Housing Crisis: The Political Gamble That Leaves Too Many Behind
I've been looking closely at the housing policies unveiled for the upcoming election, and I'll admit, I'm deeply concerned by what I'm seeing.
Both major parties are betting the house on policies that sound helpful on the surface but actually risk pushing prices even higher while leaving significant portions of our community completely out of the conversation.
The False Promise of Supply and Demand
Let's be honest about what's happening here. The housing crisis we're facing isn't just about numbers on a spreadsheet – it's about real people being locked out of stable homes. In Paterson specifically, 70.4% of residents identify housing affordability and homelessness as a critical community issue, with an unmet housing need of 5,100 dwellings.
Albanese's approach focuses on building more homes targeted at young people, but they've already failed to deliver on their previous building promises. Their $10 billion for 100,000 properties sounds impressive, but economists widely agree this will simply push up demand and prices.
Dutton's plan to provide $5 billion to help councils cut regulation and make it easier for developers? This will ONLY push prices higher again by stimulating demand without truly addressing supply constraints.
The Forgotten Generations
The generational divide in these policies is painfully obvious. Both parties are targeting younger voters because they now outnumber baby boomers at the polls, but this approach completely ignores two critical groups:
1. Baby Boomers and Generation X – What are they being offered? Nothing substantial, despite their critical role in housing stability, whether through their own housing needs or as the "Bank of Mum and Dad" that the Coalition are happy to put forward to prop up the market.
2. Generation X – The forgotten middle generation, caught between supporting their ageing parents and helping their adult children enter the housing market. In Paterson, many GenXers are in the precarious position of carrying significant debt while trying to help the next generation.
The Selfishness Assumption
These policy platforms make a troubling assumption – that voters only care about policies that directly benefit them. How is it that our leaders can't comprehend that people care about others? That older Australians might want housing solutions that help their children and grandchildren? That GenXers might want both affordable housing for themselves AND pathways to ownership for younger generations?
If our policies continue to operate under the assumption that we're all selfishly motivated, we'll never create the comprehensive solutions we need.
The Token Women's Policy Problem
The shallow approach to women's issues in this campaign is genuinely disturbing. When asked directly what he's doing for women, Dutton responded, "We're giving them houses! A large percentage of the homeless population are women!" This came while defending his policy to allow people to access their superannuation to use as home deposits.
The disconnect here is staggering. How exactly would allowing super access for deposits help homeless women? Most homeless women would not likely have significant superannuation savings to withdraw, nor would they typically qualify as first home buyers given their immediate financial insecurity. This "solution" completely misses the reality of women's homelessness, which is often driven by domestic violence, financial abuse, and systemic inequality – not by a lack of deposit funds from their non-existent retirement savings.
And Albanese? When questioned in an interview about tax relief across brackets versus targeting those who need it most, he proudly stated, "those tax incentives benefitted the lowest earnings bracket the most, of which most are women!" He effectively admitted his government has kept women in the lowest income bracket, despite promising action on gender equality when campaigning last election.
How immensely disillusioning. Both leaders seem to see women's issues as checkboxes to tick rather than complex, interconnected challenges requiring comprehensive solutions. Their responses reveal a fundamental misunderstanding — or perhaps indifference — to the real economic and social barriers women face.
The Domestic Violence Blind Spot
The housing policies completely overlook the domestic violence epidemic we're experiencing. Since the last election, Australia has recorded the highest number of women killed by men year-on-year, and in Paterson, the situation is particularly dire with rates of domestic violence 50% higher than the state average.
Access to safe, affordable housing is critical for women fleeing violence and for men establishing new, stable lives. Yet the focus on first homebuyers excludes nearly every person going through a separation due to domestic violence. These individuals:
- May already own homes they're forced to sell
- May be entering the rental market under financial duress
- Face immediate housing insecurity that can't wait for long-term supply solutions
- Often cannot access traditional mortgage products due to disrupted employment history and financial abuse
Local Politics and Short-Term Thinking
Mayor Penfolds' promised allegiance to whichever party will fund one road in Thornton raises serious questions about priorities. How does this position change now that the Liberals are offering billions to councils? If he intends to maintain his mayoral position while pursuing broader political ambitions, voters deserve clarity on how he'll balance local needs against party interests.
This small-scale transaction politics exemplifies the problem with our housing approach – focusing on isolated quick wins rather than comprehensive strategies that address interconnected issues.
A Better Path Forward
We need housing policies that:
1. Address immediate housing security needs for domestic violence survivors
2. Create pathways to ownership across ALL generations
3. Recognise the interconnected nature of housing, healthcare, and financial security
4. Focus on sustainable supply-side solutions rather than demand stimulation
5. Consider regional needs rather than one-size-fits-all approaches
For Paterson specifically, with its higher rates of domestic violence, significant unmet housing need, and ageing population, we need targeted approaches that address our unique demographic challenges.
I believe it is our representatives' job to listen to their constituents about their needs, care about the issues facing their local community, and act in the best interests of those that elected them – not just the demographic groups they believe will win them the next election.
---
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021), Census of Population and Housing: Paterson Electorate Profile. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data
CoreLogic (2025, April), "Property prices and rents reach record highs in March," Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-01/home-prices-recover-to-hit-fresh-record-march-corelogic/105118812
Davies, R. (2025, April 18), "ALP and LNP housing policies: cruel, cynical and inadequate," The Age. Retrieved from https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/alp-and-lnp-housing-policies-cruel-cynical-and-inadequate-20250418-p5lstv.html
Australian Electoral Commission (2024), Demographic Profile: Paterson. Retrieved from https://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/nsw/paterson.htm
Liberal Party of Australia (2025, March), "Housing Policy Announcement: Superannuation for Home Deposits." Retrieved from https://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies/housing
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2024), "Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia." Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence
