Inquiry into Intergenerational Housing Inequity

There is now abundant evidence that governments’ greatest tool for reducing the cost of housing is to remove restrictions that block new homes being built in places where people want to live. This submission does not seek to debate or relitigate this well-established empirical evidence. We refer to the Grattan Institute’s More homes, better cities report, Jonathan O’Brien’s The Problem with Urban Planning, and Donovan and Maltman’s review of Auckland’s zoning reforms for a comprehensive summary of the available data.

While land use regulation is typically managed by the states, the Commonwealth is not bereft of tools—particularly the National Competition Policy. For immediate federal actions to alleviate the crisis, we refer to our 2025 election policy guide: The Brick Book.

Planning is a driver of inequity

Current planning systems are the primary drivers of spatial and intergenerational inequity in Australia. These systems often enforce artificial monopolies that benefit existing property owners at the expense of renters and first-home buyers.

• Wealth disparity: In restrictive environments, homeowners can accumulate significantly more net wealth—up to 56% more over 20 years—than equivalent renters.
• Displacement: By restricting supply while demand rises, planning controls concentrate competition, driving up prices and pushing lower-income residents out of desirable areas.
• Generational impacts: Evidence shows that upzoning attracts younger populations and families, whereas restrictive zoning leads to aging populations and declining numbers of children.

Local participatory democracy fails to empower

The current model of participatory democracy in planning has led to a paradox of empowerment. While intended to be inclusive, these processes systemically empower the "time-rich" and socially advantaged—typically older, wealthier homeowners—who use local government to hoard opportunity and block affordability.

• Metropolitan disenfranchisement: Small local council boundaries prevent aspirational residents or those already displaced from having a political voice in the areas they wish to live.
• Stymying social housing: Wealthy areas are often the most hostile to non-market housing. "Town planning issues" and "lawfare" remain primary reasons for delays in major public housing rollouts, such as Victoria’s Big Housing Build and the federal Housing Australia Future Fund.