Andrew Bragg's National Press Club pitch to cut the National Construction Code from over 2,000 pages to roughly 80 has landed with the usual applause line: red tape is why houses cost so much, so cut the red tape and houses get cheaper. He named his targets specifically. Ramps, hobless shower flooring and reinforced bathroom walls would become “optional extras” under his Basic Australian Standard. Everything else, in his words, is what makes it “illegal to build a cheap house in Australia.”

For close to three decades, first as a clinician and now as an access consultant, I've been assessing buildings against exactly these provisions, so I want to be precise about what's actually being proposed to disappear. It isn't red tape. It's the Livable Housing Design Standard, the silver-level minimum that came into the NCC in 2022 after more than a decade of advocacy, industry consultation and a formal regulatory impact process, and the case for it was never weak, it's simply been forgotten in a housing affordability debate that's currently allergic to nuance.











​
​Examining the 1 per cent build cost figure
Money is the entire premise of Bragg's speech, so it's worth starting there. The Commonwealth's own decision Regulation Impact Statement for the 2022 changes put the cost of building these features in at around 1 per cent of total build cost, already a modest figure, and one that starts to look inflated once you look at it item by item.

A path to the front door is required in every house regardless of what the code specifies, generally without handrails or kerb rails as you'd see in other building classes. NCC Volume Two's H8D2(2) already exempts the compliant 1:14 gradient where the site itself is steeper than that, so the clause is setting a maximum grade on a path that was always going to be built, not introducing a new element to the house. Where the site is genuinely too steep, the requirement falls away entirely.

A wider door. The Standard calls for an 820mm clear opening, which in practice means specifying an 870mm leaf rather than an 820mm one. Both sit in every door manufacturer's standard range, and both get delivered, hung and painted by the same trades on the same day. The difference in cost is a negligible one, in the tens of dollars. Whatever marginal cost sits with the wider door leaf is then also offset by not having to frame and line more wall around a narrower opening.

A step-free threshold. It's genuinely unclear this is even a net cost, since removing a step and a raised sill can be simpler to detail than building one. The only real addition, a channel drain where the threshold meets hard paving, is a trade item builders already price on plenty of jobs with no accessibility requirement at all. Flush sliding and bi-fold doors onto a patio or alfresco area, a mainstay of project home design for well over a decade, have used the same drainage detail all along, driven by indoor-outdoor living trends rather than any accessibility standard, and a covered, level landing at an entry door isn't a 2022 invention either, builders have kept water off entry doors for as long as we've built houses with doors.

Similarly, you don't see many prefab hobs installed any more. Hobless showers have become the standard, a shift driven by wet-room aesthetics well before it was introduced as a compliance measure. In practice, it has been rare in a new home, or even a renovation, for there not to be at least one hobless shower already provided somewhere in the home, which is all the standard actually requires.

A 1000mm corridor. The Standard's clear-width requirement for hallways and passageways is 1000mm, which isn't a novel imposition on the industry so much as a codification of what competent designers were already drawing. In close to two decades assessing new housing, I can't recall a mainstream new project home with a ground-floor corridor under 1000mm wide.

Wall reinforcement. This is a minimum 12mm structural-grade plywood, or 25mm timber noggings, fixed into a stud cavity that's already open during first fix, and generally built substantially from offcuts. Calling this a driver of housing costs doesn't survive contact with a building site.

Taken together, the honest picture isn't that the Standard adds 1 per cent to a build, it's that a meaningful share of what it requires was already standard, or near-standard, practice in a competently built home, with the marginal cost of formalising it close to negligible. If anything, the current Silver-level provisions are less generous and less flexible than good practice already called for, not the gold-plating Bragg describes.

​The Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 (APS), a legislative instrument made under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), first came into effect in 2011. The key objects of the APS are to ensure that dignified and equitable access to buildings and facilities is provided to people with a disability. The APS also intends to give certainty to building certifiers, developers and managers regarding their obligations in providing such access.

​The APS was recently updated further to the Department of Industry, Science and Resources having completed its scheduled review of the Standard in 2021.
The main change has been the updated reference to Australian Standard AS 1428.1 from the previous version from 2009 to the current 2021 version.
Also important, however, is that the updated version of AS2890.6 has not been referenced. AS 2890.6 relates to off street car parking for people with disabilities. The retained reference is to its 2009 version and not the current 2022 version.

​While progressing to updated and evolving Standards is usually welcome by all, there is an added complication when considering legislation associated with accessibility in the built environment.

