Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg has pledged to slash the National Construction Code from over 2,000 pages to just 80 if elected, a move that would strip mandatory accessibility standards and energy efficiency requirements from Australia's housing regulations. Speaking at the National Press Club on Wednesday, the opposition housing spokesperson said current rules require "gold-plated houses" and promised to turn everything beyond basic safety standards into optional extras.
"It is now illegal to build a cheap house in Australia," Bragg said, according to excerpts shared with the ABC. "We will pare this back." He claimed houses built under his proposed 80-page code "won't be gold plated but it won't fall apart. It will be safe."
What Gets Cut
Bragg's proposal would make accessibility features and energy efficiency standards voluntary rather than mandatory. He specifically cited "mandatory ramps" and "flattened shower flooring" as examples of requirements he'd eliminate from the compulsory code. Recent changes to the code include a mandated seven-star energy efficiency rating and mandatory accessibility standards designed to make homes livable for people with disabilities and aging Australians.
The existing code's fire-related sections alone run to more than 80 pages. While Bragg suggested that "essential structural, fire safety, and health-related" standards would be retained, it's unclear how a dramatic reduction to 80 pages total would accommodate even these basic protections.
Industry Costs vs. Public Protections
Building groups and the Productivity Commission have estimated that regulations add thousands to the cost of each newly built home. Evidence heard by a Senate inquiry into productivity, which Bragg chaired, found the last seven years of code changes have added $3,600 to $33,000 to the cost of a new house. A new Productivity Commission report calls on governments to embrace a "build mindset" to make housing more affordable.
But there's context Bragg hasn't emphasized. A recent Productivity Commission inquiry into the construction sector found that zoning and the regulatory approvals process was more burdensome than building regulations themselves. The inquiry's terms of reference didn't include direct consideration of the construction code.
Australian Building Codes Board chief executive Adrian Piani told Bragg's inquiry the section relating to "your standard house" was just 332 pages, not the full 2,000-plus. Piani explained the code expanded for two main reasons: inclusion of guidance to help builders comply, and expanded scope to address real-world problems like leaking balconies and inaccessible housing.
Government Pushback
Treasurer Jim Chalmers told ABC Radio National the government had already been working to streamline the code. "[Andrew Bragg] is a bit late to the party on this, we have been very clear that the code is too hard to navigate and it's too costly, and we're making it easier and faster to build by pausing the code and working with the states and the industry to streamline it," Chalmers said.
Housing Minister Clare O'Neil has met with the industry on about 30 occasions over the past year to develop a streamlined code. A final plan is due to be presented to building ministers later this year.
Labor minister Tim Ayres criticized Bragg's approach during Senate estimates, noting that recent changes included measures to improve waterproofing for balconies. "I just don't think you can argue — well, you can if you want — [against] stopping people having to spend $2 billion in rectification costs because apartment balconies are leaking," he said. "I just think that's a sensible proposition … leaking balconies are a bad idea."
The Federal Coordination Problem
Much of the construction code's complexity stems from inconsistencies across states and territories, which the federal government doesn't have the power to change unilaterally. The code is developed nationally by the Australian Building Codes Board, but it's implemented in state and territory laws. Any changes would require cooperation across jurisdictions.
Treasury's Inspector-General of Housing, Ben Rimmer, told Senate estimates earlier this year the complexity of the construction code was "a significant impost on the economy" and a "significant driver of cost," but that much of this was due to states and territories. "We don't have a National Construction Code … we actually have eight different construction regulatory systems depending on which state and territory you happen to be in on that day of the week," he said. "If you're a plumber living in Wodonga and you cross the border, you have a different set of regulations."
Bragg's proposal would be accompanied by a federal "pattern book" with approved templates. The National Construction Code was established under a different name in 1988 and was initially around 80 pages, expanding under successive governments of both political persuasions.
Migration Linked to Housing
Bragg also argued the Albanese government has allowed net overseas migration to outpace housing construction, creating a shortfall of 130,000 homes. The Coalition intends to link migration to housing completions. "This … can be achieved while benefiting the budget and the economy, including by lifting the skilled share of our permanent migration … and modest reductions in international students, working holiday makers and post-study work visas."
Labor is preparing its own plan to keep net migration closer to Treasury projections, as reported by the ABC last week. The details have been the subject of extensive cabinet debate, and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said on Monday there was "work to do." A National Press Club address by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, cancelled at short notice last week, hasn't yet been rescheduled but is expected as soon as next week. Labor's proposal is expected to include restrictions on working holiday makers and those who fail in their applications for humanitarian visas, including many graduated students.
Why This Matters:
The debate over building codes exposes a fundamental tension between housing affordability and livability standards that protect vulnerable Australians. Making accessibility features optional would create a two-tier housing market where only those who can afford premium homes get dwellings suitable for people with disabilities, aging residents, or families with mobility needs. Energy efficiency standards aren't just environmental measures — they directly affect household electricity costs, with lower-income families bearing the brunt of poorly insulated, expensive-to-heat-and-cool homes. The question isn't whether regulations add costs, but whether those costs prevent greater harms: $2 billion in balcony rectification, inaccessible housing that forces people into aged care prematurely, and energy-inefficient homes that trap families in fuel poverty. Streamlining the code's complexity makes sense, but gutting protections that address market failures and ensure dignified housing for all Australians risks creating cheaper homes that cost society far more in the long run.