How Canberra's most popular book might influence my hunt for a first home
A lot of our regulation has important aims: protecting the environment, making sure workplaces – including construction sites – are safe, and stopping that big company from setting up a huge, noisy factory right next to your house.
When businesses need to comply with hundreds of rules at federal, state and local levels on where and how houses are made, it becomes a hugely time-consuming process that not only slows down construction but discourages would-be developers or builders from giving it a go.
Why, when we've become better and faster at doing so many things, have we seemed to become slower at building one of the most basic necessities of life?
It's like trying to send a truck to a flood-affected region, stocking it up with so much stuff – medicine, sandbags, food, tools, life vests – that it takes weeks or months to get there. You might get all the important aid there, but it will take so long it may have been better to leave some things behind.
The Productivity Commission warned this year that Australia is building half as many homes for every hour worked compared with three decades ago. Among the biggest handbrakes? Planning regulations have increased markedly and can even run into thousands of pages.
Loading
This 'unambiguously' jacks up the cost of development and construction, and ultimately the cost of housing for Australians, the commission's experts said.
Even when all existing laws are met, minor objections from residents can cause delays to housing projects. And some regulations, as my colleague Shane Wright pointed out last week, just seem arbitrary: a bedroom by Victorian standards, for example, is not liveable if it's not at least 3 metres by 3.4 metres in size.
This build-up of regulation and processes comes with several costs. Economists are especially obsessed with one otherwise invisible problem called 'opportunity cost': essentially what we give up or miss out on by taking a certain path.
If you buy a boat, you can't use that cash to get a new car or renovate your house. Life, and economics, is about trade-offs.
By having lots of regulation we might ensure only 'perfect' buildings get built. The opportunity cost means we end up with fewer buildings that are built slower.
It's harder to recognise because it's not a cost most people can see. Even when you're shopping for a home and struggling to nab one because there's not enough of them, you probably don't realise that regulation has choked supply.
The growing pile of regulations is also a great example of what economists call 'diminishing marginal returns'. That's the principle that the more you have of something, the less benefit you tend to get out of adding more of that thing. One block of chocolate, for example? Delicious. By the time you've eaten two, it's probably getting a bit much. And by block five? You might be taking a queasy trip to the bathroom.
Regulation, similarly, can be great. But having too much can lead to more harm than good, including blocking the new housing we so desperately need.
Loading
Of course, concerns such as environmental protection are important. But there are plenty of other cumbersome requirements and processes we can start to chop down. And as our American authors point out, there's an abundance of other ways, including investment in the energy transition, we should be looking at to preserve our environment (that's a column for another time).
Treasurer Jim Chalmers last month said Abundance had been a wake-up call for the left and that a roundtable on productivity he is organising in August would tap into the ideas outlined in the book. Just how much the government will get out of its own way as it pushes to build 1.2 million homes by 2029 is unclear.
If I manage to buy my own shoebox flat, I'll join the army of Australian home owners whose wealth is almost entirely locked away in housing, and whose self-interest will therefore be a continued surge in home prices. That cannot coexist with the vision to make housing more affordable. I probably won't be a direct winner of the government's long-term Abundance agenda. But I hope by the time I'm at dire risk of forgetting the struggle of buying my first home, the government has done what it takes to make it easier for the generations to come.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
‘Not the Australian way': Victoria's ‘extremely divisive' Voice to Parliament discussed
Former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger discusses the Victorian government's Voice to Parliament. 'This is going to be extremely divisive,' Mr Kroger told Sky News host Paul Murray. 'We've just been through this, haven't we? 'This is not the Australian way; this is what Australians overwhelmingly rejected.'

Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Concerning': Victorian renewables project will ‘destroy' prime agricultural land
Sky News contributor Jaimee Rogers discusses Victorian farmers standing up to legislation which would force them to host transmission lines on their properties. The Victorian Allan government is pushing to build 240 km of powerlines and transmission towers in the race to harness renewable energy. 'I'm concerned about this desire to reach net zero and along the way destroy our economy,' Ms Rogers said. 'The land which we have been speaking about is prime agricultural land, this is where our food is made from, and we are going to be destroying this along the way.'

Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Australia-first words that Sussan Ley says are a threat to the US relationship
But with Albanese now unable to secure a face-to-face meeting with US President Donald Trump, even as the AUKUS defence pact is being reviewed by the Pentagon and Australia is lobbying for exemptions to US tariffs, Sussan Ley argued it was the wrong time to inch away from the US. 'At a time of global uncertainty, growing conflict and a growing list of issues in the Australia-United States relationship, now is a time to build our influence in Washington, not diminish it,' she said in a statement. 'Many Australians will wonder whether this speech at this time was in our national interest, given so many things crucial to Australia's future are currently being considered by the US administration.' The AUKUS defence pact is a trilateral agreement with the United States and United Kingdom that will allow Australia to acquire nuclear submarine capabilities. James Laurenceson, director of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, said that since John Howard it was unusual for Australian prime ministers to speak positively about a more independent foreign policy not tied solely to US interests. Loading 'It's not entirely inconsistent with where Albanese has been headed,' Laurenceson said, pointing to remarks from Trade Minister Don Farrell about growing trade with China following Trump's tariffs. Laurenceson said Albanese would be confident that the Australian public was comfortable with his coming meeting with Xi occurring before a face-to-face with Trump, pointing to polling showing Trump's unpopularity in Australia. Coalition trade spokesman Kevin Hogan said on Sky News on Sunday that 'it is embarrassing' Albanese had not yet met Trump. Sydney University international affairs historian James Curran said there was a contradiction in putting a spotlight on sovereignty at a time when Australia was tying itself more firmly into US military framework through the AUKUS submarine pact. He said Albanese's speech was significant because it came at a time when the US was pressuring allies to boost defence spending and contain a rising power in China. 'While it's not a new strategic doctrine, it is saying that there are times when Australia has to determine its own destiny,' Curran said. 'After the best part of two decades, in which the culture of the alliance has been awash in the sentimental claptrap of '100 years of mateship', it's not necessarily a bad thing for the loose cannons in the Trump administration – who are perhaps getting used to allies capitulating – to hear an Australian PM saying that, from time to time, Australia needs to express itself differently.' During the election campaign, Albanese and his ministers used Trump's haphazard approach to discredit the Peter Dutton-led Coalition, whose policy agenda and style had similarities with the US president's.