Too many new homes in Australia are handed over with defects that should never have got past the trade who built them. When that happens, the homeowner usually carries the cost: chasing the builder, paying for inspectors, sometimes paying lawyers, just to get the quality they already paid for.
The National Construction Code (NCC) and Australian Standards set the bar. The problem isn't the bar. It's that there are few real consequences for the people who step under it. So when is enough, enough?
In this post I'll cover what's going wrong, what you can do on your own build today, and two changes I think the industry needs: mandatory Inspection and Test Plans (ITPs) and a demerit scheme aimed squarely at defects.
What you can do on your build right now
You shouldn't have to police your own build, but until the system changes, it pays to be involved. Here's what I'd do:
- Ask your builder for their ITPs or quality checklists before you sign. If they don't have any, ask how they check each stage before moving on.
- Inspect each stage before you pay the progress claim. Once you've paid, your leverage drops.
- Know what your certifier checks. In Queensland, your private certifier must inspect at set stages for a house (footings and excavation, slab before the pour, frame and final). They check compliance with the approval and the code, not finish quality. Plaster, paint, tiling and fit-off aren't their job.
- Get independent advice when something looks wrong. A good independent inspector costs far less than fixing a defect after handover.
- Use a stage checklist. Our Constructor checklists cover every stage from pre pour slab (C5) through frame, enclosed, fixing and the practical completion inspection (C16), so you know what to look for.
The defects homeowners keep finding
Defects range from popped nails and cracked cornices to faults that affect safety and the life of the home. The repeat offenders I see are:
- Waterproofing failures. Incorrect or incomplete waterproofing leads to water damage, mould and rot in the frame.
- Poor footings and slabs. Bad compaction or wrong reinforcement can cause uneven settlement and cracking for years.
- Roofing. Poorly installed roof sheets or missing and badly fitted flashings cause leaks.
- Plasterboard and painting. The most commonly reported defects by homeowners, and the most visible.
- Ceramic tiling. Lippage, hollow tiles and poor falls in bathrooms, ensuites and main floors.
Every one of these is cheaper to catch at the stage it happens than after the next trade has covered it up.
Why the current system isn't working
Since building certification was privatised, the certifier is usually engaged by the builder. Certifiers do important work, but their role is compliance, not quality, and they only see the job at a handful of stages. That leaves a lot of work that nobody independent ever looks at.
There's also a natural tension. When the person checking the work is paid by the person doing the work, there is pressure to keep the job moving and the client happy. Most certifiers handle that professionally, but the structure doesn't help.
Queensland does already have a QBCC demerit points scheme. Licensees get points for certain offences, such as not following a QBCC direction to rectify defective work, carrying out work without proper supervision or taking excessive deposits. Reach 30 points in three years and your licence is cancelled and you're disqualified for three years. That's a good start, but it is aimed at offences and paperwork, not the everyday defects homeowners actually live with, and it doesn't cover everyone involved in the build.
Inspection and Test Plans (ITPs)
An ITP is a simple document that lists the inspections and tests for each stage of work, who does them, and what "acceptable" looks like. They're standard on commercial jobs. In residential they're optional, which means quality depends on which builder and which trades you get.
A typical ITP includes:
- Hold points. Work stops until the inspection is done and signed off. Example: no concrete is poured until the slab reinforcement is checked.
- Check points. Work can continue, but the check must be recorded. Example: frame straightness checked and recorded before the plasterer starts.
- Witness points. An independent person must see the check happen. Example: a waterproofing flood test or membrane inspection witnessed before tiling.
- Testing requirements. The tests to be done, such as concrete strength or waterproofing flood tests.
- Acceptance criteria. What the work must meet, taken from the NCC, Australian Standards, manufacturer instructions or the contract.
Why they work:
- Consistency. Every job gets checked the same way, so quality depends less on who turned up that day.
- Clear responsibility. Each check has a name against it. No finger pointing; it's documented and signed off.
- Defects caught early. Problems are found before they're buried behind plaster or under tiles.
- A paper trail. If something goes wrong later, the records show what was checked and by whom. That protects good builders as much as homeowners.
Trades and builders are already most of the way there. Most already write safe work method statements (SWMS), and turning those into ITPs isn't a big step.
Anthony Painter
Anthony Painter
Making ITPs mandatory
For ITPs to change anything, they need to be required and backed by enforcement. I'd make an ITP part of the building approval, with key hold points inspected by a party independent of the builder: a council inspector, a government-allocated inspector or an independent third party. The builder pays the inspection fee, which is a sensible incentive to get it right first time.
