Building Confidence (Shergold–Weir Report): What It Means for Your New Home

Why This Report Matters

In 2017 the Building Ministers' Forum (BMF) commissioned Professor Peter Shergold and lawyer Bronwyn Weir to take a hard look at how Australia's building rules are enforced. Their report, Building Confidence, was released in 2018.

Their task? To find out whether the National Construction Code (NCC) was being properly enforced and whether the public could have confidence in the buildings being delivered across the country.

It made 24 recommendations to fix weaknesses in compliance and enforcement. It wasn't about rewriting the NCC (the National Construction Code, which already sets minimum standards for safety, health and amenity). It was about whether those standards were actually being applied on site, *and the answer wasn't encouraging.*

Shergold and Weir found serious cracks in the system:

• Poor compliance and oversight meant buildings were going up with safety risks, from flammable cladding to weak roof structures.
• Inconsistent registration and training left many practitioners without the skills or knowledge to properly apply the NCC.
• Fragmented enforcement saw responsibilities spread across multiple regulators, private certifiers, and councils—often leading to confusion, duplication, or simply no action.
• Weak accountability meant that when things went wrong, homeowners often bore the costs.

The big picture? Unless governments, regulators and industry worked together to lift standards, public confidence in Australian buildings would keep sliding. The report's central message:

the NCC only works if everyone can trust it’s enforced properly.

That means stronger oversight, clearer accountability, and better transparency at every stage of design, approval, and construction.

When you hear about “building standards,” remember—it’s not just about what’s written in the code. It’s about how well those standards are applied and enforced.

What the Review Looked At

Shergold and Weir didn't get free rein to overhaul the whole system. Their Terms of Reference told them exactly what to assess:

• Roles and responsibilities of everyone involved—from builders and designers to certifiers, engineers, and regulators.
• Training and licensing: how qualifications were set, whether continuing professional development (CPD) existed, and whether practitioners were up to date with the National Construction Code (NCC).
• Documentation: whether design and construction paperwork was clear, complete, and available for checking.
• Inspection regimes: how often inspections were happening and who was doing them.
• Audit and enforcement powers: what regulators could (and couldn’t) do to stop dodgy work.
• Building products: how compliant or safe they were, and how to stop non-conforming products from slipping through.

In other words, the review zoomed in on the plumbing of the system—not the code itself, but how it was being applied in the real world.

They held more than 50 meetings with regulators, governments and industry groups, and received a dozen written submissions. That gave them a decent picture of how the system worked, though it leaned towards industry and regulators. Homeowners, the ones left footing the bill for defects, weren't really at the centre of the consultation.

So the report is practical and technically grounded, but light on the lived experience of people dealing with leaky balconies, fire-safety defects or endless rectification battles.

The NCC – Performance-Based, Not a Recipe Book

One of the biggest sources of confusion for homeowners is the National Construction Code (NCC). Many people assume it's a giant recipe book: follow step A, then B, then C, and you've got a compliant home.

That’s not how it works.

The NCC is performance-based. It sets out the outcomes a building must achieve—things like fire safety, structural stability, energy efficiency, and basic amenity. But it doesn’t always tell builders exactly how to achieve those outcomes.

There are two main ways to show compliance:

• Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS) solutions – the “default recipes” in the code. If your builder follows these, compliance is straightforward.
• Performance Solutions – alternative methods that demonstrate compliance through testing, modelling, or expert judgement. These can be perfectly legitimate, but they rely heavily on documentation, review, and trust in the process.

For homeowners, this flexibility cuts both ways:

• The good news is that it allows for innovation—better materials, creative designs, and sometimes cheaper solutions.
• The bad news is that it opens the door to shortcuts or inconsistent interpretations if compliance isn’t checked rigorously.

That's why Shergold and Weir pushed for stronger documentation and more robust review of performance solutions. The performance solution itself isn't the problem. The problem is a lack of clear evidence that it actually meets the NCC.

The NCC sets the goalposts. The system of approvals, documentation, and inspections is supposed to prove the ball actually went through them.

Without that proof, you're taking someone's word for it, and that's not good enough when you're investing in a home.

Registration and Training – Competence Upfront

Shergold and Weir started with the basics: making sure the people working on your home know what they're doing. Sounds obvious, but across Australia, qualifications, licensing and ongoing training were all over the place.

