Global platforms treat compliance as a configurable checklist, because from head office it looks like one. In Australia and New Zealand it is five different artefacts, signed by five different people, on five different clocks, lodged with five different recipients. That is not a configuration problem. It is a product decision, and most vendors have not made it.
| New Zealand | NSW | Victoria | Queensland | South Australia | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artefact | Building Warrant of Fitness Form 12 | Annual Fire Safety Statement | Annual Essential Safety Measures Report | Occupier's Statement | Form 3 ESP certificate |
| Instrument | Building Act 2004 s108 | EP&A Regulation 2021 Pt 12 | Building Regulations 2018 Pt 15 | Building Fire Safety Reg 2008 s55A | PDI (General) Regs 2017 r94 |
| Who signs | Owner, on Form 12A from an IQP per specified system | Owner + accredited practitioner per measure | Owner or authorised agent | The occupier, not the owner | Owner and the maintainer |
| The clock | Anniversary of the compliance schedule issue date | Annual · assessment within prior 3 months | Annual | Copy within 10 business days | Calendar year + 60 business days |
| Lodged with | Territorial authority | Council + NSW Fire Brigades | Nobody · produced on request within 24 hours | The Commissioner | Council |
Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT have no equivalent annual regime, so a national portfolio cannot run on a single compliance calendar. New Zealand adds a further layer: IQP registration is held council by council, each territorial authority keeping its own register of which systems each IQP is competent for.
This is the work. It is unglamorous, it does not demo well, and it is why a platform built in Nijmegen or Utah will not do it.
Most platforms model a maintenance task. We model the compliance schedule the council actually issued, its specified systems, and the inspection, maintenance and reporting procedure written against each one. Certificates track against that, not against a generic recurrence rule.
LiDAR from an iPhone puts assets in real space without a survey crew or specialist hardware. It is the difference between knowing a building has four air handling units and knowing which one is which.
IFC and JSON in, mapped to location, checked against the compliance schedule, with a completeness score you can use while you still have contractual leverage. Most platforms accept BIM. Fewer tell you what is missing relative to the obligation.
Appended, not overwritten. Timestamped and attributed. Exportable as a pack. Built for the moment when the reader is a regulator, an insurer's assessor or opposing counsel.
We would rather tell you this on a web page than in month four.
We publish our pricing. Most of this category does not, which tells you something about how those conversations are structured.
The one with the compliance schedule nobody can find and the plant room nobody has documented. That is the useful demo.