Anthony Painter
A demerit scheme for defects
The second change is a demerit scheme that works like a driver's licence, but targets defects as well as offences, and covers everyone who signs off on the work: builders, supervisors, licensed trades, certifiers and building surveyors.
Here's how I'd set it up:
- Everyone starts at zero. Points are added only when defective work is confirmed.
- Points match severity. A minor defect might add one or two points. A major or structural defect adds more.
- Reach 10 points and you're on probation. For a set period, you pay for an independent inspector to check your work.
- Another 10 points during probation and your licence is suspended until you complete retraining through a Registered Training Organisation (RTO), focused on the areas where you fell short.
- An independent body runs it. Points are assessed by someone with no stake in the job, and there's a proper appeals process so the scheme stays fair.
The point isn't punishment. It's to give people a reason to get it right first time, and a path to improve when they don't. Builders and trades who already do good work wouldn't notice it, except perhaps that they'd stop being undercut by people who don't.
Call it fear if you like, or call it an "accountability mechanism" if that sounds nicer. Either way, people respond to consequences. At the moment, the consequences mostly land on the homeowner.
A public record of points would also let homeowners compare builders and trades on quality, not just price. That's competition worth having.
Will this slow building down?
This is the first objection I hear, and it's fair to ask. More inspections do take some time. But look at where the time goes now: rework, defect lists, disputes, tribunal hearings and repairs after handover. Getting it right at each stage means less of all that.
- Less rework. Defects caught at the hold point are fixed in minutes, not ripped out weeks later.
- Fewer disputes. Clear acceptance criteria mean fewer arguments about what "good enough" means.
- Costs land on the right people. Builders and trades who meet the standard avoid probation inspections and retraining. Those who don't, pay.
- A better reputation for the industry. In a business that runs on word of mouth, that's worth more than a few days on the program.
The aim isn't more red tape for its own sake. It's a few well-placed checks that stop the expensive problems. Inspection fees could also fund local inspector jobs, which is a better use of money than legal fees.
Homeowners need access to the Standards
It's hard to hold anyone to a standard you can't read. The NCC is free online, but most of the Australian Standards it calls up have sat behind a paywall, and free access through public libraries has ended. That leaves homeowners paying for copies or paying a consultant to tell them what the standard says.
There is some good news. In September 2026 the Federal Government confirmed funding for free online access to mandatory Australian Standards referenced in the NCC and other laws, with the program expected to start in the coming months. I'll be watching to see whether homeowners get the same access as trades and businesses. They should.
Plain English guides that explain what to look for at each stage would help too. Consultants and inspectors still have a place, but you should hire them for their expertise, not because the information was locked away.
Anthony Painter
Standards Access should be free to home owners and affordable and easy access to all licensed trades, builders and consultants.
Industry and government both have a job to do
Builders and trades need to treat quality management as part of the job, not paperwork for the big end of town. That means a quality management system, ITPs on every job, and competing on track record, not just price.
Government needs to provide independent oversight with teeth, a fair demerit scheme and real access to the Standards. Councils could play a role at ITP hold points, working alongside private certifiers rather than replacing them.
Neither side can fix this alone. But homeowners have carried the cost of poor quality for long enough.
Anthony Painter
Yep - its broken but when they sell to you they expect you to just "trust them" - Trust is a two way street!
The bottom line
Residential construction doesn't have a standards problem. It has an accountability problem. Mandatory ITPs, a defect demerit scheme with a fair appeals process, independent inspections at hold points and free access to the Standards would put the responsibility back where it belongs: with the people doing and approving the work.
Until then, stay involved, inspect before you pay, and get help early when something doesn't look right. If you have thoughts or experiences to share, leave a comment below.
Anthony Painter
FAQs
What is an Inspection and Test Plan (ITP)?
A document listing the inspections and tests for each stage of work, who does them, and the acceptance criteria, including hold points where work must stop until it's checked.
Doesn't Queensland already have demerit points for builders?
Yes. The QBCC scheme gives licensees points for certain offences, and 30 points in three years means cancellation and a three-year disqualification. My proposal goes further: it would target confirmed defects and include certifiers and building surveyors.
Why don't private certifiers check quality?
Their job is to check the work complies with the approval, the NCC and referenced standards at set stages. Finish quality, like plaster, paint and tiling, sits outside that role.
Would this make homes more expensive?
There's a small cost for inspections. Against that, you save on rework, defect repairs and disputes, and builders who already do good work avoid the probation costs entirely.
How can I protect myself during my build?
Ask for ITPs or stage checklists, inspect each stage before paying the progress claim, understand what your certifier does and doesn't check, and get independent advice early if something looks wrong.
