The Architecture of Australia’s Housing Crisis

It’s Not One Thing. It’s A System Of Decades of Policy Choices

While Council has some ability to assist in the provision of low cost housing, we lose sight of the role that Federal and State Governments have played in creating the exorbitant cost of land (in a huge country) and housing (we have all the necessary resources here). The crisis is the result of a perfect storm of government actions and incentives that have collided. I’ll list the key policies that built the high cost of housing.


Tax Settings that Supercharge Investors

We have a draconian tax system that punishes us whenever we make or spend money so this point is made in regard to our existing system of fleecing us. CGT taxes your intelligent use of money.

– Negative Gearing: Allows investors to deduct losses on a rental property from their salary income, reducing their tax bill. It incentivises taking on debt to buy more properties.

– Capital Gains Tax Discount: Investors get a 50% discount on the profit from selling a property held for more than 12 months. This makes property a highly tax-advantaged investment.

– The Result: The government does not receive over $12 billion annually on these tax breaks—more than it spends on social housing, homelessness services, and rent assistance combined. This acts as a massive subsidy that helps investors out-compete first-home buyers.


Planning & Zoning that Choke Supply

While tax policy fuels demand, state government planning rules strangle the supply of new homes in our cities.

– Low-Density Zoning: In our major cities, the vast majority of land near the city centre is locked into low-density use.

– 80% of land within 30km of Sydney is zoned for 3 storeys or less.

 – 87% of land within 30km of Melbourne is zoned for 3 storeys or less.

– Our country is vast and huge tranches of land have been locked-up by a wide variety of government policies for many decades.

– The Result: We prevent the creation of new subdivisions and the “gentle density” (townhouses, duplexes, low-rise apartments) needed near jobs and transport. This artificially constrains supply, making land—which now makes up over 60% of a new home’s cost—exorbitantly expensive.


Federal Policies & Monetary Settings

Both major parties have long used policies that, while appearing well-intentioned, often add fuel to the demand fire.

– First-Home Buyer Schemes: Programs that help people buy with a smaller deposit increase the pool of buyers and their purchasing power. Economists warn this puts “upward pressure on prices,” often helping people buy a home a bit sooner, rather than making homes more affordable overall.

– High Migration Levels: The federal government sets immigration targets. The recent rapid rebound has added significant housing demand at a time when supply is at a minimum.

– RBA Interest Rates: Record-low interest rates for over a decade made borrowing incredibly cheap. The RBA itself confirmed that “low interest rates explain much of the rapid growth in housing prices.” More recently, rapid rate rises have slowed new construction.


The Retreat from Direct Housing Provision

Governments used to be a major player in providing housing for those who couldn’t afford it. That role has shrunk dramatically.

– Decline of Social Housing: Social housing (public and community housing) now makes up just 3.6% of all dwellings, down from nearly 5.7% in the 1980s and a much larger share in the 1950s.

– The Result: A critical safety net has been removed. With fewer public homes, over 190,000 households are on waitlists, and 41% of those on the list are homeless or at risk of homelessness. This lack of supply at the bottom pushes more people into the already stressed private market.


Did Foreign Banks Play a Role? (Indirectly, Yes)

Allowing foreign banks into Australia didn’t directly cause a surge in home loans, but it added to the overall flow of credit.

– Increased Credit Supply: Deregulation and foreign banks brought in new sources of offshore funding, expanding the total pool of money available to lend in the economy. More credit chasing limited assets (like housing) contributes to price inflation.

– Their lending has historically focused on commercial property, not suburban home loans. However, by funding major residential developments (apartment blocks) and contributing to the economy’s overall credit flow, they play an indirect but real supporting role in the market.

A System Built on Policy

Australia’s housing crisis isn’t a simple market quirk. It is the predictable result of decades of policy choices:

Fixing it won’t be simple. It requires tackling the difficult politics of reform on both the supply and demand sides of the equation and Council sits at the end of that chain. The fix must first come from those governments which produced this crisis.

Pelican Boardwalk extension

MidCoast Council will further extend the popular Pelican Boardwalk on Memorial Drive at Forster.

A new 80 metre section of boardwalk will provide an over-water experience heading east towards the Red Spot boat shed.

Some preliminary activity will start on Monday 9 March. On-site construction is due to begin from Monday 16 March. Works should finish by late June 2026.

Council’s Executive Manager Public Spaces, Liam Bulley, said “this new section of boardwalk will be a welcome addition to the boardwalk and kayak launching platform that opened late last year”.

The current work includes extending the suspended boardwalk. Balustrades will be built along both sides of the structure. Provision will be made for a public pump-out system.

The recently completed section of Pelican Boardwalk is now open for public access. A few finishing touches will complete that section soon. The boardwalk will remain open and accessible during those works.

The project is being delivered with funding support from the NSW Government’s Regional Tourism Activation Fund Round Two.

