While Australia continues to invest in factories, automation and manufacturing capacity, a quieter change is taking place around them: governments are beginning to build the rules that determine whether factory made housing can move through the wider building system with confidence.
Much of Australia’s discussion of modern methods of construction (MMC) has centred on factories, workforce capacity and faster production. Those priorities remain visible in programs such as NSW’s MMC industry expansion program and Victoria’s MMC statement.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Alongside them, policy is moving beyond the factory gate: into definitions, certification, approvals, procurement, responsibility and consumer protection. Together, these reforms mark the beginnings of a second policy layer around MMC.
The national reform reaches beyond certification
The clearest recent signal came in mid-July, when the Australian Building Codes Board opened consultation on the proposed national voluntary certification scheme for manufacturers of prefabricated construction.
The package now includes a proposed NCC definition, draft scheme rules and an economic analysis. Consultation closes on 15 September 2026.
This moves the reform from a 2025 issues paper outlining principles and options, to a draft operating framework. The questions are now more concrete: what falls within the Scheme, what is being certified, what evidence manufacturers must retain, how audits and surveillance operate, and whether work certified under the Scheme can be recognised across states without the same evidence being assessed again.
The scope has also become more specific. The 2025 consultation was framed around manufacturers of MMC and nationally consistent MMC definitions. The 2026 draft focuses on prefabricated construction, defined as a method in which a building, in whole or in part, is made away from its installation site.
The proposed model is explicitly systems-based. It assesses the manufacturer’s end-to-end systems and processes, including quality management, production controls, workforce competency, traceability, storage, transport and installation procedures. It also includes an optional design approval pathway for eligible repeatable designs.
The consultation leaves room to examine overseas manufacturing. It asks whether alternative licensing pathways should be considered for overseas manufacturers and notes that system-level controls, certification and auditing may sometimes be more appropriate than relying only on individual trade licensing.
That creates a practical question: can the final Scheme recognise a controlled delivery system linking Australian design and compliance, international manufacturing, traceability and QA evidence, transport and Australian builder-led installation?
Queensland exposes the implementation gap
Queensland’s construction productivity review recommended production neutral NCC provisions, nationally consistent definitions, acceptance of manufacturers’ certificates as NCC compliance evidence, and regulatory neutrality in planning schemes and consumer protections.
The principle is simple: MMC should meet the same safety and quality standards as conventional construction, but it should not be penalised simply because more work happens in a factory.
The Commission also argued that government contracts should not favour traditional in-situ construction, payment structures should not unnecessarily disadvantage innovative approaches, and procurement specifications should focus on performance.
Yet the Queensland Government said the national reform was “not yet sufficiently developed” for the state to consider implementation.
NSW begins joining the pieces
The Building (Approvals and Practitioners) Bill 2026 would formally recognise prefabricated buildings, establish obligations across manufacture, supply, transport, delivery and installation, and create a clearer chain of responsibility. It would also modernise approvals and formalise staged approvals, which matter where factory production and site work proceed on different timelines.
At the time of writing, the bill has passed both houses with amendments and is awaiting concurrence in the legislative assembly.
NSW has also opened the expression of interest for its MMC industry expansion program. Domestic and international manufacturers, builders and developers will be assessed on commercial readiness, MMC experience or ambition, capacity to scale, and industry reputation and credibility. Shortlisted applicants will be invited to submit binding proposals to establish or expand advanced manufacturing facilities in NSW.
This is more than another factory announcement. It creates a competitive pathway to assess and support operators capable of serving future government and industry demand.
NSW is beginning to connect manufacturing investment with approval reform, certification and market development.
Victoria’s two policy tracks
Victoria is pursuing two related, though not yet fully connected, tracks.
Its MMC statement promotes industry uptake, technology and partnerships, and identifies around 200 Victorian companies across the supply chain.
Alongside this, Victoria’s broader building reform agenda is reshaping approvals, practitioner accountability, insurance, rectification and consumer protection. These reforms are not specific to MMC, but they will shape the settings within which offsite work operates.
Victoria has identified the industrial opportunity, while its wider building reform agenda is strengthening the regulatory foundations.
What the pattern suggests
Across these reforms, the same subjects keep returning: common definitions, acceptable evidence, responsibility across factory and site, regulatory neutrality, procurement, payment, insurance and consumer recourse.
Manufacturing capacity becomes housing output only when it can pass through the wider building system with enough certainty to be financed, approved, installed, inspected and warranted.
For consumers, the issue is simple. If something goes wrong, who is responsible, what evidence exists, which warranty or insurance arrangement applies, and how can a remedy be enforced?
The aim is not to lower standards for MMC. It is to create consistent and proportionate rules across design, manufacturing, documentation, approval, transport and installation – so that each stage has a clear legal basis, reliable evidence and an accountable party, and the system is considered as a connected whole rather than as isolated steps.
The next stage of MMC reform lies beyond production.
From recognition to implementation
That recognition now has to be translated into a system that works in practice.
Success will depend on whether national certification reduces the need to prove the same matters repeatedly; approvals become more predictable without weakening safety; procurement and payment arrangements recognise factory-front-loaded value; consumers know where responsibility lies; and evidence from one project carries forward to the next.
The broader implication is clear: repeatable construction will depend on repeatable compliance – evidence that can be relied on again, responsibilities that remain clear, and each project making the next one easier.
AI was used to assist with English-language editing, structure and compression. The underlying research, argument, analysis and conclusions are the author’s own.
