This systematic review maps prefabrication policies in Australia, highlighting regulatory advancements and implications.
Purpose The construction sector faces significant environmental and productivity challenges, increasing the need for more sustainable and efficient building methods such as prefabricated construction. However, its adoption in Australia has remained limited due to regulatory constraints and the dominance of traditional building codes. This study provides a systematic policy-focused review that maps the evolution of prefabrication governance across Australian jurisdictions over the past decade. Design/methodology/approach Using a systematic literature review methodology, this study compiled a multi-level dataset of 87 policy measures issued between 2015 and June 2025 from 19 official Commonwealth and state/territory sources. Each measure was coded into five instrument classes: Incentives, Initiatives, Laws/Regulations, Guidance and Standards. This study undertook a longitudinal analysis of policy sequencing and a cross-jurisdictional comparison of instrument mixes. Findings The analysis shows a clear policy trajectory over decade, progressing from foundational standards and code clarifications to regulatory and guidance consolidation and, ultimately, national coordination. Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia demonstrate the broadest and most active instrument portfolios. Originality/value The study contributes the first integrated map of Australia’s prefabrication policy architecture. It introduces a transferable taxonomy of instruments and proposes a phase model of policy sequencing that can support future causal evaluation and practice reform in public housing delivery. The value of this research lies in its potential to inform policymaking and its ability to facilitate the wider adoption of prefabricated construction in Australia. By analysing the regulatory development, this research will have the capability of developing a more sustainable and efficient construction industry within Australia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: