UPDATED: 1 November 2024: Architects, the Property Council of Australia and the former NSW Building Commissioner have all spoken up against opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposed freezing of the building code, while deregulation of building standards has been cited as a primary factor in the Grenfell fire disaster in the UK.
The nation’s peak architects’ body and the property sector’s leading advocacy group have both separately called to support the National Construction Code after opposition leader Peter Dutton promised to freeze it for 10 years.
The announcement from Dutton nearly two weeks ago horrified much of the industry – sustainable or otherwise. It threatened to demolish years of painstaking work to get harmonisation across state and territory borders by a wide cross section of interests.
Dutton’s salvo came not long after building ministers all agreed at their last meeting that they would place climate resilience on the agenda as a target for future “editions” of the NCC.
The code, updated every three years, is set to soon include stronger provisions to prevent condensation, mould and leaks and to improve structural resilience against wind, storms, and earthquakes.
On Wednesday, the Australian Institute of Architects president, Jane Cassidy, said the proposed freeze on improving building quality was “alarming”.
It was tacked onto Dutton’s $5 billion plan to build the infrastructure for 500,000 new homes – in greenfield (urban sprawl) sites – by eliminating any delays to infrastructure caused by adhering to the code.
Cassidy, who represents 14,500 members globally, said the proposal threatened both the quality of housing and the long term investment made by homebuyers.
“Our profession is dedicated to the ongoing improvement and unified adoption of the NCC by all states and territories in Australia.
“This standard is crucial for safeguarding average homebuyers entering into 30-year loans and to preserving the certainty of investment in home ownership.
“The coalition clearly has not looked at both sides of the balance sheet when quoting the increased costs of producing better performing homes and apartments with fewer defects,” Cassidy said.
The Australian Building Codes Board, which manages the code, estimated that building defects in 236,000 Australian dwellings cost nearly $2 billion in 2022.
The call for lower standards came at a time when the industry was moving to modular and offsite buildings – requiring greater oversight of quality to protect consumers.
And while the Property Council supported Dutton’s infrastructure announcement industry sources said the NCC component was far from expected.
In a recent email to its members, chief executive Mike Zorbas sought to clarify his association’s position:
“For the avoidance of any doubt, the Property Council has warmly welcomed the Coalition’s $5 billion to pledge to unlock housing supply with investment in last mile infrastructure.”
But he added strong support for retaining the benefits of the NCC.
“We have long supported the regular review and interstate coordination benefits of the National Construction Code. I still remember my first ever boss and national president, the great Jim Service, who was a chair of the Australian Building Codes Board, which administers the NCC.
“It remains our view over a quarter of a century or so that the most important consideration for any future government is that the ABCB has the resources needed to conduct comprehensive regulatory impact statements and to do its work coordinating state and territories well. That is by far the best way to govern the essential guidebook for Australia’s built environment.”
Architect Tone Wheeler, a principal at Environa Studio, said the proposal by Dutton plays into the “right wing narrative of being anti regulation” and against “anything that might disturb the market”.
It comes as a result of seeing homes as “property market not as a right to shelter”, he said.
“The HIA (Housing Industry Association) has waged war on progressive contemporary design for 50 years – every single innovation from BASIX and natHERS to increased performance levels.
“They overestimate the cost of building to better standards and underestimate the savings.”
UPDATE: David Chandler, former Building Commissioner for New South Wales said the move to reduce leadership by the federal government on construction standards would lead to worse outcomes in the sector.
“This is not a time to dumb down what everyone knows is good practice that runs the risk of meeting fitness for purpose standards that undermine public trust in our industry.
The need for Commonwealth leadership in lifting and harmonising national construction compliance and capability has never been more pressing as the industry faces into modernisation and lowering embodied carbon. Everyone interested in a responsible, trusted industry should speak up. There will be a heavy legacy price for ignoring these imperatives.”
He also pointed to a UK response to the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry into the fire disaster that placed much of the blame on the trend to deregulation in construction in favour of disruption and innovation.
Stuart Green, a professor in the School of Construction Management and Engineering at the University of Reading told Construction News
He says:
The report… highlights systemic failings on the part of the state, not least the damaging effects of deregulation. The government notably failed to amend or clarify the guidance in Approved Document B despite being aware of its misleading ambiguity.
More concerning is the finding that the government chose not to disclose the catastrophic results of a large-scale test in 2001 involving aluminium composite panels with unmodified polyethylene cores. Perhaps the most damning revelation relates to the systematic dishonesty of the manufacturing firms involved in making and promoting the rainscreen cladding panels and associated insulation products.
He also pointed a finger at the practice of contract trading.
Contract trading
The harsh reality is that tier-one contractors have largely divorced themselves from the physical task of construction. The dominant business model is one of contract trading, whereby main contractors routinely subcontract everything. Their competitiveness hinges on managing the cashflow and offsetting as much risk as possible. The approach permeates the supply chain, which often culminates in a reliance on contingent labour. Nobody operates on this basis by choice; they are trapped within a dysfunctional system.