Supply is the answer to the housing crisis.
Everyone knows it.
As Anthony Albanese put it in 2023, ‘Every Premier and Chief Minister as well as the Commonwealth gets it… We all know that housing supply is the key.’
You can find similar quotes from pretty much every politician from the past twenty-five years. Yet between 2010-2024 period, Australia built far more homes than most countries – 69 new homes per every 1000 extra people, more than double the rate of the USA, Germany and UK. So why has affordability gotten so much worse?
Part of the issue here is that ‘housing supply’ is commonly defined as new construction. But only around a quarter of home sales are new builds, and because the flow of new houses relative to the existing stock is small, even large increases in annual building rates have slow effects on the total number of homes available for sale.
This might sound like total nonsense – surely only new homes can actually increase supply? But that’s not how the housing system works. At the last census, there were around 311,000 households that wanted at least one extra bedroom, and a little under 1.2 million households with three or more spare bedrooms. Meanwhile, between 1996 to 2021, the number of people moving house each year declined from 18 per cent to 15 per cent.
Reforms which increase the efficient use of existing homes, – stamp duty, land tax and downsizing incentives – need to be front and centre of the supply debate, not just construction.
Do we have a problem with building homes? No … but also yes
Housing Minister Clare O’Neil said in 2025 that the ‘fundamental problem’ of building more homes was because ‘builders face a ridiculous thicket of red tape’. The Grattan Institute also believes that we haven’t built enough homes to keep up with population growth. So let’s take this issue seriously.
Commentators frequently refer to things like traffic assessments as being hand break on productivity[vi] But construction work is among the most dangerous occupations. Through the development of health and safety practices like traffic assessments, the construction sector death rate has fallen from fifteen per 100,000 workers in the 1980s, to just two or three today. This saves billions in disability pensions and medical costs, but such social and financial benefits rarely make it into discussions of red tape or productivity.
When it comes to having “enough” houses, is it as simple as comparing population figures with the number of homes built, as the Liberals and One Nation argue? Many supply enthusiasts will lead their argument with data from the OECD showing that Australia has a lower rate of dwellings than many other countries – around 420 per 1000 people, compared with over 500 in many European countries. This, they argue, shows just how poorly Australia has done at keeping up with the housing needs of the growing population, and why we desperately need to remove restrictions on new construction – or reduce immigration.
But this argument falls over when you look a little deeper. For one thing, this is far from an apples-with-apples comparison – countries with high per capita dwelling numbers tend to be those where living in apartments is common. In Spain, Germany and Italy, for instance, between 55 and 65 per cent of the population live in apartments, compared to just 15 per cent here. If anything, Australia is an outlier for having as many homes per 1000 people as it does.