 Brian and good afternoon everyone. I'm just going to take you through a few slides and as Brian said it's to provide you with some context for this afternoon's presentation and discussion which of course we're hoping that you'll participate in as you did this morning. Why performance? It's been a performance-based code for close to 20 odd years now since 1996. So as a performance-based code it has some distinguishing characteristics from that of just being a prescriptive code which of course many people are familiar with through the deemed to satisfy provisions but by being a performance-based code the authors, the people who envisaged that performance-based regulation was the way to go with building were really envisaging that you needed the opportunity and the option of flexibility as much as you might prescription and in fact that that was very insightful when you take into consideration the pace and rate of change that you're all experiencing and potentially will experience in the coming few years as a result of things like disruptive technology changes to construction practices etc. So if we look at this slide here and look at the the middle word there innovation really the fathers of the building code and and making it a performance-based code were contemplating that there would always be a need to ensure that innovation could be promoted and encouraged and if you have a purely prescriptive type of regulatory environment it's very difficult to be innovative in that experience and some of the material that Graham touched on this morning if you were here this morning in terms of the transformational projects are about trying to better prepare the practitioners the ABCB the industry itself with the sort of innovation that's coming around the corner or is here right now modular building construction just being one example of that so it's very important that we maintain an ability within the code writing process for industry and for practitioners who I assume make up the majority of people in the audience here have that capability and simply to say performance doesn't do justice to the type of body of work the the integrity of the work and the complexity of the work that's involved in doing performance and I think it's really important also to ensure that people don't walk away today with the view that the ABCB is trying to ram performance down everyone's throat that it's somehow it's mandatory that you must do performance that's not the purpose of this discussion it's not the purpose of a performance based code deemed to satisfy is an entirely legitimate option for people to use and in many cases particularly for for instance with domestic housing it will remain the primary means by which people will assess the adequacy of their design and their construction but increasingly buildings are becoming more and more complex whereas in the past it was about structural liability fire integrity and a few other critical elements to do with health and safety of buildings we've now got a lot of societal type of issues that also have to be factored in to construction energy efficiency disability access to name a couple and that's only going to increase and of course it's not just a case of accommodating all of those things it's often a case of trying to understand how do I adjust structural liability to accommodate some of these other issues so you're doing trade-offs and comparisons in all of that work and that doesn't come easily with deemed to satisfy and deemed to satisfy cannot keep up with the pace of change you can't just quickly write prescriptive standards for everything that's happening someone wants something to happen tomorrow they want to use a new technology a new way of doing something we can't suddenly turn right round and write a DTS for it you're going to be required and your clients going to ask for on occasions you defined innovative solutions to problems that are being thrown up by a raft of things so what we're trying to do here is help prepare you if you're not already to use a performance based code understand some of the things we're going to do to help better equip you to deal with that and enable not so much a transition but more a balancing act between what has become customary practice around well we'll just always devoid default to the DTS as opposed to well maybe performance is a legitimate solution in a particular set of circumstances so I mentioned 20 odd years ago the performance based code was introduced but at this over the last 20 years we've seen falling productivity in Australia and that's reflected in productivity commission reports reports by KPMG by Mackenzie by the OECD and building doesn't have a stellar reputation in amongst all of that productivity decline in fact it's one of the worst performing areas in the national economy in terms of productivity increase likewise with the work that the ABCB's been doing we asked the Center for International Economics about three years ago to undertake an analysis of regulatory reform in the building space and whether or not it had helped improve productivity they identified that as a result of the changes to date including a performance based code we'd probably added 1.1 billion dollars of benefits to the national economy per annum but what they went on to say was that there was a potential to add another 1.1 billion dollars of productivity benefit to the economy per annum of which 70 percent could potentially be gained through better use of performance so again that gives the ABCB and national governments that is the nine governments an incentive to encourage and help people use performance in the appropriate circumstances and we have a new ABCB vision down the bottom there which was introduced last year called increased well the vision is increased productivity and improved building outcomes so how can you achieve the increased productivity maintain the health and safety standards of the code and still achieve effective building outcomes and that was signed off by the board and the whole reform agenda that is going to be summarised today particularly in the space of performance was signed off by building ministers in 2014 as well this is just the last slide in this context setting but what it tries to do is encapsulate what we've witnessed with performance versus DTS over the last 20 odd years most of you would be familiar up until 2016 with the pyramid that was in the code which had functional statements, objectives etc and what became obvious to us through surveys and other analysis was that many practitioners were seeing the entirety of the pyramid as everything that they had to do that everything with it within it was a mandatory requirement including the DTS and that was skewing people's understanding and perception of a performance based code because in fact the only mandatory requirements in the code are the performance requirements the DTS are a means of demonstrating compliance with the performance requirements likewise a performance solution is a means of demonstrating compliance with the code so they're equivalent and that's what this diagram which is now in the NCC 2016 edition represents your mandatory requirements up the top the performance requirements two pathways to achieving compliance one the deemed satisfied solution or a performance solution or a combination of both you'll note that we changed the word from alternative solution to performance solution because what we were also witnessing was that people saw the word alternative as describing a different way of doing something if you couldn't achieve the DTS so it was almost causing people to think ah the DTS is what I have to achieve and the alternative is only in the circumstance when I can't achieve the DTS so we've changed the language it's a performance solution or a deemed satisfied solution or a combination of the two I think the other critical thing and it'll come out both in the presentations and hopefully the discussion we have at the end is that we acknowledge that the more you move towards performance the harder it gets it's a more rigorous process you require high levels of competency you may have to engage other practitioners if you're a building surveyor for instance or an architect to assist you in getting certain things signed off because you don't necessarily have the competency that's not a criticism these things are highly complex buildings are highly complex particularly when you go beyond class one so we understand that encouraging people to increase their use of performance because the world's changing and in many cases you might not have an alternative it's going to require more rigor and more levels of competency as part of that process so that's just by way of introduction and context for what's going