Both states are tied for first in housing reform

A new industry map shows some states are moving ahead with major planning changes, while others remain stuck in plans that continue to slow housing delivery.

Western Australia and South Australia are leading the way when it comes to planning change, according to a new Housing Industry Association (HIA) scorecard.

The 2026 Planning Blueprint Scorecard found that both provinces are making strong progress in housing provision, driven by major rezoning and land release initiatives.

Launched for the first time in 2024, the scorecard assesses how well Australia’s state and local planning systems are supporting the National Housing Accord’s delivery of 1.2 million new homes over five years.

Each district was marked against a 10-point National Agenda for Planning Reform, with changes grouped under the themes of bringing shovel-ready land to market, overcrowded housing, cutting red tape and quick decisions.

States and territories receive a score out of five based on their planning progress and ability to deliver housing.

At the national level, the scorecard found that Australia’s planning systems remain a major barrier to housing provision. In the 2024–25 financial year, the country delivered 173,232 dwellings, 66,768 homes short of the annual Housing Accord target, according to HIA’s analysis.

To make up this shortfall, Australia will need to deliver around 260,000 homes a year over the next four years, until the Agreement expires in mid-2029.

HIA senior director of planning and development Sam Heckel said the results were mixed across the country.

“Disappointingly, no authority scored more than three out of five points in their planning,” said Mr Heckel.

“HIA is calling on Commonwealth leadership to provide a more efficient toolkit – including AI-driven assessment software and design pattern books.

“These programs must be supported by organizing the release and digital portals of the lodgings and monitoring the supply of land that can be taken by the regions and territories to get the homes out of the page and into the ground.”

How each country worked

The 2026 Planning Blueprint Scorecard rated WA and SA as the strongest performers, both receiving three out of five overall.

No state scored more than three out of five in its planning process. Photo: Getty

---

According to the HIA, WA is benefiting from simplified licensing processes and significant rezoning that is bringing more land ready for shovels. The planning changes support both vacant houses and green spaces, although the HIA said some gains could be made through revised design codes.

SA’s performance was fueled by a digital-first planning system, a unified design code, a robust land supply dashboard and the largest land release in the state’s history.

Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory both received 2.5 out of five, with planning systems considered to be improving but still lagging behind.

The ACT was noted for its mid-rise reforms and redevelopment, but high development costs and slow post-approval processes continue to limit housing delivery.

Victoria has been praised for reforms including townhouses and higher standards deemed necessary to comply, simplified approvals for single-family homes and fast-tracks for some major projects. However, the gradual extraction of green land has been identified as a significant obstacle.

New South Wales and Tasmania both got two out of five.

NSW was described as “ambitious” due to its transport-focused development redesign, low- and mid-level changes, increased compliance development and blueprint designs. But the scorecard noted uncertainty about whether these changes would translate into continued housing supply, particularly greenfield development.

Tasmania was recognized for introducing reforms such as expert assessment panels, but housing delivery remains hampered by weak land supply planning, according to the scorecard.

Queensland and the Northern Territory recorded the worst results, both scoring 1.5 out of five.

Queensland was criticized for fragmented planning in its 77 councils and a lack of statewide standards, although the Residential Activation Fund was identified as a positive step.

The NT was criticized for the lack of coordination between strategic planning and formal control.

While the proposed changes to infill and subdivision show promise, the scorecard said progress will depend on strong long-term planning of land supply.

Do the points stack up?

While the scorecard may put states’ progress into a digestible number, the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) questioned how performance was measured, arguing that the scorecard placed too much emphasis on announcements of change rather than real-world results.

“Transformation is important, but the true measure of success is whether it produces more homes in larger communities,” said PIA CEO Matt Collins.

“Communities don’t have ‘changes’. They experience how homes are built, how long it takes, how much it costs, and whether the infrastructure keeps pace.”

Mr Collins said that assessing areas particularly at risk of change is looking at how change translates into delivery.

“What is missing is a national dashboard led by the federal government that includes common housing data on planning and construction approvals, construction starts, completion times and housing delivery constraints,” he said.

“Until we see the full picture across the country, we are discussing reform work instead of performance evaluation.”

Interested in the latest in buying and building new? Check out our New Homes section.