28 MARCH 2025

In this Edition...

1. And they’re off!

2. Federal budget – another missed opportunity

3. Coalition response to Federal Budget

...and much, much more.

4. EP&A Bill is debated in NSW Parliament
5. NZ to bring in new planning laws “to end the culture of no”
6. North Sydney Mayor – let's do a bit more planning before we build new housing
7. The beginning of the end for construction inflation? Let’s hope!
8. New leadership for Sydney Water
9. Council watch (with special guest: the NSW Minister for Planning)
10. Members in the news

1. And they’re off!

Australians will go to the polls on Saturday May 3.

Given that housing was only a footnote to both the Budget and the Opposition Leader’s speech in reply, Urban Taskforce hopes that housing policy will be a central issue with some big announcements in the election campaign.

For a campaign centred around cost of living – the housing supply crisis and the cumulative cost of housing and rents since COVID demands a significant response by both the Albanese Government and the Dutton Government-in-waiting.

The biggest roles that the Federal Government can play is in relation to tax reform and infrastructure funding.

To date, both parties have been tentative, and much more is needed to reduce the costs faced by new home buyers.

Urban Taskforce urges the Dutton-led the Coalition to commit to the National Housing Accord targets. [These targets have been the driving factor across the nation, delivering planning reform and a sharp focus on housing supply. The Housing Accord has awoken the states and their respective bureaucrats from their dogmatic slumber#.

To walk away from the Accord targets would be a mistake. What is needed is a bipartisan approach to the target – keeping pressure on the states who in turn need to keep their feet on the throats of recalcitrant councils (see Council Watch).

For their end of the bargain, the Commonwealth needs to do more to help the cash strapped states with the roads, water and social infrastructure needed to enable and serve new housing. On this front, the Coalition have won the war of words by committing $5 billion to housing related infrastructure. Anthony Albanese may have committed more money in aggregate, but his promotion of this narrative (is there one?) has been typically weak.

And while they’re on the hustings, a bit of visionary tax reform may put most punters to sleep, but it is vital for the future prosperity of the nation. [Getting rid of iniquitous taxes like stamp duty and broadening the tax base where possible would be a good start. National Competition Policy reform wasn’t a walk in the park, but it helped that the Hawke, then Keating, then Howard Government’s drive for productivity growth – was backed with generous assistance to the states through a serious of NCP payments.

# The famous quote appears in Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, published in 1783, where he discusses the influence of Hume's philosophy on his own thinking. Kant acknowledges his debt to Hume’s critique on cause and effect, and metaphysics more broadly, as “awakening him from his dogmatic slumber”.

And the rest, as they say, is the history of continental philosophy.

Editor’s note: We do not recommend reading Kant’s own work, as he is one of the most turgid writers of all the great philosophers!

2.    Federal budget – another missed opportunity

For a budget that seemed to be written on the back of a series of focus groups, the Albanese Government failed to pick up on perhaps the key issue impacting a majority of Australian – housing and rental costs.

Unfortunately, this week’s Federal budget was a “nothing to see here” budget when it came to real action on housing supply.

$150 off your electricity bill is well and good if you own or rent a home – the real game should have been supercharging housing supply and boosting housing enabling infrastructure.

It’s not that things are going swimmingly – with the Federal Government acknowledging that a mere 45,000 homes were delivered in the first reportable quarter of the National Housing Accord. To meet the housing accord targets, 60,000 new homes need to be delivered each quarter.

As CEO Tom Forrest said before the budget was delivered, “This gap is a call for action in tonight’s budget.”

With a long tail in terms of completions, now was the time for a massive investment in housing enabling infrastructure – which is why we called for a $24 billion program over 4 years solely focusses on the roads, water and community infrastructure needed to bring on new infill and greenfield development.

The budget speech came and went…. and nothing….

8pm Tuesday – the only punter who actually watched it

We have seen a scattergun approach focussing on a number of projects (and electorates) but nothing in the way of a coordinated approach that matches the requirements of the National Housing Accord.

The Albanese Government seems to have confused investment in social housing with solving the housing affordability crisis by supporting those that deliver 96% of Australia’s housing stock – the private sector.

There was no new money for the Housing Australia Future Fund, just a re-stating of the existing commitments.

