WESTERN AUSTRALIA PLANNING REFORM: HOW WE’VE TAKEN ON NIMBYS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS JOHN CAREY

What is it about Western Australia? Do they do things differently there? Once the forgotten west of our vast continent, and almost not part of the Australian Federation, today the west is booming. And it is not just because of the richness from its mining industry. It is a cultural progress to manage prosperity and productivity. The Hon John Carey is Western Australia’s Minister for Planning and Lands; Housing and Works; Health and Infrastructure. He is embarked on a campaign to overturn resistance to high rise apartments in Perth. To explain what needs to happen, John Carey addressed The Sydney Institute on 30 July 2025

WESTERN AUSTRALIA PLANNING REFORM: HOW WE’VE TAKEN ON NIMBYS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

JOHN CAREY

I do want to thank The Sydney Institute for this opportunity and this honour to speak here tonight. And also, the Property Council of Australia for its suggestion. I want to begin with this little scenario.

On a dark and stormy night, a foreign power sweeps down the coast of Perth using aerial bombers, threatening a suburban local community and a small piece of essential health infrastructure. Now, I’m not describing a Tom Clancy novel. Nor am I describing a pitch for a potential TV show. Instead, it’s one of the reasons given by a local government councillor in opposition to the location of WA’s first dedicated children’s hospice proposed by a non-for-profit foundation. And a councillor, who said (and I paraphrase) that because of the site’s proximity to an army base, if the base got attacked, guess what? The site will suffer damage.

It’s an extraordinary proposition. One that is not grounded in any practical reality, nor any legitimate or considered planning grounds. And this was only the beginning of the farce that was the Council’s consideration of the project. While some may argue it is a more extreme example, it is unfortunately more of a commonplace reality that this type of NIMBYs and local government decision-making has been applying the handbrake on important projects and critically needed housing in Western Australia.

A key priority for all states right now is the delivery of housing supply across the continuum – social, affordable and those provided by the private market. I would like to think that this absurd scenario that I’ve described is exclusive to Western Australia, but we know it is not. The local government landscape across the country is littered with ill-informed debate and destructive fear-mongering. And it can be a place where reasoned planning advice is simply thrown out of the window. It is often enabled by planning systems and local government processes, which can hamper good long-term planning decisions. This stifles the housing and the density developments that we need.

It seems perverse that there are still those who are prepared to defend the status quo, particularly given the fact that Australia has experienced extraordinary population growth and housing pressure since the COVID pandemic. We cannot accept doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. I’ll come back to how WA’s planning system has been restructured, but we need to provide a context for the current issues and challenges that we face. Western Australia is seeing extraordinary population growth and housing demand, with the state experiencing the fastest growth with last year at 2.4 per cent. Some of you will roll your eyes, but Western Australia is a great place to live, work and play. Since 2019, our economy has grown by almost 26 per cent, the strongest of all the states and outpacing the national figure of nearly 16 per cent. We had the strongest employment figures last year, the strongest in the nation.

Our state government is making significant investments to address considerable pressures on our housing market, with a record $5.8 billion investment to boost housing and support homelessness measures. In WA, everything has been put on the table. We are one of the country’s most attractive build-to-rent land tax policy settings. We have upfront stamp duty concessions for off-the-plan apartments and town houses. We’re using lazy government land surplus to our needs for housing. We’ve got large workforce supports and free TAFE and a massive construction program for social and affordable housing. And the breadth of these policy measures has been required, with COVID rapidly and radically reshaping housing demand and how supply is delivered.

We’ve seen how global supply issues were disrupted and put residential construction materials in short supply. Skilled labour shortages globally have proven a critical challenge. Of course, with all these factors in play, we have seen significant cost escalations. The Housing Industry Association of WA estimates that the cost of detached single homes has increased by around 40 per cent since the pandemic, with apartment construction costs increasing even more. This means a significant squeeze on the margins of residential builders and developers, and greater risk and uncertainty in the sector.

Every state is facing similar challenges, but in WA we have some additional ones. As one of the most sprawling cities in Australia, we have a pattern of development stretching over 140 kilometres along our coastline. Perth has always had a density problem. CoreLogic research shows Perth’s population density is just 360 people per square kilometre, lagging significantly behind Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney. We also have a significantly smaller pool of builders capable of working on apartments and infill product. A lack of tier one and tier two builders in our residential construction sector has meant fewer apartment buildings have been realised. The environment for apartment construction has motivated several responses from our government.

One area is direct support to enable private infill developments to get off the ground with an $80 million infrastructure fund providing direct rebates per apartment for head work costs like power and water connection. It is not just across most of Perth. Any uncertainty in planning and decisions has a real impact. Another key priority is poor productivity in the construction sector. This is a focus with the Productivity Commission’s latest estimates that physical productivity in housing construction has reduced so drastically that we’re completing half as many homes per hour worked as we did in 1995. Consider this, across the broader economy, labour productivity over the same period has increased 49 per cent.

