Bragg at the Press Club: Coalition's 80-page code would make energy standards optional
Coalition housing and environment spokesperson Andrew Bragg used a National Press Club address on 12 August 2026 to propose scrapping compulsory energy standards in the National Construction Code, telling the room a Coalition government would cut the code from more than 2,000 pages to 80 and strip away all requirements for new homes beyond demanding they were 'basic and safe'. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026; Liberal Party, 12 August 2026)
Under the proposal, longstanding compulsory energy and accessibility measures in the code would become 'optional extras'. Bragg accused the Albanese government of making it 'illegal to build a cheap house in Australia' and described house construction regulation as a 'nightmare'. The Coalition's framework for what it calls a 'Basic Australian Standard' is, Bragg said, some 2,000 pages shorter than Labor's National Construction Code, and the house 'won't be gold plated'. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026; Liberal Party, 12 August 2026)
This is not a new line of march. The Coalition flagged the direction in its Budget Address in Reply on 14 May 2026, saying Labor had expanded the code to more than 2,000 pages and that its thousands of rules add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home. At the 65th Federal Council in Melbourne on 30 May, the party characterised the code's pages as demanding 'woke palaces'. At the Sydney Institute on 9 July, the Leader of the Opposition said the code is not the only regulation the Coalition would slash and that new responsibilities would be imposed on Australia's regulators. Bragg has been running the argument on his own channels since at least June. (Liberal Party, 14 May 2026; Liberal Party, 30 May 2026; Liberal Party, 9 July 2026; YouTube, 15 June 2026; Facebook, 30 June 2026)
The policy envelope is wider than the code itself. Bragg also told the Press Club a Coalition government would set Net Overseas Migration at about 180,000. The West Australian reported the same day that the package involves scrapping energy efficiency rules and bringing in more migrant builders and fewer baristas. (The Conversation, 12 August 2026; The West Australian via Facebook, 12 August 2026)
The industry pitch behind the policy is straightforward: regulation is the cost driver. Industry groups argued at a recent Senate inquiry that changes to the construction code over the past seven years had added between $3,600 and $33,000 to the cost of a new home. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026; Senate inquiry, date unknown)
The evidence on that cost claim is contested. Government analysis found increasing the minimum residential energy rating from six to seven stars would increase the average capital cost of building a home by less than 1 per cent. The Reserve Bank and CSIRO separately found construction costs barely changed, and in some cases decreased, after previous increases in energy efficiency requirements. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026; CSIRO, date unknown)
Pushback from the sector was sharp. Energy Efficiency Council chief executive Luke Menzel condemned the proposal as a 'cost-of-living timebomb' that would deepen inequality. The council said minimum housing energy standards were not 'some extraneous bauble' but made sure homes were safe, comfortable and affordable to run. Australian Council of Social Service chief executive Cassandra Goldie said stripping out energy efficiency and accessibility standards would shift costs onto households, deepen inequality and leave future generations with homes that are expensive to run and difficult to live in. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026)
Liberal treasury spokesperson Tim Wilson offered a more colourful defence: in some cases people could put 'a jumper on in winter rather than spending huge amounts of money' on improving housing quality. Bragg himself responded to criticism by saying 'I love energy efficiency' and that he was 'really passionate' about electrification, but that 'we should be for choice'. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026)
The politics here are familiar: a deregulation pitch that frames standards as green tape, pitched against analysis that says the standards barely move the dial on build cost. The RBA and CSIRO work sits on the public record; the Coalition has not engaged with the less-than-1-per-cent figure in the material released so far. The 'choice' framing does the heavy lifting: making energy efficiency and accessibility voluntary means the floor becomes the ceiling for any buyer who is not in a position to pay extra. That is the policy fight.
So the claim is: a 2,000-page code is stopping cheap houses, and an 80-page code will fix it. The counter is: the code provisions in question add, at most, single-digit percentages to build cost according to government analysis, and previous tightening did not produce the cost spike industry now claims. Both arguments are now on the table.
