Australian governments have embraced a need for harmonisation over the last decade. It is important to point out, however, that in respect to building regulation, the hard work was done two decades ago.

Notwithstanding the good work that was done with establishment of the Australian Building Codes Board, there are those within state and local government bureaucracies who feel that consistency in planning laws is old hat and a better way to run the building industry would be to impose hundreds of different standards and regulations unique to each jurisdiction.

The building industry faces a quagmire of red tape. Harmonisation through the Building Code of Australia (BCA) is the one saving grace for both builders and, importantly, for Australia's manufacturing and supply industries. The benefits of micro-economic reform achieved by national consistency must be preserved and can be under a united and harmonised approach under the BCA.

Energy efficiency has become an accepted technical standard that should be addressed in the design of all new buildings. Yet on the east coast of Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have different requirements. Add to this the complexity that local government sometimes impose.  It is not uncommon for houses built on either side of the street to have differing obligation and regulations imposed.  Why one may ask?  What is the fundamental benefit of imposing different regulations on standard house blocks which are within 1 kilometre of one another? 

Indulgent regulation setting by state and local government departments is expensive and adds little if any benefit.  Take for example, in New South Wales the proposal to increase the minimum ceiling heights of new homes. The BCA adopts a 2.4 metre ceiling height - which should be applied to the standard house across Australia.   The proposal has not been subjected to a cost benefit assessment but proposed in what may be termed as sheer regulatory indulgence.

Such proposals show no regard for the state of housing affordability which is at its lowest point in the post war era.  After all what is another $6,000 to the cost of a new home, barely anything when you consider that the standard house in Sydney is already subjected to a further $100,000 of taxes, levies and charges.

The biggest potential saving from harmonisation is the removal of indulgent regulation making.  It is one thing to agree to the benefits of harmonisation at Council of Australian Government (CoAG), there is a requirement for practical enforcement to ensure that those who lay awake at night dreaming about how to impose additional cost and red-tape to the simplest of processes are not rewarded for their sleepless nights.

Chris Lamont is the Chief Executive - Policy for the Housing Industry Association.  He is an economist with previous experience in both the public and private sector.  Prior to joining HIA he was a Chief of Staff to a former Federal Minister.  In 2008 he was appointed by the Prime Minister of Australia the Hon. Kevin Rudd to the National Housing Supply Council.