August 2026

The regulatory burden on housing costs $47.5 billion a year

Australia’s housing crisis has many causes, but one of them is sitting in plain sight.

Red tape.

When the national building code was first introduced in 1988, it ran to just 209 pages.

Today, the National Construction Code and its associated requirements have swollen to more than 2,000 pages — with some estimates putting the full regulatory burden closer to 2,500 pages.

That is not progress.

It is regulatory obesity.

The NCC is supposed to set the minimum standards needed to make Australian buildings safe, healthy, accessible and fit for purpose.

Instead, over time, it has become a sprawling rule book that builders, designers, certifiers and tradespeople must navigate before they can get on with the actual job of building homes.

And every extra layer has a cost.

More consultants.

More reports.

More compliance.

More delays.

More uncertainty.

And ultimately, higher prices for the person buying the home.

Federal MP Cameron Caldwell (Liberal) put it simply: every extra page means extra cost, delays and hurdles standing in the way of building the homes Australians desperately need.

He is right.

Governments keep talking about housing supply as though the problem can be solved with another target, another summit or another press release.

But you cannot seriously claim to want more housing while simultaneously making housing harder and more expensive to build.

The scale of the regulatory creep is extraordinary.

Volume Two of the code, which applies heavily to detached housing, began life in 1993 as what was effectively a glove-box guide for builders.

It was 93 pages.

Today it runs to almost 900 pages.

That tells you everything you need to know about what has happened.

The rule book has stopped being a rule book and become an industry in itself.

Master Builders Australia, representing more than 32,000 builders, says the NCC has become unwieldy, poorly drafted and increasingly detached from its original purpose.

The organisation argues that the code has drifted away from setting sensible minimum standards and towards imposing increasingly complex “best practice” requirements.

The result is predictable: poorer productivity, higher construction costs and fewer homes.

Master Builders has also pointed to Productivity Commission estimates suggesting the broader regulatory burden on housing across the economy costs $47.5 billion a year.

That is an astonishing figure.

At a time when Australia has a chronic shortage of housing, construction companies are collapsing, building costs have surged and affordability has deteriorated, governments should be removing unnecessary obstacles.

Instead, the system has spent years adding them.

The National Construction Code needs to get back to basics.

It should be written in plain English.

It should focus strictly on minimum standards necessary for safety, structural integrity and liveability.

Changes should be evidence-based, transparent and properly tested against their impact on construction costs and housing supply.

Builders should not need a legal team to work out how to build a basic three-bedroom house.

Australia does not need another 500 pages of regulation.

It needs fewer pages, clearer rules and more homes.

If governments are serious about solving the housing shortage, simplifying the National Construction Code would be a very good place to start.