There were no financial incentives offered to the states to reduce fees, taxes and charges (including affordable housing taxes) that are driving up the cost of new housing, making new home prices and rents unaffordable.

The commitment to infrastructure was a re-stating of previously announced funding for roads and rail, spread out over the next ten years. All investment is welcome, but it does not meet the needs of the states and hill hamper housing supply. Federal general government infrastructure funding is little more than $60 billion over the four years to end of FY2028-29, only $118 million greater than last year’s allocation, but a $493 million decline in real terms.

The only initiative seemed to be banning foreign investors from buying established homes, as well as a vague reference to cracking down on foreign land banking. The housing supply crisis won’t be solved by a dog whistle!

The sole funding bucket linked to the Accord – the $3 billion New Home Bonus - is still sitting there as an unspent line item – possible to be allocated at the end of June 2029, if states and territories meet the housing numbers required of them.

We will have had another federal election by then!

The AFR’s Robert Harley surveyed the response of the property development industry – getting a chorus of disappointment:

The $50 million to boost new construction methods in housing is welcomed but small fare. The major issue (outside the remit of the Feds admittedly) is the blanket ban on manufactured home estates in the Sydney basin). Nevertheless, it is a positive initiative.

The help to buy scheme is also welcome – with the Commonwealth Housing Minister Clare O’Neil also announcing a lifting of the maximum value of properties that can be purchased under the scheme. The new price cap for Sydney is $1.3 million, making the scheme far more relevant in the most expensive market in the nation.

3. Coalition response to Federal Budget

Federal Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, responded to the Albanese Government’s Budget on Thursday evening.

Again, on the housing front, there were no new initiatives, merely an iteration of the previously announced $5 billion for housing enabling infrastructure. A good start, but more is needed.

8pm Thursday – this guy deserves a medal!

4. EP&A Bill is debated in NSW Parliament 

The government’s various amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (not to be confused with the bipartisan infused reforms that are still a work in progress) were debated in the lower house this week.

It is always interesting to read the focus of those contributing to the debate and what they draw upon. We were particularly impressed with the contribution from the Member for Manly, James Griffin, for taking on board our concerns around allowing a free for all on affordable housing levies - which have proven to be invaluable in preventing the delivery of housing across Sydney.

The issue of affordable housing show where politics and good policy diverge.

Everyone wants affordable housing, and the dumbed down approach is for politicians to say words to the effect of “we want affordable housing and we will introduce this affordable housing contributions scheme to pursue that objective”.

It’s an easy thing to say.

Simply… and wrong.

It is clear that affordable housing levies are primarily used to prevent housing. Woollahra Council has an affordable housing scheme that has delivered little or no affordable housing, but has down a lot of heavy lifting (along with dubious heritage listings) to stop housing being delivered.

Five Western Sydney Councils have exhibited a draft scheme, and Ku-ring-gai Council is now entering the fray with a scheme of up to 10% of gross floor space.

Yet who pays? New homeowners – disproportionately younger individuals and families trying to break into the market. They pay so that a few politicians can point to scheme purportedly around a handful of new “affordable houses”.

The response of the Minister for Planning to the question from the Member for Manly was a disappointing “politicians answer”. It appears he was chastising councils for not applying a tax on new home buyers. Labour has done a lot of damage to housing affordability by introducing the ill-conceived Housing Productivity Contributions, their own Affordable Housing taxes in TOD areas and now supporting extra charges from Councils.

The overall debate showed the predominance of politics over good policy. Take the contribution from the Member for Sydney Alex Greenwich. The speech is laced with old NIMBY lines that comprised a substantial portion of the op-eds in the old Fairfax papers 2 decades ago - from the evils of making a profit, corruption risks of the HDA EOI process, and the startling statement that “Most importantly, we need to shift the focus from delivering housing to delivering affordable housing.”

Tell that to someone unable to buy or rent a home because of limited stock! We need supply!

The Greens finally showed their hand on the Bill – with the Member for Balmain raising the spectre of corruption, trampling transparency, end of the world as we know it etc etc. All that, for what amounts to a minor tidying of the EP & A Act. 

