There has been a lot of very productive work put into improvements in the planning systems around the country.

The states have, broadly speaking, got on board with the housing supply agenda and are making concerted, albeit belated (and likely unsuccessful) efforts to deliver against their National Housing Accord targets.

Since the election, and with the appointment of Minister Clare O’Neil to the Housing portfolio, the focus of the Commonwealth has become much sharper on housing supply.  The HAFF has now been bedded in.

The Commonwealth is rolling out its $10 billion first home buyer support program, which has manifest itself as a housing related infrastructure funding mechanism in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the ACT. The other states are yet to finalise agreements for their share.

The Commonwealth also stole directly from the Coalition’s commitment at the last election to directly fund Housing Related Infrastructure, by announcing its own $2 billion fund in this year’s budget.  While that is not as high as the $5 billion promised by the Coalition, the Government points to its other funding initiatives to argue that they are way ahead on this score (though interestingly, not winning the political debate at this stage).

So, with planning reforms in place and infrastructure funding coming through, the big remaining obstacle for new home builders remains project feasibility.  There are three big components:

• Worksite productivity;
• Federal, State and Local Government fees, taxes and charges on new home production; and
• Building codes, rules and regulations.

This article takes a deeper dive into the problem and while the politicians on both sides are talking about reforming the code, I thought it timely to put some meat on the bone.

The National Construction Code (NCC) has become an unwieldly, duplicative, confusing door stop.

What started as a document of 220 pages in 1988 now comprises:

• Volume One (937 pages);
• Volume Two (330 pages);
• The Housing Provisions Standard, (602 pages); and
• The Livable Housing Design Standard (25 pages).

(image: AI generated via magnific)

What is the goal of the NCC?

The original goal of the NCC, as stated in the 1988 version of the Building Code of Australia[1], was to cover:

… those aspects of building which are controlled by local government such as structure, fire resistance, access and egress, fire-fighting equipment, mechanical ventilation, lift installations, and certain aspects of health and amenity.

By 2016[2], this had changed to:

The goal of the NCC is to enable the achievement of nationally consistent, minimum necessary standards of relevant safety (including structural safety and safety from fire), health, amenity and sustainability objectives efficiently.

This goal is applied so that—

1. there is a rigorously tested rationale for the regulation; and
2. the regulation is effective and proportional to the issues being addressed such that the regulation will generate benefits to society greater than the costs (that is, net benefits); and
3. there is no regulatory or non-regulatory alternative (whether under the responsibility of the Board or not) that would generate higher net benefits; and
4. the competitive effects of the regulation have been considered, and the regulation is no more restrictive than necessary in the public interest.

In the draft of NCC 2025[3], it was revised again to now state:

The 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 of certain buildings.  It primarily applies to the design and construction of new buildings and plumbing and drainage systems in new and existing buildings.
In some cases, it may also apply to structures associated with buildings and new building work or new plumbing and drainage work in existing buildings.

The Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), on behalf of the Australian Government and each State and Territory government, produces and maintains the NCC. When determining the content of the NCC, the ABCB seeks to –

• ensure requirements have a rigorously tested rationale; and
• effectively and proportionally address applicable issues; and
• create benefits to society that outweigh costs; and
• consider non-regulatory alternatives; and
• consider the competitive effects of regulation; and
• not be unnecessarily restrictive.

The focus of the Code has been extended significantly to include accessibility and sustainability, as well as broadening the brief from “certain aspects of health and amenity” to now cover health and amenity perse.

Is the ABCB effective in delivering these goals?

Urban Taskforce Australia contends that the ABCB has failed to ensure that the NCC lives up to its stated goals:

The role of the ABCB needs to be overhauled.  The make up needs to move beyond the echo-chamber it has become and real-world testing with those that actually invest in the development of new buildings must be systematically built into its modus operandi.

The nature of the NCC, which has been built by adding more and more regulations to the original base, does not lend itself as readily to review and reduction as it does to expansion.  This problem is now abundantly apparent.

Key concerns

Our review of Volumes 1 and 2 of the NCC 2025 draft reveals:

• there is too much duplication of content, in part due to its archaic and internecine (as it applies to productivity) structure;
• content is structured in such a way that proponents have to jump between sections;
• content is hidden away in referenced Australian standards that are locked behind a paywall;
• changes to standards are not subject to broad public consultation, but are only open to review by those who are registered with Standards Australia itself;
• there is a multitude of pages that could be separate documents on the ABCB website or that may be of no use whatsoever;
• explanatory notes are littered throughout both Volumes;
• the layout of many of the clauses could be simplified to present information in a more concise manner; and
• information is presented for all building types when not relevant to some, requiring interpretation by users as to whether clauses apply or not.

