Andrew Bragg’s McCarthy‑esque National Press Club Address has reinforced the salience and urgency of the housing crisis in Australia. In a provocative speech that accused Labor of promoting communism, and the custodians of Liberalism as being indolent, the Shadow Minister for Housing had a lot to say, and while not all of the details stacked up, he’s on the right track.
His key thesis that “high costs are making home building uneconomic” is the exact lens through which to view Australia’s affordability crisis. We lack supply because building is costly and arduous. Bragg attributes these obstacles to three main factors: “regulation, corruption and high taxes”.
Streamlining the process for building approvals and simplifying the National Construction Code is incredibly important and Bragg highlighted this with the idea of an 80‑page NCC, presumably stripped of everything save for a Google definition of the word ‘house’ and an AI‑generated image of one. In an interview with Patricia Karvelas, Federal Minister for Housing, Homelessness and Cities Clare O’Neil pointed out the sheer absurdity of this proposal but acknowledged that the fundamental concern of regulatory complexity was valid, and that Labor was taking diligent steps to reform the system.
On corruption, Bragg attacked Labor’s affiliation with the unions and super funds, claiming that vested interests were driving up costs and delivering worse outcomes. While rent‑seeking behaviour has plagued the construction industry in recent times, Labor has taken a clear stand against this toxic behaviour, as demonstrated by Ben Carroll’s unflinching decision to call a royal commission into construction sector corruption.
Unfortunately, Bragg maligned the opportunity of leveraging institutional funds for build‑to‑rent, which Labor has correctly identified as a key source of housing supply. All types of accommodation are needed, and institutionally owned build‑to‑rent, as discussed by Alan and Chris Kohler on ‘How Housing Became So Broken’, can offer tenants more consistent and stable rental circumstances. Labor has enabled this avenue of construction to become more economically viable by increasing the annual depreciation rate on these developments from 2.5% to 4%, allowing significant tax benefits for builders, which Bragg himself ought to favour.
Home construction and housing are subject to high taxation which should be considered when looking to reduce building costs, but Bragg’s critique of Labor’s 2026 Budget misses the mark entirely here. While the removal of negative gearing and the change to the CGT discount has increased the tax burden for investors, new builds are unaffected, and these tax breaks serve primarily to drive up demand, not supply. Labor has chosen to curb tax benefits where they only served to stoke inequality in the housing market, and has instead focused spending on strong incentives for new supply and construction.
An address like this is important for the YIMBY movement; we need as many voices as we can bringing attention to these issues. This speech also showed us how unprepared and unrealistic the Coalition is to deliver effective and pragmatic reform. The sentiment is right, but the detail and nuance is missing. In contrast, Clare O’Neil and Labor articulate a more cohesive and comprehensive vision for housing reform in Australia, one that isn’t built on soundbite policy, which lacks support, but instead is built on just that: building more homes!
References