In Victoria, builder collapse is still pushing owners into a difficult domestic building insurance pathway.
In NSW, the Building Commission is now taking developers to court over unmet rectification orders.
In BTR, insurers are already treating the model as a separate underwriting problem rather than a standard residential one.
Three different interfaces. One underlying issue.
These are not just downstream insurance or compliance stories.
They show something deeper: housing systems are judged by what happens when something goes wrong — whether the problem can be understood, whether responsibility can be enforced, and whether the risk can still be priced with confidence.
That matters even more for MMC.
If every project still needs bespoke explanations, bespoke comfort, and bespoke sign-off, insurance stays expensive, regulation stays slow, and trust stays fragile.
What MMC needs is not just more support. It needs a more reusable trust system — clearer evidence chains, repeatable certification pathways, and more reuse of accepted details and approvals.
That is what gradually allows insurance and regulation to become cheaper, faster, and more confident.
MMC does not scale on factory output alone. It scales when trust becomes reusable.
Recent references: ABC (Victoria builder collapse insurance), The Urban Developer (NSW rectification enforcement; BTR insurance).