Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

If 'business as usual' is so utterly broken, why do we keep doing it?

By Ross Elliott - posted Tuesday, 28 October 2025


Rather than pile on more regulation, why not look to reduce the compliance burden? The answer there seems to be a reluctance to ‘wind back the clock’ to a time of less onerous compliance. Utility companies, operating as quasi monopolies, pursue increasingly high standards of engineering compliance to guard against one in a hundred-year events, or even to safeguard against climate scenarios for a largely unpredictable future. Some adopt ‘zero complaint’ benchmarks as their performance KPIs, which leads to over-design (“gold plating”). Local governments can adopt increasingly high-performance standards which are referenced to third party professional bodies (such as the engineers) to shift responsibility. Those professional bodies, not wanting to support moderate standards where there is an element of risk, respond with highest standards as minimums, to mitigate risk. All this comes at a cost.  

Alternatives – such as large scale off-grid utilities around water and wastewater – are resisted because they don’t fit the BAU model – even if they could substantially reduce costs and timeframes (which itself could also expose the inefficiency of the BAU model, so another reason to say no). And we are still rolling out NBN cable to new estates, even though an uplink to a satellite is both wireless, cheaper and faster.

Alternatives to the financing and operation of infrastructure for housing are also generally resisted. The upfront per-lot infrastructure charge approach has become entrenched as the BAU model, despite adding to the upfront costs faced by young buyers. To date there has been minimal interest in exploring alternatives such as Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) which in the USA are widely used to fund and operate essential development infrastructure, off the balance sheets of government. They work by raising a bond to fund the delivery and operation of local water, wastewater and other utilities (even including social infrastructure such as schools or health care sometimes) which is paid off by the residents over time. It’s in effect a line on their rates bill, paid off after 10 or 15 years (maybe longer), rather than an upfront hit of an additional $30,000 or $50,000 in headworks PLUS the inefficiencies built into the $180,000 worth of civils per lot. Imagine the idea of allowing a developer to bring market efficiency to the planning and delivery of utilities infrastructure, saving costs and time for homebuyers, rather than some bloated semi government monopoly!

Advertisement

Even where things like prefab housing (modern methods of construction) are a proven delivery model around the world, we are resisting their deployment here - with the exception of mining camps or emergency shelters. Our mandated standards (for electricity, plumbing, energy efficiency, disability access, water efficiency and more) can prove difficult for foreign manufactured providers to meet. Even when they are designed overseas to Australian standards, we find local compliance or inspection agencies disputing that the standards have been met because our habit of wanting to ‘tick off’ compliance at every stage of the build is unrealistic (and defeats the point of efficient manufactured housing). Once it’s built, you can’t pull it apart so a plumbing inspector can say he’s happy with the internal connections.

So it seems we keep applying business as usual approaches to the same problems that business as usual has created in the first place. There is no logical explanation for this. “We’ve always done it this way” is the usual response, and it’s not good enough.

I’m reminded of that scene in Fawlty Towers, where Basil – who insists on driving a highly unreliable mini as his mode of transport – finally loses it one wet English day when it chooses the worst possible time to break down. Says Basil: “Well, don't say I haven’t warned you. I've laid it on the line to you time and time again. I'm going to give you a damn good trashing.”

Which he does. Only to appear in subsequent episodes, still driving the same car.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This article was first published on The Pulse.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

14 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ross Elliott is an industry consultant and business advisor, currently working with property economists Macroplan and engineers Calibre, among others.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ross Elliott

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Ross Elliott
Article Tools
Comment 14 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy