Further red tape in the form of a proposed new building products registration scheme is unnecessary and disadvantages Australian suppliers compared to their overseas competitors, according to the ASI.
Responding to an Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) survey to determine support for such a scheme, the ASI said the steel industry, like other sectors, had already made “significant investments” to meet National Construction Code (NCC) compliance.
“We should not be disproportionately impacted by the costs of implementing a new scheme,” its submission to the ABCB says.
“Without the clear intent of all states and territories for uptake, suppliers may suffer differing expectations and enforcement outcomes, diminishing the value of the scheme.”
The ASI said the proposed scheme relies on considerable investment in the digitisation of all products by manufacturers and suppliers, possible negating their current data systems and processes that may not comply with the schemes individual parameters.
“It is our belief that the burden of non-compliance in the building sector often stems from imported materials that do not meet Australian standards. As such, further investigation is required to understand the source of non-compliant materials. The ASI advocates for a balanced approach where compliance costs are shared fairly, and those manufacturers already adhering to Australian standards are not penalised.”