Functional statements

Each section of the NCC has a hierarchy:

• Objectives: What society expects (eg., safety);
• Functional Statements: How the building must function to meet the objectives;
• Performance Requirements: The mandatory, legal minimums;
• Verification methods: How to prove compliance with Performance Requirements; and
• Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions: An agreed way to achieve compliance.

The Objectives and Functional Statements are not mandatory, but the other parts are.  However, in most cases, there is a lot of repetition between these different levels.  For example, Part B1 – Structural provisions has the following clauses (with non-relevant parts removed):

Explanatory notes

The NCC contains numerous “applications”, notes, explanatory notes, and exemptions, which take up significant space within the documents.  These even occur in the definitions, which we argue is counterintuitive and counterproductive.

This appears to be a fairly common approach within the NCC.  H3D6 in Volume Two contains four lines and 50 words in total (including the heading).  It is followed by NINE explanatory notes of 391 words.

Similarly, clause A7G2 – Alterations in a united building in Volume One is 49 words long.  The explanatory notes associated with the clause run to 627 words.

Frequently, these notes are not fit-for-purpose.  Volume 2 is for Class 1a or 10 buildings.  In the explanatory note on room heights, associated with Part H4P2 of Volume 2, it states:

In relation to the intended function of a room or space, the activities that are likely to be undertaken by occupants in the room of space, as well the features of the activities, are relevant considerations when determining a suitable height.

For example, if the intended use of a room is a gymnasium [emphasis added for comic effect], then gymnastic activities are likely to be undertaken in the room. These activities often involve jumps and flips which require significant space in order to be undertaken safely.

In terms of the occupants, their features and needs are also relevant when determining a suitable height. For example, occupant features and needs would differ between rooms or spaces intended as a child’s play area, and rooms or spaces intended for adult’s indoor cricket.

A gymnasium or adult’s indoor cricket facility cannot be built within this class of structure.

Something for everyone

Volume One covers all building types except for Class 1a and Class 10 buildings.  This means that it tries to cover off all eventualities, leading to clarification after clarification.  This is not efficient.

It would make more sense for there to be concise Code for each of the building class, which contain relevant information for that class.

Such a move would make it easier for practitioners to use and ensure that someone designing or building a Class 2 residential building does not have to wade through information on Class 6 or Class 9b fire compartments just to get to the information they need.

Too much information?

A practitioner using the 2025 draft version of Volume One of the NCC does not get to technical information (Section B) until page 122.  Before that there is a range of pages covering everything including:

• copyright, licence notes, and Acknowledgement of Country (it is not clear why the latter has been included) – page 2;
• the table of contents – pages 3-46;
• an introduction to the NCC – pages 47-48;
• an introduction to NCC Volume One – page 49;
• a list of NCC specifications – pages 50-51;
• the history of the adoption of NCC Volume One – pages 52-61;
• a list of amendments in NCC 2025 Volume One – pages 62-73; and
• governing requirements – pages 74-122.

This could be placed on the ABCB website as pages or fact sheets, as it is not needed for the efficient management of building regulation.

Even the contents pages are voluminous and duplicated! Contents details are both located up front in the documents and also occur throughout the volumes at the start of every section, totalling:

• 100 pages in Volume (10.7% of the whole document); and
• 76 pages In Volume Two (including the Housing Provisions Standard and the Livable Housing Design Standard, 7.9% of the documents).

Some information here, some information there

To an outside user, the NCC should be very straightforward – this section for structural issues, this section for fire protection, this section for waterproofing, and so on.

Often, however, the Code provides information in a variety of different areas but relating to the same general topics.

This is exacerbated with the use of specifications that add more detail on specific areas, often not co-located with those initial clauses, requiring references back and forth to understand what is needed.  The area of fire safety is a case in point.

(image: AI generated via freepix)

Streamlining is critical

Not only does the NCC contain large amounts of information not required for regulatory purposes (e.g. the History of the NCC Volume One), but it is duplicative, as identified above.

It has resulted in erroneous or superfluous information being included that increases confusion, rather than delivering clarity.

