More than 2.5 million Australians call an apartment home, a figure that has grown steadily as urban density increases. Yet for many of them, the regulatory systems designed to keep them safe are falling dangerously short.

(above image: AI generated via freepik)

While the current regulatory fire and safety frameworks are intended to keep residents safe, the reality is far more complex. Many apartment buildings struggle to meet their fire safety maintenance obligations, the result of insufficient guidance, inconsistent enforcement, and an over-reliance on self-regulation.

Until we develop a nationally aligned compliance framework that addresses these systemic weaknesses, millions of apartment dwellers will remain exposed to risks that are entirely preventable.

What the research reveals

The statistics show that this is a problem we can’t afford to ignore. For my PhD research, I examined feedback obtained through local council fire safety compliance inspections and associated data across 36,726 buildings in New South Wales and Victoria, moderating the dataset to 1,457 buildings for detailed analysis. The findings were eye-opening: only 13 per cent of Victorian apartment buildings and 35.9 per cent of NSW apartment buildings qualified as compliant.

These results confirm what many of my peers and colleagues have long suspected: performance-based building codes, combined with fragmented and often deregulated enforcement, are generating increased systemic risk across the country.

My research also found that performance-based codes have increased community safety risks, with deregulated enforcement exacerbating the compliance gaps.

Building owners recognise their responsibility, but lack confidence due to insufficient regulatory guidance. Inconsistent support from authorities and a reliance on self-regulation leave many owners and residents uncertain about whether they are meeting the required standards. This creates not only a safety gap but also an unrealistic expectation to manage a complex web of regulatory requirements, almost entirely on their own.

Overall, the research paints a picture of a regulatory environment that is not adequately protecting the millions of Australians living in multi-storey residential buildings. For the sake of both residents and industry professionals, we must provide better support.

Differences across states

A major part of the problem is that fragmented state-based frameworks create dangerous inconsistencies in enforcement. In the current system, a building owner operating in one state may face scrutiny and accountability that simply does not exist for a counterpart managing a comparable building elsewhere.

The regulatory picture across NSW and VIC illustrates the problem. For example, in Victoria, building owners are required to maintain essential safety measures (ESMs), self-certify annually, and keep records, but there is no mandatory reporting obligation to a statutory authority.

In New South Wales, however, owners must maintain fire safety measures and submit annual fire safety statements to authorities and Fire and Rescue NSW.

More than administrative distinctions, these policies reflect fundamentally different views about the role of government in verifying that buildings are safe. And these inconsistencies are causing confusion across the board.

(image via freepix)

Learning from history

The history of fire tragedies in Australia and internationally offers a sobering reminder of what is at stake. Incidents including the Kew Cottages fire in 1996, the Queensland Childers backpacker hostel fire in 2000 and, more recently, the Lacrosse and Neo 200 building fires in Melbourne drew widespread attention to dangerous cladding materials and exposed weaknesses in how safety obligations are understood, maintained and enforced.

Globally, the Grenfell Tower fire in London in 2017 became a defining moment for building regulation reform, demonstrating the catastrophic potential of cladding failures in combination with inadequate fire safety systems. Each of these events produced inquiries, recommendations and, to varying degrees, regulatory responses, both at home and overseas. The question we must now ask is how we will learn from them.

The way forward

Both historical events and the research point towards several priorities that demand serious policy attention. Fire safety compliance frameworks need to be strengthened and aligned across jurisdictions, with a nationally consistent baseline for reporting, auditing and enforcement. This would reduce the disparity that currently allows compliance culture to vary so dramatically depending on postcode.

Regulatory oversight also needs to improve, with reliance on self-regulation alone no longer a sufficient answer. Building owners and strata managers cannot reasonably be expected to ensure compliance without proper guidance and support. Clearer, more accessible resources, backed by responsive regulatory bodies, would improve outcomes without placing unreasonable burdens on industry.

The study also identifies gaps in the current evidence base as a finding in its own right. The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors (AIBS) strongly recommends further research into the issue, including cross-jurisdictional analysis, evaluation of self-reporting effectiveness, and comparative research between building cohorts. Until that research is completed, policymakers and regulators will continue to work with an incomplete picture of the true scale of non-compliance across Australia.

When I present my research findings at the AIBS conference series in Western Australia and Queensland this year, I hope it sparks a sector-wide conversation about the best path forward. The only way we will improve the safety of Australia’s apartments is by coming together to create a solution.

Dr Stephen Scimonello is a highly respected leader in the building surveying profession, with more than 26 years’ experience as a registered building practitioner in the category of Building Surveyor – Unlimited with the Building & Plumbing Commission. His professional background spans building surveying, statutory planning, compliance auditing, and education.

He holds a PhD from Victoria University, alongside a Master of Engineering (Construction Management), a Master of Social Science (Planning & Environment), and a Bachelor of Technology (Building Surveying). This unique combination of academic and professional qualifications enables Dr Scimonello to bridge the gap between theory, policy, and practical application in the built environment.

Dr Scimonello has played a key role in developing national professional standards, ethical guidelines, and audit frameworks for building surveyors. He has contributed to government advisory panels and led education initiatives aimed at strengthening compliance and public safety. 

The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors (AIBS) is the peak professional body representing building surveyors across Australia. With over 1,300 members nationwide, AIBS plays a vital role in safeguarding the built environment by promoting high professional standards, advocating for consistent regulation, and supporting the profession through accreditation, education, and professional development.

Recognised by governments, regulators, and industry as a trusted, independent voice, AIBS is committed to ensuring safe, compliant buildings for all Australians. Through its Professional Standards Scheme, accreditation program, and ongoing advocacy, AIBS leads the way in strengthening the profession and protecting consumer outcomes.

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