Australia’s housing affordability crisis is driving renewed debate about whether the National Construction Code (NCC) has become too complex and whether a radically simplified approach could help accelerate housing construction.

An ABC report examines a proposal from Opposition housing spokesperson Senator Andrew Bragg to reduce the more than 2,200-page NCC to a streamlined mandatory “Basic Australian Standard” of around 80–90 pages. The proposed framework draws on New Zealand’s approach, where an 83-page mandatory building code is supported by a range of compliance pathways and additional requirements.

Under the proposal, the simplified core would establish essential requirements for structural integrity, fire safety, health, amenity and basic energy efficiency, with additional provisions applying to more sophisticated buildings. A national “pattern book” containing pre-approved housing designs is also proposed to help fast-track approvals and support prefabricated and modular construction.

The debate is closely linked to growing interest in Modern Methods of Construction (MMC), including prefabrication, off-site manufacturing and modular housing. The Productivity Commission has reported that these approaches could reduce housing costs by up to 20 per cent and construction times by up to 50 per cent, while potentially improving quality, safety, productivity and environmental performance.

Importantly, there is emerging bipartisan and industry support for removing regulatory barriers to MMC. Federal, state and territory treasurers have agreed to review these barriers, while the Australian Building Codes Board is developing a national voluntary certification scheme for prefabricated construction manufacturers.

For the construction products sector, the debate highlights the potential importance of simpler, nationally consistent regulation in enabling innovation, off-site manufacturing and more efficient housing delivery.

However, a new Insurance Business analysis highlights why New Zealand’s experience warrants careful consideration. Its 83-page code does not operate in isolation: it sits within a broader system of acceptable solutions and verification pathways. New Zealand’s earlier shift towards performance-based regulation was also associated with the “leaky building crisis”, with approximately 42,000 homes affected by weathertightness defects between 1992 and 2005 and estimated remediation costs of NZ$11.3 billion.

The lesson is not that simpler regulation is inherently unsafe, but that page count should not be confused with regulatory simplicity or effectiveness. For Australia, the challenge will be designing a streamlined NCC that removes unnecessary complexity while retaining robust performance requirements, appropriate compliance pathways and safeguards against unintended consequences.

With MMC increasingly viewed as an opportunity to improve housing productivity, the debate has significant implications for building-product manufacturers and suppliers. A more efficient, nationally consistent regulatory framework could help unlock innovation—but only if simplification strengthens, rather than weakens, confidence in building performance and safety.