The Coalition Says Building Rules Are Making Houses Too Expensive. Is That True?
Coalition housing spokesperson Andrew Bragg used a speech at the National Press Club on 12 August 2026 to propose something big: getting rid of compulsory energy standards in the rules that govern how new homes are built. He said a Coalition government would cut those rules — called the National Construction Code — from more than 2,000 pages down to 80. New homes would only need to be 'basic and safe'. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026; Liberal Party, 12 August 2026)
Right now, the code includes rules about how energy-efficient and accessible new homes have to be — things like how well a house keeps in warmth in winter and cool air in summer, or whether a home is designed so people with disabilities can live there. Under Bragg's plan, those rules would become 'optional extras'. He accused the Albanese government of making it 'illegal to build a cheap house in Australia' and called house-building regulation a 'nightmare'. The Coalition calls its version a 'Basic Australian Standard'. The house, Bragg said, 'won't be gold plated'. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026; Liberal Party, 12 August 2026)
The Coalition has been building up to this for a while. It 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 the rules add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home. At a party meeting in Melbourne on 30 May, the code was described as demanding 'woke palaces'. On 9 July, the Opposition Leader said the code is not the only regulation the Coalition would slash. Bragg has been pushing the argument on his own social media 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 plan goes beyond building rules. Bragg also said a Coalition government would cap Net Overseas Migration — the number of people moving to Australia minus those leaving — 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 argument from industry is simple: regulation is what drives up the price of a house. Industry groups told a recent Senate inquiry that changes to the building code over the past seven years added between $3,600 and $33,000 to the cost of a new home. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026; Senate inquiry, date unknown)
But the evidence on that claim is contested. Government analysis found that lifting the minimum energy rating for new homes from six to seven stars — a rating that measures how well a home holds its temperature — would add less than 1 per cent to the average cost of building a home. The Reserve Bank and CSIRO separately found that construction costs barely changed, and in some cases went down, after earlier increases to energy efficiency rules. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026; CSIRO, date unknown)
Critics came out swinging. Luke Menzel, who heads the Energy Efficiency Council, called the proposal a 'cost-of-living timebomb' that would make inequality worse. His council said energy standards are not 'some extraneous bauble' — they make sure homes are safe, comfortable and cheap to run. Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council of Social Service said stripping out energy and accessibility standards would shift costs onto households and leave future generations with homes that are expensive to run and hard to live in. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026)
Liberal treasury spokesperson Tim Wilson had a more colourful take: in some cases people could just put 'a jumper on in winter rather than spending huge amounts of money' on improving housing quality. Bragg himself said 'I love energy efficiency' and that he was 'really passionate' about electrification, but 'we should be for choice'. (The Guardian, 12 August 2026)
This is a familiar political fight. One side says the rules are 'green tape' — unnecessary red tape dressed up as environmental policy — and that cutting them will make houses cheaper. The other side says the rules barely add to the cost of building, and the research from the Reserve Bank and CSIRO backs that up. The Coalition has not engaged with the government's less-than-1-per-cent figure in the material released so far. The 'choice' framing sounds appealing, but making energy efficiency and accessibility voluntary means anyone who can't afford to pay extra gets the bare minimum. That is the real policy fight.
So the claim is: a 2,000-page rulebook is stopping cheap houses, and an 80-page one will fix it. The counter is: the rules in question add, at most, single-digit percentages to the build cost according to government analysis, and previous tightening of the rules did not cause the price spikes industry now claims. Both arguments are now on the table.
