When federal, state and territory governments announced their national goal of building 1.2 million homes over the next five years, it was a stunning statement of aspiration.
The bold target recognised that whatever the merits of other tax or regulatory remedies, only a monumental lift in supply can move the needle on Australia’s housing affordability woes.
But the hard truth is that the nation has never sustained housing approvals and construction at the implied rate. Construction levels are currently running at an 11-year low, and there was a gap of close to 80,000 between output in 2023 and the new annualised target.
Australians largely support greater density, with one major caveat – they want it delivered elsewhere
Success requires a sea change in the performance of state and local planning systems. Land release often takes up to 10 years – and that’s before individual projects are forced to run the gauntlet of complex and inefficient approval processes.
The high cost of finance, escalating construction costs, choked supply chains and competition for workers from sectors such as infrastructure and energy will further complicate the task.
It’s all so straightforward, right?
Then there’s the intangible ingredient – community consent.
The target will inevitably demand an enormous increase in densities that will transform cities, towns, neighbourhoods and streetscapes across the nation. Smaller lots, greater medium density housing in suburbs and more apartments will be in vogue.
We’re already witnessing blowback. In New South Wales, for example, the state government is confronting hostility from councils and communities regarding its plans to boost housing on transport corridors.
The defiance is sadly predictable. New research we have produced through 89 Degrees East, capturing the views of more than 2000 people across Australia, reveals Australians largely support greater density, with one major caveat – they want it delivered elsewhere.
Only one in five Australians (21 per cent) say they oppose more medium-density housing being built in their town or city. However, this figure rises significantly to one in three when the proposed medium density is in their suburb and dramatically to almost half (45 per cent) when it is in their street.
Such is the strength of their opposition, many seemed immovable when presented with some of the benefits that would flow from increased density, including better transport solutions to more green space. Unfortunately, the winner was “none of the above”.
If that’s the baseline of community sentiment, the real risk for governments and developers is that progress will be stalled as the usual noisy suspects continue to dominate the debate.
The hardest to reach and engage are the people who stand to gain the most from a meaningful increase in the supply of new housing
Our research shows the people who want to be engaged in strategic planning and project approval decisions tend to be homeowners, people with higher incomes, older people and people with a university education.
The less interested cohorts include people who already face substantial barriers to home ownership – such as young people, people in low-income brackets and people with lower educational attainment.
In other words, the hardest to reach and engage are the people who stand to gain the most from a meaningful increase in the supply of new housing – which reinforces that business-as-usual methods of community consultation won’t cut it.
The toolkit for contemporary engagement will have to include a stronger embrace of research and audience segmentation, the deployment of digital tools for an online generation and other forms of innovation.
It also demands informed communications plans to ensure that messaging, messengers, and the choice of mediums to reach people are properly researched, not merely dependent on instinct or whims.
It’s time to accept that tick-a-box approaches have failed. Younger people might lack the time or resources to mobilise as the older generation of existing homeowners does, so let’s construct enticing and easy solutions.
Governments, developers and younger Australians have a shared interest in ending the doom loop of failure and nimbyism that has left Australia with one of the least affordable housing markets in the world. A little imagination will take us a long way.