
Labor has promised 1.2m new homes in its second term. Is it possible?
Anthony Albanese has conceded it is 'too hard' to build housing in Australia and promised the government will tackle regulation to fulfil its target of 1.2m new homes by June 2029.
At the national press club on Wednesday, the prime minister said his government would go further to bring down the cost of building by targeting red tape and pushing the states to build more.
Experts say state planning laws and red tape are two of the biggest barriers to building more housing, but if Labor pulls out 'all the stops' and addresses them, they say the government could get close to its housing targets.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The opposition remains unconvinced, saying the Albanese government's approach of paying states to build more housing 'has not been a success' so far.
So how achievable is the goal, and what needs to happen?
Labor has promised to support the build of 1.2m homes, and 55,000 social and affordable homes, by June 2029.
Alongside the housing targets, the government has promised $10bn to help fund 100,000 new homes for first home buyers, including through concessional loans for states. It has also committed $2bn to states to provide new or refurbished social housing, legislated fee-free Tafe to respond to construction skill shortages and introduced incentive payments for apprentices in construction.
But whether or not Labor can deliver is unclear. The latest figures from the 2025 state of housing report by the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (NHSAC) forecast 938,000 dwellings being completed during the period to June 2029; factoring in demolitions, the net new supply will be 825,000.
Even so, the target of 1.2m homes will bring Australia closer to building 'equilibrium' by June 2029, the target deadline, according to NHSAC chair and former Mirvac boss, Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz – even if NHSAC's modelling predicts a shortfall.
That's because, 'new supply and new demand will be roughly in line at around 175,000 new homes for 175,000 new households.'
Labor should focus on two policy areas, Lloyd-Hurwitz says: planning reforms and building more social housing.
Reducing approval times would make a 'real difference', pointing out that government was able to effectively fast-track other areas of regulation during the Covid-era without 'cutting corners'.
Since the election, the housing minister, Clare O'Neil, has been handed responsibility over the building and construction code and will now lead the planning ministers' council, to help streamline planning and development processes under the one minister. (The planning ministers' council used to be under the purview of the infrastructure minister.)
She says the new responsibilities give her 'more levers to improve the broader problem of construction productivity'.
The NHSAC chair also called for 'continued investment' in housing for those who most need it: 'roughly four times the amount of social and affordable housing than is currently planned'.
O'Neil is 'confident' 55,000 social and affordable homes would be delivered by June 2029, pointing out 28,000 of those homes were already in the planning or construction phase.
O'Neil, has also promised to slash red tape, though she hasn't said how.
'We've created a regulatory environment that says we don't want builders building the type of new homes we need most,' O'Neil told Guardian Australia.
'We've got so much red tape, and this is a real barrier … builders face a thicket of rules and regulations.'
Denita Wawn, CEO of Master Builders' Australia said in October there was 'no chance' Labor would achieve its target, but has since changed her tone, with the most recent policy changes, now saying it is 'not insurmountable'.
'There is the capacity to get to those targets. The only reason why you won't get to those targets … is an unwillingness at government level and industry level to collaborate to remove some of those impediments,' she said.
Wawn added fee-free Tafe would help ease critical skills shortages, and said she was also pushing the government to bring in more overseas construction workers on skilled visas.
Brendan Coates, Grattan Institute's housing program director, said the government also should push the states to change more zoning laws and update the national construction code saying it is 'illegal' to build higher density housing in some parts of inner Sydney and Melbourne where it's needed most.
'It's things like state land use planning controls that have the biggest impact on construction,' Coates said.
'It's not economic, for example, for a developer to knock down a free-standing home to just build three townhouses. Because you've got to buy the house, [and land] and that house is worth a million dollars before you knock it down, so the economics don't always stack up.'
Lloyd-Hurwitz says states including NSW and Victoria had started changing zoning regulations to get more medium and high-density housing near transport nodes, but added that the cost pressures for developers in recent years have been 'too great'.
'We have this perfect storm of high interest rates, low pre-sales, high costs, which makes feasibilities very difficult to stack up for developers,' she says.
