For over 13 years, the HIA has been pushing for Queensland to adopt a single mandatory housing code. The productivity cost of the status quo is now estimated at more than $200 million a year. Industry insiders say the excuses have run out.

Every time a builder works across two Queensland council areas, they potentially deal with two different sets of rules for how a house sits on a block. Do it across ten councils and the problem multiplies.

That is the reality facing residential builders in Queensland today, and it is a reality that Michael Roberts, Executive Director Queensland at the Housing Industry Association, has been fighting to change for more than a decade.

In a recent LinkedIn post that quickly drew attention from across the construction industry, Roberts made his frustration clear.

“For over 13 years I have been advocating for the Queensland Development Code to be updated and made mandatory,” Roberts wrote. “The idea that 77 Councils in Qld are allowed to develop boutique requirements for the siting of a house on a residential block beggars belief.”

The post cuts to the core of a problem that has long sat in the background of Queensland’s housing debate. While policy discussions tend to focus on the number of homes being built, or the cost of materials and labour, the rules that govern something as basic as where a house sits on its block have been quietly fragmenting across three-quarters of the state’s councils for years.

A $200 Million Productivity Problem

The dollar figure Roberts put on the problem is difficult to ignore.

HIA estimates the productivity cost of navigating 77 different council siting rules exceeds $200 million annually. That figure represents time and money spent not building homes, but simply working out which rules apply in which area.

It is not a niche industry gripe. The Queensland Productivity Commission has independently validated the concern. In its review of the construction sector, the Commission found that inconsistencies between planning and building codes across local government areas create unnecessary costs and make it harder for builders to optimise materials, designs and processes.

“HIA estimates the cost in lost productivity, just working out the rules, exceeds $200m annually. The Queensland Productivity Commission agrees.” — Michael Roberts, HIA Queensland

The commission’s interim report, released in 2025, noted submissions from industry bodies including the HIA pointing to the regulatory complexity created by councils operating with different design and siting requirements. The finding was consistent with what builders on the ground have experienced for years.

Put simply: a builder moving between council areas is not just dealing with different landscapes or demographics. They are dealing with a different regulatory environment that requires time, effort and often specialist advice just to understand before a single slab has been poured.

What the Queensland Development Code Was Supposed to Do

The Queensland Development Code has long contained design and siting standards for single detached dwellings. The problem is that these have never been made mandatory across the state.

Currently, 56 of Queensland’s 77 local governments use alternative provisions in their own planning schemes rather than the state code. Each council is permitted to develop its own “boutique requirements,” to use Roberts’ word, for how houses are positioned, setback, and designed relative to their lot.

The result is a patchwork of rules that no single resource easily maps.

For builders operating across a region, or for volume builders working statewide, this is not a theoretical inconvenience. It adds real cost. It slows design and assessment processes. It increases the risk of non-compliance when teams are not across every local variation. And it makes the already demanding job of running a residential building business harder than it needs to be.

The Character Argument, and Why Roberts Calls It Out

The argument councils tend to reach for when resisting a uniform code is that local rules protect the unique character of their area. Roberts does not accept this.

“Local Governments continue to throw around protecting their unique character and streetscape as a reason to oppose adoption of the code,” he wrote. “I am on record calling this BS, and I continue to believe that elements such as topography, vegetation, the era of construction and the level of pride taken by homeowners in the appearance of their house has a far larger impact on the uniqueness of an area than council rules will ever have.”

It is a view grounded in practical observation. The character of a suburb in Queensland is not primarily the product of setback rules or site coverage calculations. It is shaped by geography, the age of its housing stock, the materials typical of its era, and the way residents maintain and adapt their homes over time.

Regulatory siting rules are a blunt instrument. They may have some effect at the margins, but claiming they are the mechanism that protects a suburb’s identity is a significant overstatement of what they actually do.

The Reform Is Now Moving

After more than a decade of advocacy, there is now genuine movement.

In June 2025, the Crisafulli Government opened a six-week public consultation on a draft Queensland Housing Code. The proposed code would replace the existing design and siting provisions in the Queensland Development Code with a single, consistent set of rules for detached homes on single lots across the state.

The government’s own framing acknowledged the problem directly. Over 70 per cent of new homes built in Queensland are detached dwellings. Yet design and siting requirements have not been updated in over a decade and three-quarters of councils have moved to their own alternative standards.

The Property Council Queensland, which has long advocated for a single statewide housing code, noted that Queensland is the only state in Australia not to have adopted one. That context matters. Other states resolved this issue years ago. Queensland’s fragmentation is not inevitable. It is the product of political inertia.

Queensland is the only state in Australia not to have adopted a single housing code. That adds complexity for industry trying to build housing across different local government areas.

What Builders Need to Know

For residential builders in Queensland, particularly those who work across council boundaries or operate in multiple regions, a mandatory uniform housing code would represent a meaningful reduction in administrative burden.

Cleaner rules mean simpler design processes. Consistent standards mean staff and certifiers do not need to carry a mental map of 77 variations in their head. It reduces the risk of errors, reduces the time spent on compliance assessment, and should translate to faster project timelines.

It also has implications for supply. Every hour spent navigating regulatory inconsistency is an hour not spent building. At a time when Queensland is under sustained pressure to increase housing supply, removing friction from the front end of the building process matters.

The consultation period for the draft Queensland Housing Code has now closed. The industry will be watching closely to see whether the final code delivers on the consistency that builders have been asking for, and whether it is actually made mandatory.

Roberts has been pushing for this for over 13 years. The advocacy has not changed. The data has not changed. What has changed is that the government is finally moving.

Now it needs to land.

The Good Builder Takeaway

A mandatory statewide housing code will not solve Queensland’s housing supply challenges on its own. But removing $200 million in annual productivity waste from the residential building sector is not a small thing. Builders deserve a regulatory environment that is consistent, predictable, and fit for purpose. A single code is the baseline. It is well past time Queensland got there.

More home builder news: Victoria’s Planning System Is Costing Builders Years. A New Industry Blueprint Wants to Change That.

General Information: This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Readers should seek appropriate professional advice before acting on any information contained in this article.

Author: TGB Editorial