Some fire safety engineers providing combustible cladding risk assessments lacked experience in the matter and “struggled to provide these services competently”, an independent review has found.

The review also uncovered “clear evidence” that some fire safety engineers have accepted appointments where they have a perceived or actual conflict of interest.

The findings were released last week after Cladding Safety Victoria commissioned building regulation expert Bronwyn Weir to investigate.

Engineers Australia, the Society of Fire Safety and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers made underwhelming contributions to improving competency, management of conflicts and supporting state objectives to deliver an efficient and effective cladding remediation program, the report says.

“Further, it would appear that very little, if any, attempt was made by these bodies to gather and represent the views of their members more broadly in responding to this review.”

Ms Weir said in a LinkedIn post: “The report is critical of the fire safety engineering profession in some respects. It is hoped that it will provide them and their professional associations with an opportunity for self-reflection and encourage ... leadership to persist with continuous improvement.”

She says the report should help governments in other jurisdictions that are implementing cladding remediation programs.

“The Victorian experience tells us that it should not be left to the fire safety engineering profession to determine what appropriate levels of risk should be based on assessments by individuals who will inevitably view risk differently and have varying levels of competency.

“Governments need to prioritise the issuing of rectification standards that define acceptable levels of risk on behalf of the community. Such standards should be developed by governments with appropriate input from a range of experts including fire safety engineers.”