By 2024, median home prices in Australia are expected to be almost nine times the average household income, indicating a severe housing affordability issue.  Many Australians, particularly younger generations, renters, and first-time homebuyers, now find it increasingly difficult to acquire a property due to this concerning inequality.  Increased loan rates, a shortage of available housing, and stagnant wages have exacerbated the situation, sparking a national conversation and bringing housing to the forefront of political discourse.

 A critical issue that may impact voter sentiment across demographics has come to light as the 2025 federal election approaches.  Both main parties are facing pressure to provide long-term, scalable solutions rather than temporary fixes.  Voters are increasingly asking: what are the actual answers, given that affordability has reached all-time lows?

With pledges from both parties pledging to alleviate the housing shortage, this election is being seen as a watershed.  However, rigorous examination is required beyond press releases and headlines.  Which promises are most important?  What reasoning drives them—are they motivated by supply, demand, or financial incentives?  What are their size or execution limitations?  Above all, what practical results can Australians anticipate from the implementation of these policies?

Targets and Mechanisms for Supply

1. Ahead of the 2025 federal election, major political parties in Australia have pledged ambitious yet diverse, supply-driven measures to address the country’s home affordability issue.

2. With a $10 billion investment, the Australian Labour Party (ALP) has pledged to build 1.2 million houses by 2029, including 55,000 social and affordable dwellings under the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF).

3. In its first five years, the HAFF, which was enacted in 2023, intends to construct 30,000 houses. ALP’s plan also addresses building capacity and speed by allocating $78 million to train 6,000 apprentices, $54 million for modular housing, and 100,000 new houses for first-time buyers on Commonwealth property. Its 5% deposit Home Guarantee and “Help to Buy” shared equity plan make it easier for buyers to get in.

4. The Coalition (LNP) places a strong emphasis on demand-side incentives, including the ability to withdraw up to $50,000 from super for housing deposits and a five-year tax break on mortgage interest for new construction of up to $650,000.

5. $5 billion for infrastructure, expedited clearances, and a halt to National Construction Code amendments are all examples of supply support. They also suggest restricting immigration, outlawing foreign purchasers, and expanding Home Guarantee programs.

6. Rent regulations, vacancy taxes, negative gearing reform, and CGT reductions are among the measures advocated by the Greens and others to rebalance housing from investment to shelter.

Structural Reforms

1. Both major parties have made headline-grabbing pledges, but many analysts argue that the most significant levers for home affordability have remained unchanged.

2. The Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount and negative gearing are two structural policies that disproportionately favour real estate investors and stimulate speculative demand; however, neither the Labour Party (ALP) nor the Coalition (LNP) has suggested changing them.

3. Research organisations, such as the Australia Institute, and housing economists claim that these tax breaks tilt the market in favour of returning investors, making it more difficult for first-time homebuyers to compete.  

4. Initiatives on both the supply and demand sides risk being weakened by ongoing price rises if these systemic motivations are not addressed. Furthermore, neither party provides any assistance to low-income tenants; both agendas lack long-term tenancy stability, rent ceilings, and rental safeguards.  

5. Labour has pledged to build 55,000 social and affordable houses through the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF). However, this is only a small portion of what is required to satisfy the increasing demand.

6. The Greens, on the other hand, have made structural changes a central tenet of their agenda, suggesting that negative gearing be eliminated, CGT reductions be eliminated, and tenant protections be increased.  

7. Many analysts believe that housing policy will remain patchwork in the absence of these more significant reforms, unable to move the market towards genuine equity or affordability.

Fiscal Commitment & Funding Comparison

Critique & Impact Analysis

1. Housing pledges dominate the 2025 election agenda, but a closer examination reveals serious flaws that threaten their efficacy.

2. First, there is a significant shortage of supplies. Australia is expected to build only about 825,000 houses by 2029, according to the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (NHSAC), which is significantly less than Labour’s target of 1.2 million. Given the continued construction delays and expense pressures, this gap calls into doubt the viability of the predictions.

3. Second, demand-side incentives risk driving up prices even further. Examples of this are the Coalition’s superannuation access and Labor’s 5% deposit plan. Instead of improving affordability across the board, these technologies primarily benefit individuals who are already close to making a purchase. They could intensify competitiveness and pricing pressure, especially in urban expansion zones, by increasing demand without matching supply.

4. Third, low-income tenants continue to face marginalisation. Although both main parties fail to address long-term tenancy safeguards, rental stress, or the widespread development of public housing beyond symbolic numbers, rent rises are continuously surpassing wage growth.

5. Lastly, industry bottlenecks continue to be significant obstacles, ranging from slow planning clearances to a lack of competent workers. These housing goals risk becoming aspirational rather than practical in the absence of essential changes in workforce development, modular innovation, and collaboration between state and federal planning.

6. In summary, policy pledges may not adequately address the underlying causes of Australia’s housing issue in the absence of structural improvements and straightforward implementation.

Supply vs Demand & Price Effect

The graph highlights possible price inflation threats by showing how housing supply and demand interact under current policy plans and estimates.

1. Two curves are displayed on the supply side: the NHSAC’s estimated delivery of about 825,000 houses (orange dashed-dotted line) and Labor’s goal of 1.2 million homes by 2029 (blue dashed line).  In contrast to government aspirations, the NHSAC supply line’s flatter slope suggests a more limited growth in housing availability.

2. The green line on the demand side denotes the baseline demand in the absence of any new policy initiatives.  Policies such as 5% deposit plans, access to superannuation, and mortgage interest deductions—mostly from Labour and Coalition platforms—cause demand to shift to the left or upward, as indicated by the red line.  Especially for consumers with mid-to-high incomes, these incentives boost purchasing power.

3. Equilibrium pricing levels are indicated by the points where the supply and demand curves intersect.  Price levels grow when supply cannot keep up with demand, going from baseline to inflated demand but only reaching anticipated (not planned) supply.  This demonstrates how demand-boosting measures can lead to inflation if a real increase in housing stock does not support them.

4. Even while measures are meant to increase housing availability, the mismatch between supply and demand might further drive up prices, particularly in areas with strong demand.

Potential Outcomes

1. Following the 2025 election, the direction of Australia’s housing market will be significantly influenced by the party or parties in power and the extent to which their pledges are carried out.

2. Improved supply pipelines for the market may result from Labour’s comprehensive housing plan, which includes the 1.2 million house target, expedited tradesperson training, and incentives for modular housing.

3. In the medium run, this might reduce pressure on rents and slow price increases. Affordability may still be distorted by investor-driven demand, particularly for first-time homebuyers, if systemic tax distortions, such as negative gearing and CGT deductions, are not addressed.

4. Demand-side measures, such as super withdrawals and mortgage interest reductions, provide potential buyers with a temporary respite under a coalition administration.

However, these actions are likely to further drive up costs in the absence of a coordinated supply plan, especially in urban areas that are already highly competitive.

5. The national housing agenda may shift to include social housing growth, rental limits, and renters’ rights in a minority government or mixed-parliament situation, particularly when the Greens control the balance of power.

6. Fiscal conservatives and industrial interests would probably oppose such reforms, even if they would increase systemic equality. Real change ultimately depends on a balanced combination of supply, demand, and structural changes, as well as political will and the ability to execute.

What Voters Should Ask?

Voters must look behind the headlines and ask important questions to determine the real significance of party pledges as housing becomes a significant issue in the 2025 federal election.

1. Who benefits?

 Do these policies favour owner-occupiers, investors, or low-income tenants? Deposit schemes and tax deductions often benefit those already close to affording a home, while tenants and those locked out of the market see little direct gain. Structural tax perks, such as negative gearing, still tilt the playing field in favour of property investors.

2. Will this tame prices—or inflate them?

 Without a strong supply response, demand-side incentives could lead to higher prices. Voters should assess whether proposed increases in housing stock are realistic and whether they align with the level of newly created demand.

3. Are we fixing the industry itself?

 Even the best policy won’t deliver if labour shortages, rising construction costs, and slow approval processes hold back the housing industry. Are parties proposing real, funded solutions to these bottlenecks?

4. What about tenants and social housing?

 Long-term affordability requires bold rental protections, expanded social housing, and structural tax reform. Voters must ask: who is addressing these foundational issues—and who is ignoring them?

These questions will help voters navigate the promises and assess what will truly improve housing for all.

Final Take

Short-term tax reductions or deposit assistance will not address Australia’s housing issue. The market’s fundamental problems—limited supply, slow planning approvals, industry bottlenecks, and deeply ingrained tax distortions that favour investors over first-time homebuyers and renters—are not significantly addressed by such policies, even though they could make it easier for a small number of buyers to enter the market.

A comprehensive national housing plan is desperately needed, one that strikes a balance between reducing regulatory red tape, investing in the capacity of the construction workforce, accelerating supply delivery, and reforming investor-focused tax policies, such as the CGT discount and negative gearing. Well-intentioned measures have the potential to exacerbate inequality or further inflate prices if these levers are not correctly aligned.

The 2025 election is a pivotal event as Millennials and Gen Z, who are increasingly excluded from the real estate market, are becoming increasingly concerned about home affordability. It presents a unique opportunity to reorient the national agenda in favour of equity and long-term affordability.

However, many of the present measures will remain temporary solutions rather than long-term remedies unless structural improvements are also made in addition to headline pledges. The future of housing in Australia hinges on voters prioritising reality over words.

DISCLAIMER – The information and opinion provided is for guidance and general informational purposes only. The sole intention is to provide general understanding of the subject matter so the readers can assess whether they need more detailed information. The information provided on this website should not be regarded as a financial, business, legal or real estate advice and it is strongly recommended that the readers should seek their own independent financial, business, legal or real estate advice. While every effort has been made to ensure that the information and the material is correct and up to date at the date of publication. However, we do not guarantee or warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information provided as the factors like changes in circumstances after the time of publication, may impact such accuracy or completeness. Bargoti real estate will not accept responsibility or liability for any reliance on the blog information, including but not limited to, the accuracy, currency or completeness of any information or links.