Recent claims from the Urban Taskforce suggesting planners deserve a lion-share of the blame for Australia’s housing crisis may be politically convenient, but it completely misrepresents the roles of planners, governments and developers in building new homes.

Australia does not have a single actor holding back housing supply. It has a complex system under strain. Reducing that system to a story about “anti-development” planners may generate headlines, but it will neither build more homes – nor make them more affordable.

Let’s start with a simple truth.

Planners want more homes. We want them delivered at scale, in well planned communities, close to jobs, transport and services. We want well-designed homes that are supported by essential infrastructure, and resilient to floods and bushfires. And we want planning systems that deliver more homes in ways that are efficient, transparent and responsive.

The Planning Institute of Australia has been advocating for reform to the housing system, long before housing targets became front page news. We believe the crisis is real, but the causes and solutions are shared.

A reform agenda that builds supply

When the goal is more homes, the answer is not to weaken planning. It is to improve it. And to ensure approved homes actually move to construction.

That means strengthening strategic planning so that we enable more homes in the right locations, aligned with infrastructure commitments and backed by clear housing diversity targets.

It means streamlining development assessment so appropriate projects move through the system efficiently, supported by proper resourcing, consistent standards and modern digital processes.

It means using better data and evidence to inform decisions about housing, infrastructure capacity and environmental risk, giving certainty to both communities and developers.

It means sequencing infrastructure with growth, through transparent and economically sound contribution frameworks and coordinated public investment.

And it means recognising that social and affordable housing requires significant government investment. Clear inclusionary mechanisms, partnerships with community housing providers and direct government investment are essential if we are serious about equity and workforce participation.

This is not an anti-development agenda. It is a pro supply, pro certainty agenda.  And these are all things that planners and PIA have argued for.

Approvals are not the same as delivery

In NSW, since 1 July 2024, there has been 106,000 homes granted planning approval, but only 71,000 have proceeded to construction. This means 30% of approved homes are sitting idle in the pipeline.[1] If we are serious about meeting national housing targets, we need to ask a hard question. Why are a significant proportion of already approved homes not being built by developers?

Developers make commercial decisions about when and whether to proceed. Projects are staged. Sites with approvals are often traded and construction is delayed while waiting for presales or more favourable market conditions. Finance costs, risk margins and return expectations all shape the timing of delivery.

This is not a criticism of development. It is the commercial reality of how the market operates, and the private market delivers more than 95% of all homes. But it demonstrates that housing supply is not controlled by planners alone.

Further, in 2017-18, NSW achieved its highest numbers of housing approvals and completions – under what was regarded as a more restrictive planning system. So something bigger than planning is at play.

Feasibility pressures are real

The development sector is facing genuine headwinds. Construction costs have risen sharply since the pandemic. Labour shortages persist. Finance is tighter and more expensive. Insurance settings and regulatory compliance add cost and complexity. Infrastructure contributions, taxes and levies accumulate.

These pressures matter.

But feasibility challenges are not evidence of ideological resistance by planners. They are evidence of a housing system that requires coordinated reform across multiple levers.

What planners actually do

Planners operate within legislative frameworks set by governments. Those frameworks are shaped through political negotiation, election commitments and sustained lobbying by competing interests.

Ad hoc rezonings, shifting state priorities and inconsistent policy signals all adversely affect how the planning system functions. Planners are responsible for administering and advising within that framework, but they do not control the political decisions that shape it.

The suggestion that planners are philosophically opposed to development is not only incorrect, it ignores the reality of how the system operates. Planners are tasked with implementing government policy, assessing proposals against legislated criteria, and planning for growth in a way that coordinates infrastructure, manages environmental risk and safeguards long term community outcomes.

Good planning is not about blocking housing. It is about ensuring more homes deliver better communities. Good planning creates the conditions for a wider range of appropriate housing types to be built.

When housing is delivered without adequate infrastructure, communities inherit the costs of congestion, overcrowded schools and service gaps.

When environmental risk is ignored, homes are built in flood or bushfire prone areas, imposing future costs on residents and governments.

When design quality is compromised, public confidence in higher density living declines, making the next wave of housing reform even harder.

Planning is not the obstacle to housing supply. Done well, it is what makes growth sustainable and acceptable.  Shared responsibility, not selective blame

If we want more housing faster, the focus must be on broad housing system reform, rather than scapegoating one profession for the outcomes of a politically constructed system.

Planners need to be resourced to do more upfront strategic planning. Developers need to move approved projects into construction at pace. Governments need to align infrastructure funding with growth areas and provide policy stability. Financial institutions need to support viable projects. Builders need stable regulatory and insurance settings, as well as access to a skilled workforce.

Planning reform is part of the task. So is timely project delivery. So is infrastructure sequencing. So is construction capacity.

Blaming planners may be politically attractive. It shifts attention away from market behaviour, land price dynamics, infrastructure funding decisions and the political choices that have shaped planning frameworks over time.

But it will not build a single new home.

Australia needs more homes. It also needs well planned communities that stand the test of time.

Those objectives are not in conflict. With coordinated reform and shared accountability, they can reinforce each other.

Fix the housing system. Share the responsibility. And focus on delivering good outcomes.

[1] Source: NSW Housing Supply Dashboard

Written by: Nicole Bennetts RPIA, National Head of Advocacy, Planning Institute of Australia