Building and engineering professionals across sixteen categories throughout Australia will need to undertake ongoing education specifically about the National Construction Code (NCC) as part of continuing professional development (CPD) requirements if proposals which are expected to form part of model guidance are adopted across states and territories.

The Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) has released a discussion paper which proposes content that could be included in national model guidance which would assist states and territories in determining requirements for practitioners to undertake ongoing CPD on aspects of the NCC which are relevant to their work.

It proposes six principles which would guide requirements.

These are that:

• Ongoing CPD specifically in regard to the NCC be compulsory
• The amount, type and expiration of CPD on the NCC be regulated
• CPD on the NCC be evidence-based and complemented by CPD on ethics
• CPD on the NCC be transparent and based on consultation
• Evidence and records of CPD on the NCC be retained; and
• CPD on the NCC be oversighted.

The paper comes as part of the ABCB’s response to recommendations contained in the Building Confidence Report prepared by Professor Peter Shergold and lawyer Bronwyn Weir for the Building Ministers’ Forum (now known as the Building Ministers’ Meeting) in 2018.

In its first three recommendations, that report suggested that: a range of building professionals be required to be registered (recommendation 1); those same professionals be subject to consistent requirements regarding competency, experience and integrity (recommendation 2); and those same professionals be required to undertake a certain amount of CPD which specifically relates to the National Construction Code (recommendation 3).

The latest paper responds to the third recommendation. Earlier work from the ABCB has responded to the first two recommendations (see paper for details.)

The paper explores and proposes content to be considered as part of the process to develop national model guidance. This guidance, in turn, will assist states and territories to implement the recommended reform within their own building legislative frameworks in a manner which is nationally consistent.

As things stand, practitioners across various fields are subject to mandatory requirements in respect of continuing professional development.

However, there are no known requirements in any jurisdiction for any category of practitioner to undertake compulsory education which is specific to the National Construction Code. This is a problem as the Building Confidence Report found that understanding of important areas of the NCC and documents which the Code references including relevant Australian standards was lacking in some areas.

According to the paper, the importance of requiring practitioners to undertake ongoing training and development in relation to the NCC should not be underestimated.

Such a requirement, it says, will mean that practitioners maintain an understanding of critical aspects of the Code that are relevant to their work which is clear, thorough and up to date.

This will enable them to better understand and apply the Code and to identify and rectify areas where work fails to comply with Code requirements. Such an understanding will also enable them to have greater confidence when making design, construction or inspection decisions and when justifying those decisions to others.

In its paper, the ABCB proposes six principles which would form the basis of its model guidance.

The principles will apply to requirements for architects, building designers, geotechnical designers, structural designers/engineers, mechanical designers, plumbing designers, fire systems designers, disability access consultants, energy efficiency consultants, builders, plumbers, fire systems installers, building surveyors and project managers.

Each principal is outlined below.

Principle 1: Mandatory Annual CDP on the NCC

First, the paper proposes that all practitioners in aforementioned categories be required to undertake compulsory CPD specifically on matters relating to the NCC each year by 30 June.

As things stand, most requirements in respect to mandatory CPD for building practitioners are linked to the registration cycle of the practitioner concerned. This can range from anything between one and five years but is commonly three years.

For two reasons, the paper suggests that this may not be sufficient for CPD which relates to the NCC.

These are that:

• Cycles of practitioner registration may not coincide with updating cycles for either the NCC (three years) or NCC referenced documents. Therefore, practitioners who undertake CPD on a multi-year basis may find that their understanding about specific aspects of the Code and referenced documents is not always up to date.
• Requiring CPD on the NCC to be demonstrated at the end of a three- or five-year registration cycle may lead to a disproportionate amount of such learning needing to be undertaken toward the back end of that cycle. This may lead to poorer learning outcomes where practitioners need to absorb large volumes of information over a short timeframe.

By contrast, requiring NCC-related CPD to be performed annually will help to ensure that practitioners remain up to date on relevant changes and will enable them to understand and apply their learnings in a staged manner.

Principle 2: Regulation of the Amount, Type and Expiration of CPD on the NCC

The second principal proposes that the amount and type of the CDP on the NCC which is able to be performed as part of the mandatory requirement be regulated.

On the first point, it suggests that for most design and building professionals, the type of mandatory CDP required be restricted to formal and structured leaning activities. These include university or vocational education; seminars, conferences and workshops; and industry or government education.

These activities, the paper suggests, often have clearly defined learning outcomes and structured learning content. Such activities generally enable practitioners to provide evidence to registration bodies that they understand relevant material and are capable of applying the material in their work.

For trade-based practitioners such as builders, plumbers and fire-systems installers, however, the paper recognises that practical learning through structured on-the-job learning can be beneficial. This is particularly the case when learning about changes to NCC referenced documents such as Australian standards.

In no cases for any practitioner group would other less formal activities such as trade/information sessions, lectures, publications, private (individual) study, meetings, committee representation, discussion groups or mentoring in themselves be sufficiently structured to count towards the mandatory part of the CPD component the report suggests. This is notwithstanding the value that such activities can provide.