'[It's] why we see, particularly in the high-rise space, we're at a historic low in terms of the number of completions of apartments, and they've got a very long lead time.' Federal incentives for states to build more housing also need to change, Coates says.
'The government is rightly trying to pay the states to get more housing built … They [the commonwealth] need to bring forward when the payments are made to pay them each year, rather than at the end of the five-year period of the national housing accord.'
The opposition's new housing spokesperson, Andrew Bragg, told Guardian Australia the current incentives for states are not working and that Labor should rethink its policies, for example, tying payments for states to certain conditions around housing targets.
'There are large financial transfers from the commonwealth to the states … and there are significant payments made for transport and infrastructure projects and the like that are made without conditions,' he says.
The Productivity Commission's damning report in February found productivity in the construction sector had dropped 12% over three decades, with the average time to complete a home increasing from 6.4 months to 10.4 months over the last 10 years.
It said the construction code contributed to poor productivity and imposed unnecessarily high costs on building construction, and needed to be changed.
Wawn says the complex code, which has more than 2,000 pages, has been hampering construction, and that additional varying state regulations make it more difficult for builders working across state borders to operate.
'When you have to read [the code] in conjunction with 120-odd regulated standards, of which people still have to pay for access, they're very hard to read, and there's inconsistencies,' she said.
She also warns the code is hampering investment into more modern building practices, like modular housing, and says the cost is too high for businesses.
O'Neil says Australia is lagging behind in modern construction techniques – the government has promised $54m for states and territories to invest in local programs developing prefabricated and modular housing.
Lloyd-Hurwitz says that investment is a good start, but a 'very small amount of money', and suggested the government should lean into procurement to support the modular supply chain and increase investor confidence.
'Construction innovation and modular construction, something that Scandinavian countries do very well and we do very poorly, would make a difference to cost and speed as well as sustainability.'
Bragg says the opposition, which will reconsider all its housing policies, will look at reforming the code.
'We need to look at how we can make it easier for people to build houses, all forms of housing.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The concept of ‘naseeb' offers a way to stay grounded even when the world refuses to make sense
I still remember the day I left Germany for good. Four incredible years in the heart of Europe were behind me, and ahead of me was a return to Afghanistan – a country I never stopped loving, even from afar. But what should have felt like going home came with a weight of uncertainty. I went back with hope. Real hope. Afghanistan, despite all its scars, was buzzing with young energy. More than two-thirds of the population is under 25. You could feel the hunger for change in the air – in the packed classrooms, in the cafes full of debate, in the crowded markets thick with the smell of naan and kebabs. There were snow-capped mountains and sunlit orchards but also a fragile kind of optimism holding everything together. And then, it collapsed. The Taliban returned. The dream didn't just crack – it shattered. I fled again. This time to Australia. Not just with a backpack but with heartbreak, questions and a strange, lingering word echoing in my mind: naseeb. In Muslim communities, naseeb is a word people often say when things don't go to plan. A job you didn't get. A wedding that never happened. A flight missed, or a prayer unanswered. 'It wasn't your naseeb,' people say, as if to help you let go. But what does it really mean? In today's world – where we glorify hustle, control, five-year plans and endless optimisation – naseeb almost sounds too passive. But it's not about giving up. Not really. In Islamic thinking, naseeb is the paradox of action and surrender. You do your part – fully, fiercely – but you also understand that you're not the only one writing the story. It's a kind of faith that says: work like it depends on you. Pray like it is absolutely out of your control. And then … let go. If I've learned anything from watching Afghanistan's story unfold, it's that you can't always steer the ship. This country has seen it all – modern monarchs, Marxist revolutions, a brief democratic experiment, and now a return to religious rule. Every shift came with promises and every one of them left behind disappointment. For many Afghans, naseeb isn't just a saying. It's how they keep going. A way of surviving what they cannot change. And somehow, within that, there's strength. There's a verse in the Qur'an that often plays in my mind:'Perhaps you dislike a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. Allah knows, and you do not know.' (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:216) That line has helped me through displacement, heartbreak and uncertainty. It reminds me that even when everything falls apart, the effort still matters. The fight still meant something. Rumi, the Afghan-born poet so many of us turn to for wisdom, put it in a way only he could:'Try not to resist the changes that come your way. Instead, let life live through you.' In that sense, naseeb isn't a chain – it's a kind of freedom. A way to stay grounded when the world refuses to make sense. Just this morning, sipping coffee on a chilly Melbourne day, I scrolled through Instagram and saw Bollywood director Karan Johar talking about it. 'There are a million people more talented than me,' he said, 'but they might not have been this successful. We are born with a naseeb – something marked in our palm lines and on our forehead.' He wasn't saying don't work hard. Quite the opposite. His point was: talent and hustle matter – but they're not the whole story. And it's not just an Islamic idea. In Judaism, there's bashert – destined fate, especially in relationships. Christianity says, 'In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps.' (Proverbs 16:9). Hinduism teaches karma and divine timing. Buddhism urges us to act but not cling to outcomes. Across the board, it seems like all these traditions are hinting at the same truth: do your best but don't expect to control everything. That's a radical idea in today's grind culture. Because society says: if you don't succeed, it's on you. You didn't want it enough. You didn't work hard enough. That belief can be crushing. But naseeb offers a softer, truer alternative: effort matters – but so does grace. Now, living far from the place that raised me – and the place that broke me – I still wrestle with the 'what-ifs.' But I'm learning to live with them. To trust that my journey, full of delays and detours, is not wrong. It's just … unfolding. Khalil Gibran once summed it up very delicately:'Our anxiety does not come from thinking about the future, but from wanting to control it.' Shadi Khan Saif is a Melbourne-based writer and journalist


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Toll of Trump's USAID cuts on Australian aid revealed, with projects to help children among hardest hit
The Trump administration's gutting of foreign aid has seen a $400m hit to Australian projects, with 120 projects affected, at least 20 offices closed and people left without crucial support for health, education, humanitarian and climate change issues, the Australian Council for International Development (Acfid) has found. Acfid has surveyed its members and their partners, who deliver projects on the ground, on the impact of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) cuts, which took effect when the president, Donald Trump, froze funding for 90 days from 20 January. By the time the 90 days expired, despite a waiver for humanitarian assistance, 5,200 of the agency's 6,200 programs had been stopped. Those that were left were absorbed into the state department. Workers in Australian programs described 'chaos' and 'total panic' at the time, and warned programs could shut, causing 'unnecessary deaths and suffering'. Some Australian aid projects had direct USAID funding, while others were jointly funded or subsidised through US funding. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'Australian NGOs and their partners have had to reduce operations and staff with dire consequences to local communities that are now no longer receiving essential healthcare, education, food or other assistance,' Acfid's report, released on Monday, says. 'At least 20 partner organisations and/or country offices of Australian NGOs have closed. Some local organisations have also had to close their doors permanently.' The report points out that it collected information during that 90-day period, that it was a time of 'upheaval' and many organisations did not have a clear picture of the impacts. Less than half provided financial data, so the figures 'should be read as a low estimate of impact on the Australian aid agencies and the local partners they work with around the world', the report states. More than 120 projects were hit, with a financial value of more than $400m. The projects were mostly in the Pacific and south-east Asia. Projects to help children, combat climate change and provide humanitarian support were the hardest hit. In Nepal, 307 girls are no longer able to go to school after an education project closed. Without education, girls are at higher risk of child marriage and being trafficked, Acfid says. In Kiribati, almost 2,000 people lost access to improved water, sanitation and hygiene practices, leading to reduced access to clean water and increased risk of disease. The Acfid policy and advocacy chief, Jessica Mackenzie, said the development sector was only now fully grasping the scale of the fallout. 'We've heard first-hand accounts from people on the ground ranging from communities in the Pacific losing access to clean water, to girls in Nepal deprived of education and fearful they may be forced into marriage,' she said. 'At least $400m in humanitarian and development projects have been directly impacted by the USAID freeze for Australian NGOs. That's millions of people losing access to food, healthcare and education.' Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion The cuts could not have come at a worse time, she said. 'Communities already on the frontline of climate change are losing access to programs that were helping them adapt, prepare and survive.' Acfid says Australia's own foreign aid spending is the lowest it has ever been, at a time when the world needs it most. Other countries including the UK, the Netherlands and Germany have cut their foreign aid, despite the context of growing global conflict and uncertainty. Acfid is calling for the government to increase spending on foreign aid from 0.65% to 1% of the federal budget. Save the Children Australia has made a similar call. Its proposals include spending on climate action, development, and work on gender, disability and social inclusion. In March, Australia moved to plug the funding gaps in the region by directing about $120m in foreign aid to support economic, health, humanitarian and climate responses in the Indo-Pacific. That money came from funding for other programs, which the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, called 'hard strategic decisions'. DFAT has also committed to 2.5% annual increases in aid funding. Wong announced on Friday that another $10m would go to help distribute urgent medical and food supplies in Gaza, taking the total assistance there to $110m since 7 October 2023. On Thursday, the Trump administration announced it would eliminate all USAID overseas positions by 30 September.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Majority of Australians think China will be world's most powerful country by 2035, poll finds
A majority of Australians expect China will be the most powerful country in the world by 2035 as trust in the US tumbles, new research has found. Just over one in three Australians (36%) trusted the US to act responsibly on the world stage, representing a 20-point fall from 2024 and the smallest proportion since the Lowy Institute began polling in 2005. The thinktank's 2025 report found only one in four respondents had any confidence in president Donald Trump's approach to world affairs – less than half of the 46% who expressed faith in Joe Biden the previous year. Confidence in the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, rose four points to 16%, and Australians were evenly split on whether Xi or Trump was a more reliable partner. Australians were just as likely to view China as an economic partner than as a security threat for the first time since 2020 – though a high proportion of voters still distrust China and believe it will become a military threat to Australia in the next 20 years. 'There's slightly more trust, slightly less threat perceptions, [but] it's still a pretty bleak picture for how Australians look at China,' said Ryan Neelam, the poll author and a director at the Lowy Institute. A majority of respondents believed the US would come to Australia's defence if it were attacked, with 63% agreeing, a drop from the 75% agreement recorded in similar questions in recent years. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email But Australians nonetheless continued to support the strong military relationship, despite a loss of trust likely inspired by Trump's 'shocking' and 'norm-breaking' foreign policy, according to Neelam. 'It's almost as if the Australian public are separating those two things in their minds: the instability and unpredictability of Trump's approach to world affairs, from the institution of the alliance.' Since the 2024 survey, the gap between Australians' trust in the US compared with China has more than halved, as perceptions of China continued to improve from their nadir in 2022, Neelam said. 'That's quite remarkable for Australia's key security ally to have such a low level of trust,' he said. 'The weight of expectation is that China will be more powerful and more predominant in the global system.' Just over one in four respondents believed the US would be the most important and powerful nation in 10 years' time, with more than half expecting China to take the lead. Four in five voters said the alliance with the US was important for Australia's security, similar to the support observed in 2023 and 2024. Support for the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine deal was also steady with two-thirds of those polled in favour, similar to the level observed since 2022. Coalition voters and residents of Queensland and Western Australia were especially supportive, each recording about four in five people in favour, while Victorians and Labor voters were more lukewarm, at three in five. Respondents were polled in March, prior to the US defence department's announcement of a review of the Aukus deal, which Anthony Albanese described as 'appropriate' ahead of a possible meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada. Three in five people expressed confidence in Albanese's approach to world affairs in the Lowy poll, putting the prime minister just behind France's Emmanuel Macron and New Zealand's Christopher Luxon. Luxon was the most trusted world leader, though nearly a quarter of those polled expressed no view, most of whom saying they did not know who he was.