

Here's the fundamental problem: the people managing most Australian buildings have no idea how those buildings were actually constructed.

Building management in Australia evolved as an administrative function. Process invoices. Coordinate contractors. Attend meetings. The assumption was that technical matters would be handled by the trades — the building manager just needed to manage the paperwork.

But buildings are complex technical assets. They have structural systems, mechanical services, waterproofing membranes, fire safety infrastructure. Managing them properly requires understanding how they work — not just how to file the invoices.

When the link between construction knowledge and building management is severed, problems get missed. Early warning signs go unrecognised. Contractors aren't properly supervised because the manager doesn't know enough to assess their work.

This isn't about blame — most building managers are doing their best with the training and support they've been given. It's about a system that puts administrators in charge of technical assets they're not equipped to understand.

Misaligned Financial Incentives

In too many cases, the financial incentives in building management don't align with building health.

When building managers are paid per building regardless of the quality of service, there's pressure to take on more buildings than can be properly managed. When contractors know no one is technically reviewing their work, there's temptation to cut corners. When strata managers are rewarded for keeping levies low rather than maintaining buildings properly, deferred maintenance becomes the default.

The result is a system where doing less can be more profitable than doing things properly.

Lack of Industry Standards

Anyone can call themselves a building manager. There's no mandatory licensing, no required qualifications, no minimum standards for what building management actually means.

Industry bodies like the Australian Building Managers Association (ABMA) are working to change this — developing accreditation standards and professional development programs. But membership is voluntary. Accreditation is optional. The barrier to entry remains essentially zero.

Committees hiring a building manager have no reliable way to distinguish between genuine professionals and someone who printed business cards last week.

Reactive Culture

The default mode in Australian building management is reactive. Wait for something to break. Fix it. Wait for the next thing. This isn't a conscious strategy — it's just how things have always been done.

But reactive management is expensive, stressful, and ultimately destructive to building value. By the time problems are visible, they've often been developing for years. Early intervention would have cost a fraction of the eventual repair.

The industry's reactive culture isn't inevitable — it's a choice. A choice made by companies that haven't invested in the systems, training, and staffing required to be genuinely proactive.

The Impact on Building Owners

All of these systemic problems flow through to the people who own and live in strata buildings.

Deferred Maintenance Becomes Major Defects

Small problems that aren't caught early become big problems. The minor waterproofing issue becomes structural concrete damage. The aging lift that should have been modernised fails catastrophically. Deferred maintenance compounds — and eventually the bill comes due, usually as an unexpected special levy that owners can't afford.

Compliance Gaps Create Liability

When building managers don't understand compliance requirements — or don't have systems to track them — things slip. Fire safety certificates lapse. Contractor insurance isn't verified. WHS obligations aren't met. Each gap is a potential liability for the committee, waiting to crystallise when something goes wrong.

Committees Left Without Support

Most strata committees are volunteers doing their best. They're not building professionals. They rely on their building manager to guide them through technical decisions, flag risks, and provide expert advice.

When their building manager doesn't have the technical background to provide that guidance, committees are left to make complex decisions without proper support. They approve work they don't understand. They miss risks they don't recognise. They trust recommendations they can't evaluate.

Asset Values at Risk

A well-managed building holds its value. A poorly managed building loses it. Over time, the difference between proactive and reactive management shows up in sale prices, rental yields, and buyer confidence.

For most Australians, their apartment is their largest asset. The quality of building management directly affects their net worth — whether they realise it or not.

Signs of a Trustworthy Building Manager

Despite the industry's problems, there are building managers and management companies doing things properly. Here's what to look for:

Technical background: Building managers with construction, trade, or engineering experience understand buildings at a level administrators don't. They can assess contractor work, identify early warning signs, and provide genuinely informed advice.

Transparent operations: Trustworthy managers are open about their processes, their pricing, and their contractor relationships. They welcome questions. They provide detailed reporting. They don't hide behind vague assurances.

Industry accreditation: ABMA membership and accreditation signals commitment to professional standards. It's not a guarantee of quality, but it's a meaningful filter in an unregulated industry.

Proactive communication: Managers who communicate regularly — not just when there's a problem — are usually managing proactively. The reporting rhythm reflects the management approach.

Long-term client relationships: Ask for references. Talk to committees they've worked with for years, not months. Long-term relationships are evidence of consistent quality — you can't fake that.

Staff stability: Companies that keep their people are usually companies that treat them well and deliver quality service. High turnover is a warning sign.

Rebuilding Trust

The trust crisis in Australian building management is real. But it's not unfixable.

It requires building managers with genuine technical competence. It requires companies that invest in their people and their systems. It requires industry standards that raise the bar for everyone. And it requires committees who understand what good management looks like and demand it.

The buildings that will thrive over the next decade are the ones with management that bridges the gap between construction knowledge and building operations. That prioritises prevention over reaction. That communicates transparently and operates with integrity.

Trust isn't rebuilt with words. It's rebuilt with consistent, competent action over time. And that's exactly what the best building managers are doing — one building at a time.

How does your building management measure up?

Take the free Building Management Scorecard to assess your current management against the standards that actually matter.

SCORECARD