Allegations that the new national code for energy efficiency will dramatically increase the cost of property development have been rejected by industry professionals.

Caroline Pidcock, industry representative on the Australian Building Code Board (ABCB), said the easiest, simplest, most cost-effective way to increase buildings' energy efficiency is through good design. "Getting orientation right, getting the windows right, getting building envelops right, it's so salacious that we are even having a discussion about this, because we are so far behind the rest of the world in our building codes and minimum requirements. If builders can't deliver buildings at this minimum level, when the rest of the world has been at eight stars for 10 years, and the fact that builders are still arguing over a move to six stars, shows that they are not understanding the incredible urgency that we have to improve what we are doing now."

A submission by the Master Builders Association and Housing Industry Association on the new code, as reported in the Australian Financial Review, claimed that the community will be slugged with an additional cost of $1 billion over the 10 year life of the amendments.

The ABCB's assessment showed the impact of the new code would be anything from a $8,000 benefit to a $2,200 cost depending on the circumstances. Pidcock said that the cost of new sustainable and low emission developments would decrease once the requirements for the new materials or technologies involved in the developments were made mandatory.

"It has been shown every time that as soon as you regulate for this, that all of the methods for delivery become cheaper," she said.

The executive director of Green Star, Robin Mellon, which represents more than 700 industry members such as Lend Lease and Westfield Group, said contrary to reports in the Australian Financial Review, the new code was a "good start". "And I suspect that our members see it as a step in the right direction," Mellon added.

The Green Building Council of Australia made recommendations on the code relating to commercial buildings; however, it has not made any comment or submission with respect to residential dwellings. Mellon said green buildings would always have perceived additional costs, when focusing solely on payback period. "You have to look over a period of time of what the additional values are of that design, whether its reduced usage of power and water, or increased productivity from staff. The value does not always show upfront."

He said the council would be looking to work with the government on the code and establishing a common language to assist in educating its members. Sydney architect David Bennett, from Watermark Architecture, wants to see greater importance placed on the house rating scheme reform. "The real issue for us is green house gas emissions and what sustainability means. The code is one way of controlling what happens with new houses, but we don't want to see an increase in stringency without making sure the tools to measure the emissions are correct." He added: "I think that the housing industry always over rates those (construction) figures, but it does not have to cost any more- builders approach to providing green homes is the bolt on things costs extra, architects approach is to integrate it and design more efficiently."