Building (Approvals and Practitioners) Bill 2026 - Second Read Speech
The Greens will be supporting the Building (Approvals and Practitioners) Bill 2026. We do so recognising that reform to the building approvals and certification system is necessary, and that the current system is not delivering the outcomes that the community expects, either in terms of housing supply or building quality.
But from the outset we make clear that our support is not unqualified, particularly because a lot of the rules will be left to regulations, which I will address. While this bill establishes a new framework, much of what will determine whether it succeeds or fails has been deferred to regulations. We know that this Government is doing that a lot and that it creates very real risks.
According to the Government's statement of public interest, this bill is being introduced in the context of a significant housing shortfall and ambitious housing delivery targets. The Government says that the current system is too slow, too complex and not delivering the number of homes required, and that reform is needed to improve productivity and increase housing completions. All of us in this place understand that New South Wales is in a housing crisis. But we also know that speed and volume cannot come at the expense of quality and accountability. We have seen what happens when the system fails, as shown by the building defects crisis, which has left thousands of residents exposed to enormous financial risks. This bill is trying to navigate both of those realities.
Members know the history behind this bill. It was preceded by bills like the Design and Building Practitioners Bill, which came about as a result of the housing defects crisis and the inquiries of the former Public Accountability Committee into that crisis and building legislation, which we have previously spoken about at length. After all that, this bill is finally before the House today. The bill states that, at its core, it represents a major restructuring of the building approvals framework in New South Wales, and it does do that. It repeals and replaces key existing legislation and seeks to consolidate approval processes into a single, integrated system.
The Government says it is aiming to reduce duplication and create a more streamlined and efficient approvals pathway. One of the key mechanisms for doing that is integrating design and building declaration requirements introduced under earlier reforms directly into the building approvals process. In practice, that means designs prepared by registered practitioners can be relied upon more directly at the approval stage, rather than being dealt with through overlapping or parallel processes. The Government says that this should reduce administrative burden and improve clarity around responsibility.
Another significant feature of the bill is the introduction of more flexible approval pathways. The bill provides for staged approvals, so that different parts of a project can commence earlier, rather than waiting for all approvals to be finalised up-front. It also enables approval authorities to deal with variations during construction, rather than requiring projects to restart approval processes for relatively minor changes. These are practical changes that reflect how complex construction projects operate in reality, and they have the potential to reduce delays and improve efficiency. The bill is a significant step towards moving to a digital approvals framework, replacing outdated paper‑based processes and leveraging platforms like the NSW Planning Portal. The intention is to create a more streamlined, transparent and coordinated system, including a single source of project information. In principle, this is a sensible reform which stakeholders support.
A further key element of the bill is its recognition of modern methods of construction, including prefabricated and modular housing. It does this by removing regulatory barriers and creating a consistent framework for prefabricated building work within the approvals system. This includes enabling consumer protections to apply to prefabricated buildings and supporting their integration into mainstream construction. Given the potential of modern methods of construction to reduce build time and costs, this is an important area of reform that The Greens support. The bill also addresses issues of regulatory oversight and confidence. The Government says that it is introducing clearer conflict of interest rules for approval authorities—particularly certifiers—and strengthening penalties for breaches. The intention is to improve public confidence in the system by ensuring independence and accountability in decision-making.
The bill also continues the broader shift towards greater accountability across the construction chain, including duties of care and regulatory oversight. Another feature of the bill is the creation of a framework for dealing with building defects. The Government says that it is enabling regulations to establish earlier and more cost-effective dispute resolution processes, particularly for residential buildings. The aim is to avoid protracted and expensive court proceedings and provide faster outcomes for consumers. However, it is concerning that the dispute resolution process is left to regulations that are not in the legislation. We will address that in Committee.
Taken together, these reforms represent a significant shift in how building approvals and oversight will operate in New South Wales. There are elements here that are clearly positive. The Australian Institute of Architects has described the bill as a significant reform initiative that has the potential to improve coordination and accountability across the sector. But critically, that same organisation and many others also make clear that the success of this framework will depend on what happens next. The most significant concern, as I have stated, is the extent to which this bill leaves critical detail to regulations. The Government itself acknowledges that much of the operational detail supporting the reforms will be contained in regulations that are yet to be developed. In other words, Parliament is being asked to pass a framework without seeing how many of the key components will actually work.
The Australian Institute of Architects is explicit in its concern that substantial matters remain unresolved and deferred to regulations. This includes the definition of "registered work", the structure of practitioner registration, how prefabrication pathways will operate in practice, the proportionality of regulatory obligations across different project types and the insurance implications of the new system. To use the definition of "registered work" as an example, the bill creates the framework, but enables regulations to determine what work requires registration. The institute has raised serious concerns that, without clarity, this could result in overlapping responsibilities, duplication of compliance obligations and the unintended capture of broader professional advisory services.
Another key concern is the risk of duplication. Architects are already subject to a statutory registration system under the Architects Act, yet the bill does not clearly ensure that they will not also be required to register again as design practitioners. The institute has made clear that explicit recognition of existing registration frameworks is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication and cost. If that is not addressed in the regulations, it risks undermining the Government's objective of reducing red tape.
Similarly, the bill rightly supports prefabrication, but the detail is critical. The institute identifies unresolved issues around certification pathways for offshore manufactured modules, compliance timing, inspection processes and the practical implementation of regulatory requirements. Without clear and workable settings, there is a real risk that regulation could stifle rather than support innovation. There are also significant concerns about the bill's implications for insurance and liability settings—issues that go directly to whether projects proceed at all. The Australian Institute of Architects has already warned that uncertainty around the scope of registered work and expanded statutory obligations may affect insurance availability and affordability. But similar concerns have also been raised by the development sector.
We Greens do not always agree with the Urban Development Institute of Australia. However, some of the issues it raises in this case warrant consideration. The UDIA points, in particular, to the ongoing impacts of the recent Pafburn decision. However, we have also received correspondence from the owners' corporation about the importance of that decision. That highlights how much of a careful balance is required in the Act and in the regulations which, of course, we do not know the detail of. That highlights a broader point: The details of liability insurance and risk allocation, many of which will be ultimately shaped through regulation and their interaction with existing law in the Act, must be worked through with great care.
There are also concerns around enforcement powers and proportionality. The bill includes procedural safeguards, but stakeholders have raised legitimate questions about whether penalties are proportionate, how the system will deal with minor or administrative errors, and overlap with existing disciplinary frameworks. The institute has specifically called for continued structured consultation and access to draft regulations. I think that is a reasonable expectation. In fact, the statement of public interest to the bill acknowledges that much of the operational detail supporting implementation will be set out in the regulations. The statement of public interest also promises:
Extensive public and agency consultation will be undertaken to assist with drafting of supporting regulations. This process is intended to ensure the regulations are fit for purpose and that the benefits for industry and consumers outweigh any costs. An implementation plan will be developed to ensure change management activities can prepare industry for changes and minimise any potential disruption to productivity.
That certainly implies that the Government is going to consult on the regulations with all of the key stakeholders it has been consulting with on the building reforms, including the architects association—not just consulting but ensuring that those important stakeholders that have been such a part of this reform process over many years get an active say in the regulations that are obviously going to shape the bill if it passes. The Greens support the bill. We understand why the reform is needed. Many elements of the bill are important but, once again, it is frustrating how much important and significant detail is left to the regulations. I will have more to say on that in the Committee stage.