Why living 80s style would mean we'd need 1.2 million fewer homes

The Reserve Bank assistant governor says how we live now is contributing to the housing shortage.

The National Housing Accord announced by the Albanese Government aims to build 1.2 million new well located homes over the next five years, starting from 1 July. The Accord is an agreement between the Federal Government and the states and territories to work together to raise the supply of homes. It begins with $3.5 billion in federal funding and the states and territories undertaking expedited zoning, planning and land releases to facilitate new building.

All of this is happening amid a housing crisis that has seen rents and home values both skyrocket by more than 40 percent since August 2020, according to CoreLogic data. Demand for social housing is also high, while post pandemic immigration has put further pressure on the market, and dwelling approvals per capita are at decade-lows amid high interest rates and higher materials and labour costs.

But there’s another way to fix it, says RBA assistant governor Sarah Hunter. We could just go back to living like we did in the 1980s. Back then, households were larger in size. That is, the number of people per household was higher at 2.8 people per home compared to 2.5 now. That may not sound like much of a difference, but Ms Hunter says if we reverted to this we’d need 1.2 million fewer homes right now.

In a speech last week on housing market cycles and fundamentals, Ms Hunter said that underlying demand for housing – be it rental or ownership – is determined by the size of our population, currently 27 million, and the average number of people living in each of our 11 million homes.

Ms Hunter said Australia typically has faster population growth than other advanced countries, driven by net overseas migration. In FY23, new overseas migration totalled more than half a million people. She also said the size of Australian households has been trending lower over the long term, mainly due to demographic factors. These include an ageing population, which means we have more elderly Australians living alone or in couple-only households; as well as a falling birth rate, which is reducing the average family size.

While the demographic trends that drive housing demand tend to occur slowly, the pandemic sped them up. “During the pandemic, there was a shift in preferences towards more physical living space per person ... This was particularly the case for people who shared a home with non-family members, such as young people living in a flat share,” Ms Hunter said. “This group shrank as a proportion of households, while the share living with their partner increased – as a result, the average household size declined.”

She added: “The shift to working from home has also reinforced this change. While some people have returned to their workplace full time, there has been an increase in the proportion of people working from home – for many, a home office space is now highly desirable. This suggests that the recent falls in the average number of people per home will be at least partially permanent.”

When housing demand rises, supply usually responds through new building activity. But the time this takes can vary, depending on rental and housing prices, underlying construction costs and the time required to design, approve and build. In the meantime, property prices and rents adjust in line with the extent of the demand and supply imbalance.

“The pandemic period – and its aftermath – stands out as a particularly sharp cycle,” Ms Hunter said. Growth in demand for new dwellings slowed rapidly in 2020 before rebounding strongly, partly due to the HomeBuilder program. But supply did not respond normally, with completions trending lower over the past five years due to a “perfect storm” of challenges in the construction sector.

They began with COVID-related supply chain disruptions that made it difficult to source materials, fixtures and fittings. Materials and labour costs went up, and a combination of shipping delays and labour shortages significantly extended building timelines. Today, supply chains have normalised but costs remain nearly 40% higher than in 2019 and the pipeline of new builds is clogged.

Additionally, major new projects are typically funded by debt, so higher interest rates are also reducing the viability of new builds. Many developers have delayed projects because of higher costs relative to anticipated returns. Meriton founder Harry Triguboff recently told The Australian that government and council approvals take too long and “it is harder to sell apartments now than ever before” due to high interest rates and fewer Chinese buyers.

Ms Hunter said easing zoning and planning restrictions and streamlining approval processes could reduce costs and lift supply but “it will not be a quick fix”. She concluded: “… upward pressure on rents and prices will remain until new supply comes online”.

The Reserve Bank had little choice but to raise interest rates again this week.

Inflation was already proving stubborn before the latest Middle East instability added further pressure to energy prices and supply chains.

Housing inflation alone has averaged six per cent over the past year, remaining one of the single biggest contributors to CPI.

But while the focus remains on rates, the deeper problem is structural and far more dangerous.

Australia is not building enough homes, and the conditions required to fix that are deteriorating simultaneously.

Construction costs remain elevated. Builders are increasingly unwilling to absorb contract risk. Labour shortages persist.

Capital is becoming more expensive. And as borrowing capacity weakens and sentiment softens, fewer projects are becoming financially viable.

The result is a self-reinforcing cycle.

The RBA raises rates to fight inflation. Higher rates reduce development feasibility. Fewer projects start. Housing supply tightens further. Rents rise. Inflation persists. The RBA raises rates again.

The only long-term solution is supply, yet Australia remains nowhere near the National Housing Accord target of 240,000 new dwellings a year.

Completion continues to lag approvals, meaning many projects approved on paper are simply never making it out of the ground.

That gap matters enormously because housing is not just another sector of the economy.

Around two-thirds of Australian household wealth is tied to property, while the sector underpins millions of jobs and related industries. Weakness here quickly spreads beyond real estate.

We are already seeing signs of stress. Auction clearance rates in Sydney and Melbourne have softened, borrowing capacity has declined, and parts of the market are experiencing price corrections as confidence weakens.

At the same time, policymakers continue to debate tax measures such as changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, despite fears that such reforms could drive private capital out of the rental market at precisely the moment when supply is most constrained.

This is the paradox at the centre of Australia’s housing crisis.

Demand for property remains extraordinarily high, yet the economic conditions required to actually build new housing are worsening.

The Reserve Bank cannot solve that problem alone.

Monetary policy cannot accelerate planning approvals, reduce construction costs or create more tradies. It can only raise the cost of money until something eventually breaks.

And increasingly, that “something” looks like the development pipeline itself.

Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.

Why living 80s style would mean we’d need 1.2 million fewer homes

The housing crisis could be addressed without the need for more dwellings, the RBA assistant governor says

Rising rates, construction inflation and shrinking investor confidence are pushing Australia deeper into a dangerous housing spiral that monetary policy alone cannot fix.