A new industry scorecard shows some states are pushing ahead with major planning reforms, while others remain stuck in systems that continue to slow housing delivery.
Western Australia and South Australia are the standout performers when it comes to planning reform, according to a new scorecard from the Housing Industry Association (HIA).
WA and SA tied for first place in the HIA's 2026 Planning Blueprint Scorecard. Picture: Getty
The 2026 Planning Blueprint Scorecard found both states are making stronger progress on housing supply, driven by large-scale rezonings and land release programs.
First launched in 2024, the scorecard assesses how well Australia’s state and territory planning systems are supporting delivery of the National Housing Accord target of 1.2 million new homes over five years.
Each jurisdiction is benchmarked against a 10-point National Planning Reform Blueprint, with reforms grouped under themes of bringing more shovel-ready land to market, higher-density housing, cutting red tape and faster decisions.
States and territories are scored out of five based on their planning reform progress and housing delivery capability.
At a national level, the scorecard found Australia’s planning systems remain a significant constraint on housing supply. In the 2024–25 financial year, the country delivered 173,232 dwellings, falling 66,768 homes short of the annual Housing Accord target, according to HIA analysis.
To make up the shortfall, Australia would need to deliver around 260,000 homes per year over the next four years, until the Accord ends in mid-2029.
HIA executive director of planning and development Sam Heckel said results were mixed nationwide.
“Disappointingly, no jurisdiction has scored greater than three out of five on their planning reforms,” Mr Heckel said.
“HIA is calling for Commonwealth leadership to provide a best-practice toolkit – including AI-driven assessment software and design pattern books.
“These initiatives should be supported by planning exemptions and digital portals for lodgements and land supply monitoring that states and territories can adopt to get homes off the page and onto the ground.”
How each state performed
The 2026 Planning Blueprint Scorecard rated WA and SA as the strongest performers, with both scoring three out of five overall.
No state scored higher than a three out of five on their planning reforms. Picture: Getty
According to HIA, WA benefits from streamlined approval pathways and significant rezonings that are delivering more shovel-ready land. Planning reforms support both infill and greenfield housing, although HIA said further gains could be made through updated design codes.
SA’s performance was driven 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 scored 2.5 out of five, with planning systems considered to be improving but still constrained.
The ACT was noted for its missing-middle reforms and precinct rezonings, but high development costs and slow post-approval processes continue to limit housing delivery.
Victoria was praised for reforms including townhouse and low-rise deemed-to-comply standards, streamlined approvals for single dwellings and faster pathways for some larger projects. However, slow greenfield land releases were identified as a key constraint.
New South Wales and Tasmania both scored two out of five.
NSW was described as “ambitious” due to transport-oriented development rezonings, low- and mid-rise reforms, expanded complying development and pattern-book designs. But the scorecard noted uncertainty around whether these reforms will translate into sustained housing supply, particularly for greenfield development.
Tasmania was recognised 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 weakest results, both scoring 1.5 out of five.
Queensland was criticised for fragmented planning across its 77 councils and a lack of state-wide standards, although its Residential Activation Fund was identified as a positive step.
The NT was criticised for poor alignment between strategic planning and statutory controls.
While proposed infill and subdivision reforms show promise, the scorecard said progress will depend on stronger long-term land supply planning.
Do the scores stack up?
While the scorecard might simply put states’ progress into an easily digestible number, the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) questioned how performance was being measured, arguing the scorecard places too much emphasis on reform announcements rather than real-world outcomes.
“Reform is important, but the real measure of success is whether it produces more homes in great communities,” PIA CEO Matt Collins said.
“Communities don’t experience ‘reform’. They experience whether homes get built, how long it takes, what it costs, and whether infrastructure keeps pace.”
Mr Collins said assessing jurisdictions largely on reform activity risks overlooking how reforms translate into delivery.
“What’s missing is a federal government-led national dashboard that brings together comparable housing data on planning and building approvals, construction commencements, completion times and housing delivery constraints,” he said.
“Until we can see the full picture across the country, we’re debating reform activity instead of evaluating performance.”
Interested in the latest on buying and building new? Check out our New Homes section.
English (US) · 