David Pocock has called parts of Peter Dutton’s new $5bn housing policy “seriously regressive” as housing experts questioned whether it would saddle families on the fringes of cities with invisible costs.
The opposition unveiled its plans to alleviate the country’s housing crisis on Saturday.
Dutton’s proposal to commit $5bn to developing greenfield sites across the country was quickly dismissed by Labor ministers as a “road to nowhere”, a “card trick” and a copy of Labor’s existing $1.5bn program to fund critical housing infrastructure.
The independent ACT senator, David Pocock, described Dutton’s proposal to freeze national building codes as “seriously regressive” and showed the opposition was continuing its record of “climate change denial”.
Housing experts have also questioned whether choosing undeveloped, outer suburb areas was the most cost-effective avenue in the long run.
The Coalition announced on Saturday the $5bn in funding, in the form of grants and concessional loans, would go to industry and state, territory and local governments to build enabling infrastructure like water, power and sewerage.
Up to 500,000 homes could be built on mostly undeveloped lands, the opposition claimed, and if a development did not progress within 12 months of receiving the funding, its grant or loan would be terminated.
Dutton’s plan also proposes to freeze any changes to national building codes for 10 years, claiming updates, such as those requiring new homes to meet higher energy efficiency standards, has added thousands of dollars to housing prices.
It has the backing of some industry groups, including the Planning Institute of Australia, the Property Council and Master Builders.
On Saturday, Dutton said the “practical” policy would “free up more land” and “encourage investment and it will get that product delivered to market more quickly”.
Dutton said the policy’s modelling and costings were based on “discussions with literally hundreds of councils, with the experts and with economists and others who know this space very well”.
The policy mirrors the Albanese government’s $500m in funding for state, territory and local governments until mid-2025 with a further $1bn for enabling infrastructure.
That funding is part of the federal government’s broader plan to deliver 1.2m homes by the end of the decade – a pledge that is not yet on target.
after newsletter promotion
The housing minister, Clare O’Neil, said Dutton’s proposal would still cut $19bn from Labor’s housing commitments, including the Housing Australia Future Fund, which has been running since November 2023.
Two other key proposals, the Help to Buy and Build to Rent schemes, have been unable to pass parliament without the backing of either the opposition or the Greens.
“This announcement is Peter Dutton giving with one hand and taking with the other. It’s a card trick,” O’Neil said.
The workplace relations minister, Murray Watt, told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday the opposition’s plan was a “road to nowhere”.
“He’ll provide the infrastructure works – the same works that we are providing – but he won’t be providing the housing, which we’re providing, at the end of those roads,” he said.
Matt Collins, the chief executive of the Planning Institute of Australia, welcomed the opposition’s announcement. He said construction costs had increased by 40% and build times had blown out by up to 47% in the last five years.
“Good planning ensures that investments are made where they will have the greatest impact, supporting sustainable growth and efficient development. This is essential to delivering well-sequenced, cost-effective infrastructure,” he said.
But the director of the Australian Centre for Housing Research, Emma Baker, said choosing to focus on greenfield sites would just “kick the can down the road” on housing prices.
While Baker said the focus on enabling infrastructure was “fantastic”, developing new sites far from major city hubs and with limited services would cost more money in the long term.
“It disadvantages those families who are just affording to get into home ownership. They’re stuck with the longer term costs, which aren’t factored into the house price,” she said.
Those longer term costs can include more expensive transport and increased council rates to fund services in new suburbs and towns.
Baker also shared Pocock’s concerns about a 10-year freeze to building codes – rules that determine the minimum quality new houses must adhere to – saying it “goes against every sensible piece of evidence that we have”.
“We have some of the coldest, worst built houses in the world,” Baker said.
“Why would you say ‘Australia doesn’t build terribly good quality houses but hey, let’s just stick with that for the next 10 years’? Australia should be in a catch-up in the quality of the houses that we build, rather than a freeze.”
