In a recent interview, industry experts voiced strong concerns regarding Peter Dutton’s proposed 10-year freeze on national building codes, citing the potential implications amid our rapidly changing climate.
Industry Minister Ed Husic criticized the opposition’s plan, warning it could lead Australians to live in “shoddy” homes susceptible to disasters reminiscent of the Grenfell Tower fire. The proposal to postpone improvements in building standards for a decade has triggered significant backlash not just from housing specialists and independent politicians like David Pocock, but also from various industry groups, which are now distancing themselves from Dutton’s freeze.
While Dutton’s plan promises to allocate $5 billion in grants and loans for developing greenfield sites across Australia—potentially resulting in the construction of up to 500,000 new homes— it also intends to halt updates that would require new homes to meet higher energy efficiency standards. Proponents of the plan argue that the existing regulations have inflated housing prices by thousands of dollars.
Although some industry organizations, including Master Builders Australia (MBA) and the Property Council, greeted the $5 billion housing initiative positively, the support for the freeze on building codes was less unanimous. During a recent gathering, these organizations, including the Housing Industry Association and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, made their reservations known, underscoring their commitment to regular reviews and coordination of building codes.
Denita Wawn, the CEO of MBA, expressed that a “pause on unnecessary code changes” could be beneficial. Conversely, a representative from the Property Council emphasized their long-standing support for regular revolutions of the building codes.
Matt Collins, CEO of the Planning Institute of Australia, echoed the concerns, stating a freeze would be regrettable, especially considering the severe repercussions of climate change.
Husic went on to assert that the Coalition’s strategy could expose Australians to dangerous living conditions and increase both building costs and energy bills. He highlighted the importance of climate-resilient homes, which are better equipped to withstand the increasing risks of wildfires and floods due to climate change. “We want livable homes that are cost-effective to maintain,” Husic remarked, “but Peter Dutton seems content with Australians living in expensive ‘hot boxes’ vulnerable to extreme weather events.”
He continued, “The construction code is designed to protect Australians from the dire outcomes of poor construction, as illustrated by the Grenfell Tower tragedy. More energy-efficient homes reduce household energy bills while enduring our scorching summers.”
While the opposition contended that recent adjustments to the code have raised housing costs by $60,000, this assertion conflicts with a report from the Australian Glass and Windows Association (AGWA), which indicated that the average national upgrade cost due to code changes was only $4,492.
Gary Rake, CEO of the Australian Building Codes Board, confirmed that their modeling aligns with AGWA’s findings. He cautioned that halting updates to building standards poses risks amid increasing occurrences of fires, floods, storms, and heatwaves. “I work alongside new graduates who anticipate living into the year 2100,” he noted. “We need to consider the future for generations to come.”
