Queensland looks like it could follow the trend to dumb down building codes, after South Australia last year put a dramatic 10-year ban on upgrades to the National Construction Code standards for new housing in urban growth zones.
The Tasmanian Liberal government followed suit mid-last month, deferring the NCC’s proposed changes, arguing that the move would “significantly reduce red tape and construction prices for the sector.” Housing and Planning Minister Felix Ellis argued that it would reduce the cost of a new home for Tasmanian families. He wants the construction industry to “build more homes cheaper, easier, and faster.”
The government is also taking it a step further, calling for a five year amendment cycle (rather than the current three year cycle), to prevent “any further NCC changes from 2025”.
The Master Builders Australia and the Housing Industry Association which backed the SA government were again behind the Tasmanian move.
The MBA justified its stance by saying builders and certifiers did not know how to apply the NCC correctly and the interpretation added costs and delays to consumers. The HIA added that the NCC caused a “significant burden” to builders.
The SA move was almost immediately followed by opposition leader Peter Dutton, who told the nation that, if elected, he would also freeze the National Construction Code for 10 years – and that would make housing more affordable.
Not long after the New South Wales, the Productivity and Equity Commission suggested quality in apartments could take a back seat, given the housing supply challenges.
In Tasmania, the Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand (ICANZ) chief executive Janine Strachan said the decision meant that Tasmanian homes would be built below the standards that will be required for healthy, comfortable, and climate-resilient living into the future.
Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council, in which ICANZ is a member backed the statement, saying regular updates to the NCC were needed to ensure Australia’s building stock was “climate resilient and net zero compatible by 2025.”
ASBEC chief executive Alison Scotland told The Fifth Estate that “the NCC provides a national benchmark for healthy, safe, resilient buildings that are affordable to operate.
“Breaking the three-year update convention could result in state and territory governments adopting their approach to NCC amendments, increasing compliance costs for industry and leading to further fragmentation of building standards across the country.
“There should continue to be an opportunity to review whether changes that have been made in the NCC over time are working as intended. We have a three-yearly review cycle for that reason. The ABCB [Australian Building Codes Board] needs to be supported and resourced to do this work effectively.”
Fears that Queensland will soon follow this path
Meanwhile, Queensland’s Crisafulli government has called for a new Queensland Building and Construction commissioner to “reinvigorate” the industry after directing the state’s Productivity Commission to conduct a review of the building construction industry.
This included pausing the standard best practice industry conditions (BPIC), a move that enraged the unions.
Industry observers fear that the commission’s review may follow closely recommendations from its NSW counterpart.
The New South Wales Productivity Commission report released shortly after the SA ban recommended that apartments could do without the sunlight and amenities typically expected and that the planning regime could be loosened to fast track projects in an effort to boost developer feasibility. However, critics say it’s the cost, materials, labour and finance that has seen multiple approved apartment projects shelved.
The commission’s report also suggested more migrant construction workers could alleviate cthe ost of building, without explaining how local builders and tradies would accept lower prices for their labour.
Fit for purpose – but whose purpose?
The Queensland government referred to similar sentiments, saying “after a decade of Labor, it costs more and takes longer to get anything built in our state” and that the regulations need to be “fair and fit for purpose.” It also added that the government intends for the state to become “the new building capital of Australia.”
A spokesperson from the Housing and Public Works Minister Sam O’Connor told The Fifth Estate that “we are re-establishing the Queensland Productivity Commission with its first task being a comprehensive review into the building industry.
“This will consider the impact of changes to the National Construction Code.
“Minister O’Connor has been actively engaging with industry on the regulatory pain points they’ve experienced under the former government and is looking at ways to provide regulatory relief in the short-term while the QPC review is underway.”
A Queensland-based industry source also said that the Queensland Master Builders (QMBA) has held significant influence over the actions of the state’s building commission over the past decade.
A letter addressed to the previous Queensland Housing and Planning Minister Meaghan Scanlon revealed that the QMBA had been lobbying to “roll back the changes to the NCC 2022” as one of their primary items.
Under the previous government, Queensland was one of the first states to fully adopt new requirements of the NCC 2022 when it came to designing houses and units for accessibility needs as well as bushfire protection, floor waste, wind loads for housing and waterproofing.
It had also passed requirements surrounding condensation, EV charging and liveable housing. Requirements around energy efficiency will come into effect in May this year, followed by plumbing products in September.
Following is a table indicating the schedule of uptake on the NCC 2022 from other states:
In further developments, the Australian Institute of Architects, which opposed rollbacks of the NCC, noted that only NSW and Tasmania had compulsory CPD requirements when it came to the annual licence renewal for builders. However, the idea is currently under consultation in Victoria.
It’s not all bad news in Queensland
Amidst the potential to loosen control over standards in Queensland, the Crisafulli’s government has also been engaged in more progressive housing deliverables.
