A non-partisan analysis of how government decisions have shaped Australia's housing system
Few issues affect Australians more fundamentally than housing affordability. Over the past 25 years, housing prices have more than tripled in real terms[1], with the average Australian home now costing 8.5 times the median annual household income[2] – making homeownership increasingly unattainable for younger generations.
We must move beyond the partisan blame game to have an honest conversation about how policy choices across the political spectrum have created this crisis. Both major parties have prioritized the interests of existing property owners over housing accessibility, and only an independent voice can speak this truth without political constraints.
This timeline tracks housing price increases against key policy decisions made by different governments. The data reveals how housing has become increasingly unaffordable through distinct periods of government policy.
Understanding the components driving housing unaffordability is crucial to identifying meaningful solutions:
Contrary to common political narratives that blame either foreign buyers or interest rates, the evidence shows that structural policy failures across multiple domains have created a system that fundamentally favors property investment over housing's primary purpose as shelter.
Systematic reduction in public housing stock while waiting lists exploded, creating severe pressure on the private rental market.
Key Decision-Makers: Housing Ministers from Jocelyn Newman (Howard Govt) to Julie Collins (Albanese Govt)
Impact: Net loss of 20,000 public housing dwellings despite population growth; 163,500+ households now on waiting lists[10]
Alternative approach: Major reinvestment in public housing as both social infrastructure and economic stimulus, as successfully implemented in many comparable nations.
Tax policies that transformed housing from shelter to investment asset by heavily favoring property investors over owner-occupiers and renters.
Key Decision-Makers: Treasurer Peter Costello (implementation); Treasurers Morrison, Frydenberg, Chalmers (defense of the system)
Impact: Investors now control 32.8% of the mortgage market, up from 21% in 2000, house prices rose 80% in Sydney and Melbourne from 2001 - 2004
Alternative approach: Targeted tax reforms to level the playing field between first-home buyers and investors, while grandfathering existing arrangements.
Increasingly complex and restrictive planning systems at state and local levels that severely constrain housing supply while adding significant costs and delays.
Key Decision-Makers: State Planning Ministers incl. Rob Stokes (NSW), Richard Wynne (VIC), Mick de Brenni (QLD)
Impact: Approval timeframes of 18-24 months for housing projects; zoning restrictions adding $150k-$500k to home prices[11]
Alternative approach: Comprehensive planning reform with standardized approval pathways and reduced third-party objection rights for compliant developments.
Population policy divorced from housing capacity, with record migration levels implemented without corresponding housing supply planning.
Key Decision-Makers: Immigration Ministers from Chris Evans to Clare O'Neil; Prime Ministers Rudd, Morrison, Albanese
Impact: Population growth of 518,000 in 2022-23 alone while housing construction declined[12]
Alternative approach: Coordinated national framework linking migration intake to demonstrated housing capacity and infrastructure readiness.
Housing affordability varies significantly across Australia, reflecting differences in supply constraints, economic opportunities, and policy approaches at state and local levels.
This dramatic generational inequity stems directly from policy choices that have consistently favored existing property owners over new entrants. The price-to-income ratio has nearly tripled, the deposit hurdle has quadrupled, and mortgage burden has nearly doubled – effectively locking an entire generation out of the housing market their parents accessed with relative ease.
Australia's housing affordability crisis is not the result of inevitable market forces but rather the predictable outcome of deliberate policy choices made by governments from both major parties:
"I want to see first homeowners being able to get into the housing market."— Scott Morrison, Prime Minister, 2022 (after implementing HomeBuilder program that economists warned would inflate prices)
The Coalition has consistently defended negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions while claiming concern about housing affordability – policies that Treasury's own analysis showed predominantly benefited wealthier investors at the expense of first-home buyers.
"We need to tackle the housing crisis in Australia head on."— Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister, 2023 (while presiding over record migration without corresponding housing supply measures)
Meanwhile, Labor has repeatedly promised transformative housing policy while delivering modest programs that fail to address the fundamental supply-demand imbalance, avoiding political risk while housing becomes increasingly unaffordable.
The harsh reality is that both major parties have calculated that the political interests of existing homeowners – who represent the majority of voters – outweigh the needs of those priced out of the market. Only an independent voice can speak this uncomfortable truth without fear of alienating powerful industry groups or mortgage-holding voters.
Look for a representative that would fight for comprehensive housing reform based on evidence rather than political calculation:
There are no simple solutions that allow everyone to win – meaningful reform will require challenging vested interests and confronting the uncomfortable reality that housing cannot simultaneously be a guaranteed high-return investment asset and affordable shelter accessible to all Australians.