Moving forward to today, updating one and not the other has consequently raised concern across the industry given the two pieces of legislation would no longer align. The concern being that achieving compliance with the APS for a particular project would consequently also mean producing a series of performance solutions to demonstrate compliance with the NCC and gain a building permit for the project.

To alleviate some of these concerns the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) have since released a communication to clarify their position on the issue[1].

In summary, their response clarified that the amended APS was tabled in parliament on 26 November 2024, and that 15 sitting days must pass without motion before the amendment becomes law. The ABCB have consequently advised that once the 15 sitting days have elapsed, and the updated APS becomes law, the BCA will be updated immediately to reflect the changes included in the updated APS.

Given the impending release of the updated NCC in May this year, we anticipate it is more likely that should the parliamentary process proceed without repeal, the changes are included in this year’s NCC update.
Until this time, they suggest business as usual as it relates to the application of AS 1428.1:2009 to both the APS and the NCC.
​
In anticipation of the impending changes, it’s important to note some of the key differences between AS 1428.1:2009 and AS 1428.1:2021.

• The size and location of glazed viewing panels within doors are now detailed ensuring access to wheelchair users as well as people of short stature (Clause 3.7).
• Timber decking and boardwalk tolerances for spacing as well as cupping and crowning are now detailed (Clause 4.5 and Figure 7(B)).
• Additional accessible flooring transition options are detailed (Figure 8).
• Where paths are adjacent to a street kerb, the minimum width of the walkway must now be increased by 600mm (Clause 7.2 and Figures 24(B)&(C).
• Stair nosing strips can now extend down the riser by more than 10mm provided luminance contrast requirements are met (Figures 27(B)&(C)).
• Stair handrail heights can now vary at stairway handrail extensions and where a handrail transitions between flights or to a balustrade. A construction tolerance of 10mm has now also been included (Clauses 8.2(g) & 9(e)).
• The acceptable handrail diameter range has been increased to reflect typical tubing sizes (i.e. now 30mm to 52mm). While the clearance below the handrail has been increased from 15mm to 25mm (Figures 19(a)&(b).
• Door reveals can no longer be more than 300mm deep (Clause 10.2).
• The previous adjustment in surface sliding door circulation has been updated so that the circulation increase occurs on the side of the opening that the door is mounted (Clause 10.3.3.3).
• Door closers must now also include adjustable delayed action or hold-open functions (except for fire or smoke doors) (Clause 10.4.2(f)).
• The distance of controls to power operated doors can now be located at the reduced distance of 500mm to 1000mm from the arc of a hinged door or surface sliding door (Clause 10.4.3).
• Additional clarification included confirming that heating and cooling controls, ventilation controls, security controls or similar must also be accessible (Clause 11.1).
• Voice activation has been included as an acceptable control method for taps in accessible sanitary facilities (Clause 12.2.1(a)).
• The seat to the pan in accessible sanitary facility must now be able to remain in an upright position when raised (Clause 12.2.3(f)).
• The backrest to the pan must consequently allow the seat to remain in upright position. The distance from the front of the pan to the backrest has been increased to support this (Clause 12.2.4(f)).
• Backrests in accessible sole occupancy units must now also be capable of removal and refitting (Clause 12.2.4(g)).
•  The flushing control zone has been reduced to address a previous clash with the backrest and grabrails. A location for an optional cleaner’s tap has also been introduced (Clause 12.2.5).
• The toilet roll holder in accessible sanitary facilities can now only project up to 150mm from the wall (Clause 12.2.6).
• The tolerance for horizontal grabrail heights generally has been increased to between 800mm and 820mm (Clause 12.2.7).
• Additional fixtures can be installed within the circulation to the pan provided they project no more than 150mm from the wall and provide no less than 900mm of clearance below (Clause 12.2.8.1).
• Washbasins can now encroach by up to 100mm into the required circulation to the shower (Clause 12.3.1).
• Mirrors to basins can be provided adjacent to the basin at an alternative height. They must however be centred over the basin in an accessible sole occupancy unit (Clause 12.4.1).
• A linear drain can now be provided within an accessible shower. Where a linear drain is used the slope range has changed to between 1:50 and 1:90 (Clause 12.5.2(c).
• The height of the shower seat range has increased to between 460mm and 480mm (Figure 48).
• The zone of the hose connection within an accessible shower has now been increased significantly (Figure 49).
• Shower tap levers shall now be no longer than 100mm (Clause 12.5.8).
• Assisted residential care buildings can now omit the folding seat provided a portable shower chair is provided (Clause 12.5.9).
• A backflow prevention or restrictor device to the handheld shower are required to prevent water contamination (Clause 12.5.11).
• An additional figure clarifying the space requirements of a paired wheelchair space in an auditorium with continental seating has been included (Figure 53(E)).
• An informative appendix has been included providing definitions and key considerations as it relates to vision impairment. This appendix replaces the former summary for walkways, ramps and landings (Appendix C).

[1] ABCB (2025) The amended Premises Standards and the NCC. ABCB. https://www.abcb.gov.au/news/2025/amended-premises-standards-and-ncc?utm_source=newsletter_36&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=important-information-from-the-abcb  

In recent years governments of all levels have been investing in the creation and expansion of cycling infrastructure and networks. Initiatives such as Victoria’s Big Build have presented extensive opportunity to accelerate these initiatives. A broader cycling network clearly presents great benefits for public health, for reducing traffic congestion and for improving cyclist safety.

An active transport network inevitably seeks to create connections between significant destinations as well as transport nodes allowing commuters to use and connect to multiple forms of transport. They provide valuable connections to schools, recreational areas, community buildings, retail hubs, and a whole host of other significant facilities providing amenity to the public.

Similarly, they provide connections between rail stations, bus stops and light rail networks, thereby extending transport services to a larger section of the community.

There is however a flip side to this for other cohorts in the community. 

​People with visual impairments can experience difficulties with identifying hazards, maintaining their direction in the safest section of a path and with general navigation at significant decision-making points along their journey.

​People with hearing impairments may experience difficulty in detecting other path users, enabling them to maintain a safe course clear of potential collisions.  

​Those with mobility difficulties may be vulnerable to potential falls resulting in injury when attempting to avoid and stay clear of users such as cyclists and scooter users travelling at speed.

In a survey of 607 Victorians with vision impairment, 8% had been involved in a collision and 20% were in a near collision as pedestrians over the previous five years. 24% of these incidents were with bicycles.  

​In 2002, Mrs Maria Guliano was struck by a cyclist on a shared path (shared pedestrian and cyclist path), resulting in a severe and traumatic head injury. Her injury meant that she required full-time care. The civil proceedings that followed were settled for a significant sum.

​In the recent survey by Guide Dogs Australia (2023) 50% of respondents with low vision or blindness reported experiencing difficulty with using infrastructure such as shared paths.

While in a survey of 1,128 Victorians aged 60 or over, better cyclist behaviour on shared paths and reduced cycling speed on shared paths were the top two responses for action that would make walking feel safer.

​For people with disabilities, shared paths are clearly problematic.

​Anecdotally, they widely report avoiding walking on shared paths because they are concerned about collision risk and the risk of resulting injury. This in turn limits their ability to interact with their local community, as well as independently commute to work, education and leisure pursuits. For many this can lead to increasing isolation.

​Austroads, the association of the Australian and New Zealand transport agencies, suggests that a shared path may be appropriate where there is a low number of pedestrians or cyclists. They suggest that typical situations where a shared path may be appropriate are areas that attract low pedestrian and cyclist movements and only where cycling speeds are low.

While there is some disagreement in what objectively constitutes low cyclist movements, Victoria Walks, an evidence-based health promotion charity, suggests a suitable threshold for separation is 50 cyclists or 100 pedestrians per hour in commuter peak. This is further to their benchmarking with relevant guidance from Austroads, as well as comparable Norwegian and Dutch guidance. 

​In practical terms with this logic applied, separation would be applied to significant cycling routes in inner city areas, at activity centres (such as the approach to as well as train station concourse areas), principal pedestrian routes and locations where higher numbers of seniors and people with disabilities can be expected (eg. Retirement villages, adult training facilities, etc.).

​It should be noted that from the perspective of people with disabilities, having lower volumes of cyclists as opposed to physical separation is still a significant safety risk albeit a less frequent one. Many see shared paths as discriminatory especially given that many will avoid using them further to their safety concerns.

​In June this year, six local residents lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding the construction of ‘island bus stops’ on Oxford Street in the City of Sydney council area. These types of bus stops see passengers crossing a bike lane from the adjoining footpath to gain access to the bus.  They claimed the bicycle lane is unsafe for the community and especially for elderly people and people with disabilities. They were concerned that cyclist often travel at high speeds, that many cyclists ignore traffic lights and pedestrians, and that people with hearing and visual impairments may not realise that cyclist could be coming at them from either direction.

​So what is a separated path and how do we design one?  

​The Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A defines a separated path as ‘a path divided into separate sections, one of which is designated for the exclusive use of cyclists and the other for the exclusive use of pedestrians’.

​They suggest providing visual cues to clarify use through colour and texture contrasting finishes, signage, line marking and pavement symbols. They also include the possibility of providing the pedestrian path and bicycle path at different levels, separated by a semi-mountable kerb or a dividing strip of turf or similar. 

From an accessibility perspective, the later approach of physical separation strategies are of particular importance to people with vision impairments. People who use a white cane for their mobility can use the edge formed as a ‘shoreline’ to follow the path. Not providing a shoreline separating the pedestrian path from the cycling path could see a person with a vision impairment inadvertently enter and travel along the cycling path placing them at risk. The absence of a suitable shoreline also means that limited or no cues to assist in locating safe crossing points to the cycling path are provided to this group .

For additional information on the subject the following documents may be of interest:

• Austroads (2021) Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for walking and cycling, Austroads, Sydney, Australia.
• Victoria Walks (2015) Shared Paths – the issues, Melbourne, Victoria Walks.
• Australian Human Rights Commission (2013) Advisory Note on streetscape, public outdoor areas, fixtures, fittings and furniture, Sydney, Australian Human Rights Commission.
• Scruby H (2010) The Emperor's New Clothes: lycra lunacy, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-09/36474
• Schiberras A (2024) Residents lodge human rights complaint over 'unsafe' placement of Sydney bike path, https://www.9news.com.au/national/paddington-residents-lodge-human-rights-complaint-over-unsafe-placement-of-sydney-bike-path/42fe9ca3-409e-47a8-b39a-e65ca4504cd6

The curious thing about accessibility in early childhood centres.

A critical part of providing a level of accessibility to any building is designing sanitary facilities that can accommodate the needs of people with varying abilities.

Publicly accessible buildings designed for mainly adult occupants, or a broader age range, have long been routinely required to provide an accessible sanitary facility to accommodate the needs of people who use a wheeled form of mobility such as a manual or powered wheelchair, and in some instances a motorized scooter. This is generally accompanied by cubicles for people with ambulant disabilities which provide a higher toilet seat, some additional circulation as well as grabrails to assist a cohort of people who be unsteady or use a walking aid such as a single point stick, crutches or wheeled walker.

These are routinely designed to a Standard that reflects the anthropometrics of adults.

It has been our experience that almost all early years facilities such as maternal health centres, kindergartens and child care centres do not provide equivalent facilities for the children that will use these buildings. Children’s facilities in these types of buildings generally include a series of standard sized cubicles with a junior toilet pan. The rooms containing the cubicles are also often not designed to accommodate the circulation needs of wheeled mobility aid users.

The Building Code of Australia (BCA) has long espoused and codified the need to provide people with disabilities safe, equitable and dignified access to our public buildings. It’s a curious omission that the industry does not extend this to children with disabilities.

In reviewing the BCA, the associated Guideline, and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standard, it is apparent that no statement or requirement has been included to differentiate between adult and children’s facilities. So why don’t any of these buildings include these?
When challenged, project designers and building surveyors will commonly respond that their expectation is these children will be assisted in their use of the sanitary facility. This is clearly not safe for the children and their carers in that additional manual handling is likely required in relatively confined spaces. Nor is it equitable and dignified when they are not afforded access to toilets as their peers would.

So what would constitute an appropriate design response?

An equivalent arrangement to that currently offered to adults would see an accessible sanitary facility for children with disabilities at 50% of all banks of sanitary facilities to each storey of the facility. In addition to this, each bank would include a cubicle for children with ambulant disabilities. This would be a single unisex cubicle given that children’s facilities are not gendered in early childhood centres.

This then brings us to the anthropometric differences between young children and that contained in the BCA referenced Australian Standards. While imperfect and based on a narrow field study, the aging and now obsolescent Standard AS 1428.3, represents the broadest guidance currently available. It provides guidance for items such as pan, basin and handrail heights, circulation areas, as well as reach ranges associated to 3 to 6 1/2 years olds with disabilities. Adopting this guidance as far as practicable to the sanitaryware that is commercially available (e.g., junior pans are generally only available in two sizes) provides a methodology for producing more appropriate facilities.
​
Some of the inferences and inclusions may comprise:

• Preserving the adult pan and basin circulation requirements in the accessible sanitary facility.
• Reducing the centerline of the pan from the internal corner.
• Providing a junior pan in the cubicle for ambulant children.
• Reducing the diameter of grabrails.
• Reducing reaching distances to grabrails.
• Adjusting the location of the toilet roll holder.
• Reducing the width of the cubicle for children with ambulant disabilities.
• Reducing the height of basins.
• Etc.