So, what has led to this? There are several factors across the decades. A lack of scale in builders, a lack of innovation in building typology and construction methods, and perhaps, critically, over-regulation. Regulation, with the best of intentions, has simply added cost upon cost upon cost on residential construction. And there is a common misconception that development in the apartment market is always an attractive proposition. In fact, the cost escalations and uncertainly in decision making has caused several WA builders to leave the private residential construction market. It’s also part of the political narrative that developers are evil and exploitative, without acknowledging the fact that it is often private investment in infill and medium to high density apartments that is such a critical part of WA’s housing solutions.

It is a narrative often peddled by the Greens, who demand more transit-orientated housing, but when proposed, they’ve shown across Australia to actively oppose it in an unholy alliance with NIMBY groups. The Greens are like a tinder date. They look so promising at first swipe, but they’re just another catfish. They’ve never been able to face the realities of housing delivery and happily jump onto the bandwagon to impose infill and density development when it suits their political imperative.

That is also why our government has been very cognisant that any further regulatory reforms must be viewed through the lens of cost and additional burden. We all support higher quality housing, and our government has improved design policies to make more liveable apartments with pragmatic measures in our planning apartment codes. However, we’ve worked hard to ensure that the perfect is not the enemy of the good. Theoretical, excellent designed houses or apartments that don’t rise out of the ground, don’t house any people. Finally, our government has undertaken the most ambitious and comprehensive planning reforms in Western Australia in a decade.

I need to be frank. The planning system in Western Australia became too complex, too slow and too risk adverse. Local planning schemes varied wildly across the state. Approval processes were inconsistent. Duplication and red tape were delaying much needed housing and people often forget other commercial and industrial development. What we heard repeatedly from developers, builders, community housing providers, planners and even some local governments, the intent was there, but the system was holding us back. Post-COVID, more than ever, we need a planning system that is fast, fair and, more importantly, future-focused. A system that actively enables housing supply, embraces higher density which in our case is along Metronet train lines and existing train station precincts.

This ambition is in line with the aspirations of National Cabinet, which has prioritised regulatory reform of planning systems across the country to accelerate the delivery of housing. In fact, in a rare instance, both sides of politics have recognised this need. As current Housing and Cities Minister Claire O’Neill recently noted, and I do want to quote, “It is too hard to build a house in our country today and one of the reasons for that is, over a 40-year period, the Commonwealth, state and territory and local government have been putting in place rules and regulations that are slowing us down and holding us back from building the housing we need.” Last year, Senator Andrew Bragg, now the Housing shadow minister, said this, “NIMBYism is poison for young people, and when you see councils and states block developments, particularly apartment buildings, this is a disaster for young people. We don’t run the planning system in Canberra, but we have to find a way to get local councils and states to actually do the heavy lifting.”

I do want to address NIMBYism, or as I call them, the banana people. Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. Local governments’ control of planning in the past and leaders of the NIMBY movement have been one of the best ways to resist change, with 101 ways to block projects or housing. And this is no way to get the necessary done. In fact, in some instances, it can be a deliberate ploy by local government. Not making a timely decision or delaying a decision can prevent a project from proceeding. And this has just been one planning decision problem in Western Australia. But there are plenty of other examples.

Now we’ve got 139 local governments, many of them small. A culture has been created which sees the demands of the very few can prevail. Some local councils have become fixated with addressing the noise and loud minority. But the new planning system that we have is not a rejection of community consultation, it just seeks a balance. Our government has in fact broadened the consultation model for major projects through introducing a radius model and broadened accessibility to and transparency of the decision-making process.

This is the harsh truth. Community consultation is commonly structured across the country in one particular way. Community consultations on apartment developments put the concerns and demands of existing property owners over those of potential future residents. Obviously, this is because current owners are directly affected by changes in their neighbourhood’s density, while any future residents are not yet part of that community discussion. But this focus can result in a disproportionate influence on development decisions and hinders the creation of more diverse and affordable housing options.

This is where local government does have a role to play. It is vital in setting the tone and guiding any strategic approaches and policies that they pursue. I’ve been the mayor of an inner-city council in WA, so I do know how tough it can be to sell change and density. But in the worst instance, some local government leaders and governments are not prepared to undertake any meaningful engagement on the need for more infill and density. even if that development is limited to transport corridors and train station precincts.

In fact, sometimes they pander to the worst fears of residents regarding infill and density. In what can only be described as a bit of a Perth moment, with existing schools surrounded by housing density in around the world, some local governments in Perth enable arguments that suggest high-rise apartments will facilitate predatory behaviour or seedy overlooking of nearby schools. That argument has even been used by the Leader of the Opposition in the WA, who referred to concerns about sending a child to a primary school with high-rise apartments nearby. The other common argument is that development will devalue real estate in the local community.

The reality is vastly different. Great cities around the world have embraced well-designed medium and high-density living close to transit-orientated corridors or station precincts where there is significant access to services, education, training, work and recreation. Smart cities and towns look to density as creating the vibrant hubs, providing critical housing choice and supporting local economies. I have to say there are local governments in Western Australia who are embracing this direction and working hard to take their local communities on a journey towards that vision.

But it is because of the naysayers our government has been bold, resolute and clear in the need to reform our planning system, to provide greater certainty in the process, to enable greater consistency in decision making, and to ensure we have the best policy settings to allow medium to high density that Perth critically needs. Now, for those non-planning nerds in the room, I can describe it swiftly and briefly. It allows proponents to bypass a local government where they have a poor record or lack the capability to manage decision-making.

