In the heart of the Australian suburbs, a fundamental conflict is brewing. It’s a clash between the cherished dream of a backyard and a detached home, and a government-led agenda aggressively pushing for high-density apartment living. This policy direction, driven by all levels of government, is unfolding against the backdrop of the worst housing affordability crisis in generations, leaving many to question: is the government listening to what Australians actually want? The evidence suggests a concerning disconnect, where citizen preference is being systematically overridden by urban planning theories.
For decades, the Australian housing preference has remained remarkably consistent: a detached house with a backyard reigns supreme. This isn’t just nostalgia; it’s a clear and ongoing consumer choice. Detached houses make up a massive 70% of Australia’s 10.9 million private homes. Repeated surveys confirm this, showing that between 60-70% of people opt for a detached house as their preferred living situation. A revealing survey of outer Melbourne homeowners found that over three-quarters would rather keep their current suburban home than swap it for a similarly sized apartment closer to the city. This enduring preference is rooted in practical needs that planners often overlook—space for children to play, family gatherings, pets, and the simple privacy of not sharing walls.
Despite this clear public desire, government policy is heading in the opposite direction. The federal government’s National Housing Accord, a pact agreed to by all levels of government in 2024, aims to build 1.2 million new “well-located” homes over five years. However, the definition of “well-located” heavily favors high-density housing near public transport, effectively promoting apartments over houses. This bias is enshrined in the accompanying National Planning Reform Blueprint, which mandates that governments “prioritise planning amendments to support diverse housing, including promoting medium- and high-density housing in well-located areas”.
State governments have adopted this agenda with vigour. The New South Wales government has explicitly stated it is “siding with property developers over NIMBYs and their local government allies”. It has introduced reforms to force higher-density development near 171 town centres and train stations. Similarly, Victorian government ministers frequently praise high-density living, drawing comparisons to New York’s Brooklyn and Williamsburg, implying that the preferred Australian suburban lifestyle is somehow inferior. To enforce this vision, the federal government is using financial incentives, like the $3 billion New Home Bonus, to reward states that exceed their high-density housing targets, effectively creating a system that pays governments to ignore community preferences.
Quality and Investment: The Cracks in the High-Density Dream
This aggressive push might be more justifiable if the resulting apartments were high-quality, sound investments. Unfortunately, the reality is a nightmare for many owners. A devastating building defects crisis has undermined the entire argument for high-density living. Official NSW government data reveals that a staggering 53% of apartments registered between 2016 and 2022 have at least one serious defect. Other studies suggest the problem is even worse, with defect rates potentially as high as 97% in NSW and 74% in Victoria. These are not minor issues; they are fundamental flaws like water ingress, waterproofing failures, and structural cracking that compromise safety and habitability. The financial toll is immense, with NSW apartment owners having already spent an estimated $79 million on rectifying these problems.
Beyond the quality concerns, the financial case for apartments is weak. Over the last decade, detached houses have provided capital growth of 80%, more than double the 38% seen by apartments. In the first quarter of 2025, two-thirds of properties sold at a loss were apartments. The reason is simple: the value is in the land rather than the building and stand-alone houses are always likely to outperform apartments. This long-term underperformance, coupled with ongoing costs like body corporate fees and the risk of massive levies to fix defects, makes apartments an inferior investment. By promoting these housing types, government policy is potentially steering Australians toward poor financial outcomes.
An Affordability Crisis and a Democratic Deficit
The government justifies its high-density agenda as a necessary response to the housing affordability crisis. The crisis is undeniably severe, with the average time to save for a house deposit now at 10.6 years. However, the government’s primary solution—the National Housing Accord—is already projected to fail. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council predicts a shortfall of 262,000 dwellings compared to the Accord’s target. This suggests the current policies are failing to address the core supply constraints driving the crisis. Furthermore, policies that restrict land supply and cram development into existing suburbs can actually increase competition and drive up land costs, worsening the problem they claim to solve.
This leads to the most critical question: why is the government pursuing policies so at odds with citizen preference, housing quality, and investment sense? The answer points to a profound democratic deficit. Policies like the National Housing Accord were developed with minimal genuine community consultation. The very mechanisms of the policy, such as “accelerated development pathways,” are designed to bypass local councils and minimise community input. When politicians dismiss legitimate community concerns with pejorative labels like “NIMBYism,” they reject the very principles of democratic expression.
The path forward requires a fundamental shift. Housing policy must be reoriented to serve the Australian people, not the theories of urban planners. This means acknowledging and respecting the overwhelming preference for detached housing and facilitating its supply with the necessary infrastructure. It means abandoning the coercive, top-down mandates and restoring local democratic control over planning. The great Australian dream of a home with a backyard is not an outdated fantasy; it is a legitimate aspiration reflecting deep-seated values. It is time for governments to start listening and to defend the right of citizens to choose how they live.