The Monday essay: The Labor–Greens infighting over housing leaves Australians in limbo

What we need now is for politicians to stop treating housing as a battleground for political point-scoring and start treating it as the urgent national crisis that it is.

The debate between the Australian Labor government and the Greens over housing policy has descended into an unedifying spectacle and bitter political standoff. What should be a critical conversation about addressing the housing crisis, a fundamental issue for millions of Australians, has instead become a platform for political theatre, childish name-calling, and a clash of egos that reflects a deepening divide on how best to address housing affordability. And, as usual, the public is being left behind.

The current standoff is based around two bills proposed by the government: “Help to Buy” scheme is designed to assist 40,000 potential homebuyers through a government equity contribution, enabling them to purchase homes with as little as a 2 per cent deposit; and the “Build to Rent” program which seeks to incentivise private developers to create rental housing, with 10 per cent of those units offered at below-market rates. For Labor, these policies represent pragmatic, incremental solutions to a crisis that has left millions struggling to afford rent or buy homes.

However, the Greens, led by their housing spokesperson, Max Chandler-Mather, argue that these measures fall woefully short, and the Help to Buy scheme does little more than inflate house prices by injecting more demand into an already overheated market without addressing the structural issues behind the housing shortages. Chandler-Mather has also criticised the Build to Rent proposal, claiming that offering just 10 per cent of rentals at discounted rates is insufficient and is calling for a much more radical approach: a public housing initiative where the government itself acts as a developer, building homes to rent and ensuring long-term affordability, with rent increases capped at 2 per cent annually.

The gulf between these two positions is wide, but the rhetoric accompanying the debate has made negotiation almost impossible. Prime Minister Albanese’s dismissal of Chandler-Mather’s criticisms as immature and spiteful only entrenches the Greens’ position further. Meanwhile, the finance minister Katy Gallagher’s accusation that the Greens are working hand-in-hand with Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party to block legislation feeds the narrative that the Greens are playing politics rather than seeking substantive change.

The irony here is that the Greens’ demands are more closely aligned with traditional Labor values than the current government’s proposals. Public housing, rent controls, and government intervention in the housing market are policies one could expect from a Labor Party rooted in social democratic ideals. Yet, this Labor government is quick to dismiss the Greens’ position as unrealistic, claiming that their proposals would harm renters and buyers by reducing housing supply and making homeownership less affordable.

But the real question remains: is this political impasse necessary? There are many Australians living with housing insecurity, and the longer this battle between the two progressive parties drags on, the longer those Australians will wait for solutions. The argument that the Greens are just playing politics to raise their profile misses the larger point – that the Labor government, too, is engaging in political games. If these policies are as crucial as Labor claims – and they truly are – why not make some concessions or agree to further negotiations on future housing measures?

The housing crisis is not an issue that can be solved by rigid adherence to one policy framework or another, and both sides would be better served by exploring ways to bridge their differences. The Greens are within their rights to push for more ambitious policies; after all, they represent a growing base of Australians who are frustrated by years of housing inaction from the mainstream political parties.

However, for their part, they need to find a way to present their demands that doesn’t come across as petty obstructionism. In reality, the two parties should be natural allies, especially when facing a Liberal Party that remains largely opposed to interventionist housing policies, and the challenge lies in navigating these negotiations without losing sight of the larger goal: fixing Australia’s broken housing market.

A battle of between pragmatism and idealism in left-of-centre politics

This standoff also highlights the broader dynamics of left-of-centre politics, where ideological alignment is often complicated by tactical and strategic considerations. It’s clear that the policies at the heart of this dispute are not fundamentally at odds with either party’s core principles. In fact, the Labor Party’s platform traditionally emphasises social justice, public welfare, and a proactive role for government in addressing market failures like housing shortages. Similarly, the Greens’ push for more affordable housing is well within the realm of progressive policy-making, and it speaks to the same voter concerns that Labor claims to represent.

So why the entrenched hostility?

In part, this dispute exposes the internal machinations of political parties, where pragmatism often collides with ideological purity, and where perceived slights from years or even decades ago can have a disproportionate influence on current negotiations. The Greens’ insistence on more ambitious housing policies represents not just an idealistic push for better outcomes, but also a challenge to Labor’s credibility as the party of working Australians. Meanwhile, Labor’s refusal to entertain some of these demands reflects a deeper anxiety: that conceding to the Greens would make them appear weak or too closely aligned with a smaller, more left-wing party that often challenges their authority on progressive issues.

In a purely policy-driven world, it would seem reasonable for the two parties to meet somewhere in the middle, if possible. If the Greens are pushing for 100 per cent affordable rentals and Labor is offering 10 per cent, why not negotiate a half-way compromise that allows both sides to claim a victory for housing reform?