Here’s what they recommended:

• Nationally consistent registration categories: Whether you’re in Queensland or Victoria, a building surveyor (or certifier) should be registered against the same set of categories. That means fewer gaps and less confusion about what people are legally allowed to do.
• Mandatory continuing professional development (CPD): Everyone involved in design, approvals, or certification should keep learning. And not just anything—specific NCC-related hours, so they’re up to date with the rules they’re meant to enforce.
• Stronger pathways into the profession: The report flagged building surveyors in particular. With fewer people entering the profession, workloads were too high, and oversight was being stretched thin. The recommendation? Make the role more attractive and better supported.
• Fit-for-purpose licensing: Builders, engineers, designers, and surveyors should only be doing the work they’re licensed and qualified for—not stretching into areas they don’t fully understand.

This matters because poor training doesn't just cause technical mistakes. It causes compliance failures you might not find for years, like waterproofing defects or inadequate fire separation. By then, fixing them can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and the people responsible may be long gone.

Shergold and Weir’s message was clear: if the people at the start of the process aren’t competent and accountable, the rest of the system is playing catch-up.

Regulators and Audits – More Eyes on the Job

Shergold and Weir found that regulators often weren't checking enough. Some had limited powers. Others simply waited for complaints instead of auditing projects.

Their recommendations were designed to flip that around:

• Stronger regulator powers: State and territory regulators should be able to investigate, enforce, and penalise non-compliance, without being hamstrung by weak legislation.
• Proactive audits: Regulators shouldn’t wait for problems to blow up (think cladding crises or widespread waterproofing failures). They should regularly audit building approvals, inspections, and certifications before issues become disasters.
• Collaboration across jurisdictions: Instead of each state or council running its own show, regulators should work together, sharing data and strategies.

For homeowners, more oversight means less chance of dodgy work slipping through. The catch is that regulators can only do the job if governments fund them properly. Without enough inspectors and auditors, recommendations on paper don't mean much on site.

And while this section of the report focused heavily on commercial and multi-residential buildings (like apartments), the cultural shift flows down to detached houses too. A regulator that enforces standards across the board sets expectations for all builders—big or small.

Fire Authorities in Design – Getting Experts In Early

One specific recommendation was about fire safety performance solutions: alternative ways of meeting the NCC's fire safety requirements (evacuation routes, sprinklers, smoke control) that don't follow the default path in the code.

The problem? Too often, these solutions were being designed, signed off, and built without enough independent scrutiny. That left room for risky interpretations, which in turn left occupants exposed.

Shergold and Weir's fix:

• Whenever a performance solution touches fire safety, fire authorities must be involved early in the design process.
• This isn't about rubber-stamping finished plans. It's about experts shaping the design from the start, which reduces costly disputes later.
• They pointed to the International Fire Engineering Guidelines as the benchmark for how this engagement should happen.

For homeowners in apartments or multi-storey buildings, this is a big deal. Fire safety is one of those things you can’t afford to discover is inadequate when it’s too late. Involving fire authorities early doesn’t just tick a compliance box—it can save lives.

For detached houses, this recommendation is less direct, but the principle still applies: when specialists are brought in early, designs are safer and more reliable. It’s about getting the right people at the table, not leaving it to chance.

Data and Transparency – Keeping Records Accessible

Shergold and Weir also found a lack of reliable, central building records.

Too often, approvals, inspection reports, or product certificates were scattered across different offices—or worse, went missing altogether once a project was complete.

Their recommendation was simple and, in our opinion, on the money:

• Create central databases in each jurisdiction that hold all building documentation.
• Ensure searchable, digital access for authorised parties, including owners and future buyers.
• Make information sharing between states, councils, and regulators routine, not optional.

Imagine buying a home and finding no proof of past approvals or inspections. That's not just stressful. It can hurt resale value and make it harder to prove compliance if problems turn up.

Central digital records would give every home a clear paper trail: approvals, inspections, certificates and product documents in one place. That protects buyers, sellers and insurers.

The catch is that many states are still building these systems, and progress is uneven. Until they're done, keeping your own records is up to you.

Documentation & Performance Solutions – Proof, Not Promises

One of the strongest themes in the report is that good documentation is the backbone of compliance.

Without clear, complete, and accurate paperwork, it’s nearly impossible to check whether a building actually meets the National Construction Code (NCC).

What the review found:

• Designs that didn’t clearly show how compliance was achieved.
• Performance solutions approved with little explanation or supporting evidence.
• Records scattered—or never kept at all—making it hard to track what was actually built.
• Changes made late in the design or construction process with no proper audit trail.

👉️ To fix this, Shergold and Weir recommended:

• A statutory duty on designers to prepare documentation that demonstrates, not just claims, NCC compliance.
• Stronger third-party reviews of performance solutions before they’re approved.
• Mandatory record-keeping: every approval, variation, and solution must be documented and retained.
• Clear approval processes for variations and performance-based approaches, so there’s no grey area.

