Housing code simplification might actually make more homes
Queensland's planning rules haven't been updated since 2010 — and three-quarters of councils ended up with different standards for essentially the same building problem.
Queensland has spent the better part of fifteen years making it harder to build a house. Not deliberately, but through the slow accumulation of complexity that comes when rules are written, never revisited, and left to calcify while the world changes around them. The result is a development code that is partly outdated, inconsistently applied across councils, and expensive to navigate — a system where three-quarters of Queensland's local governments have ended up with different housing requirements for what is, in most cases, the same building challenge.
Standardising seventy-odd councils' rules removes friction that was killing margins
The new Queensland Housing Code sets contemporary, consistent standards for detached houses and secondary dwellings across the state: building height, setbacks, privacy, car parking, site cover, private open space. The existing Queensland Development Code provisions these replace date largely from 2010. The updated Modern Homes Standards make targeted adjustments that builders and certifiers have been pushing for — a reduced energy-efficiency rating for homes under 50 square metres, more flexibility for raised-floor Queenslander-style construction, revised accessible bathroom design rules, and practical compliance pathways for step-free entry and weatherproofing.
None of this is glamorous. There is no ribbon-cutting photo. But the mundane nature of the reform is part of why it matters. Australia's housing debate is dominated by policies that make for good politics precisely because they hand something directly to a voter, a grant, a shared equity stake, a stamp duty concession. As The Bearing has documented, when supply is constrained, those demand-side interventions largely flow through into higher prices rather than more housing. The seller captures the subsidy. The buyer is no better off in real terms.
When design and siting rules vary across seventy-odd councils, a developer operating across multiple areas has to re-learn the system each time. Legal and compliance costs accumulate. Approval timelines stretch. Some projects do not get built not because they were unviable, but because the regulatory overhead ate the margin.
What actually builds more homes is reducing the cost and friction of building them. The Queensland Productivity Commission's inquiry into construction industry productivity identified regulatory complexity as a material constraint on housing supply. This reform is a direct response to that finding, shaped by feedback from builders, designers, certifiers, and local governments. That process matters, because it is the difference between regulation designed around political optics and regulation designed around how building actually works.
The mechanism here is not complicated. When design and siting rules vary across seventy-odd councils, a developer operating across multiple areas — or even a small builder moving to a new region — has to re-learn the system each time. Legal and compliance costs accumulate. Approval timelines stretch. Some projects do not get built not because they were unviable, but because the regulatory overhead ate the margin. Standardising those rules does not guarantee more homes, but it removes a genuine friction that was slowing construction.
The energy-efficiency trade-offs are calibrations, not a retreat
The energy-efficiency adjustments deserve scrutiny, because they involve a real trade-off. Dropping the requirement from seven stars to five for homes under 50 square metres is a concession to buildability on small footprints where full compliance was creating practical problems. The six-star accommodation for raised-floor Queenslander construction is similar: the heritage building form does not respond the same way to insulation requirements designed for a concrete slab. These are sensible calibrations, not a retreat from sustainability outcomes broadly. The seven-star standard remains in place for standard construction.
The three-year transition window is the reform's biggest vulnerability
The transition timeline is worth watching. Local governments will be able to adopt the new code from September 2026, with a three-year window to move across. Three years is long. There will be councils that drag their feet, particularly those that have built their own planning cultures around the existing variation. The reform includes a streamlined planning scheme amendment pathway to ease adoption, but the government will need to hold the line on that timeline rather than letting it slip into a permanent optional arrangement.
There is also the question of what this reform cannot do. It simplifies rules; it does not fix land supply, infrastructure funding gaps, or labour shortages in the construction sector. Housing targets like the one million homes by 2044 figure cited in the ministerial statement require not just fewer regulatory barriers but more workers, more materials, and more serviced land. Regulatory simplification is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
As a body of work, Australian housing policy has a poor track record of doing the hard supply-side work while repeatedly reaching for demand-side levers that are politically easier to sell. This reform does not have the political salience of a first home buyer grant. It will not trend. But it is the kind of thing that, if implemented consistently and followed through, actually shifts the structural conditions that determine whether homes get built. That is rarer than it should be.
Sources
The Bearing — Why first home buyer grants make housing less affordable
The Bearing — More-affordable homes, or more affordable homes?
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the new Queensland Housing Code and when does it take effect?
The Queensland Housing Code sets consistent state-wide standards for detached houses and secondary dwellings, covering height, setbacks, site cover, parking, and private open space. It replaces Queensland Development Code provisions that date largely from 2010, with local governments able to adopt it from September 2026.
Why does having different rules across councils make housing more expensive?
When design and siting rules vary across councils, builders and developers operating in multiple areas must re-learn the system each time, accumulating legal and compliance costs that extend approval timelines. Some projects do not proceed not because they are financially unviable, but because the regulatory overhead consumes the margin.
Does the Queensland code lower energy efficiency standards for new homes?
For most new homes, the seven-star energy efficiency requirement stays in place. The code reduces the requirement to five stars only for homes under 50 square metres, and to six stars for raised-floor Queenslander-style construction, where the building form makes full compliance with slab-based insulation rules impractical.
Will planning code reform actually fix Queensland's housing shortage?
Regulatory simplification removes a genuine friction that was slowing construction, but it does not address land supply constraints, infrastructure funding gaps, or labour shortages in the construction sector. It is a necessary condition for hitting housing targets, not a sufficient one.
Why do governments keep using demand-side housing policies instead of supply-side reform?
Demand-side policies — grants, shared equity schemes, stamp duty concessions — hand something directly and visibly to a voter, making them easier to sell politically. Supply-side reforms like planning code simplification are unglamorous, take years to flow through to outcomes, and have no ribbon-cutting moment, even though they address the underlying structural problem.