Australia’s building code needs a complete overhaul in order to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of compliance on new building projects, a housing industry advocacy group says.

In its submission to the Australian Government’s inquiry into streamlining and modernising the National Construction Code (NCC), the Housing Industry Association (HIA) has called for a complete ‘knock down and rebuild’ of the Code.

This would make the code simpler, reduce red tape and support innovation in new home construction.

In its submission, HIA acknowledged the Code’s importance in ensuring the quality and safety of new buildings.

However, it says that the Code has become more complex over time as it has expanded in size and scope.

Compared with its introduction as the Building Code of Australia in 1988, the Code has expanded by 8.5 times in length.  Meanwhile, the number of reference documents has more than doubled from 81 to 169 and the number of defined terms has risen almost sixfold from 64 to 363.

In addition, the Code’s focus has expanded beyond structure and fire safety to also include livability, accessibility, sustainability and amenity (moving forward, the code will also cover climate resilience).

As a result, HIA says that the Code has become ‘everything to everyone’ and has lost its purpose as a technical document which establishes minimum required standards for building and plumbing.

In addition, HIA talks of a disconnect between the Code, supporting Australian standards and commonly used tools in construction such as rating tools.

It called for the Code to be reset in order to better support housing supply, affordability and productivity.

Its twelve recommendations include:

• Delivering greater industry certainly by providing a consistent approach to updates and more implementation support. This includes moving to a new five-year NCC updating cycle which is supported by annual administrative updates and introducing a twelve-month voluntary adoption period before major changes are mandated.
• Making all referenced Australian standards available free of charge.
• Other measures to make the code simpler, improve it usability, reduce unnecessary regulatory burden and create clearer pathways for the adoption of AI, innovation and modern construction methods.
• Measures to improve the governance and oversight of the NCC’s development. These include transforming the Australian Building Codes Board into an independent statutory body, providing adequate and ongoing funding and ensuring housing industry representation on the board.

HIA Executive Director, Building Policy, Shane Keating, said the review provided a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset the code.

“Over decades the NCC has grown layer upon layer of new objectives and requirements,” Keating said.

“What began as a technical code focused on issues like structural integrity and fire safety has expanded into a much broader policy tool.

“Many of these changes are well intentioned, but the cumulative impact and their interaction have added complexity and cost to new homes.

“If we are serious about improving housing affordability and delivering the 1.2 million homes target (under the National Housing Accord), the regulatory system must support supply rather than working against it.”

NCC Under Review

The latest call comes as Australia’s building code is under review to see how the code and its surrounding governance arrangements can be improved.

First introduced in 1988 as the Building Code of Australia, the National Construction Code, or NCC, is Australia’s primary set of technical design and construction provisions for buildings.

As a performance-based code, it sets the minimum required level for the safety, health, amenity, accessibility and sustainability which new buildings are required to meet.

It is maintained by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB).

Calls for a review came after massive changes that were introduced in the 2022 Code update created an enormous industry burden in terms of preparing for and implementing the changes. These changes included new livable housing requirements, more stringent energy efficiency requirements and new condensation management provisions.

In response, Commonwealth, state and territory building ministers agreed last October to implement a pause on further non-essential residential Code changes once the (more modest) changes in the 2025 update had been implemented.

As a result, many non-essential code changes have been paused until at least the middle of 2029.

During this time, both the Code and its governance arrangements are being reviewed.

The review aims to determine how the Code can be streamlined and improved to enable new homes to be constructed more quickly and efficiently.

Current code gets a ‘C minus’

Asked during an interview with Sourceable how the current Code is performing, Keating gave it a ‘C minus’ rating.

He says that the Code is a complex document that can take years to become fully familiar with.

On the positive side, Keating says that the Code has well established processes and provisions in core matters such as structural integrity, fire safety and occupant health.

Over recent times, however, the Code has become more complex on account of the aforementioned expansion in the breadth and scope of matters which it covers.

Whilst this has been well-intentioned, Keating questions whether the costs of this to owners and industry could have been avoided. With regard to livable housing, for example, he says that policy aims in this area were addressed more efficiently through alternative means other than inclusion in the NCC.

In addition, Keating says that:

• in some areas of the code, DTS solutions and Verification Methods are limited. This effectively leaves industry to its own devices to work out solutions on its own.
• In other areas, there is overlap and conflict between different objectives of the Code. These include energy efficiency, condensation/moisture management, access, water and pest management.

