Thread by @ajsadauskas

Via @GeoffHanmer: "The introduction of the Building Code of Australia, now the National Construction Code (NCC) from the mid-1980s was driven by an agenda to increase self-regulation in the building industry... with the aim of reducing construction costs." afr.com/real-estate/re…

"By 2004, the Productivity Commission had given deregulation a big tick. In a 2004 report it theorised billions of dollars would be saved by moving to a more flexible regulatory environment. It did not consider the cost of rectifying buildings." #Auspol

afr.com/real-estate/re…

For anyone who's interested, the full 2004 Reform of Building Regulation report is still available online. It certainly makes for some... interesting... reading in light of the recent problems with buildings. #Auspol

You can download it here: pc.gov.au/inquiries/comp…

Who was the Howard Government MP who wrote the terms of reference for this 2004 Productivity Commission report into the national building codes?

Ross Cameron.

And he explicitly insisted industry groups such as the HIA, Property Council, etc., be consulted:

#Auspol

Yes, this Ross Cameron:

smh.com.au/national/liber…

"The group does not even have a name, although it often is referred to as 'the Cameron group' after [Ross] Cameron, the Liberal right-wing member for Parramatta who started it."

smh.com.au/national/in-go…

"Sky News has sacked host Ross Cameron over racist comments he made on the Outsiders program earlier this week."

mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-0…

Anyway, back to the Productivity Commission report.

What should be principal objective of a national building code? Safety? Buildings not collapsing or burning?

For the Productivity Commission, the answer was "the persuit of efficiency": #auspol

It gets worse.

While the Productivity Commission recognised that "deficiencies in building safety" was a potential "spillover cost", it added: "These potential shortcomings associated with buildings do not, in themselves,
justify regulation."

#auspol

What about community expectations? You know, things like buildings being safe for habitation? Well, the Productivity Commission dismissed these concerns and said efficiency should be the focus of the national building code. #auspol

The Productivity Commission decided not "unduly restricting innovation and consumer choice" should be a key focus for the national building code:

#auspol

Here, the Productivity Commission defines an effective building code as one where "the costs of compliance can be reduced, while still addressing identified market imperfections and achieving given objectives". #auspol

Throughout this document, the Productivity Commission kept using the word "efficiency". What did it mean? "Ensuring individuals and groups in society achieve their preferences at the lowest cost possible."

They wanted this to be the bedrock of Australia's building code. #auspol

On structural soundness: "an important question is whether regulatory standards and enforcement activities, which are costly... are proportionate to the risk? In some cases, it may be that the risk does not justify the compliance costs and regulatory resources allocated to it."

Here's a link to the National Construction Code for anyone who want to look into this further: ncc.abcb.gov.au/ncc-online/Abo…

Here's the 2004 Productivity Commission report it's based on: pc.gov.au/inquiries/comp…

And the submissions: pc.gov.au/inquiries/comp…

Just one final thought on this topic. If we have a neoliberal national construction code, designed around costs and "efficiency" over safety, is should it really be a surprise that we end up with cracked walls in apartment blocks and flammable cladding? #auspol

Tonight's episode of #4Corners has covered a number of critical issues that I've raised a lot on Twitter over recent times.

We really need to completely overhaul the National Construction Code before we have a Grenfell-style tragedy in this country.

#Auspol #ausbiz #Ausmedia