✂️ Cutting Red Tape… Again? Haven’t We Been Here Before?

Every time there's a housing or construction crisis, the same tired phrase gets dusted off and wheeled out like it's something new: "We need to cut red tape." It sounds good. Punchy. Sounds like a great plan!

But haven’t we already played this game before?

Back in the 1990s, private certification was introduced with much fanfare. The big promise? Faster approvals. Less bureaucracy. More "efficiency." It was pitched as the fix for slow, overburdened councils. What followed was a long, slow slide in building quality, and the 2018 Building Confidence Report (Shergold-Weir) found serious problems with certifier independence and oversight.

We were told that injecting market competition into the certification process would make things better. Faster? Sure. Cheaper? Maybe. Better? Absolutely not. From the moment private certification became widespread, we've seen a growing list of defects, shortcuts, and disputes—all while accountability drifted further away.

So here we are again, with industry groups once more calling for red tape to be cut.

But when you look at what’s been happening over the past 30 years, you can’t help but ask: is this really about improving outcomes for homeowners, or just making it easier for builders and developers to move faster and cut corners?

When & Where It Started

  • Early 1990s: Private certification emerged in South Australia, Northern Territory, Tasmania, and Victoria to provide an alternative to council-based approvals.
  • 1997–1998:
    • Queensland introduced its private certifier system in 1998
    • New South Wales followed in 1997/1998 by amending the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, allowing private “Principal Certifiers” to issue building and occupation certificates, a role previously held solely by councils
    • Driven by state governments—notably NSW under Minister Craig Knowles, and Queensland in 1998, following similar reforms in SA, NT, TAS.

Why It Happened

This move wasn’t about letting the private sector run wild—it was a carefully considered reform under Australia’s National Competition Policy, aimed at:

  1. 🏃‍♀️ Accelerating Approvals – Council-issued permits could drag on for weeks. Private certifiers brought turnaround times down significantly.
  2. 🏅 Introducing Competition – Why let councils hold a monopoly? Private firms competing meant better service for builders.
  3. ⚖️ Boosting Efficiency – Inspired by the 1993 Hilmer reforms, the goal was for government services to be leaner and fairer
💡
The 1993 Hilmer reform refers to the recommendations made in the Hilmer Report, which was commissioned by the Australian government and authored by Professor Frederick G. Hilmer. This report laid the foundation for Australia's National Competition Policy (NCP), a significant microeconomic reform program aimed at enhancing economic performance through increased competition. The key principle of the program was that competitive markets would best serve the interests of consumers and the wider community.

🔚 What It Meant

By allowing accredited certifiers to handle building approvals, Australia opened the door to faster processing, more choice, and a market-driven approach to construction compliance.

It wasn’t about cutting corners—it was about modernising and injecting efficiency into a historically slow-moving system.

🔄 The Full Circle of Reforms

  1. Private certification’s birth (1990s)
    Introduced because council approvals were seen as slow and bureaucratic—private certifiers were meant to provide a faster, alternative path.
  2. “Cut red tape” campaigns (2024–2025)
    Industry groups like Master Builders and the Housing Industry Association are now urging governments—at federal, state, and local levels—to eliminate overlapping regulations, ease financial and licensing reporting, and fast-track approvals—essentially seeking the same outcomes previously expected of private certification.
    • Master Builders Queensland applauded scrapping financial reporting burdens for 50,000 licensees.
    • Building ministers in Queensland and Tasmania are rolling out reforms to fast-track approvals and reduce paperwork
    • The Federal Productivity Commission echoed similar sentiments—cutting red tape around housing was “the only way” to meaningfully speed construction.

¯_(ツ)_/¯ Isn't It Ironic, Don't You Think?

Private certification was introduced in the 1990s to fix slow council approvals, on the promise that competition would cut delays. It delivered speed, but with an unintended cost: a significant decline in housing quality. Now the same industry groups are pushing to "cut red tape" on approvals, planning and energy efficiency and liveability measures, and without strong quality oversight we risk repeating the same mistake.

Essentially, without balancing speed with accountability, efficiency becomes recklessness, and residents end up paying the price.

Not convinced we're on the right track?

Check out the latest report from AHURI published September 2024

Or take this 2020 report from MDPI, which highlights the gap between 'as-designed' and 'as-built' outcomes. Self-regulation isn’t the path to more energy-efficient buildings. If the industry already struggles to deliver on what it promises, removing oversight will only make compliance worse.

👷‍♂️ Private Certifiers: Hired by Builders → Built-in Conflict

Private certifiers are hired and paid by builders or developers to issue building approvals and inspect the work. In Queensland, certifiers are licensed and disciplined by the QBCC. You can engage your own certifier if your contract allows it, so ask before you sign. Either way, the current setup creates a tension:

  • Certifier duty: Impartial oversight, upholding public interest
  • Certifier reality: Their paycheck—and future work—depends on keeping builder clients happy
  • Hilmer’s goal: Where private competition serves the public, not just industry.
    Reality: Building certification services are paid by private interests—raising consistent questions about public benefit and impartiality.

If our certifiers primarily serve the interests of those footing the bill—builders—we risk bypassing the safety nets and accountability that protect homeowners and the community.

If "cutting red tape" means giving builders more space to self-approve, self-regulate, or operate with minimal oversight, then we risk repeating the same mistakes as the move to private certification.

The outcome could be faster approvals without necessary checks—again moving us away from true public benefit, the very principle the Hilmer reforms were meant to deliver.

If the goal is genuinely better outcomes for communities, reforms must balance efficiency with accountability, not replace one with the other.

Discussion Papers and Referenced Reports

🥸 Here’s a discussion paper compiled by the ABCB discussing the integrity of private building certifiers. One of the key takeaways from the report is that private certifiers should be engaged by the homeowner—not by the builder.

And here is the 2018 Building Confidence Report, which the ABCB discussion paper was responding to:

Note: To download any of these reports, just click the little down arrow at the top of each Docsend embed. Here's how you do that:

Conclusion

The punchline? Whether it's private certifiers then or deregulation now, the goal is the same: faster, leaner approvals. Only the mechanism has changed.

👉️ It’s starting to feel like Groundhog Day, with the tail (lobby groups) trying to wag the dog (government) again.

Maybe it's time for a little introspection. These are the same groups that once demanded speed over scrutiny, and housing quality has noticeably declined since. Why aren't they just as passionate about fixing that?

Here’s where the irony deepens: the Hilmer reforms, which underpinned the shift to private certification in the first place, were grounded in a core principle—that competition and reform should only be pursued where it serves the public benefit.

But based on the last few decades? It’s fair to ask whether today’s calls to “cut red tape” are more about turnover and profit than public interest. Because if public benefit truly mattered to these groups, we’d hear just as much noise about quality, accountability, and long-term durability/livability as we do about speed and tape cutting.

There are other ways to achieve better productivity outcomes

Yes, there are ways to improve productivity that don't involve burning the whole house down or drifting further toward deregulation, self-regulation or voluntary compliance.

If you want to improve throughput, find the slowest step: the one bottleneck holding everything up. Treat the whole pipeline as a system, fix that constraint first, and the traffic starts moving again. That's what Drum Buffer Rope, from the Theory of Constraints, is all about.

References

Aerial view of a suburban neighborhood with houses and treesGovernments Called Out for Red Tape’s ‘Deadening’ Impact on Home BuildingNew evidence from the Productivity Commission has prompted calls for governments to “think harder” on solutions to red tape delays.a very tall building with lots of scaffolding around itRisk, Private Certification, Insurance Premium Hikes and Mounting Challenges for the ProfessionIs the era of private certification nearly over? - Building ConnectionProfessor Kim Lovegrove has addressed a number of interstate conferences in the last few months and has heard a lot of banter around the imminent demise of private certification. If this is correct, how did it get to this? A trip down memory lane will provide some of the answers. Private certification was established in the early 1990s. By the mid-90s, it was prevalent in all Australian jurisdictions albeit in different guises. The system allowed one to choose either a private certifier or a council building surveyor to issue building permits, carry out inspections and ultimately issue occupancy permits. In …Two construction workers review plans on a tabletMoves to cut red tape in construction industry - NewsreelQueensland builders will have reduced financial reporting obligations under changes the state’s building regulations. | Newsreellow angle view of buildingRed tape reform key to unlocking industry in pursuit of housing target - National Builders GuideThe December building approvals figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show multi-unit dwelling approvals are outstripping those for detached houses.Queensland construction industry saved from unnecessary red tape | CPA Australia27 February 2024Productivity Commission return key to further unravelling red tapeLegislation to re-establish the Queensland Productivity Commission is being hailed as a win by industry, amid the ongoing campaign to slash red tape hampering construction.

Further Reading

Building Your Dream Home: Balancing Time, Cost, and QualityBuilding a new home can be both exciting and challenging. To ensure success, it’s important to balance the “holy trinity” of project management: time, cost, and quality. In this article, we’ll explore how you can achieve this balance and create your dream homeThe Hidden Cost of Rushed Home ConstructionBonuses for early home completion can sacrifice quality for speed. Rushing vital construction phases may lead to future costly repairs. Quality, not quickness, should be the homebuilding priority.Bring Back Council Inspections for New HomesConstruction defects are rising in Australia—and one big reason is that no one’s watching the work when it matters. In this post we make the case for bringing back mandatory local council inspections to restore trust, quality, and accountability in new home builds.Fixing Housing Construction ProductivityAustralia aims to build 1.2 million new homes in five years, yet construction productivity lags behind. Discover the Productivity Commission’s insights on why home building is complex, what drives poor productivity, and how policy reforms can change the game.Project Builders: From Building Companies to MarketersExplore the evolution of project builders from traditional construction companies to marketing-focused entities, offering standardised building products.Can TOC Fix Australia’s Housing Issues?Australia’s housing crunch is really a couple of stubborn bottlenecks. Fix the slowest step—approvals and tradie gaps—using Eli Goldratt’s Drum-Buffer-Rope rhythm, and watch rents relax as new homes finally flow. March to a new drum beatTheory of Constraints: Boosting Efficiency in Residential ConstructionThis article looks into applying the Theory of Constraints (TOC) in residential construction, a method for identifying and addressing process bottlenecks. It discusses how TOC improves efficiency by focusing on the most impactful issues, contrasting it with traditional process management.Smarter Incentives for More Aussie HomesAustralia’s housing mess is boiling over. Smarter incentives could unlock 1.2 million new homes, cut rents, and create jobs. But only if done right.