The Bathla collapse – Quality & Standards
The collapse of the Bathla Group has raised questions about the way we deliver housing in Australia – in particular, whether our current systems are delivering the quality, accountability and consumer protection that people should be able to expect. Angelina Pillai explores the need for consistent, clear regulation and enforcement, and emphasises the critical role of architects in delivering well designed, quality homes.
I’ve been following the collapse of the Bathla Group and the discussion around what it might mean for housing delivery in Australia. In my role, I spend considerable time looking at the environment architecture businesses operate in from regulation, standards, business pressures and the conditions that ultimately affect quality.
Alan Kohler’s recent piece for the ABC is worth a read. He looks beyond the collapse itself at housing supply, construction costs, building quality and regulation. It’s particularly relevant given how much we are asking of the construction sector: more housing, delivered more quickly and affordably, while also improving quality and consumer protection.
Of course, housing affordability is much more complex than construction costs alone. Land, planning, infrastructure, finance, tax, skills and migration all play a part, with responsibility spread across all levels of government. These systems need to work much better together.
Regulation and enforcement
One of the points Alan Kohler makes is just how much regulation already sits around construction. We have a National Construction Code (NCC) running to thousands of pages, supported by many Australian Standards, yet we continue to see problems with building quality and compliance.
Having regulation in place is only part of the answer, however. It needs to be properly policed and enforced. Strong rules on paper won’t deliver better buildings if poor quality work is ticked off. Effective oversight, appropriate checks and genuinely independent certification are just as important.
Kohler also talks about the differences between states and territories. We have an NCC, but its adoption, regulation and enforcement can look quite different depending on where you are. Different commencement dates, variations and approaches all add work and cost for businesses operating nationally.
Businesses need regulation to be clear, consistent, practical and easy for businesses to navigate. And if people are expected to comply with a Standard, they should be able to access it. The ACA has been pushing this for several years, So, the Government’s commitment to fund read-only access to Australian Standards referenced in legislation is therefore very welcome. Through ACIF, we’ve also been working directly with Standards Australia on the implementation, and the ACA will be meeting with them to make sure the new arrangements meet the needs of architecture practices.
We hear a lot about improving construction productivity, and rightly so, but the regulatory environment should be part of that discussion. Our 2026 ACA Pulse Check found that 72% of practices were concerned about cost escalation and 59% about regulatory complexity. Where we can make the system simpler and more consistent without compromising quality or safety, we should.
The cost of quality
While Australia needs more affordable homes, they need to be built well. Quality takes time and investment, and practices are already operating with fairly tight margins. Our recent Business Intelligence: Time/Cost Calculator Guide shows a median profit margin of just 10%, while practices are also underestimating the time needed in the early design stages. If we keep squeezing fees and time to reduce costs upfront, there is a risk those costs simply show up later through variations, defects, disputes and rectification.
There is also the longer-term cost to owners to consider – a building that performs better will cost less to run, and getting things right upfront can avoid much greater rectification costs later.
None of this is to suggest these issues explain what happened at Bathla. There are clearly larger financial, commercial and regulatory factors at play. But the scale of the collapse gives us good reason to look at the settings around housing delivery more broadly.
Where architects fit in
For architecture practices, there is a very practical side to all of this, although the role architects can play is different across different types of housing.
Not everyone can afford full architectural services for an individual home. But that shouldn’t mean good design is only available to those who can. There is room for more flexible ways for people to access architectural expertise – whether that is limited design advice, partial services, pattern books or other models that provide the benefits of good design at a more accessible price.
Apartments and multi-residential buildings are different, with architects already much more involved. The work led by former NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler has been an important step in improving building quality and accountability, including putting greater focus on design and documentation and the process of delivering a building.
We are asking the industry to build a lot more housing, improve productivity, manage costs and deliver better quality. Accessible Standards, greater consistency between jurisdictions coupled with adequate and practical regulation all have a part to play.
For architecture practices, quality also depends on having the right expertise involved and giving people the time and scope to do their jobs properly. When fees are under pressure, documentation is reduced or professional involvement is wound back during delivery, there can be consequences further down the line.
Architects have an important role in the housing challenge ahead, but practices also need the conditions that allow them to do that work properly.
So what do we do?
Keep pushing for simpler, more consistent regulation, accessible Standards and the time and expertise needed to deliver quality. And find more ways for architects to bring good design to more people.
I keep coming back to something our Immediate Past President, John Held, said:
“Not everyone can afford full architectural services for their homes, but everyone should have the benefits of good design for better living, no matter what sort of housing they live in.”