ere is a tale of two property industry standards.
One is a happy story – the birthing and release of new guidelines on livable housing design.
These guidelines were developed in six meetings flat and offer a model for fashioning standards that can effectively joggle industry behaviour.
In contrast, there’s the sad chronicle of stillborn laws on the mandatory disclosure of energy use by office buildings.
These rules took six long years to (partially) hatch and, although now law, are still gestating.
The terrific
Let’s start with the cheerier story.
The livable housing design guidelines, released last month, will help make homes more accessible. They offer cradle-to-cradle solutions that will serve seniors as well as young families and Australians suffering permanent or temporary injuries.
The guidelines recognise that homes need to adapt with the lives of their users.
It’s simple common sense to design-in adaptability from the outset.
The livable housing design guidelines spell out silver, gold and platinum levels of adaptability and accessibility.
What made the process of formulating the guidelines work so well?
First, there was a steering committee that included all the key players. The relevant industry bodies got involved at a senior level – the Master Builders, Housing Industry Association and the Real Estate Institute, as well as ourselves.
The Australian Institute of Architects, representing the design professions, provided their expertise. The community was represented by groups such as the Council on the Ageing and the Human Rights Commission. The Federal and State Governments also played a critical part in all six meetings.
Cynthia Banham, a journalist at the Sydney Morning Herald who is intimately familiar with the suffering that can strike down any Australian, chaired the meetings and acted as a one person Greek Chorus.
The steering committee sorted out disagreements and steadied the focus of discussion on solutions. The starting point was to set a target, which is anathema to most public policy negotiations in this country.
Our first resolution was to agree that all homes should be designed and built to a silver standard by 2020, with incremental
progress to be achieved along the way. We also agreed to measure progress against our long-term target on a regular basis.
The guidelines are easy to grasp – the silver, gold and platinum standards are set out clearly with diagrams that can be used by any designer or builder.
We also jointly committed to an industry education program and to establish a notfor-profit body to roll out the guidelines.
This will include a service to objectively validate building designs against the silver, gold and platinum standards.
We also called on top-flight marketing assistance. The secret to transforming the market will be to rouse consumer awareness of the livable housing design brand.
We invited BMF, one of Australia’s leading ad agencies, to provide advice – which they did pro bono.
The final ingredient to success was political leadership that wasn’t subcontracted to medieval bureaucratic processes.
Bill Shorten, who was Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities going into the election, acted as Mother Superior, confessor and negotiator. He attended all meetings.
Therese Rein, the former PM’s wife, was also involved and offered the use of Kirribilli house to host several meetings.
She also provided insightful marketing advice based on her business experience.
Shorten used his political skills to forge a consensus. Wherever a bottleneck arose, Shorten guided or cajoled as necessary.
Above all, he fomented the goodwill which led to solutions.
The completed guidelines were launched within a year of the first meeting and can be found at www.fahcsia.gov.au or www.propertyoz.com.au/livablehousing
Several of Australia’s largest developers have already signed up to the silver design standard and are committed to moving to gold in the near future.
The toxic
In contrast, the mandatory disclosure policy-making saga is a dismal tale of a rudderless journey.
No steering committee, but plenty of meandering where industry feedback was sucked in to a murky Bermuda Triangle vortex of lost opportunity.
In theory, it should have been plain sailing – discussion papers by experts, public consultation papers, regulatory impact statements and industry workshops were all loosed to the winds.
However, the result was a bureaucratic tangle.
At the height of the consultation farce was the confidentiality statements forced upon us to ensure we couldn’t consult widely.
The Property Council has no problem signing confidentiality statements for market sensitive discussions over, say, tax laws, but this was deeply neurotic.
The less said about the regulatory impact analysis, which didn’t even analyse key elements of the final legislation, the better.
It’s ironic that the process for designing a law to improve the flow of information to the market should resemble a sequel to the Da Vinci Code.
The greater irony is that a law designed to remove ‘information asymmetries’ will publicise information that few understand.
Let’s be clear: there is merit in disclosing the environmental performance of buildings to the market. However, it’s a no brainer that to do the job effectively, the information must be meaningful.
It’s no secret that the NABERS energy tool, which lies at the heart of the mandatory disclosure rules, is in desperate need of modernisation.
A comprehensive, independent and public review was promised and is now urgently overdue.
The Property Council supports NABERS and so will initiate its own review.
Then there’s the bureaucracy’s proposed tenancy lighting disclosure tool, which will be activated next year. It’s looking like
another Claytons consultation – a sour epilogue to serial failures to genuinely listen to industry, despite hand-on-heart promises.
If only policy-makers would learn from the success of the livable housing design guidelines.
In sympathy with distressed readers, we’ll avoid recounting the 18-year process that has delayed the release of disability access guidelines for commercial premises, despite industry and community groups agreeing to a sensible compromise standard three years ago.
Peter Verwer |
Tuesday, 3 August 2010 3:33 PM |
Add Comment
