The consultation draft runs to twelve sections and leaves every number to regulations that have not been written. Two things are already fixed in the drafting, and both raise questions worth putting in a submission before 4 September.
Tasmania released the consultation draft of its Modular Housing Finance Guarantee Bill 2026 on 19 August. Submissions close at the end of business on 4 September.
The problem it is aimed at is one the whole industry recognises. A home being built inside a factory is not attached to land. There is no rising security for a lender to point at while the money is going out the door. So finance either does not come, or it arrives late, and someone in the chain carries the work in progress until the modules are craned into place.
The Bill is short. Twelve sections, drafted in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and dated 18 August. Most of the scheme is not in it. Eligibility criteria, guarantee limits, the circumstances in which a guarantee lapses, and the terms of the Deed of Guarantee are all left to regulations and scheme documents that Treasury says are still being developed.
That makes the drafting itself worth reading closely, because what is fixed in an Act is much harder to shift later than what sits in regulation.
The guarantee attaches to the buyer’s loan
Section 8 is the operative provision. It allows the Treasurer, on behalf of the State, to guarantee repayment by an eligible purchaser of money that purchaser has borrowed.
An eligible purchaser is defined in section 3 as a natural person. Not a company. Not a builder.
So this is not a builder working capital facility. It is a consumer construction loan with a State guarantee sitting behind part of it.
The benefit to the builder is real, but it arrives indirectly. If a buyer’s lender will fund progress payments during the factory phase, the builder gets paid while the modules are being made rather than funding that stage off its own balance sheet. That is the cash flow shift the scheme is reaching for, and for a modular operator it is the whole game.
Section 8(3) adds something worth noting. Before a guarantee is given, the purchaser must execute whatever deeds and instruments the Treasurer requires. The guarantee gives the lender comfort. It does not release the borrower.
A public government list of approved builders, with each builder’s conditions published beside their name, is a commercial asset. Being absent from it is a commercial fact.
Approved builders will be named, and so will their conditions
Section 6 lets the Minister approve a person as an approved builder. The threshold is that the person either is a building services provider within the meaning of the Occupational Licensing Act 2005, or holds a prescribed qualification, authorisation or approval. Approval can be granted subject to whatever conditions the Minister considers appropriate.
The first limb points at Tasmania’s builder licensing regime, which is administered through Consumer, Building and Occupational Services. The second limb is deliberately open, and it matters later.
Then section 7(2) does something that was not in the announcement. It requires the Minister to ensure that a list of approved builders, and a summary of the conditions imposed on each of them, is published on the Department’s website.
That is a public register. In a sector where most operators are small and reputation travels faster than any marketing budget, a government list of builders cleared to sell into a finance backed scheme carries weight. So does a published condition sitting next to a name.
One contract, from design to practical completion
Section 5 sets out what makes a loan agreement eligible. Inside it is a requirement that sits awkwardly against how a lot of modular work is currently papered.
The loan has to relate to a contract between the purchaser and an approved builder that covers each stage of the construction process for the modular home from design to practical completion.
Split contracts are common in this space. A supply contract for the factory built modules, and a separate contract for site works, footings, services and installation. Sometimes with different entities on each side of the split, and sometimes for good reasons involving warranty and risk allocation.
The Bill does not address how that requirement applies to a split. It asks for a contract covering each stage from design to practical completion. It does not say whether two contracts that between them cover the same ground would meet that description, and nothing else in the draft resolves the point.
That leaves an open question for any manufacturer that does not hold the site works, and for any builder who installs modules made by someone else. It is also the kind of question a consultation period exists to settle, which makes it the clearest single thing for industry to put in writing before 4 September.
There is a broader point sitting underneath it. The way a residential building contract is structured can decide whether a job is financeable at all, well before anyone argues about the price.
Only banks, credit unions and building societies
Section 4 confines eligible lenders to authorised deposit taking institutions that meet prescribed criteria. That is the group regulated by APRA. Banks, credit unions, building societies.
Everyone else sits outside the scheme at the level of the Act rather than the regulations, which means widening it would take an amending Bill rather than a regulation change. Some of the more flexible lending in the prefabricated space has come from outside that group. Under this drafting, none of it is eligible.
Section 5(e) adds a further layer. The loan agreement itself has to be in a form, and contain content, approved by the Minister. Participating lenders will be working from a Minister approved document rather than their own paper.
The definition of a modular home is wider than the announcement
The Bill defines a modular home as a structure that is to be used as residential premises and is constructed, or is to be constructed, at a location other than where it will be used.
That is the whole test. There is no requirement in the Bill that the structure be transported and permanently affixed to land, which is how the scheme has been described publicly. That condition would have to come through the prescribed criteria.
There is also no requirement that the home be manufactured in Tasmania. Section 5 asks that it be constructed, or assembled, in Tasmania by an approved builder. Assembled is the lower bar of the two.
What that distinction means for a module manufactured on the mainland and assembled locally is not spelled out anywhere in the draft. It sits alongside the second limb of the approved builder test, which allows for a prescribed qualification or authorisation rather than requiring a Tasmanian licence.
Whether the drafting is intended to work that way will presumably be settled in the regulations. For mainland manufacturers looking across Bass Strait, it is worth reading while consultation is still open.
The numbers are not in the Bill
Section 8(2) says the Treasurer must not guarantee principal above a prescribed maximum for an individual loan agreement, and above a prescribed total, if any.
Those two limbs are not equivalent. The individual cap must be prescribed. The aggregate cap carries a qualifier. As drafted, the Act does not compel a ceiling on the State’s total exposure.
Section 9 then provides that payments to lenders under a guarantee come out of the Public Account, appropriated to the extent necessary, without requiring any further authority at the time of payment.
The taper described publicly, where the guarantee reduces as construction progresses and ends once the home is installed, does not appear in the Bill either. Section 11 allows regulations to deal with when a guarantee lapses, expires or becomes void. That is where the taper will live.
So consultation is open on the frame, not the numbers. Anyone with a view on guarantee limits, purchaser eligibility or how quickly the guarantee unwinds is commenting on documents that have not been drafted yet.
Why this matters outside Tasmania
Every state has the same gap. A factory built home has no rising land security during exactly the phase when most of the money is spent.
The market has been working around that rather than solving it.
Commonwealth Bank changed its prefabricated construction lending policy to allow progress payments during off site production. New South Wales has funded modern methods of construction grants and is building a regulatory framework around them. Western Australia has run modular procurement at scale through its social housing programs.
Tasmania is the first to put the problem into a Bill.
That makes this draft a template whether or not it turns out to be the right one. Other treasuries will read it. Whatever survives consultation becomes the reference point for the next state that tries, and the first version of anything tends to set the shape of everything that follows.
Which is why the drafting choices deserve more attention than the announcement did. A public register of approved builders with published conditions, a single contract requirement from design to practical completion, and eligibility confined to authorised deposit taking institutions are not administrative detail. They are the scheme.
Consultation closes at the end of business on 4 September. Submissions go to the Financial Policy team at the Department of Treasury and Finance, and every submission is published unless confidentiality is requested in writing at the time of lodgement.
THE GOOD BUILDER TAKE
The notable thing about this Bill is not that a government has finally legislated for the modular finance gap. It is how much of the scheme is already decided by four short drafting choices.
One contract, from design through to practical completion. One approved builder holding the whole scope. One category of lender. One published list, with conditions attached to each name on it.
Read together, those point towards an integrated operator who manufactures and installs under a single head contract. Whether they also shut out the supply and install split that a good share of the market runs on is not settled on the face of the draft. Nobody outside Treasury can answer it yet, and the draft is what is open for comment right now.
The regulations carrying the numbers are still being drafted, which means the frame is the only thing on the table right now. The frame is also the part that is hardest to change later.
Frequently asked questions
It is a Tasmanian consultation draft Bill that would let the Treasurer guarantee, on behalf of the State, the repayment of loans taken out by individuals to buy modular homes. It is aimed at the period when a home is being built in a factory and there is no land based security for a lender to rely on. The draft was released on 19 August 2026 and consultation closes on 4 September 2026.
The lender. Section 8 allows the State to guarantee repayment of money borrowed by an eligible purchaser, and section 9 provides for payments to be made to the lender when the guarantee is called on. Section 8(3) requires the purchaser to execute whatever deeds the Treasurer requires before a guarantee is given, so the borrower remains liable. Builders benefit indirectly, because a lender willing to fund the factory phase means progress payments can flow while the modules are being built.
The draft does not answer this directly. Section 5 requires the home to be constructed, or assembled, in Tasmania by an approved builder, which treats construction and assembly as different things. Section 6 allows the Minister to approve a builder who holds a prescribed qualification, authorisation or approval as an alternative to holding a Tasmanian building services provider licence. The regulations that would settle how those provisions operate together have not been drafted.
The draft does not say. Section 5 requires the loan to relate to a contract between the purchaser and an approved builder that covers each stage of the construction process from design to practical completion. It does not address whether a separate supply contract and a separate site works contract, taken together, meet that description. That silence is one of the clearest points for industry to raise in a submission before consultation closes.
Consultation closes at the end of business on 4 September 2026, with written submissions going to the Financial Policy team at the Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance. Submissions are treated as public documents and published unless confidentiality is requested in writing at the time of lodgement. After that, the Government will finalise the Bill for introduction to Parliament, and the supporting regulations and Deed of Guarantee, which carry the guarantee limits and eligibility criteria, will be developed separately.
Related Articles
Canada is about to find out whether a government can order its way to a modular industry
A $27 million modular program will put 54 social homes across the Wheatbelt
Hearing about how modular is actually being financed and delivered on the ground? The Good Builder Podcast talks to the builders doing it. Listen in, or get in touch with the newsroom if you have something the industry should know about.
This article is general information only. It reflects a consultation draft Bill that had not been introduced to the Tasmanian Parliament at the time of writing and may change before enactment. It does not take into account your particular circumstances and should not be relied on as legal, financial or professional guidance. Anyone considering their position under the proposed scheme should seek independent professional assistance.
0 Comments