Following Anthony Albanese’s recent cabinet shake-up, the new housing and homelessness minister, Clare O’Neil, was quick to express empathy for troubled renters, touting Labor’s $32bn housing investment and describing the ambitious target of constructing 1.2m homes as “genuinely radical”.
But does O’Neil bring anything new to the table? Not necessarily – at least not on the policy front.
Housing has become a major focal point for the next federal election. But the government has been described as “fairly flat-footed” in communicating its efforts to voters so far. The perception is that the incumbent is not faring well in this space.
Meanwhile the Greens housing spokesperson, Max Chandler-Mather, seems to be gaining traction. Chandler-Mather connects with younger voters and advocates a consistent agenda peppered with socially soothing buzzwords. Who knew what a “rent freeze” was a year ago? Now, it turns out a majority of the country is on board with rent freezes or rental caps.
Albanese may have recruited a better “salesperson” to push back more forcefully on Greens’ demands for renters in the lead-up to the federal election, but without a sharper housing message, O’Neil might find herself outmanoeuvred.
Beneath the political fuss, Australia remains under chronic housing stress.
In 2023, over half of those seeking homelessness services cited housing woes like rent unaffordability as the main reason they need help. In 2024, two out of five low-income private renters were teetering on the edge of homelessness, despite commonwealth rent assistance.
While the wealthy are riding high on inflating asset values, those at the bottom are grappling with relentless cost-of-living pressures. Inflation, stoked by soaring rents and energy price gouging, is only deepening the divide.
But the core of the housing crisis has always been a woeful lack of supply. A market starved of new homes creates a frenzy of demand. Meanwhile, the public sector’s share of new residential building approvals has nosedived from 15% in the 1960s to less than 2% today.
And then there is the story of our tax system, which generously hands out incentives to investors that jack up house prices.
The key challenge is that the housing crisis is a tangled mess with no one-size-fits-all solution: it requires fixes from all corners and cooperation across the board.
O’Neil has reminded us that the Albanese government invested more in housing in its last budget than the Coalition did in its nine-year stint in government.
But it hasn’t quite hit the mark. A 2024 ANUPoll report reveals that, compared with almost any time during the pandemic or immediately beforehand, Australians feel less satisfied with their housing circumstances, are more likely to experience housing payment stress and increasingly doubt they’ll ever afford their own home.
So, whether O’Neil’s entry will bring in any substantial positive change to the housing crisis is still up in the air.
O’Neil is not proposing anything new to alleviate the current stress, and most of Labor’s major policy propositions are “future” funds.
The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council – the government’s own expert council – forecasts that the housing crisis will worsen due to a significant supply shortfall. Labor could realistically achieve only 943,000 homes against the target of building 1.2m new homes over five years. The report also warns that “non-market” social and affordable housing is expected to remain low and highlights that the tax system is exacerbating inequality between those who can and cannot afford home ownership.
A word on the tax system: the government’s own council seems to shore up points for the Greens and crossbench senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie, who have been pushing hard for changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions to fund more social and affordable housing.
But we all know these are touchy areas for the Labor party: both O’Neil and Albanese have sidestepped questions on these topics, instead highlighting yet another tax-incentive.
The government’s build-to-rent bill, which both the Greens and the Coalition are poised to block in the Senate, proposes tax cuts for developers of long-term rental complexes. Labor projects this tax incentive could increase the supply by 150,000 rental homes.
The Coalition contends the bill inappropriately targets foreign investors, while the Greens liken it to negative gearing, calling it another ill-advised scheme. In a Senate hearing last week, the Property Council also warned that the build-to-rent changes are unlikely to boost supply. Plus, experts worry that Australia’s burgeoning build-to-rent sector is only going to entrench a class divide between homeowners and renters.
So why wouldn’t Labor just freeze or cap rents, or tackle tax system quirks? Officially, it’s all about avoiding price controls that could hurt supply. But let’s be real: there are election-driven reasons at play here.
Currently, Albanese’s government relies heavily on the 11 Greens senators to pass bills, which gives the Greens an oversized influence. Labor’s anaemic primary vote share from the 2022 election means it can’t afford to spotlight the Greens’ achievements too much and risk losing votes to them rather than to the opposition.
Even though, at face value, the Greens might have lost the rent cap battle, they’ve scored a win by securing an extra $1bn for public and community housing from the PM’s $10bn housing plan. This move has won them support among renters.
With the Greens’ primary vote at 13%, but a whopping 28% among 18 to 34-year-olds, they’ve positioned themselves as a serious contender in Australian politics. Their shift to a broader economic agenda has resonated with younger voters who feel sidelined by the current system.
As the next federal election looms, it looks like we’re gearing up for a parliamentary showdown where party posturing is more crucial than ever.
Dr Intifar Chowdhury is a youth researcher and a lecturer in government at Flinders University
