The National Construction Code has become the focus of a growing political debate after the Opposition spokesperson put forward a proposal to reform the framework that sets minimum standards for buildings across Australia.
The Australian Institute of Architects has responded to the proposal, acknowledging that parts of the Code needs attention while cautioning against changes that go too far.
The Institute said it supports efforts to modernise and simplify the Code, noting that architects have raised concerns about how the current system works in practice.
Members have pointed to the Code’s reliance on performance-based solutions in cases where deemed-to-comply provisions do not exist, a process members say can slow down approvals and add cost to projects, ultimately affecting how much can be built.
However, the Institute stopped short of endorsing the scale of change being proposed.
The Australian Institute of Architects National President David Wagner said the Code’s minimum standards should be strengthened, not weakened, adding: “We don’t believe a wholesale slashing of the Code in the way that’s proposed is the way to do it.”
Wagner also raised specific concerns about proposals that could see requirements such as energy efficiency and accessibility treated as optional rather than mandatory.
On energy efficiency, he said: “It can be the difference between whether someone on a low income can afford to heat their house or not in winter.”
He raised similar concerns about accessibility, telling reporters: “It’s crucial for supporting an ageing population and people with [disabilities].”
The comments highlight a broader tension in the debate over the Code, between calls to cut red tape and reduce costs in the construction sector, and concerns from professional bodies that some protections exist for good reason.
The Institute described the Code as a critical piece of national infrastructure, one that underpins emissions reduction, construction productivity, safety and long-term climate resilience.
Its position is that while the Code can be made simpler and easier to use, this should not come at the cost of the baseline protections that keep buildings safe, secure and liveable for the people who occupy them.
The exchange comes amid ongoing scrutiny of how Australia regulates building standards, with the construction sector under pressure to deliver housing more quickly and affordably.
Proposals to streamline regulatory frameworks have found support across parts of the industry, particularly where compliance processes are seen as adding time and cost without a clear corresponding benefit.
At the same time, groups representing architects and other building professionals have consistently argued that any reform needs to preserve, rather than erode, the standards that protect occupants and support broader policy goals such as reducing emissions and improving accessibility.
The debate is likely to continue as further details of the reform proposal emerge, with industry bodies expected to weigh in on where the balance should be struck between simplifying the Code and maintaining the protections it currently provides.