A plan for better buildings: beyond the National Construction Code

We are expecting too much from the National Construction Code. Much of its content is an explanation of the details involved in practical issues that should be addressed in ongoing training, certification and quality control.

I have some sympathy for builders and designers who have to deal with the National Construction Code. It’s got many pages and it’s complicated, with reference to numerous standards that are complex and can cost a lot to access.

The Australian Building Codes Board tries to help, with handbooks and training resources, but it’s still challenging. On top of this, builders and designers have to cope with the sometimes “interesting” interpretations made by building surveyors and councils.

However, streamlining the NCC by freezing it in ways suggested by economic policy makers, mainstream building associations and politicians would be disastrous.

“Pausing”, as announced by the government, at least limits the damage and includes some useful actions. Indeed, if this involves acceleration and more consistent implementation by state governments, it may not delay the practical delivery of previously scheduled 2028 changes!

Development and introduction of changes to the NCC is already slow. The 2022 NCC changes are still being phased in. Published more than a decade after the previous 6-star regulations were introduced in 2010.
So it’s unlikely that we will have big changes for residential buildings before the scheduled 2028 NCC – that’s six years from the release of the 2022 NCC. Isn’t that the six-year freeze some industry groups have been calling for?

The commitment to complete the 2025 NCC updates, which focus on commercial buildings, is positive. They are likely to be less contentious than changes in residential regulation.

Many of the inefficiencies associated with residential building relate to issues beyond the NCC.

Development and introduction of changes to the NCC is already slow. The 2022 NCC changes are still being phased in. These were published more than a decade after the previous 6-star regulations were introduced in 2010.

So it’s unlikely that we will have big changes for residential buildings before the scheduled 2028 NCC – that’s six years from the release of the 2022 NCC. Isn’t that the six-year freeze some industry groups have been calling for?

Why we expect too much from the NCC

First it attempts to address inadequate training, a fragmented, commodity focused industry, and more. An industry with a culture of quality and effective accountability needs a lot less regulatory intervention. Informed and empowered consumers also play an important role – but that requires strong communication, knowledge and motivation.

The ACT government’s retrofit insulation regulations provide one interesting example of effective regulation and enforcement. NABERS, with its commitment agreement model offers an approach for new buildings.

In the past, our thermally poor buildings allowed lots of unnoticed air leakage, and we weren’t aware of indoor air pollution’s impact on health. We did not face an increasingly extreme climate. Disabled people were ignored, and we did not have an ageing community.

We must recognise that designing and building modern buildings is more complex than it used to be.  This is a reality across many aspects of society. For example, modern appliances are much more complex than past products. But they work much better!

In the past, our thermally poor buildings allowed lots of unnoticed air leakage, and we weren’t aware of indoor air pollution’s impact on health. We did not face an increasingly extreme climate. Disabled people were ignored, and we did not have an ageing community.

With improving building and equipment efficiency, declining emission intensity and electrification, and increasingly sophisticated monitoring, controls and intelligence, we can capture multiple benefits worth far more than just energy cost savings.

The International Energy Agency, Green Building Council and others have been highlighting these benefits for years, yet they still seem to be often ignored in financial analysis and marketing. A recent Domain report [ Sustainability in Property 2024 ] suggests that consumer expectations and perceptions of value are already changing.

Tighter buildings increase challenges of condensation and mould. Our population is ageing and disabled people are more respected. Equity matters for renters. People expect higher comfort. The energy sector wants us to limit our peak electricity demand while we electrify, to limit infrastructure capital costs and stresses: that also reduces wiring and space conditioning size and costs. Reverse cycle and four-pipe heat pumps allow one technology to replace separate heating and cooling equipment.

Efficient electrification reduces building costs by avoiding the need for gas infrastructure on both sides of the meter and limiting the need to upgrade electricity supply capacity.

Climate change, unfortunately, won’t stop: we are in the early stages of dramatic change and increasing challenges for buildings. We already have many families in deep distress resulting from fires and floods, often without grid-sourced electricity for long periods.

As these changes flow through, embodied emissions in the materials and construction of buildings are beginning to dominate over operating emissions. Addressing this will involve significant change for the building industry.

So building designs and practices have to change – and fast. We also have to work out how to modify 10 million existing homes and many commercial buildings to improve performance and displace some new construction and its associated embodied emissions.

How do we cut costs, time and stress when delivering quality buildings quickly and cost-effectively that will not become liabilities as climate change plays out and social, financial and environmental consequences grow?

It will require major change for all the players, but there is potential to make it work. A few suggestions:

• Improve training, both initial and ongoing, and monitoring of field practices
• Shift from builders paying building surveyors. One option would be for builders to pay into a fund and for an independent agency to allocate the building surveyors while also monitoring their performance
• Introduce strong accountability mechanisms for building performance. Schemes like Passivhaus and NABERS provide some lessons. My view is that it is possible to use actual household energy bills to assess residential building performance. We were doing it in the 1980s with Victoria’s Home Energy Advisory Service. Reliance on modelling and design intent is not sufficient
• Design new homes, especially in rural areas, to be resilient by incorporating capacity to easily isolate from the grid and accept standardised inputs from rooftop PV, EVs, batteries as well as the grid while maintaining stable voltage and power quality. I am not suggesting they should all go off-grid but that they should be resilient to power outages and able to manage how they interact with the electricity grid while using their preferred ‘behind the meter’ options
• Aggressively promote the broad benefits of improved performance buildings, including visible rating certificates prominently located on all buildings, training of real estate agents and building sales representatives, along with secret shopper monitoring, and regular media stories covering good and bad consumer experiences
• Incentives for tradies, builders and others who deliver better than minimum outcomes
• Develop building products, systems and appliances that are easily installed and provide user feedback on real world performance
• Multiple benefits and long term implications need to be considered in financial analysis at an individual building and policy level for future occupants who don’t have any influence on the design and construction

I haven’t tried to address the unravelling of overlaps, state and local level inconsistencies in implementation and lots more. I’m sure many people have good ideas there.

---

---