From the National Press Club: Housing policy is very tricky to balance effectively. There is no set formula because times and circumstances change. What worked in the Menzies era, when home ownership in Australia was at its highest levels, may not work now. But some things remain the same.
We need infrastructure. Not just roads but also potable water, sewerage, telecommunications, energy, shops, schools, hospitals, emergency services, and police.
Today’s debate at the Press Club between Labor Minister for Housing and Homelessness Clare O’Neil and her counterpart, Liberal Michael Sukkar, was uninspiring. We were introduced on one hand to a Labor policy based on talking to people in inner cities with no clue about the regions, and a Coalition policy closer to reality but not presented in a way that was convincing.
The small target strategy gives me the sense that our politicians are parroting advice without really understanding their own policies.
Today, I asked about housing choice and infrastructure’s role in housing development. The Coalition’s $5 billion infrastructure plan claims to unlock 500,000 greenfield homes, with council agreements negotiated ‘line by line’ but shrouded in secrecy. Instead of hammering home Labor’s lack of focus on infrastructure, Sukkar went off on a soft and unconvincing tangent about immigration.
Labor, on the other hand, has pledged a mere $500 million infrastructure spend which pales in comparison. It is overshadowed by their $10 billion pledge for 100,000 homes which equates to an implausible $100,000 per house, with infrastructure costs vaguely implied. Apparently, there’s more to it than that, but we won’t be hearing the details before the election.
The Coalition at least has a plan to address the infrastructure shortfalls that are being created by Australians fleeing the lack of housing choice provided by climate-obsessed state and territory governments. O’Neil suggested that Labor’s policy would enable choice but there is no evidence whatsoever of ‘choice’ entering their government-built housing agenda.
I pressed O’Neil on the infrastructure backlog. Her response was that the infrastructure backlog was minimal under Labor. I don’t think she’s ever been to regional Australia with her eyes open. Similarly, Sukkar touted the Coalition’s $5 billion infrastructure program, but dodged specifics, pending ‘council approvals’ to disclose the details of how taxpayer funds would be spent.
O’Neil had no qualms about housing choice. But given Labor has failed to deliver any tangible evidence of supplying actual houses to date, in reality, housing choice is not part of the equation.
Both sides have prioritised headlines over blueprints. Many Australian families want detached houses, not shoebox apartments. It’s part of our culture of self-reliance and family space. Yet Labor fetishises urban density, while the Coalition is being so timid about Australian culture, I often wonder who they are representing.
It is puzzling that we have plenty of land for wind turbines and solar panels but no land for living. The Coalition’s policy at least helps unlock more land. Australia has plenty of it despite the urbanist’s claims. But Labor’s lack of understanding about the type of housing Australians prefer was a glaring flaw in their policy.
During the debate, I was overwhelmed with messages from my friends and colleagues who wanted to hear what both sides had to say about housing choice and unsatisfactory housing infrastructure. They were sadly disappointed with one colleague suggesting the response to my question was ‘pathetic’. There is clearly a disconnect between what Australians actually want and what politicians have to offer.
Housing is a major election issue, but few tangible solutions were proffered at the Press Club today.
Dr Michael de Percy @FlaneurPolitiq is The Spectator Australia’s Canberra Press Gallery Correspondent. All opinions in this article are the author’s own.