Why this matters for you:

Without documentation you have no proof your home was built to code. That's a financial risk as well as a compliance one: it can affect resale value, insurance and your ability to enforce warranties.

Think of it this way: if your builder says, “Don’t worry, it complies,” the right answer is, “Great—show me how, and let’s put it on record. in writing, with documentation.”

Inspections & Fire Systems – Seeing is Believing

Shergold and Weir didn't mince words: too many buildings were being signed off without enough eyes on the work. Once walls are lined and ceilings go in, it's often too late to spot serious defects.

👉️ They recommended:

• On-site inspections for all building work: not just “tick and flick” paperwork, but actual staged inspections of the structure, waterproofing, fire separation, and services before they’re covered up.
• Stronger oversight of fire safety systems in commercial and multi-residential buildings (like apartments). This means not only checking the installation but also ensuring systems are properly commissioned, tested, and certified before people move in.

For detached homes, this means having every stage checked, from the slab and frame through to waterproofing and fit-off. For apartments, it means knowing that life-safety systems (sprinklers, alarms, smoke control) have been signed off with evidence, not assumptions.

👉️ Why does this matter? Because inspections catch what paperwork can't. A document may say "AS 3740 waterproofing installed", but only an inspection proves the membrane was applied properly before the tiles went down.

It’s also about trust. Regular inspections send a clear message: someone independent is checking that the builder’s promises match what’s happening on site.

How This Plays Out in Queensland

Queensland already requires the building certifier to inspect a new house at set stages, including footings or slab, frame and final, and the QBCC licenses and oversees certifiers. Those inspections check minimum compliance, not workmanship or finishes. That's why I recommend doing your own stage checks too, using a checklist at slab, frame, rough-in and handover.

📑 Building Manuals – More Than Just a Handover Pack

One of the more forward-looking recommendations was a building manual. It was aimed at apartments and larger buildings (Class 2 to 9) rather than houses, but the idea is worth borrowing whatever you're building.

The problem: once a building was finished, owners and managers were often left in the dark. As-built drawings, fire system specifications and maintenance requirements were missing, scattered across consultants, or handed over in a way that made them useless.

👉️ The solution? Require developers to provide a digital building manual that:

• Pulls together all “as-built” documentation.
• Clearly explains fire safety systems and their maintenance needs.
• Stays with the building, so future owners and managers aren’t left guessing.

For apartment owners and body corporates, this is a big help. A proper manual makes it easier to manage safety systems, keep maintenance on schedule, and prove compliance when regulators, insurers or unit owners come calling with pitchforks 👨‍🌾 (personal experience talking here).

In a detached house you won't get a formal manual, but the same idea applies. An organised set of plans, certificates and product warranties means nothing gets lost once the builder walks away.

🤷‍♂️ A good handover is an organised pack of plans, certificates, warranties and manuals, not a kitchen drawer full of keys and garage remotes opened with a flourish as the final invoice goes out.

Product Safety – Stopping Dangerous Materials at the Door

Australia has had more than its share of dodgy building product scandals: flammable cladding, faulty insulation, and imported materials that don't meet local standards.

Shergold and Weir called this out directly, warning that non-conforming and non-compliant products were a major weak point in the system.

Their recommendation? A compulsory certification system for high-risk building products. Instead of relying on manufacturer claims, there would be a national framework proving that critical products (fire-resistant cladding, waterproofing membranes, insulation and structural fixings) are safe and NCC-compliant before they reach the site.

For homeowners, this matters because:

• Using unsafe products can lead to massive rectification bills (often dumped on owners, not builders or suppliers).
• Insurance and resale value take a hit if your home is found to contain non-compliant products.
• Most importantly, your family’s safety could be compromised.

Until that system is fully in place, it's up to you to stay alert.

You don’t need to know every Australian Standard, but you should expect your builder to provide evidence of product compliance—and be wary if they can’t.

Implementation, Timing & Terminology – The Long Road to Change

Shergold and Weir didn't pretend this could happen overnight. 👉️ They set a three-year timetable, with each state and territory reporting publicly on its progress every year.

They also called for:

• Annual public reporting by every jurisdiction, so homeowners could see whether reforms were being followed through.
• A national terminology dictionary for building regulation, to cut down on confusion where different states used different terms for the same thing.
• A staged approach to implementation—acknowledging that some reforms, like registration changes, could roll out faster than others, such as new inspection regimes.

For homeowners, this means reform is a slow burn. Some improvements (like better documentation and inspection expectations) can be adopted now, even before governments catch up. Others, like product certification schemes or fully digital record systems, will take time.

The bigger message: it won't happen overnight, but it is happening. Don't assume the system has already fixed itself. Stay proactive and apply these reforms to your own project.

What the Report Doesn’t Do – Bias and Blind Spots

For all its strengths, the report wasn't perfect, and it was never meant to be. Its scope was tightly defined, which shaped what it could and couldn't say.

🙈 Here are the key blind spots and limitations:

• No change to the NCC itself: The report wasn’t about rewriting the National Construction Code. That meant deeper questions about whether the NCC’s requirements are strong enough were left untouched.
• Incremental reform, not a reset: The recommendations tightened guardrails (especially around surveyors and inspections) but kept the private certification model intact. For some critics, that was too cautious.
• Light on consumer voices: Most consultations were with governments, regulators, and industry. Homeowners—the people who live with defects and pay the bills—weren’t the main focus.
• Slow timeline: With a three-year rollout, owners facing current defects were left waiting while systems caught up. For those already caught in costly disputes, “reform on paper” was little comfort.
• Federated compromise: By aiming for a national framework, the recommendations leaned toward “lowest common denominator” solutions. That makes them politically achievable, but sometimes less ambitious than they could be.

That's not bad faith. It's the reality of policy-making. The report prioritised what governments and regulators could realistically deliver, *not necessarily what homeowners most needed right away.*

Class 1 Houses vs Class 2 Apartments – Why It Matters

Not all buildings are treated the same under the NCC. The report uses the code's building classes to show where reforms matter most.

• Class 1 buildings: Detached houses and townhouses.
• Class 2 buildings: Apartments.
• Class 10 buildings: Non-habitable structures like sheds, garages, and pools.
• Classes 3–9: Larger buildings such as aged care, hospitals, schools, and offices (covered under the “Commercial” umbrella in the report).

Here’s the key difference for homeowners:

• If you’re building a house (Class 1): The most relevant recommendations are those about documentation, staged inspections, surveyor integrity, and product compliance (Recs 9–11, 13–18, 21). These directly affect the quality and safety of the home you live in.
• If you’re buying an apartment (Class 2): In addition to the above, several reforms matter even more—like early fire authority involvement (Rec 8), certification of fire safety systems (Rec 19), and building manuals (Rec 20). These are critical in multi-storey living where fire safety and ongoing maintenance affect everyone in the building.

Why does this distinction matter?

Because you don’t want to be asking for the wrong things.

A detached home doesn't need a building manual, but it does need a clear design variations log and thorough inspection records. An apartment should have both, plus evidence that the fire systems were commissioned and approved properly.

The job of a homeowner or buyer is to know which questions apply to their project.

Conclusion: The Homeowner Action List – Your One-Page Safeguard

The report may seem aimed at regulators and industry, but there's plenty you can use right now. Here's your action list.

Before you sign a contract

• Confirm your building’s class (house, townhouse, or apartment).
• Appoint a certifier or surveyor who provides a written conflict-of-interest declaration (Recs 9–11).
• Ask your designer for a compliance summary that shows which NCC requirements your design meets and how (Recs 13–17).

During construction

• Agree on a stage-by-stage inspection plan and get inspection reports, not just verbal sign-offs (Rec 18).
• Keep a Design Variations Log—any changes must be documented and approved against the NCC.
• Ask for evidence of product compliance—certificates for waterproofing membranes, insulation, cladding, and fire-resistant materials (Rec 21).

At handover

• For houses: collect as-builts, approvals, inspection reports, and product warranties.
• For apartments: request the building manual (Rec 20), which should include fire safety system details and maintenance requirements.
• Make sure all test and commissioning certificates (fire, electrical, plumbing) are included in your handover pack.

Think of it as your Owner's Dossier: a complete record of your home from start to finish. It protects you now and supports resale value and insurance down the track.

Plain-English Glossary Of The Shergold Weir Report

The report is full of acronyms and technical terms. Here's a quick guide:

• NCC (National Construction Code): Australia’s building rulebook. It sets minimum standards for safety, health, amenity, and sustainability.
• BMF (Building Ministers’ Forum): The group of state, territory, and federal ministers that commissioned the Shergold–Weir report.
• ABCB (Australian Building Codes Board): The body that develops and maintains the NCC.
• CPD (Continuing Professional Development): Training hours professionals must complete each year to stay current with building codes and standards.
• Performance Solution: An alternative method of meeting the NCC that isn’t the “default recipe.” It must still prove compliance through testing, modelling, or expert review.
• Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS) Provisions: The “ready-made recipes” in the NCC. Follow them and you’ve automatically met compliance.
• Private Certifier/Surveyor: An independent professional who checks whether building work complies with the NCC and approves it. In some states, they replace or work alongside council inspectors.
• Final Inspection Certificate or Certificate of Classification: For a Queensland house (Class 1), the certifier issues a Final Inspection Certificate when the work is finished. A Certificate of Classification is for Class 2 to 9 buildings, such as apartments and offices, and confirms the building can be occupied.
• Third-Party Review: An independent check (often by another engineer or specialist) to confirm a design or performance solution meets the NCC.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is the NCC changing because of this report?
No. The Shergold–Weir report focused on how the code is enforced and applied, not on rewriting the rules themselves. The NCC still sets the same performance requirements—it’s the compliance and enforcement processes that are being strengthened.

2. Do these recommendations apply to my new home?
Yes. While some reforms are aimed more at apartments and large buildings, many apply directly to houses—especially better documentation, staged inspections, product compliance, and surveyor independence.

3. What should I ask a private building surveyor before hiring them?
Ask three things:

• Do you have a current conflict-of-interest declaration?
• Which code of conduct are you bound by?
• What is your stage-by-stage inspection plan for my project?

4. Will my home be inspected more often under these reforms?
That's the goal. The report recommends on-site inspections for all building work, not just selective checks. For apartments, fire safety systems must also be tested and certified before anyone moves in.

5. How quickly will changes happen?
The report proposed a three-year rollout, with each state reporting progress annually. Some reforms are already in place; others are still in progress depending on where you live.

6. Is private certification going away?
No. The report keeps private certifiers but recommends stricter guardrails, codes of conduct and enforcement powers to make sure they act independently.

Further Reading

ITPs in Construction: A Guide to Inspection Test PlansUnderstand the role of Inspection Test Plans (ITPs) in construction. This guide explains how ITPs ensure quality, compliance, and efficiency in projects, covering their creation, implementation, and importance in managing construction quality and meeting client and regulatory standards.How ITPs & Oversight Improve Construction QualityInspection Test Plans (ITPs) are the only way to start ensuring construction quality, but without proper regulatory oversight, their effectiveness is limited. In this article, we explore why mandatory ITPs and oversight are the key to improving the quality of residential construction in Australia.ITP in Construction: Enhancing Quality and Client TrustDiscover why builders need ITP (Inspect, Test, Plan) for quality and client relations. ITP ensures each construction stage meets standards, enhancing client trust and reducing rework. It’s a win-win for builders and homeowners, leading to better builds and stronger relationships.Understanding ITPs, ITRs, ITCs in Construction InspectionsLearn the distinctions and roles of Inspection Test Plans (ITPs), Inspection Test Records (ITRs), and Inspection Test Checklists (ITCs) in construction. Read how ITPs provide a systematic plan for checks and tests, while ITRs and ITCs document the outcomes of these inspections.Enhancing Home Construction Quality with Stage Gates + ITPsDiscover how to elevate home construction quality using project management’s stage gates and Inspection Test Plans (ITP). We look into each stage gate, from land selection to builder’s warranty expiration, outlining how ITPs integrate into each phase for quality control & project success.Elevating Residential Construction with SWMS + ITPsThe article explores the transformative role of Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) and Inspection Test Plans (ITPs) in residential construction. It highlights how these tools not only enhance safety but also significantly improve quality management, offering an integrated approach to both.Australia’s Housing System 2025: Key TakeawaysA walk-through of the 2025 national housing report: prices, rents, supply shortages, forecasts to 2029, and what it all means for building, buying, renting, and renovating in Australia—plus practical steps for homeowners.The Importance of Contract Administration in Home BuildingBuilding a dream home? An experienced contract administrator is your advocate, ensuring that every detail aligns with your vision. From overseeing plans to resolving issues, discover how they can turn your construction journey into a smooth adventure.A Crash Course in Australian Standards for New HomeownersCongrats on your new home! Understand Australian Standards for safety and compliance - they’re the law. Get a crash course to ensure your investment’s security.Trust Your Instincts: Lie Detection Guide for HomebuyersFor first-time homebuyers, separating truth from deceit can be challenging. Dive into tools and techniques that sharpen your instinct and aid in lie detection.Australia’s 2025 Land & Housing Crisis ExplainedThe 2025 State of the Lamb report reveals a worsening housing shortage, record land prices, and construction delays. Here’s what it means for everyday Australians trying to enter the housing market or build a new home.Navigating Real Estate: Safety Guide for First-Time BuyersEmbarking on the home-buying journey in Australia? Dive into our guide to steer clear of scams and navigate the real estate market with confidence as a first-time buyer.