Peter Tulip
@petertulip.bsky.social
Chief economist at Centre for Independent Studies
Economics
86%
Engineering
9%
Pinned
Peter Tulip
@petertulip.bsky.social
· Nov 22
www.cis.org.au
This paper summarises what I see as the key points in the Australian housing debate, as of February 2024.
www.cis.org.au/wp-content/u... 1/8
www.cis.org.au/wp-content/u... 1/8
Reposted by Peter Tulip
![Nearly half (48 per cent) of people either strongly or tended to support increased residential density in their own neighbourhood, up from 46 per cent last year and 44 per cent in 2024. About 17 per cent of people were strongly opposed to the idea, while 18 per cent were ambivalent.
Matt Levinson, the committee’s head of corporate affairs, said: “We’ve seen [support for increased density in people’s own suburbs] gradually moving up year on year, and the number of people who oppose it gradually declining. Two-thirds of the city now see it as OK in their own neighbourhood.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:oiqovxbokddaftchylrxquxg/bafkreidcttqk7ouow2u2vvyc4qxshnsxvlio2huvip6fbcgisfalqxgw5u@jpeg)
Reposted by Peter Tulip
Cities are the vital engines of the Australian economy, and how we build them matters.
This is a vital evening for those passionate about solving the housing crisis, and building more affordable, liveable, and sustainable Australian cities.
events.humanitix.com/order-withou...
This is a vital evening for those passionate about solving the housing crisis, and building more affordable, liveable, and sustainable Australian cities.
events.humanitix.com/order-withou...
While cutting red tape sounds great, how do we do it?
One approach is to require rigorous cost-benefit comparisons of regulations.
This would find many regulations to be excessive; including land use, environment, lending restrictions, airport security, product safety, copyright, etc. 4/4
One approach is to require rigorous cost-benefit comparisons of regulations.
This would find many regulations to be excessive; including land use, environment, lending restrictions, airport security, product safety, copyright, etc. 4/4
Best practice for supply-side reform | Inflection Points
To maximise the impact of supply-side policy, reform should focus on bans over burdens, and markets over individual firms.
inflectionpoints.work
Of course, the other 32% also matters and should be reduced. But, as @1finaleffort.bsky.social argues, policy should "target bans, not burdens."
inflectionpoints.work/articles/bes... 3/4
inflectionpoints.work/articles/bes... 3/4
Housing is an example.
The Queensland Productivity Commission reports that a wide range of regulations add $186,000 to the cost of a new greenfields house in Brisbane. $128,000 (68%) of this is direct prohibition of extra residential housing. 2/4
qpc.qld.gov.au/content/inqu...
The Queensland Productivity Commission reports that a wide range of regulations add $186,000 to the cost of a new greenfields house in Brisbane. $128,000 (68%) of this is direct prohibition of extra residential housing. 2/4
qpc.qld.gov.au/content/inqu...
cdn.liberal.org.au
Both sides agree we need to cut red tape.
cdn.liberal.org.au/pdf/2026-Der...
Good. But there is too much emphasis on compliance costs.
The costs of prohibitions are typically far greater.
The main problem isn't that regulations make things difficult. It's they stop worthwhile things altogether. 1/4
cdn.liberal.org.au/pdf/2026-Der...
Good. But there is too much emphasis on compliance costs.
The costs of prohibitions are typically far greater.
The main problem isn't that regulations make things difficult. It's they stop worthwhile things altogether. 1/4