For more information about the project visit:
https://haveyoursay.midcoast.nsw.gov.au/marine-facilities-upgrades/pelican-boardwalk-forster

Economist warns rural NSW shires are on the verge of financial ruin

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-24/rural-nsw-councils-warn-of-financial-sustainability-crisis/106358104

This article describes a systemic crisis where rural councils, hamstrung by low rate revenue and rising costs for essential community services, are being pushed towards a financial cliff by an inadequate funding model. Many councils find themselves in similar, but less dire, circumstances. I’ll be posting more about financial sustainability to provide a better understanding or our situation.

Here are the key points from the story:

  • The Core Problem: An economist estimates that up to one-third of NSW councils may be financially unsustainable. The NSW Auditor-General recently identified 11 councils, including Cobar and Walgett shires, facing “severe” financial risk due to low cash reserves and heavy grant dependency.
  • A Cautionary Tale: The Central Darling Shire serves as a stark warning. It was placed into administration in 2013 after nearly becoming insolvent, and full democracy was only partially restored in late 2025. An administrator doubts the shire will ever be financially sustainable due to its tiny rate base.
  • Structural Challenges for Rural Councils: These councils face inherent disadvantages, including vast geographical areas with small populations (like Central Darling, which is the size of Tasmania but has fewer than 1,800 residents), and extensive infrastructure like road networks and pools to maintain.
  • The Burden of ‘Last Resort’ Services: Many rural councils are forced to provide essential services that are financially draining. For example, Cobar Shire loses about $1.4 million annually operating the only local aged care facility. Walgett Shire subsidises five swimming pools and runs Australia Post and Services Australia outlets as the “provider of last resort.”
  • A Flawed Funding System: Local leaders and experts argue the current grant system is broken. Councils receive most grants as one-offs for projects but lack the recurring operational funding needed for ongoing maintenance. Walgett’s general manager noted that while local mining has a massive economic output, the royalties go to the state, not the local community.
  • What’s at Stake: Experts warn that without state government reform to grant funding, more councils will face intervention, which is costly for the state. Communities fear cuts to essential local services that are vital for social cohesion, especially in remote areas.

Arts & Cultural Industries Reference Group update

I’m a member of this group and we’d like your feedback on our Cultural Plan and shaping the future of the Manning Entertainment Centre.

Cultural Plan link https://haveyoursay.midcoast.nsw.gov.au/check-midcoast-cultural-plan-2036


MidCoast Council is inviting the community to a public meeting at the Manning Entertainment Centre to share what’s underway to improve the use of the much-loved venue — and to gather ideas on other options and innovations to increase the Centre’s financial sustainability.

The meeting will be held at the MEC from 6pm-7.30pm on Tuesday 24 March. For those interested in having a look through the facility beforehand, doors will be open from 5.30pm.

https://www.midcoast.nsw.gov.au/Your-Council/Our-news/News-releases/Community-invited-to-help-shape-future-of-Manning-Entertainment-Centre

Check if you’re in a 10/50 area

https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/plan-and-prepare/1050-vegetation-clearing/tool

Use the link to check if your property is in a 10/50 area and then go to https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/plan-and-prepare/1050-vegetation-clearing for more info on the regulation and some changes that have been made to the Code of Practice.

Being in a 10/50 area allows you to independently deal with potentially hazardous trees on your property without the need to contact Council.

Some of my questions for the Feb 25 meeting

I’m compiling my questions in preparation for the upcoming Council meeting. Here are the questions dealing with the first few items on the Agenda.

13.1 Matters Outstanding Questions

Sustainable Development

  1. Resolution 322/2021 regarding the Harrington Height and Development Strategy is now four years old. The status indicates it will progress only after the MidCoast LEP and DCP are finalised. With the LEP gazettal anticipated in mid-2026, does this mean work on the Harrington Strategy will not commence until the second half of 2026? Is there any preliminary work being undertaken now to avoid further delays?

Public Spaces

  1. Regarding Resolution 2025/415, it notes that a public meeting will be held in due course. Can the Executive Manager provide a progress update on this planned event?

14.1 DA2025/0699 115 Amaroo Drive, Smiths Lake

Sustainable Development

  1. The officer’s report recommends approval of DA2025/0699 for a two-storey dwelling at 115 Amaroo Drive, Smiths Lake, however Council has received a significant number of detailed community submissions, as outlined in Attachment 14.1.7, raising serious concerns about non-compliance. Can you please provide a response to each of the specific technical and environmental objections and explain why approval is recommended?

