The missing voice in Australia's housing debate

Almost every week, another headline tells us Australia is falling further behind on housing.

For more than 20 years, I've worked alongside local government organisations helping them navigate change, modernise services and improve outcomes for their communities. During that time, I've watched planning become increasingly complex. Today, planners are expected to balance housing supply, infrastructure, environmental outcomes, resilience, community expectations and legislative reform, often while working with fragmented systems and increasing workloads.

Almost every week, another headline tells us Australia is falling further behind on housing. Building approvals are slowing, affordability continues to dominate the national conversation, and planning is once again under the spotlight. Yet I've learned that the biggest challenges facing communities are rarely explained by a single headline or solved by a single reform. The Planning Institute of Australia recently highlighted that planning is just one stage in a 12-step housing delivery pipeline. While planning creates the enabling conditions for housing, delivery also depends on infrastructure, investment, construction capacity, labour availability and market conditions working together. Hundreds of thousands of homes have already been approved but are yet to be built. Having also experienced the planning and building process personally, I know the journey from planning permit approval to a completed home is anything but straightforward. That made me curious about one question: what do planners themselves think? 

The profession is asking for a more balanced conversation

Earlier this year we surveyed more than 120 planning professionals across Australia.  Some of the findings confirmed what I've been hearing from councils for years, while others challenged my own assumptions. One result stood above all others. Ninety six percent of planners disagreed that planning is the biggest barrier to housing delivery. That is not planners avoiding accountability, it is planners recognising that housing delivery is a connected system. Planning matters, but so do infrastructure, construction capacity, investment, developer confidence and broader economic conditions.  If we continue searching for a single cause, we will continue missing the bigger opportunity.

The real challenge is not planning. It is complexity

Modern planning systems are expected to balance housing delivery, infrastructure coordination, environmental outcomes, resilience, productivity and community expectations at the same time. That complexity is not going away. The question is whether we are equipping planners with the systems, information and capability to navigate it. Good planning enables the right homes, in the right places, supported by the right infrastructure. But planners cannot do that work effectively if they are buried in disconnected processes, duplicated administration and systems that were never designed for the way planning now works. 

Technology is not the headline. It is the enabler

One aspect of the research I found particularly encouraging was the profession's attitude towards technology and AI. They are pragmatic and want technology that reduces repetitive administration, surfaces information faster and improves consistency. Most importantly, they want more time to exercise professional judgement and focus on the issues that matter most to communities. To me, that's exactly where AI should be focused. The conversation shouldn't be about replacing planners. It should be about enabling them.

The opportunity we are missing

The more I reflected on the findings, the more I realised we're asking two very different questions. One is how we deliver more homes today. The other is how we build a planning system capable of supporting Australia's housing ambitions over the long term. If Australia wants to meet its housing ambitions, we need to invest not only in policy reform, but also in planning capability, connected systems and the professionals responsible for delivering them. That is not simply good planning. It is good nation building. 

Listening to the people doing the work

One of my biggest takeaways from our Myth vs Reality in Planning 2026 survey was not about housing, or AI, or even planning reform. It was about the planners themselves, the 123 survey participants. Despite increasing complexity and constant scrutiny, they're not asking for less responsibility. They're asking for the capability, information and support to meet the expectations already placed upon them. If we're serious about delivering more homes and stronger communities, we need to make sure the voices of planning professionals are part of the conversation. I hope Myth vs Reality in Planning 2026 helps move that conversation forward.

Download the full Myth vs Reality in Planning 2026 report to explore what more than 120 planning professionals are really saying about housing, AI, burnout and the future of planning.