Specifications deserve particular attention, as they are often provided to give additional details for elements within the NCC.  They add significantly to the size of the document, without, in many cases, improving the quality of the outcomes from applying the Code.

The information that the specifications contain might be better placed within the relevant Australian standard or in separate practice notes.

For example, there are two parts (10 pages in total) that  relate to relatively infrequent requirements in a typical building – accessible entry into swimming pools (Specification 16) and accessible adult change facilities (Specification 27).  While Urban Taskforce is not suggesting that such accessibility is not necessary, each would perhaps be more appropriate as guidance on the ABCB website, rather than as regulated parts of the NCC.

In attempting to be all things to all people, the Code risks being too unwieldy and unworkable, and making itself irrelevant.

Definitional debates

Similar issues arise with the definitions.  Schedule 1 of Volume One, Volume Two, and the ABCB Housing Standard are almost exactly the same length (44 pages for the former, compared with 42 each for the latter documents).

There does not appear to be nuance involved in determining which words are to be included for definition.

For example, there are three terms relating to care homes:  “aged care building”, “residential aged care building”, and “residential care building”.

Not only do these terms appear nowhere in Volume Two except in the definitions, or in the description of different building classifications.  No surprise really, given that they cover Class 3, 9a, and 9c buildings, and Volume Two only covers Class 1a and 10 buildings.  So, why are definitions needed?

This is just one case, but there are many more.

Accommodating modular homes

The Federal Government, and many of the states and territories, have declared their support for modular housing.  However, declaring support is very different from accommodating such construction in the NCC.

There are many elements that make modular construction difficult and costly to deliver under the NCC, some of which include:

• Falls to floor waste – requiring full floor grading even for voluntary wastes.
• Zero step entry – this is tricky to deliver on sloping sites, requiring extra excavation.
• 7 Star NatHERS Efficiency Standards – moving from 6 stars to 7 required better insulation, higher spec glazing, thermally broken window frames, and better air tightness.
• Condensation management and ventilation – requiring vapour permeable sarking and increased ventilation.

Regulation needs to be accessible

If the NCC is going to be streamlined, and if information is held within specifications, guidelines, and standards, all of it needs to be accessible and free for users.  The Federal Government supported this change in the Federal Budget and this is very welcome.

Keeping to the original intent

As noted earlier, the original intent of the Building Code was to address structure, fire resistance, access and egress, fire-fighting equipment, mechanical ventilation, lift installations, and certain aspects of health and amenity.

The current Code has moved into accessibility, energy efficiency, and sustainability.

This has led to a blow-out in regulation – for example, Part J of Volume One is 130 pages long (13.9% of the NCC).  It is bigger than the sections on structure, fire resistance, and almost all of the access and egress provisions.

Volume Two and the Housing Provisions Standard devote a further 95 pages to energy efficiency.  There are more pages in these three documents on energy efficiency (225 pages) than in the whole 1988 version of the Building Code of Australia (209 pages).

These sections explicitly emphasise that the focus is not on the resident, but on society.  Volume Two (H6P2) states that “the energy value of a building’s domestic services must not exceed 70% of the energy value”.  Ignoring the apparent circular nature of the requirement, it is important to note that “energy value” is defined as:  “The net cost to society including, but not limited to, costs to the building user, the environment and energy networks.”

Similarly, both Volumes of the Code require dwellings to incorporate livable housing elements “to include features that are designed to improve their accessibility and usability for occupants and visitors, including those with a mobility-related disability.”

This is a form of social engineering being progressed through the NCC.

This all adds significantly to the cost of every new home it covers. It puts the cost of delivery onto the home purchaser, rather than on the future (potential) user, as a form of aspirational “future proofing”.

While Urban Taskforce is not arguing against energy efficiency, climate change, or improved access for people with mobility impairment or disabilities, there is a degree to which market forces should be allowed to apply, rather than increasing costs on all homes.

Conclusion

The National Construction Code has increasingly become one of the key productivity problems in our sector. Pragmatism is needed – the NCC should return to its original purpose. Innovation, guidance, and market forces should be used to achieve social and broader goals that governments deem worthy.

[1] https://ncc.abcb.gov.au – BCA 201988_0.pdf

[2] https://ncc.abcb.gov.au – 2016 volume one – introduction

[3]https://www.abcb.gov.au – 2025 Volume One.pdf

Tom Forrest is CEO of Urban Taskforce Australia