14.2 Housing Barriers Review Implementation Plan – Quarterly Update

Questions

  1. When does the team expect to resume work on the Cultural Change initiatives, and what specific actions are planned?
  2. Who within the organization has overall responsibility for driving this implementation plan forward? Is there a single owner, or is it distributed across multiple teams? How are we ensuring that actions don’t fall through the cracks, particularly those that require coordination between different branches like Sustainable Development, Customer Experience, and Corporate Services?
  3. In the “Tools are in place” section, Action 1.3.1 involves reviewing existing systems in conjunction with Technology One as part of the Business Transformation program, with a completion date of November 2025. The status notes it’s ‘on-track.’ Can you give us an update on what this will deliver for development assessment, will applicants notice a difference in their experience when this work is complete, and will it resolve the integration issues with the Planning Portal?
  4. Action 1.3.5 involved reviewing access arrangements for historical information and is marked as ‘Complete.’ Is it now easier for staff and applicants to access historical records for modifications and other applications? 
  5. Regarding Action 1.4.2. Given the industry-wide shortages of qualified planners and building surveyors, How many staff are participating in mentoring?
  6. Regarding Action 2.3.3 involving education-style seminars targeted at internal staff and is marked as ‘Commenced and ongoing.’ Can you tell us what topics have been covered recently, have we addressed the specific referral area issues raised in the original report, particularly around engineering, water quality, and ecology referrals and are staff finding these sessions valuable? 
  7. Action 3.2.2 involves considering options to differentiate between greenfield and brownfield development to encourage infill redevelopment opportunities. The status is ‘On-track’ with the LEP/DCP work. Can you give us a preview of what incentives or different controls might be considered to make infill development more attractive and feasible for developers?
  8. The original report noted that external referrals—particularly to the RFS and Department of Planning—were taking 60 and 70 days respectively. Has there been any improvement in these external referral times? What advocacy or engagement has occurred with these state agencies to address these delays, given they are outside our direct control but significantly impact our assessment times?
  9. The original report was completed in October 2023. When do we anticipate undertaking a follow-up review to assess whether the barriers identified have actually been addressed? At what point do we go back to staff and industry and ask if improvement has taken place?

14.3 Development Activity & Assessment Performance (October – December 2025)

Questions

1. In Table 2 taking into account the Average and Median timeframes. The report highlights a significant gap between the average DA determination time (81 days) and the median (36 days). Can the Executive Manager provide more detail on the nature of the applications that are pulling the average up and what is the common profile of these applications (e.g., are they larger subdivisions, applications in environmentally sensitive areas, or those requiring multiple external referrals)?

2. The report states the total development cost for lodged applications is $392 million.What proportion of this value is attributable to new housing (detached dwellings, villas, etc.) versus commercial or industrial development which would help us to measure progress against the housing strategy mentioned elsewhere in the agenda.

3. The report mentions that 66 fast-track applications were determined in an average of 9 days. What criteria define a “fast track” application, and what percentage of total applications currently meet this criteria and are there plans to expand the criteria or resources for the fast-track team to increase the proportion of applications that can be processed through this efficient pathway?

4. The report aligns with the Community Strategic Plan’s goal to “Deliver housing to meet demand.” Beyond tracking the number of determinations, does Council track how many of these approved dwellings are actually being constructed through the number of subsequent Construction Certificates, final occupation certificates or other methods?

The Budget Sessions

Last week, Feb 11, Councillors were updated on Asset Future Funding and the IP&R (Integrated Planning & Reporting) program schedule and were given a Capital Project Reporting Update ie., the method of reporting.

Today we will be presented with a Draft Statement of Revenue Policy and Fees & Charges Schedule. This is important to everyone as the two elements will be estimated and compared to make calculations for the costs of Council services in the following financial year.

Currently these discussions are confidential until they are placed on public exhibition in a few months time.

Eye on Shoalhaven Council

I recommend reading some of Steve Prothero’s posts on Substack at https://steveprothero.substack.com/

Steve posts regularly and has an excellent understanding of how local councils work. He asks the important questions and remains up-to-date on his local council’s decisions and decision makers.

Shoalhaven has been served a PIO, Performance Improvement Order, by the Office of Local Government. The summary of which is that ‘the draft order would require reporting to OLG about the restructure and about recruitment of senior roles (manager and above), plus compliance reports over two reporting periods in 2026.‘ This is not a small matter and Steve goes in-depth with his analysis and the process of bringing it to an extraordinary meeting of the council last Friday the 13th. Most of what will take place next will be internal so he has continues commenting on the council’s actions, finances and councillor motions.

It’s a very enjoyable and educational read.

Answers Menu added

I get asked a lot of questions. If I don’t know the answer I’ll try to find out, and if it’s something that the community might be interested in, I’ll post it there.

I might also post a question without an answer to show that I’m working on it.

Questions taken on Notice

Not all of my questions to management were answered on the floor at the 4th of February meeting.

I am awaiting responses to the questions below.

Questions to the Acting Director of Corporate Services.

