Important
Australia needs more homes. But the real risk is not only how many homes we build — it is who we let build them, and whether governments have the systems to separate quality operators from the cowboys.
Every time you open the news, it is the same headline in a slightly different outfit: Australia needs more homes.
True.
But here is the uncomfortable bit: the real risk is not only how many homes we build. It is who we let build them, and whether governments have the backbone and systems to separate quality operators from the cowboys.
Because if we chase volume and drop standards, we do not solve a crisis. We just created a new one with better marketing.
The 1.2 Million Target (And the Pace Required)
Under the National Housing Accord, the Federal Government and states set an “aspirational” national target to build 1.2 million new well-located homes over five years from 1 July 2024.
In plain English, that is:
- 240,000 homes per year
- 60,000 homes per quarter
- 20,000 homes per month (roughly)
So the question is simple: are we tracking at that run-rate?
Where We Were Up to as at 30 June 2025 (End of Year 1)
By the end of the first year, a widely reported estimate was that Australia had fallen almost 66,000 homes short of the pace required in Year 1.
Separately, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (NHSAC) forecast in May 2025 that Australia would deliver around 938,000 new dwellings over the five-year Accord period (ending 30 June 2029). That implies a shortfall of 262,000 against the 1.2 million target.
Put simply:
- The target is 1.2 million
- The forecast is now under 950,000 (call it ~938,000)
- That is well under 80% of the original ambition
And if the official forecast is already below 950,000 in Year 1, history suggests we are more likely to undershoot than magically over-deliver later.
The Real Danger: Building Fast and Building Rubbish
We absolutely must push housing supply. No argument.
But quality is non-negotiable.
If we cut corners now, in 10 to 15 years, we will see:
- Roof leaks
- Wall cracks
- Waterproofing failures
- Structural problems that “no one can believe happened” (until you see the photos)
That is not a crisis solved. That is a future disaster created.
The Core Point: Stop Judging Projects by Company Names
If we want more homes and better homes, approvals and oversight need to focus on people, not just companies.
Why?
Because companies can be wound up and reborn. If a project goes pear-shaped, it is not hard for the same individuals to reappear behind:
- A new company,
- A relative’s name, or
- A “fresh” director who is really just a placeholder.
That is where straw directors come in: people listed on paper, while the real decision-maker stays in the shadows.
A Simple Filter: Separate the Good Operators from the Risky Ones
1. Fast Lane for Proven Operators
Builders and developers who have consistently:
- Delivered quality construction
- Used licensed trades
- Maintained strong insurance records
- Kept clean compliance and tax lodgement histories
…should be prioritised. Cut them some slack. Fast-track their approvals. Get them on site and digging.
2. Slow Lane (or No Lane) for Repeat Offenders
If a builder or developer has a history of:
- Defective builds or dodgy developments
- Significant tax or GST debts
- Winding up companies repeatedly
- Phoenix behaviour indicators
- Non-compliance with licensing or insurances
…they should not get a free pass. Make them jump through hoops. Over and over. Prove they have changed.
Because if they take shortcuts in compliance, they will take shortcuts on-site.
Two Real-World Examples (Generic, but Very Common)
Example 1: The DA Swap After Approval
A development application gets approved with “Builder A” named. After approval, the developer swaps in “Builder B”. Builder B is cheaper, faster… and has a far worse track record. The project proceeds, quality suffers, and accountability becomes murky.
This is fixable with one policy lever: require the full team to be declared upfront and treat a builder change as a re-approval trigger.
Example 2: The “New Company, Same Movie” Pattern
Developer racks up tax/GST debts. Companies get liquidated. The next project appears with a new company and a different director on paper. The real controller is still the same person.
If you keep letting that through, you are not “helping housing supply”. You are funding the next wave of defects.
What Governments Need to Do
This is not only a builder issue. It is a governance issue.
- Define clear priority zones — around infrastructure and business hubs, governments should set clear boundaries where quality supply is actively prioritised.
- Put real pressure on councils — If projects sit in priority zones and meet a quality/operator standard, councils need to be pushed to process them quickly and consistently.
- Bake operator vetting into the system — Practical checks should include: Who is the actual licence holder? Who is behind the developer? Are tax lodgements up to date? Are insurances current and adequate? What is the track record on completion and defects?
- Stop the bait-and-switch — If the DA is approved based on a nominated team, do not allow the developer to quietly swap in a risky builder after the fact.
Key Takeaways
- Australia needed 1.2 million homes by mid-2029, and we were already off pace by 30 June 2025.
- Forecast delivery was under 950,000 over the five-year period (around 938,000).
- Quantity matters, but quality is non-negotiable.
- Identify, reward and empower the operators with proven track records.
- Governments must streamline approvals for quality operators and weed out the dodgy ones.
- Get the quality builders and developers on site and digging.
- Build homes that are still rock solid in 2040.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not take into account your personal circumstances. It is not financial or tax advice. You should seek independent advice from a qualified professional before making decisions about tax, legal or financial planning matters, along with loan structures or entity structure.
