BUILDING AMENDMENT BILL 2026 (No. 1)
[2.58 p.m.]
Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, I rise to speak on the Building Amendment Bill. Its stated intention is simple, to freeze changes to the National Construction Code, but the implications of the bill are far from simple and harmless. The National Construction Code, as we've heard, is updated every three years and sets the minimum standards to ensure health, safety, accessibility, amenity and sustainability in new building works. These are really important principles. In practical terms, the NCC is what helps ensure Australian homes are healthier, safer, more energy efficient and more future-ready.
The NCC 2025 was released for public consultation last year. Following the building ministers' meeting on 22 October of that year, ministers agreed to the content, with publication scheduled for 1 February 2026. States and territories may adopt it from 1 May 2026. Tasmania, however, immediately announced that it would not adopt any NCC 2025 measures. Importantly, ministers also agreed that after the release of the NCC 2025 there would be a pause on further residential changes until mid‑2029, except in cases of essential safety or quality. In other words, the NCC is already paused nationally. No further residential upgrades are coming before 2029 and only critical safety updates will continue. That's pretty clear, isn't it? Alongside this, the federal government is undertaking a review to modernise and streamline the NCC. The review is open for submissions, with the final report due in mid‑2026. Surely, then, the state government would await that outcome of the review before legislating?
Honourable Speaker, in August 2025, before the national pause on future NCC changes were agreed, the Tasmanian Liberal government announced that it would block the National Construction Code 2025, and it was backed strongly by the HIA and major construction players.
This isn't Tasmania's first departure from the national code. The government delayed adoption of the 7‑star energy rating requirement until the NCC 2025, only now to refuse NCC 2025 altogether. Research by Renew in 2021 shows that 7-star homes cut heating and cooling costs by around 15 per cent with savings on power bills outweighing upfront costs over the medium term. I want to cite an example of this where there has been energy efficiency put into social housing. The social housing in Moonah on Hopkins Street means that those residents don't have to pay high power bills. They're comfortable; they're not living in draughty conditions. These are really important standards that we shouldn't be eroding.
This bill is an exercise in sleight-of-hand. The government claims it's about making residential houses cheaper to help with the housing crisis, yet we know there is a national pause already in place on NCC updates for residential houses until 2029. Thus, it's baffling to think that this bill should be before us. Importantly, this bill applies not just to residential construction; it affects all building classes. That's schools, aged-care facilities, apartments, hospitals. This is a freeze on the minimum standards for the places Tasmanians live in, learn, work and receive care in.
It will be interesting to see those standards come to the Public Works Committee, of which I'm a member, to see an erosion of those standards in schools. Shouldn't Tasmanian school students; shouldn't others in other government facilities get the best or at least level pegging with other states rather than an erosion, as I said, of standards?
Of the 16 submissions received in response to this bill, only two, the HIA and Master Builders supported the bill, and I acknowledge the CEO of HIA, Ben Price in the Chamber today. Everyone else expressed concern or outright opposition. We heard from Mr Bayley and his example of the man who wrote the submission and it was very interesting reading indeed because it really flew in the face of what was suggested by HIA and Master Builders.
TasCOSS strongly opposes the bill, noting that it is always cheaper to build accessibility and efficiency into homes upfront rather than retrofitting, especially in a state with an ageing population and a high proportion of people living with disability.
Disability Voices Tasmania is also firmly opposed. They raise an essential question. The NCC is tied directly to the Disability Access to Premises Buildings Standards. When those national premises standards change, the NCC must change to stay consistent. They argue this bill may break that link and risk delaying future disability access improvements until after 2029. And we know that if you build Standards for people with disabilities, it is good for everybody. To cast that aside, I believe is a crying shame.
I remember another anecdote, if you will bear with me, honourable Speaker. When I first came to Tasmania - I moved to Tasmania in 1994 - I had a look at housing stock. I had a young family; my kids were only very young at that stage, and we wanted to buy a house which had good insulation. They weren't available. Rental houses weren't available. I don't believe that that sort of standard should be the fall-back option. It should be that we have better insulation, better solar passive heating and so forth, but this makes it a step further away for those young families who are coming in place of me 30 years down the track.
The Hobart City Council warns that the bill will entrench a legacy of buildings that are less climate resilient, more expensive to heat and cool, lagging behind national sustainability benchmarks. The Australian Glass and Window Association stresses that national consistency is essential and that divergence will increase compliance complexity and business costs. Again, it's a false economy in so many ways.
The Northern Midlands Council highlights the regulatory adoption of future NCC updates will be slow, burdensome and incapable of responding swiftly to urgent safety amendments. The Australian Institute of Architects and Australian Institute of Building Surveyors both raise significant concerns. The building surveyors, at minimum, argue Tasmania should follow Queensland and Western Australia and make NCC 2025 optional rather than blocking it entirely. They warn that failing to adopt NCC 2025 will create significant negative impacts on safety and housing costs.
The second reading speech from the Attorney‑General is heavy on rhetoric: reducing red tape, protecting home-buyers, supporting small business, easing housing pressures. But the truth is, this bill is political theatre designed to appear as though the government is addressing the housing crisis. Well, I don't believe that's the case. The push to pause the NCC was first advanced by Peter Dutton in 2024 wrapped in anti-climate messaging and housing crisis narrative. The NCC, like the Australian curriculum, is becoming an ideological football. At the national level, updates are already paused until 2029. Treasury announced that pause to the federal government to accelerate housing construction, and yet Tasmania is pushing ahead with a bill that right now has no practical need. Its effect is to appease developers who do not want to install solar panels or comply with improved condensation management, while pretending this is about affordability. It is not.