This reluctance to find common ground also signals a broader trend in modern politics, where the question of “but-where-will-the-money-come-from” for policy initiatives has become both a tool for deterring bold reforms and a source of contention. During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world, including in Australia, managed to mobilise unprecedented financial resources to deal with the crisis. This demonstrated that when the political will is there, money can be found – even when governments keep telling the electorate that it supposedly doesn’t exist. If a government could spend billions on pandemic relief – a fiscally conservative Coalition government, no less – it can surely afford more ambitious housing policies.

Yet, this debate about funding also reveals something deeper: a reluctance within Labor to fully embrace key elements of its own platform. Housing, in particular, is an area where market-driven solutions have historically failed to deliver equitable outcomes, and where government intervention – whether it be through public housing, rent control, or subsidies – does play a crucial role in leveling the playing field. The Greens’ proposals, far from being antithetical to Labor’s platform, could be seen as an extension of the party’s historic commitment to social justice. So why isn’t Labor more open to negotiation?

The tensions between Labor and the Greens are not just about housing; they are part of a larger struggle over the future direction of progressive politics in Australia. As the Greens grow in influence, particularly among younger voters and in urban areas, they present a challenge to Labor’s traditional dominance of the left. In this context, Labor’s reluctance to negotiate on housing policy may be less about the specifics of the bill and more about maintaining its political position. By standing firm, Labor signals that it is still the party of serious governance (even if this governance has led to the housing market crumbling away), while painting the Greens as impractical and radical ideologues (even if they are proposing workable solutions) – this narrative has worked to Labor’s advantage in the past but could be way past its use-by date.

What is clear is that this kind of political brinkmanship, while a familiar feature of Australian politics, can only last so long before it becomes self-defeating. The Housing Australia Future Fund, another policy area that saw an extended deadlock, was ultimately passed after extensive negotiations. This shows that standoffs in politics are sometimes necessary, but also that they can lead to better outcomes when both sides are willing to engage in good faith. The same could be true for housing policy if Labor and the Greens are willing to put aside what seem to be personal animosities (rather than ideological animosities) and focus on the common good.

A political game that has no winners and is failing those in need of real solutions

As this extended housing debate continues, one thing is clear: the political machinations around housing policy during a time of crisis is not just frustrating: it’s unacceptable. Housing shouldn’t be a political football to be kicked around by parties vying for votes – it’s a fundamental human need, one that affects personal security, wellbeing, and livelihoods. The longer the blame game between political parties persists, the more it becomes apparent that, for many politicians, maintaining power and appealing to their base takes precedence over real, substantive change.

The housing crisis is complex, and the solutions to it will necessarily be multifaceted and require more than just sloganeering or short-term political strategies. The collision of many factors – rising home prices, stagnant wages, limited housing supply, and the commodification of property – demands a coordinated, long-term response. But who’s got time for that in a parliamentary term which only lasts three years?

Politicians, by their very nature, are inclined to play politics – they are politicians, after all: it’s a part of the job, and in many cases, it’s what gets results. But this current action is not getting the results. When the stakes are as high as they are in the current housing crisis, with so many Australians struggling to afford homes or even meet basic rental costs, this type of politicking becomes particularly unseemly and grotesque. For sure, the Labor Party and the Greens are ultimately chasing the same voters within the electorate, yet both parties ostensibly want the same outcome: a housing market that works for ordinary people. While it will take many years for the Build to Rent scheme to come to fruition, when taking into account funding, planning and construction considerations, time is critical, and the longer these negotiations drag on, the longer Australians will have to wait for relief.

But why stop at two small policy proposals? While all sides of politics seem to acknowledge the seriousness of the housing crisis to varying degrees, there is little appetite for the kind of sweeping reforms that would be necessary to address these systemic issues. Tax reforms, such as changes to negative gearing and capital gains, are politically difficult, and both major parties have shied away from them for fear of alienating certain voter blocs. But without these reforms, any policy aimed at making housing more affordable will be hampered by a market structure that incentivises speculation and hoarding rather than making homes available to those who need them. What is the point of small band-aid solutions such as Build to Rent and Help to Buy if the main causes of the housing crisis are neglected and remain in place?

The time for half-measures and political gamesmanship has passed. What is needed now is bold, decisive action. Governments must step in, not only to provide immediate relief through programs like Build to Rent and Help to Buy, but to address the underlying structural issues that have turned housing into a commodity rather than a basic right. This means revisiting tax policy, rethinking the role of government in housing supply, and developing a coordinated national strategy that prioritises people over profit.

What we need now is for politicians to stop treating housing as a battleground for political point-scoring and start treating it as the urgent national crisis that it is. The public doesn’t care about who wins the rhetorical battle in Parliament – they primarily care about being able to afford a place to live.

In the end, the housing crisis is a test of whether our political system can rise to meet the challenges of the 21st century. If politicians continue to bicker while ordinary Australians struggle, they will have failed that test. But if they can put aside their differences, focus on the common good, and work toward real, lasting solutions, they may just prove that our democracy is capable of solving even the most complex and urgent problems.