Allowing Modular to Thrive: Why the ABCB’s Certification Scheme Matters
As Australia’s largest locally owned and operated modular building company, Fleetwood was pleased to participate in the Australian Building Codes Board’s consultation process for the proposed National Voluntary Certification Scheme for Manufacturers of Modern Methods of Construction (the Scheme). The Scheme aims to establish nationally consistent definitions for MMC and create a certification pathway for compliance with the National Construction Code (NCC).
How We Got Here
Up until now, the NCC has been written primarily with conventional in-situ construction in mind. While this reflects how most of Australia’s building stock has historically been delivered, it does not recognise the growing role of MMC—nor the fact that governments and others in the community increasingly expect MMC to play a role in addressing some of Australia’s greatest challenges.
The result is a regulatory environment that disadvantages MMC and strips away its intrinsic advantages—speed, efficiency, and scalability.
That is why the Scheme matters. If designed well, it will not only deliver consistency and certainty for MMC builders, regulators, clients, and customers, but also allow MMC’s benefits to shine through and the industry to have a greater impact.
The Problem
With the NCC designed around conventional construction, workarounds by way of “performance solutions” have become the default compliance route for MMC systems. This reliance means:
Higher costs – Builders must commission detailed engineering reports, product technical statements, or bespoke testing, often for each project.
Delays – Performance solutions require multiple rounds of review, sometimes stretching for months, eroding the time advantage of offsite manufacturing.
Inconsistency – Outcomes vary between jurisdictions, regulators, and certifiers, undermining certainty for national providers.
Additionally, inconsistencies in how MMC is defined across states and territories force manufacturers to prepare multiple sets of compliance documentation for essentially the same product. A movable dwelling may be treated as an unregistered dwelling in one jurisdiction and subject to full NCC compliance in another. This duplication reduces efficiency, increases project delivery costs, and limits the ability to scale nationally.
Scheme Benefits
A well-developed Scheme will embed MMC into the compliance framework, supporting it to be treated as a legitimate parallel pathway rather than an exception that requires ad-hoc fixes. This will:
Create a level playing field with conventional construction by removing structural disadvantages in the NCC.
Enable scale and investment by reducing duplication and regulatory risk across jurisdictions.
Provide greater trust and confidence for clients, regulators, and consumers.
Allow the natural benefits of MMC to be expressed with faster, more predictable delivery and certainty of compliance outcomes.
Done right, the Scheme can unlock MMC’s full potential as a mainstream solution for housing, schools, and a wide range of other infrastructure types across Australia.
Scheme Aims
To succeed, the Scheme must do more than reduce red tape. It must fundamentally reposition MMC within the national building framework and evolve the MMC industry’s compliance environment. That means:
Legitimacy – MMC should be recognised as a parallel construction pathway under the NCC, not an alternative that requires compliance workarounds.
Consistency – Clear, nationally recognised definitions that capture both existing practices and emerging innovations.
Credibility – Certification that is rigorous, trusted, and backed by independent third-party assurance.
Scalability – Removing duplication so manufacturers can deliver nationally without re-certifying the same products multiple times.
Balance – Ensuring safety and performance standards are upheld without stifling innovation or creating excessive compliance burdens.
Scheme Design Considerations
Getting the design right will be critical to the Scheme’s credibility and uptake. Fleetwood recommends several key features, developed from more than 25 years in the local modular building industry:
1. A Structured Definition Framework
A broad “umbrella” definition of MMC should be adopted to capture existing and future practices, providing legitimacy for it as a recognised pathway. Within this, a tiered framework should classify MMC by:
Form – such as volumetric modules, panelised systems, hybrid assemblies, or kit-of-parts.
Integration level – ranging from simple components to fully factory-assembled volumetric units.
This approach provides clarity while allowing flexibility across project types. Furthermore, a risk-based overlay would ensure more integrated systems are subject to higher evidence and certification requirements, aligning with Part A5’s emphasis on evidence rigour.
2. Independent, Third-Party Certification
To build trust, certification must be undertaken by registered independent auditors, appointed by and paid through the Scheme administrator. This ensures consistency, probity, and independence in the process.
3. A Layered Assurance Model
Confidence in MMC will come from multiple layers of assurance, including:
NCC compliance and technical standards – evidence under Part A5, accredited test reports, and professional engineering certifications.
Product and system certification – CodeMark or equivalent certification for integrated systems, certificates of accreditation, or independent third-party certification for specific products or components.
Factory and installer assurance – ISO standards, factory/system testing for higher-risk builds, traceability, competency checks, and installer audits.
Project-level verification – commissioning evidence, witness points for critical items, and independent reviews at key milestones.
Sustainability and ESG measures – responsible sourcing, embodied carbon targets, waste diversion, and design for disassembly.
4. State and Territory Alignment
To support consistent, national implementation, all state and territory jurisdictions should align their building legislation and regulatory frameworks with the Scheme.
Conclusion
The Scheme represents an opportunity to correct how MMC is perceived and treated within Australia’s building compliance regime.
By providing consistent definitions and a credible certification process, it can allow modular’s innate advantages—speed, efficiency, and scalability—to be fully expressed.
If done right, the Scheme will enable the MMC industry to deliver much-needed, high-quality housing and infrastructure quickly, consistently, and at scale.
Fleetwood looks forward to the next phases of this process and to supporting the ABCB, governments, and other stakeholders in getting the regulatory settings right for the benefit of the industry, its customers, and the Australian people.
