Let's hope the fed's $30m red tape scissors for WA will work
Perth's planning system has 800 land-use definitions and 269 zones. Canberra is paying $30 million to fix it — but will the scissors cut or just add new loops?
Let's hope the fed's $30m red tape scissors for WA will work
The federal government is paying Western Australia almost $30 million to untangle one of the country's most convoluted planning systems. More than 800 separate land-use terms and 269 distinct zones have accumulated over decades in Perth and the Peel Region, where 85 per cent of the state's development happens. The wager is that rationalising this thicket, centralising some approvals, and adding a digital lodgement portal will translate into faster construction and more homes.
Perth's planning system is a maze no one designed but everyone maintains
Western Australia's planning rules grew like a house extended by successive owners who never knocked down a wall. Each new overlay, each environmental safeguard, each community consultation requirement was added for a reason. Together they create a maze that developers must navigate at considerable expense and delay. The cost is not abstract. Longer approval times tie up capital, raise holding costs, and make marginal projects unviable. In a market already squeezed by construction costs and labour shortages, complexity acts as a hidden tax on new supply.
The funded reforms target the worst of it. The bulk of the money supports a consolidated zoning lexicon and fewer zones across the metropolitan area. That should make it easier for commercial and mixed-use developments to proceed without constant rezoning battles. Ten train-station precincts will see higher-density residential and mixed-use proposals routed through the WA Planning Commission rather than multiple local governments, removing one layer of veto power. A new fast-track process for renewable energy and strategic industrial projects, backed by a Coordinator General, aims to stop worthy initiatives from dying in committee. A digital portal for subdivision applications is prosaic but useful; four weeks saved per application compounds quickly when hundreds are in the queue. The package also encourages modern methods of construction, an area where Australia lags peers who treat building more like manufacturing and less like artisanal craft.
Cutting red tape is not a slogan here; it is a direct attack on one of the identifiable cost drivers.
Scepticism is reasonable, but the design earns some trust
Scepticism is reasonable. Bureaucratic reform often replaces one form of friction with another. Local councils may resent losing discretion. Community groups can still mobilise against density near stations, however sensible the location. The Coordinator General's office could become just another body to consult. And simplifying definitions on paper does not automatically change behaviour on the ground if the underlying incentives, such as stamp duty or infrastructure charges, remain misaligned.
Yet the design contains guardrails that improve its chances. Funding is paid only after milestones are met, aligning state and federal incentives better than blank-cheque transfers. The focus on precincts around existing train lines leverages infrastructure already built, reducing the usual excuse that "we can't add people without new roads and schools." And the emphasis on commercial as well as residential zoning recognises that housing does not exist in isolation; shops, offices and services must come with it or the places people want to live never fully form.
Queensland's simplification experiment points the way
Queensland's recent housing code simplification offers a useful parallel. By updating design and siting rules that had not been touched for years, that state showed that pruning prescriptive standards can expand feasible building envelopes without sacrificing reasonable amenity. Early evidence there points to more approved dwellings per hectare in targeted zones. Western Australia's effort is broader but follows the same logic: reduce the regulatory burden that has accumulated without anyone ever measuring the cumulative drag.
This package is one piece of a larger national reform push
The package sits inside the refreshed National Competition Policy, which also unlocks money for heavy vehicle productivity, expanded health worker scope of practice, and harmonised electrical goods standards. Each targets a different choke point in the economy. The heavy vehicles stream alone is projected to contribute to national GDP gains of up to $4.4 billion a year if fully adopted across states. That broader context matters. Isolated planning tweaks rarely transform housing supply; they work best when paired with reforms that improve transport efficiency, labour mobility and input costs.
Australia's housing shortage is not mysterious. We have under-built for years relative to population growth. Part of the fix is financial, part cultural, but a large slice is regulatory. Byzantine planning systems raise the bar for new entrants, favour large incumbents who can afford compliance teams, and slow the pace at which land can respond to demand. Cutting red tape is not a slogan here; it is a direct attack on one of the identifiable cost drivers.
None of this guarantees success. Implementation will be messy, vested interests will push back, and some projects will still be held up for good reasons. But the structure of this deal, milestone-based funding, targeted precincts, digital tools, and a focus on measurable process improvements, gives it a better than average chance of delivering tangible results. If Western Australia can show that rationalising 800 definitions into a leaner set actually puts more roofs over heads, the $29.8 million will look cheap. Other states watching the experiment may find the political cover to wield their own scissors.
The timber frame is already standing in Perth's outer suburbs. Red tape still wraps it from footing to roof truss. This time the official with the shears is being paid to cut, not add another loop. Australians should hope the blades are sharp.
Sources
Treasury Ministers — Productivity package to boost housing supply and construction in Western Australia
The Bearing — Housing code simplification might actually make more homes
CEDA — Rent freezes will worsen, not solve, Australia's rental crisis
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does Western Australia have so many planning zones?
Perth and the Peel Region have accumulated more than 800 separate land-use terms and 269 distinct zones over decades, each added incrementally by different levels of government for different purposes. No single authority ever measured the cumulative drag this complexity imposes on new development.
How will the $29.8 million actually be spent?
The bulk of the funding supports consolidating the zoning lexicon and reducing the number of zones across the metropolitan area, with additional money for a digital subdivision portal, a new Coordinator General's office, fast-track pathways for strategic projects, and centralised approvals for higher-density housing near ten train stations. Funding is tied to milestones rather than paid upfront.
Will simplifying planning rules actually build more homes?
Regulatory simplification removes one real cost driver — complexity raises holding costs, deters small developers, and makes marginal projects unviable — but it is not sufficient on its own. The reform works best when paired with aligned incentives on stamp duty, infrastructure charges, transport efficiency, and labour availability.
What happened when Queensland simplified its housing code?
Queensland updated design and siting rules that had not been revised for years, and early indications point to more approved dwellings per hectare in targeted zones. Western Australia's reform is broader in scope but follows the same logic of reducing prescriptive standards to expand what can feasibly be built.
Can other states copy what Western Australia is doing?
If the WA reforms demonstrably reduce approval times and lift housing supply, they would give other state governments a practical template and political cover to attempt similar consolidations. The milestone-based federal funding model is itself replicable as a mechanism for aligning state behaviour with national housing targets.