The Teal contribution from Jacqui Scruby, newly minted MP for Pittwater was little better, decrying the apparent loss of a community voice (read a handful of NIMBY activists having just formed or taken over the local “progress association”) and even quoting Cameron Murray (a NIMBY and former Sustainable Australia candidate whose views have been discredited by all respectable housing economists).

The Government agreed to the amendment put forward by the Member for Sydney, Alex Greenwich, which maintain notification periods for state significant development at 28 days, as well as one amendment by the Independent Member for Wakehurst, Michael Regan, which provides for a review of regional strategic plans every five years.

Having passed the lower House, Thursday night saw the Bill debated in the Upper House.

Mark Latham MLC prepared a series of amendments, most notable of which was putting housing affordability and choice into the objects of the Planning Act, along with the objectives of promoting growth and employment, higher living standards and investment.

It is startling that these principles are not in the Act  - perhaps symptomatic of an out of date piece of legislation.

We also applauded Mr Latham’s observations that affordable housing:

Mr Latham also countered the endless consultation view of the world (expounded by the likes of the Greens and Alex Greenwich) with a proposal to abolish consultation entirely when it came to State Significant Developments:

Urban Taskforce supports all measures that will help speed up the delivery of housing.

Mr Latham’s contribution is an excellent one.

The Opposition proposed one amendment, introducing a safeguard so that a local council could not go off the rails when it comes to a broader strategic planning approach of the Planning Department

The Government supported this sensible amendment. Surprising what bi-partisanship can achieve. The Greens opposed – but were ignored.

Further consideration of the Bill is set down as an order of the day for the next sitting day (now in May).

The debate in both Houses illustrates that while many politicians shake their head and say that something has to be done to solve the housing supply crisis, many from the political left on the cross benches, are all too eager to play the ”we need housing, but…” line.

The Premier, Leader of the Opposition, the Planning Minister and the Shadow Minister need to reflect on the tone of this debate when considering the real reform proposed for planning legislation later this year and push through with a bipartisan approach.

 Take the political opportunism and grandstanding out of what needs to be fundamental reform that will help solve massive economic and societal issue plaguing the State.

5. NZ to bring in new planning laws “to end the culture of no”

Blueprint for resource management reform (2025), p.12

Key features of the new system include:

• Two Acts: A Planning Act focused on regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land, along with a Natural Environment Act focused on the use, protection and enhancement of the natural environment.
• A narrowed approach to effects management: The new system will be based on the economic concept of “externalities”. Effects that are borne solely by the party undertaking the activity will not be controlled by the new system (for example, interior building layouts or exterior aspects of buildings that have no impact on neighbouring properties such as the size and configuration of apartments, the provision of balconies, and the configuration of outdoor open spaces for a private dwelling). Matters such as effects on trade competition will be excluded.
• Property Rights: Both Acts will include starting presumptions that a land use is enabled, unless there is a significant enough impact on either the ability of others to use their own land or on the natural environment. This will reduce the scope of effects being regulated and enable more activities to take place as of right. There will be clear protection for lawfully established existing use rights, including the potential for the reasonable expansion of existing activities over time where the site is ‘zoned or owned’. There will be a requirement for regulatory justification reports if departing from approaches to regulation standardised at the national level. Compensation may happen for regulatory takings in some circumstances. There will be an expansion in the range of permitted activities.
• Simplified National Direction: One set of national policy direction under each Act will simplify, streamline, and direct local government plans and decision-making in the system. Direction under the Natural Environment Act will cover freshwater, indigenous biodiversity and coastal policy. Direction under the new Planning Act will cover urban development, infrastructure (including renewable energy) and natural hazards.
• Greater use of standardisation: Nationally set standards, including standardised land use zones, will provide significant system benefits and efficiencies. The new legislation will provide for greater standardisation, while still maintaining local decision making over the things that matter.
• Spatial Plans: Each region will be required to have a spatial plan, focused on identifying sufficient future urban development areas, development areas that are being prioritised for public investment and existing and planned infrastructure corridors and strategic sites.

The Planning Minister and the Shadow Planning Minister would do well by analysing the principles embedded in the New Zealand reforms. They could serve as an ideal template for the proposed reforms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 slated for some time this year.