Keating says the importance of having the Code work effectively and efficiently should not be underestimated.

With the Code applying to all new building work in Australia, it needs to have processes and provisions which are flexible, which are appropriate for the site and which cater not only for government aspirations but also the way in which buildings are constructed and delivered.

Where it fails to do this, uncertainty prevails and more time is spent working things out on site and seeking approval for various aspects of design.

This adds to the time and cost which is associated with new housing delivery and serves to further exacerbate national challenges in housing affordability and supply.

Three priority areas

Asked about the most significant priorities, Keating nominates three areas.

1. Free access to Australian Standards

The first area involves access to Australian Standards.

As things stand, the NCC has been freely available online since 2015.

However, Australian Standards are not freely available and need to be purchased either directly from Standards Australia or from authorised distributors.

This is problematic as the NCC references 167 standards, each of which needs to be adhered to where applicable in order to meet Code compliance.

With the cost of each individual standard typically exceeding $100, and standards being continually updated, ongoing access costs are a significant industry burden.

In response, Keating says that standards should be available either free of charge or at no more than marginal costs.

With the Code requiring compliance with referenced standards, he says that it is only reasonable that the industry be provided with the detail of what is required.

He adds that many of the standards have been developed with extensive industry input.

Given this, along with the challenges which industry faces in making compliance affordable, he says that expecting that standards would be available at low or no cost is not unreasonable.

2. Consistent approach to updates/more implementation support

Second, HIA would like a more deliberate and consistent approach to Code amendments along with greater support for implementation.

As things stand, Keating says that large changes to the Code are being made without any coordination regarding implementation.

This can be seen in the aforementioned 2022 updating cycle, where implementation timeframes for major changes varied widely across different states and territories and changes were implemented in some states but not in others (see table).

The result for industry has been widespread confusion and uncertainty.

In addition, the inconsistent implementation has led to other problems.

In some cases, jurisdictions have scheduled introduction of new requirements before the tools which are needed to implement these have been ready.

There has also been overlap as the industry has needed to prepare for the 2025 changes whilst the 2022 amendments were still being implemented.

In response, HIA would like the NCC updating cycle to be extended from the current three-year period to a five-year period.

This would be supported by annual administrative updates that would occur in a predictable manner according to a fixed schedule (such as on 1 May each year). This would cover proposals which either respond to critical safety matters or which involve productivity enhancement, simplification, expansion of options or new standards updates.

The five-year amendment cycle would also be supported by a twelve-month voluntary adoption period for major amendments.

This can assist individual businesses and practitioners to prepare for the changes before they become mandatory. It will also help to ensure that unexpected problems can be identified and addressed prior to mandatory implementation.

3, More industry input in decision making

Third, HIA would like more industry involvement in decision making.

As things stand, industry and other stakeholders have some opportunity to have their say in code development through a public comment draft process.

Usually, the ABCB publishes regulatory impact assessments which summarise the outcomes of stakeholder feedback from this process at the point of decision on a new version of the Code.

At this point, however, this has not occurred with the 2025 update even though the content of the update has been agreed and the preview has been released.

For many in industry, this has led to difficulty in understanding how the results of that consultation have translated into shaping the final version of the Code.

More fundamentally, Keating stresses the importance of housing industry representation on the ABCB board itself.

This is needed to ensure that decisions are informed by industry professionals who have a real-world understanding of making the Code work effectively on site.

Action Needed

Keating stresses the importance of action.

“Housing affordability is not the only concern, but it cannot be an afterthought when developing building regulation,” Keating said.

“The NCC must return to its core role as a clear, technical minimum standard that ensures safe homes while allowing the industry to deliver housing efficiently and affordably.

“The NCC is only one part of the broader regulatory framework affecting housing supply, but it is an important piece of the puzzle.

“It’s time for a genuine overhaul to deliver a modern code that works for the way housing is delivered, supports innovation and ultimately helps more Australians achieve home ownership.”

Enjoying Sourceable articles? Subscribe for Free and receive daily updates of all articles which are published on our site

Want to grow your sales, reach more new clients and expand your client base across Australia’s design and construction sector?

Advertise on Sourceable and have your business seen by the thousands of architects, engineers, builders/construction contractors, subcontractors/trade contractors, property developers and building industry suppliers who read our stories across the civil, commercial and residential construction sector