In terms of the amount of NCC related CPD which should be required, the ABCB suggests that a minimum baseline be established which would require at least 25 percent of overall CPD requirements for any given discipline be devoted to topics which specifically relate to the NCC.

Under this system, the required number of hours which each type of practitioner is required to spend on NCC related topics would range from three hours for project managers, builders, plumbers, and fire systems installers (each of whom are typically asked to perform 12 CPD hours annually) through to seven hours for building surveyors (who typically need to do 30 CPD hours annually).

Where practitioners practice for only part of the year (due to illness, leave or other personal reasons), the number of NCC related CPD hours which is needed would be reduced proportionately.

Where practitioners complete excess NCC related CPD requirements, the ABCB proposes that they be permitted to carry-over excess CPD into the new year up to a maximum of 50 percent of the volume of CPD which is required within a given year.

Principle 3: CPD on the NCC Should Be Evidence Based and Complemented by Ethics CPD

The third principle suggests that CPD which relates to the NCC should:

• be evidence based; and
• be complemented by CPD which relates to ethics.

On the first point, the paper proposes that CPD which relates specifically to the NCC should:

• have a clearly stated purpose
• be targeted at specific practitioner disciplines
• be delivered in ways which are suitable for the specific type of practitioner
• use up to date NCC content and terminology
• be developed using a risk and evidence-based approach which is informed by data; and
• include a feedback loop to improve its relevance and effectiveness.

These points are important.

On the first point, ensuring that the purpose of NCC related CPD is clearly defined will enable practitioners to understand how the training is relevant to their role along with the benefits to them in undertaking such training. It will also help to indicate whether or not the content is suitable for wider industry needs.

Meanwhile, the paper notes that needs regarding both areas of knowledge and delivery methods may vary according to different practitioner groups.

Much of the knowledge which is relevant for plumbers, for example, may be contained in the Plumbing Code of Australia (NCC Volume 3). A building surveyor, by contrast, needs to be broadly across all relevant aspects of the Code.

Whilst seminars or conferences may be suitable for architects and engineers, meanwhile, trade-based practitioners may prefer practical or demonstration type of activities. Where people live in remote areas, online, self-paced webinars may be appropriate.

Finally, the paper suggests that NCC related CPD activities should be directed toward areas which have been identified as important areas of risk.

This should be informed by data and evidence. In turn, this could be sourced through records on auditing and compliance, feedback from industry and practitioners, records on litigation and complaints and discussions on social media and media reporting.

By analysing building applications, for example, a jurisdictional government regulator may identify that a large number of domestic building practitioners with experience in Class 1 and Class 10 buildings are moving into the low-rise apartment (Class 2) building space.

Given that previous experience of these practitioners focuses primarily upon single dwellings, CPD activities could cover areas such as more complex fire safety and structural requirements which are associated with low rise apartments but about which such practitioners may be less familiar.

In addition, the paper proposes that practitioners be required at undertake at least two hours per annum of compulsory CPD on ethics.

Driving and upholding ethical behaviour, it said, will help to promote a stronger building culture, improve integrity in the building approval process, drive higher levels of compliance and deliver better outcomes with a more robust application of the NCC.

Principle 4: NCC Related CPD Content Should be Transparent and Consultation based

The fourth principal proposes that CPD which relates to the NCC should be developed in consultation with stakeholders and government and should be periodically reviewed as part of a plan of continuous improvement.

This will help to ensure that NCC related CPD is relevant and effective for practitioners, meets the need of government and is implemented in a manner which is consistent. The periodic reviews, meanwhile, will help to ensure that the scheme continues to deliver better outcomes in improved compliance with the NCC.

The principle also states that the CPD scheme should be transparent with policies and procedures which are publicly available.

Principle 5: Evidence and Records of the CPD on the NCC Should be Retained

The fifth principle states that CPD schemes should provide appropriate tools and resources to assist participants to comply with its requirements.

It also states that practitioners should:

• Document completion and retain evidence of their CPD on the NCC and retain their records for at least six years.
• Record certain information as evidence of completion of CPD on the NCC. This includes the date, duration, activity description, type of activity, a description of what they have learned, certificates or documentary evidence of completion and contribution toward the CPD requirement.
• Provide information to appropriate authorities (i.e., government or registration bodies) including signed declarations confirming fulfilment of CPD on the NCC prior to re-registration along with evidence outlined above as part of an audit showing completion of their CPD on the NCC.

Principal 6 Oversight

Finally, the paper recommends that completion of CPD which is related to the NCC should be subject to annual and random audits which would see practitioners given a specific period (such as 21 business days) to submit evidence of completion.

Practitioners who are found not to have completed their CPD should first be given a set time period in which to bring themselves into compliance with the CPD requirement.

Those who fail to bring themselves into compliance should then be subject to suspension pending CDP completion within a specified period and ultimately cancellation for one year with a need to subsequently reapply and show how they will address their previous non-compliance.

Feedback Sought

Feedback on the proposed principles is being sought before September 5, 2021.

Responses will be considered by building ministers in the latter part of this year.