6. North Sydney Mayor – lets do a bit more planning before we build new housing

North Sydney Council loves the metro (one of the Victoria Cross entrances is a stone’s throw from North Sydney Council chambers) – they just don’t want to share it with anyone!

This week the Mayor was out there opposing housing around the metros – this time worried about the Pacific Highway at Crows Nest becoming a “soulless canyon”

Hang on, has the Mayor strolled down North Sydney CBD after dark?

*Please note, the below link may be paywall protected

# The expression, “A king’s ransom” has, since the fifteenth century, been used to denote a large amount of money. Good King Richard I of England, returning from the Third Crusade in 1192 AD, was captured by Leopold V of Austria, who then handed him over to Henry VI, the Holy Roman Emperor – who then sought a ransom from the English of 150,000 marks – which Urban Taskforce research staff have valued at $3.3 billion in today’s money. The English struck a deal for 80,000 marks (cheap compared to the cost of the Crows Nest Metro!).

7. The beginning of the end for construction inflation? Let’s hope!

Some better news coming from the ABS CPI data this week, with new dwelling purchases by owner occupiers down to an annualised figure of 1.6% for the 12 months to February 2025. 

Housing inflation down but not out

Rents are still at the high end of the basket of goods – down but still increasing by 5.5% over the year to February.

Construction costs have gone through the roof since the end of COVID. While those higher costs are virtually baked into the system (and something that Governments still failed to fully appreciate when they are whacking on more fees, taxes and charges onto the cost of a new home) we hope that the recent inflation data represents a stabilisation of costs around housing.

8. New leadership for Sydney Water

9. Council watch (with special guest: the NSW Minister for Planning)

1.  Ku-ring-gai - double whammy to stifle dual occupancies + affordable housing tax rears its head (again)

The devil is in the detail when it comes to many councils. Pouring through the minutes from Ku-ring-gai Council, we noted this resolution seeking to impose a minimum lot size of 1012 sqm for dual occupancies. The NSW Government nominated a minimum of 450sqm.

The Minister for Planning and DPHI cannot afford to sit back and allow this to occur. They have placed great emphasis on dual occupancies in solving the housing supply crisis. Councils like Ku-ring-gai trying to lock away huge suburban blocks is contrary to the Government’s housing agenda and should be rejected.

And another affordable housing tax

Despite Ku-ring-gai council proposed planning controls to create the capacity to deliver 9012 new homes in Gordon, 9419 in Lindfield, 3353 in Roseville, and 2778 in Killara -  it comes with a sting in its tail.

Accompanying the plan is an affordable housing tax of 10% on any rezoning, along with 2% within the identified TOD areas.

We all know the ruse. Whack another fee, tax or levy on new housing to jeopardise feasibility to ensure no housing is completed or at least get new arrivals to the LGA to pay.

2.  Planning Minister to errant Councils – we can do this the easy way, or the hard way….

The overworked Council Watch team were relieved to read the Minister for Planning’s shot across the bow to Councils thumbing their noses at DA assessment performances.

In a response to a Dorothy dixer (so we know the Minister wrote the question and the answer), the Minister had this to say to the five underperforming Councils in terms of development assessment times (Georges River, Sutherland, North Sydney, Willoughby, Wingecarribee and Queanbeyan-Palerang councils)

A reading of the Riot Act. Stay tuned.

This is not a real image

Follow our new LinkedIn Page

11. Members in the news

*Please note these articles may be paywall protected

“…Toga’s Surry Hills Village is unrecognisable from its past as the infamous “Murder Mall”—a shadowy relic of poor urban planning ...read more... 

To read more, click here:                  The Urban Developer, 20 March

"…The industrial sector is expecting a “dynamic year” with Stockland and Goodman Group already making moves in the space and expanding their intermodal footprints …read more...

To read more, click here:                       The Urban Developer, 21 March

"… The Walker Corporation billion-dollar submission for an entertainment venue in Maroochydore’s CBD with a new athlete village, hotel, arena and cultural precinct was also given the green light for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.​​​​..read more...

To read more, click here:                The Courier, 26 March

""…The towering height of the six sub-penthouses in Lendlease’s One Circular Quay apartment block led its European-born interior designer Daniel Goldberg to create alternate interiors to the rest of the apartments in the 58-level tower...read more...

To read more, click here:                The Australian, 27 March