 
Please contact us if you would like assistance with the detailed design of these facilities. We are very motivated to see long needed improvement in this area.

The National Construction Code (NCC) 2022 was adopted in May 2023.

A major change to the new NCC was the inclusion of a series of accessible housing requirements. While the common areas of Class 2 buildings (generally apartment buildings) have been required to be accessible for some time, no specific access provisions were applicable beyond the entry of any sole occupancy unit (apartment).

The provisions were included in the currently adopted NCC, however individual States and Territories have also consequently introduced varying transitional arrangements with respect to their implementation. In Victoria, the transitional arrangements will allow the use of the previous NCC (2019) until 1 May 2024.

With the implementation date fast approaching, it’s important that building practitioners, designers, certifiers as well as consumers are familiar with the relevant provisions and their application.

Importantly, for the first time, specific access provisions have now also been included in Volume 2 of the NCC. This effectively means that the application of these requirements also extends to Class 1a buildings (dwellings) and potentially a Class 10 building such as a garage or carport associated to a dwelling. As noted above, they also apply to the internal design of Class 2 apartments.

The provisions are based on a ‘Silver’ performance level as defined by the previously voluntary Livable Housing Design Guidelines, originally published by Livable Housing Australia. The aim of the provisions and the precursor Guidelines are to make homes ‘easy to enter’, ‘to navigate in and around’, ‘be capable of easy and cost-effective adaptation’, and ‘be responsive to the changing needs of home occupants’.

In summary they include the following:

• A continuous step-free path to a dwelling entrance from the allotment boundary or a car park. The path width, gradient, crossfall, landing, and landing interval generally align with the design of walkways and ramps in publicly accessible buildings. This is applicable to Class 1a dwellings only as the previous access provisions applicable to the common areas of Class 2 buildings remain.
• Where a car parking space is associated with the path, the space must be at least 3200mm wide x 5400mm long and provide gradients and crossfalls no steeper than 1:40.
• An entrance which achieves a clear opening width of 820mm, has an accessible threshold, a level landing area and suitable waterproofing.
• Internal doors which also achieve a minimum 820mm clear opening width and provide accessible thresholds.
• Internal corridors which are at least 1000mm wide.
• A sanitary compartment on the entry level of the dwelling which provides a 900mm wide x 1200mm clear circulation area forward of the toilet pan.
• The provision of at least one hob-less and step-free shower.
• The walls adjacent to the toilet pan and shower (and bath where provided) are to be reinforced to allow for the future installation of grabrails.

 
For Class 1b dwellings, some exemptions have been included to account for sites with falls exceeding 1:14. Additional explanatory information has been provided on this suggesting that sites are considered too steep where a walkway at this gradient requires to be cut into the slope or where it would run back and forth against the slope to achieve this gradient. The explanatory information also suggests that the size of the site as well as site permeability requirements, which sit outside the NCC, present another potential exemption path.

The exemptions noted will be seen as overly lenient by many. Decisions around site cutting and the setting of internal floor heights may also be negatively influenced for some less progressive building practitioners. This is especially so given that some of these exemptions lack some much needed objectivity and additional guidance. In any event access via a car space will likely still prevail in most instances given the need to provide convenient access between vehicles and dwellings, which will in turn see eventually see a significant improvement in building stock with improved access in the context of an aging population.
It’s also important to highlight the current provisions reflect the entry level of ‘Livability’ outlined in the precursor Guidelines. These provisions will be helpful to people with mobility difficulties who are still ambulant. For example, people who are frail and unsteady on their feet, or use a walking stick, crutches, or a mobile walking aid. People who use a wheelchair for their mobility will see only limited benefit from them.
​
The Livable Housing Design Guidelines also outline higher levels of livable design which are denoted as ‘Gold’ and ‘Platinum’. These increase some circulation areas and include some ‘detail design’ requirements associated to items such as door hardware, tapware and lighting controls. These of course remain voluntary guidelines, however their uptake will create the biggest impact on the current scarcity of suitably accessible housing.
 
To view the provision directly, the relevant section of Volume One of the NCC 2022 is G7. In Volume two it is contained in Part H8.
The Livable Housing Design Standard 2022 v1.3 can be viewed at this link - https://www.abcb.gov.au/sites/default/files/resources/2023/Livable-Housing-Design-Standard-2022-1.3.pdf
The precursor Livable Housing Design Guidelines can be found here - https://livablehousingaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/SLLHA_GuidelinesJuly2017FINAL4.pdf
​