Progress includes 34 new social and affordable housing in Brisbane’s north, plans to abolish stamp duty on new homes for first home buyers and a new scheme helping Palm Island Indigenous communities access homeownership through a “buy to rent” scheme.
On the agenda is also a four-year funding plan of $117.84 million for natural resource management projects, which included protecting crucial areas of biodiversity – in light of extreme droughts, floods and increasing threats”.
The most positive was a $98 million joint investment from both the Liberal-led state government and the Labor-led federal government to “improve energy efficiency and tenant wellbeing”. This included installing ceiling fans at more than 24,000 Queensland social housing properties.
More surprising is a nod to the federal government, praising the “Albanese government’s cost of living immediate energy price relief” and announcing that the two will work together to deliver “an expanded $800 million social housing energy performance initiative…over the next four years.”
Another recent announcement was the appointment of Peta Harwood as Queensland’s state planner. Harwood is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia and was awarded as a joint Winner in its Outstanding Woman in Planning Award. She currently works as the general manager of development services, city planning and sustainability with the Brisbane City Council.
In a statement on social media, PIA said it was excited to work with Harwood on advancing “climate-conscious planning” amongst a number of other items.
The new building commissioner could be the deciding factor
Meanwhile, the Queensland government said it would not renew the Building Commissioner Anissa Levy’s term, which will end in February, although she will stay on as long as needed to recruit her replacement.
The government thanked Levy for her work, including on the 2022 governance review and recommendations for the QBCC, which involved increased transparency and tightening of requirements for licensed builders.
The new commissioner will be expected to oversee the implementation of the new government’s visions to make the QBCC “more customer-friendly, not just for tradies… but Queenslanders who have to ask for help when things go wrong.”
Ha! So much for the big celebration by 100 advocates for managing to grovel enough to the housing industry to get them to grudgingly accept the trivial improvement from 6* to 7* energy efficiency – what a farce! If we had held our nerve and DEMANDED net zero emissions, by now the housing industry will have worked out that this was easier and more profitable for them selling new houses with enough rooftop solar to make them net zero without getting massively bogged down in complicated criteria and assessments for 7* compliance and they could value add with extra solar and charging points (to be Electric Vehicle Ready). AND new house-buyers would be delighted too, because although their mortgage might be a tiny bit bigger, their energy cost savings would be up to 8 times larger – Net Zero homes are more affordable from day one. AND compliance is totally bleeding obvious for the homeowner to verify from their first year’s energy bill – it should show zero CO2 emissions.
It should not be for the housing industry to tell the public what they are grudgingly willing to accept – it is for the public to DEMAND what it needs from the industry to give our children a shot at a survivable future – that’s why it’s called regulation and it should be in the public’s best interest – in this case it is also in the industry’s too. Net Zero in the NCCV2 would reduce our housing emissions 4 times faster than 7* and stop adding to the problem of still more new homes that immediately need retroft for zero emissions – we are supposed to be at zero emissions in all sectors before 2050! So it was and is a no-brainer and we need to start again, pretend we didn’t got through all the machinations in 2022 and DEMAND NET ZERO NOW.
Intersect Summer 2024 edition article
“Stagnation vs Progress is not Affordable”
provides some insight to the understanding that housing affordability is negatively impacted by any hiatus in raising standards.
@Nigel Adams, Net Zero isn’t just about solar panels and batteries, both of those tech’s have huge embodied carbon emissions of their own which means using them transfers the carbon debt – and yet they’re also a crucial part of our energy future. The average cost of 8kw solar PV and a 10kw battery probably floats around the $20k mark (prior to subsidies). That $20k might just as well be spent on upgrading the external envelope of the home to ensure it’s a more efficient vessel for habitation because doing that would actually drive innovation and cost efficiencies within a sector that vehemently resists improving the bottom line (of the materials and methods deployed).
Both energy efficiency & renewable energy are needed to truly get to Net Zero!
Adding cost to building with little or no benefits .we have a house affordability problem.ncc to waterproofing is a good example zero benifits.been 30 + in Waterproofing the changers make no sense.but add costs
What’s not understood by this sort of comment is that governments aren’t looking at any singular problem when they make these choices (eg. to upgrade energy efficiency standards). Governments are generally onboard with the idea to reduce energy consumption (or were) because they know that otherwise they have to spend money elsewhere (on new power stations). Costs which are also passed onto the consumer via taxes and price increases.
In South Australia, the government has elected to spend money (billions) on solar PV and batteries to generate and store energy locally (my business has taken advantage of precisely this scheme, which I’m grateful for but cynical). Qld is also talking about doing just that, but they’re mostly doing it to gain the support of powerful lobby groups like HIA & MBA because they see it as a way to keep themselves in power whilst apparently doing something – but in fact the residential consumer will pay anyway. This tactic also doesn’t do anything to avert urban sprawl (why fix up when you can knock down and rebuild?)