  1. Looking at the General Fund on page 3 (of the Quarterly Budget Review statements in the Agenda Attachments for the meeting), the ‘Other Expenses’ line is forecast to be $4.9 million, or 36% over the original budget. This is the largest proportional increase in the entire statement. Can you provide the detail of what constitutes the ‘Other Expenses’ overrun? What specific management actions are being taken to control this item for the remainder of the year and to prevent a recurrence in the next year’s budget?
  2. On p3. There are large income increases from Grants & Contributions (up 22.1%) and User Charges & Fees (up 16.7%). Can you provide more specific information regarding both the sources and the reasons for the increase?
  3. On page 3, the General Fund User Charges forecast of $26.2 million required Council to collect $11.5 million in the second half of the year. This implies a monthly collection rate 21% lower than our exceptional first-half performance, yet the annual total is still 48% higher than last year. Can you explain the reason for the second half slowdown after a record first half? Can you confirm what proportion of the YTD $16.65 million is from one-off items versus sustainable recurring income?

Questions for the Director of Infrastructure and Engineering Services.

What is the likely percentage of the cost covered by the future contribution (for construction of the Gloucester Sewer Treatment Plant Replacement)? From what areas of the Local Government Area will these contributions be taken?


Question for the Executive Manager Sustainable Development

Regarding Resolution 381/2023 – Subdivision and development infrastructure damage bonds. Can you tell me how long the list of those affected is and what, approximately, is the total of the bonds held on the list?

Council meeting video available

The video of the council meeting of the 4th of February is available on YouTube at https://youtu.be/YM4qg0mWKac

I wasn’t expecting it to be available until the upgrade of the Council computer system slated for March 31. The new Code of Meeting Practice adopted at the December 2025 meeting included a mandatory requirement that it be made available from the beginning of this year. I presume that management has decided that it would be easiest to simply upload it to Council’s YouTube channel to fulfill this requirement.

I’ll ask if it can be timestamped to allow viewers to easily locate the agenda item that(s) they wish to see.

Section 7.11 Contributions

N.B. This is public information that is available on the Council’s website when researching approved DA’s.

While helping some locals discover details of the Lot 23 Blueys Beach development I found this statement of developer contributions. Although it dates from a few years ago it shows the per block costs to developers and where the money is assigned in Council’s operations. I expect that these will vary from development to development so please don’t presume that this is appropriate in every circumstance.

February 4 Council Meeting

You can find the Agenda and Attachments pdfs at this page.

The answers to Mal McKenzie and my Questions with Notice are placed unusually at the end of the Agenda on p.84.

I had posted these questions on my blog previously expectantly hoping to receive some definitive numbers. This is not the case. I’ll write more about this after Wednesday’s meeting.

Also of interest is the Quarterly Budget Review on p.52. There have been changes to the reporting method and these are explained in the Background on p.53.

“The new Guidelines introduce a new Financial Overview report which summarises the results / information contained in the other QBRS reports. It focusses on the following financial results:

1. Net Operating Results before Grants and Contributions for Capital Purposes

2. Operating Result from Continuing Operations (with capital grants and contributions) excluding depreciation, amortisation and impairment of non-financial assets

It should be noted that these are not results that were previously reported to Council through the QBRS process. Council has focussed on the ‘Net Operating Result from Operations’ and the ‘Net Budget Result’.”

Again, I’ll leave more comment until after the meeting however here are the last two paragraphs from the report.

“However, as has been identified previously, Council needs to continue with the implementation of the adopted Financial Sustainability Action Plan to address, over the medium term, the underlying general fund deficit position whereby it is presently generating insufficient revenue to cover all operating expenditures including depreciation.

The same focus will need to apply to both the Water and Sewer Funds. Both funds are currently projecting an Operating Surplus, however large capital works programs combined with escalating construction costs continue to put pressure on accumulated funds over the medium term. Borrowings will be necessary if the capital works programs are to be delivered within the planned timeframes.”

Who decides your Rates?

This graphic shows what controls your council has on your rates. Most of the decisions are taken from council by the state government, whether it’s through property valuations (NSW Valuer General), the Local Government Act 1993, service mandates and concessions, and of course, iPART which sets the annual rate pegging amounts.

Council decides how this is shared between the properties in our LGA.

From the council website, ‘We use land values to distribute rates across the local government area. We do this by using a combination of the land value of the property and a fixed amount per property.’ https://www.midcoast.nsw.gov.au/Services/Make-a-payment/Rates-fees-and-charges/Your-rates-levies-and-charges

As valuations fluctuate so do rate amounts and anomalies can appear when properties on either side of a street, receiving the same services, can have widely differing rates.

Council website further states, ‘For detailed tables of base and ad valorem rates for our region see our operational plan.’ https://www.midcoast.nsw.gov.au/Your-Council/About-MidCoast-Council/Plans-strategies-and-policies/Our-delivery-program-operational-plan-and-budgets