In light of the reality of this national freeze until 2029 on NCC updates for residential houses, the question must be asked, who actually benefits from what this bill is seeking to do? It's about looking after developers, not making housing cheaper for Tasmanians. Is it worth asking what the government is protecting Tasmanians from? The NCC 2025 introduced:
Updates in water management. Crucial given water ingress is the leading course of building defects, and we're getting more of that with increased levels of stormwater and extreme weather events;
Car park fire safety. Enhanced protections for shared and commercial structures;
Commercial energy efficiency, improved controls and mandatory solar PV;
Condensation mitigation, long-needed revisions that the Australian Industry Building Standards states will not increase costs;
Structural reliability and fire safety performance solutions; and
Clearer, more robust assessment pathways.
These are practical, evidence-based improvements to protect consumers, reduce defects, cut energy bills and improve resilience. This bill blocks them. The reality is, the bill has no immediate impact on residential construction, but it has a very real long-term impact by locking in lower standards for decades. It condemns future Tasmanians to higher energy bills, higher retrofit costs, poorer resilience and inaccessible homes. It sends a terrible message to people with disability, as Tammy Milne says - and Mr Bayley has quoted Tammy - in her submission that 'stalling disability access improvements effectively says "we don't care about you"'.
On cost of living, the government ignores the fact that buildings account for around half of Australia's electricity use and Tasmanians suffer the highest electricity bills in the nation due to cold weather and poor housing stock. More efficient buildings reduce bills, boost resilience and ease pressure on households. Green Building Council modelling shows green‑star homes can cut energy use by 56 per cent to 60 per cent, saving households $90 to $140 per month - and I go back to that Moonah, Hopkins Street example - savings that can offset modest increases in construction costs. Spend now and you pay less for longer in the future.
Improving the resilience and efficiency of new homes protects health, reduces insurance costs, prevents future retrofitting costs and shields vulnerable households. Failing to do so disproportionately harms low-income households, renters, First Nations people and people with disability.
Minimum standards must evolve to reflect climate realities and rising energy costs. NCC improvements are not nice to have, they are essential for health, safety and long-term affordability. As the Productivity Commission's 2025 report made clear, climate resilience investment reduces costs to society, the economy and the environment.
This bill solves a problem that does not exist. It undermines national consistency, limits future safety upgrades, stifles progress on accessibility and climate resilience and entrenches higher long-term costs for Tasmanian households. It is inconsistent with the government's Climate Change Action Plan, its housing strategy and clearly is not evidence based.
I want to read from the government's housing strategy, where objective 1.2 talks about:
Fostering a culture of high-quality, energy-efficient and fit-for-purpose housing across the whole housing spectrum through design standards, government leadership and industry support.
The Tasmanian population has the highest percentage of residents with specific mobility, mental health and neurological needs, whose lives and means of participation could be improved through well-designed homes. [TBC]
I'll finish by quoting the report we were talking about earlier. Only last month the HIA warned that:
The government's profligate spending on major infrastructure projects will lead to a shortage of skilled labour to construct residential homes, which will lead to delays in construction and drive up house prices. [TBC]The title of the paper is 'Who is going to build our Macquarie Point Stadium?', but it should have been entitled 'Who is going to build our new houses?', because the central tenet of this report is that the Macquarie Point stadium will draw workers from the housing and construction sector, further straining a sector which is already short-staffed.
This bill is a distraction from how the government is failing to increase the supply of new houses in Tasmania. It is not a solution. The bill is short-sighted, ideologically motivated and harmful to future generations. It is spreading the cost of this intergenerational debt, if you like. It is a piece of political theatre designed to wedge Labor and I will not be supporting it.
I have some questions I would like to put on the record. I have sent these through to the Deputy Premier in advance of the debate today to ensure he was able to answer them. Your government produced an energy emissions reduction and resilience plan 2024-29. I expect you would be familiar with this plan. It has five focus areas. There are two I want to ask you about ‑ supporting Tasmanians to improve energy efficiency and building resilience to the impacts of climate change.
One, we know that your government deferred the NCC 2022 requirement for 7-Star energy ratings on houses and has now, through this legislation, completely abandoned them. How is this bill meeting your government's own energy emissions reduction and remissions plan objectives of improving energy efficiency and building resilience to climate change?
Two, isn't this going to increase the work needed to be done by CBOS to draft regulations to adopt specific provisions from the NCC that Tasmania wants to adopt, rather than those provisions being adopted automatically?
Three, if Tasmania is out of step with the other states in terms of minimum building standards, what impact is this likely to have on mainland builders who might otherwise be lured across to Tasmania to address our labour shortage?
Four, safety‑critical notices and amendments to the NCC are published periodically by the ABCB. Under the current Building Act they would automatically be adopted in Tasmania. How will these safety‑critical notices and amendments be incorporated in Tasmania if this bill passes?
Finally, what impact would this bill have on the commitment by government to fully implement the liveable housing standards by 1 October 2026?