What’s happening with the National Construction Code? We asked Neil Savery

News of the demise of the National Construction Code 2025 may be greatly exaggerated, but a set time for its release has been quietly shelved. The Fifth Estate spoke with the former head of the ABCB, Neil Savery, to shed some light on what’s happening.

The announcement by the ABCB that NCC 2025 was currently missing in action was so discreet that we nearly missed it.

 The Australian Building Codes Board website, which manages Australia’s guarantee for minimum safety energy and accessibility standards in our buildings, published a short announcement on 7 March. It said that the preview version of the updated “edition” was generally published in February (last month), and the final version is due to commence in May.

“While some practitioners are familiar with the changes we proposed in the public comment draft (May 2024), we have not yet provided our final advice to building ministers and, therefore, no decision has been made about the content, publication or commencement of any future edition,” the announcement stated.

“Practitioners should continue working in accordance with the NCC version and adoption timeline, currently in place in the jurisdiction relevant to their work.”

The problem is that the adoption timelines for NCC are now disrupted around the country.

Victoria adopted NCC 2022 on 1 May 2024, Western Australia plans to adopt it on 1 May 2025, and the Northern Territory is still stuck in the 5 Star code days.

Some of the changes proposed in the 2024 exposure draft are fundamental to the goal of electrification of buildings and transport, including provisions for making EV charging mandatory for all residential buildings and around installation of solar PV on rooftops for most buildings.

But they promised!

The state and federal building ministers had previously committed to three year updates to the NCC. We are now falling well behind that, something the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council noted in November last year in a media release calling on the building ministers to uphold that commitment.

The incremental updates to the NCC aim to ensure the construction industry delivers buildings in alignment with the Trajectory for Low Energy Buildings signed off by all state, territory and federal energy ministers in 2019.

One of the goals of the trajectory is to ensure buildings align with the requirement to achieve net zero under the Paris Agreement.

One big leap might work better for everyone – Neil Savery

Former head of the ABCB, Neil Savery, who led much of the work on updates to the NCC between the early 2000s and February 2022, told The Fifth Estate that he has reached the view that continuing to do incremental change may not be the best way to get the industry to net zero.

During industry consultation ahead of NCC 2022, he recognised there is a significant leap to get from the 2019 code minimum to net zero and nearly net zero.

Simply increasing requirements around the building envelope and its performance would not be enough.

The discussion was around potential trade offs and included the installation of renewables on buildings as a realistic measure for getting to net zero.

This would also shift the perspective from buildings as boxes composed of structural systems to buildings as systems.

Buildings as systems

“Buildings have become increasingly complex, particularly multi-storey residential, and we shouldn’t underestimate the contribution multi-storey buildings are making in our housing supply,” Savery said.

In these buildings, systems are also highly interoperable. Electrical systems, fire safety systems and heating, ventilation and air conditioning all interact with and impact each other.

This means a building code needs to look at buildings holistically to avoid any unintended consequences, Savery said.

This was one of the reasons NCC 2022 included changes to building fabric for residential buildings, as it needed to rectify unintended consequences of condensation and its associated risks that emerged after prior code changes were implemented in 2011.

Why the industry needed time to adjust

Savery said that 2011 was the last time the residential sector saw significant changes to energy efficiency requirements, going from 5 Star NatHERS to 6 Star NatHERS as minimum compliance.

In 2015, the ABCB flagged there would be an uplift in 2022 – yet parts of the industry have still been in pushback mode.

The impact on industry of making a major leap as opposed to incremental, cyclical changes have similar fundamentals, Savery said.

In both cases, manufacturers, trades and builders needed to adjust supply chains, change practices, potentially undertake additional training and invest in any new materials and equipment.

One big leap might be easier in the long run

With a big leap to net zero or near net zero, this only needed to happen once.

Savery said the industry has had sufficient notice of the end point intended with the code upgrades and has enough insight to recognise what it will take to get there.

What is needed beyond code changes is assistance to create the capacity to deliver. That includes training, assistance with changing supply chains and supplements that support recapitalisation for manufacturers and suppliers.

When the needs of the builders or trades change, factories often need to retool, adjust production methods, and may need to also alter their raw material inputs. All of this takes time and investment.

“Timeframes (for change) also need to allow for shocks to the system,” Savery said.

So, setting out a new code with benchmarks while building in an adequate period for adjustment and capacity building would be the way to go.

“If we do aspire to get to net zero from where we are now, there is an argument for a step change to net zero or net zero ready, but with a substantial transition period negotiated with industry,” Savery said.

“We would then have the prospect of getting to net zero quicker than we would with three iterations of incremental change.

“There will be a fight – there is always a fight when there are changes – but if we work with industry and set the target, even if it takes six years of adjustment, we will get there sooner.”

Given the rising importance of upfront carbon in the conversation, this may also need to be factored in more strongly.

How does our code rank globally?

Savery is now managing director of International Code Council (Oceania). The Fifth Estate asked where our current NCC sits in terms of global benchmarks.

“We are not a laggard, and we are not best practice in comparison to other codes” he said.

The front runners are Europe, with individual countries adjusting their codes to enact the requirements of the EU directive for decarbonisation and energy efficiency that dates back around 20 years. The national codes started with increments – similar to Australia’s approach – then in the 2010s through to the early 2020s took the big leap to net zero.

Nearly all the national codes in European nations have net zero metrics within them. The UK, which was part of the EU until 2016, has also “beaten a path to net zero” with a “significant drive to renewables, not just net zero based on the thermal fabric.”

Japan and China are also “pretty well advanced.”

The United States was behind, but Savery said revised codes for 2024 started bringing it back to speed.

“I would put us in the middle of the pack.”

Things we can’t ignore

After two decades of conversations in Australia about energy efficiency, and now upfront carbon, what might be the likely targets of a freeze on code upgrades?

One of the subjects on the table for NCC 2025 was the environment in which buildings are situated, and the context of withstanding the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

The current code requirements are based on geography for matters such as cyclone or bushfire resilience, but the climate science shows the geography of extreme events and the nature of them is changing.

This means the code is not equipped to protect the value of property and the lives of occupants.

“The code needs to respond to that challenge,” Savery said

Savery also notes the code can only go so far in delivering climate resilience, it needs to be enacted in conjunction with land use planning that also ameliorates risk.