In short, any residential or mixed-use project other than a single home with a value exceeding $2 million can bypass local government decision-making if the proponent chooses to do so. Under the Development Assessment Panel system, our five member panels consist of three qualified, experienced planning professionals and two local elected officials from the relevant council area. This is a balanced approach which ensures local representation input but elevates professional planning expertise, putting it front and centre of each decision, with due regard given to both state strategic policies and local planning schemes. And credit where credit is due. The DAP system, it was a lot more complicated, was actually first established by a former Liberal state government and Liberal Minister John Day, back in a time when there was significant bipartisanship on planning in WA because of the recognised need.

At the time, it generally just applied to apartment developments. However, the Cook Labor government supercharged this system last April. We relaxed the type of residential development to now include any type of unit projects, introduced full DAP members employed by the state, and consolidated those development assessment panels to just three. An inner metro panel, an outer metro panel, and a regional panel. That’s for the whole state. So, there is increased inconsistency in decision making across the system.

In this system, there are prescribed 60- or 90-day time frames for decisions. And in the last financial year, we’ve seen nearly $6.4 billion worth of projects approved through that system. Early signals are that overall, across the system, planning applications are up. More projects are coming forward. More investment decisions are being made in no small part because of the changes in the planning system. These are projects across the spectrum, residential, commercial, industrial, and it means real housing, real jobs and economic growth across the state.

Our reforms have not stopped there. We’ve also created for the first time a new significant pathway with a 120-day time frame that allows major residential, mixed urban or other state significant projects to be determined by a state, central and independent planning authority, the WA Planning Commission. Developments exceeding 20 million in Metro Perth and five million in regional Western Australia may opt for this pathway, which is assessed by a central support unit that coordinates other state government referral agencies.

Additionally, any project that includes a minimum of 5 per cent social or affordable housing in designated areas may choose this pathway. Most importantly, the WA Planning Commission has greater discretion in planning decisions about built form where a local government planning scheme is out of date. In the past, this was another way local governments stifled development. By just not doing any of the basic work when it came to the underlying planning scheme.

Now, out of date schemes may mean more discretion in inbuilt forms. And since we’ve introduced it only in March last year, that commission has determined an additional eight projects with a combined value of nearly $300 million. And even at the other end of the spectrum, while most new single homes do not need planning approval, the government has also mandated that single home construction can only be determined by local government administration and cannot be considered by elected officials. Single homes being determined by elected officials with a lengthy preparation of reports and briefings for councils is simply ridiculous. Beyond that, we’ve expanded exemptions for minor works like the granny flats, so builders can get on with low-impact projects without necessary planning applications.

I do want to make this point. These reforms do not prevent a proponent from opting to use a local government for assessment and determination. However, the WA planning system ensures complete flexibility in the choice between a local government, the DAP system, or where it applies, the central approach. But our aspirations do not end just there. There is always room for improvement in any planning system. And so, we’ve announced a major review of our residential planning codes. These guide our residential development from suburban subdivisions to complex infill and apartment developments. And we will simplify the codes, reduce the complexity for home builders, and ensure that the end user, the homeowner, is satisfied, while also facilitating greater flexibility around infill development and densities.

These reforms are not intended to eliminate local government. There is still an important role for local government to play, and that is in the strategic direction and development of local planning schemes, which prioritise where new housing should occur, but with the necessary checks and balances and approval by the WA Planning Commission. It is the responsibility of local governments to ensure their schemes remain contemporary, coherent and responsive to the future population and growth of any city. But if they are unwilling or incapable, the WA Planning Commission will bring that ambition for the future to the table.

So, you might be thinking, have these reforms been controversial? Yes and no is my honest answer. For these reasons, there remain local government elected officials and NIMBY groups who at every opportunity oppose new infill and density development. Any project is too high, too bulky, does not have the correct design. However, there is a growing counter trend seen among millennials and those younger generations beyond who currently have fewer or no housing options. Who wouldn’t genuinely like to live in the suburb or community where they grew up? Most can’t because of a lack of housing options.

What is encouraging, is that across Australia and through the YIMBY movement, we’re seeing more of these people step up in the local community, social media groups, public debates, or even in the local newspaper, or even be prepared to stand up and provide a deputation at a meeting in support of housing diversity and density. I strongly support the growth of YIMBI groups that is now spreading throughout Australia. We need this as a counterbalance to well-organised and well-resourced groups that represents established interests and the status quo.

YIMBI groups are making the public debate around housing and density uncomfortable for some. I actually don’t have any problems with that. We do need some home truths about this question. Where will we house people? The counter movement also gives me great optimism. In times of crisis, the pressure for reform often tips over into real action. Every state should not waste the opportunity to make real changes in planning. Even the most resistant leaders and decision makers have been forced into action. While, across Australia, the debates about housing diversity and density continue in the trenches of local communities and Facebook groups, I genuinely believe overall that the momentum is on the side of change.

A changing vision embraces housing choice for Australia. A changing vision that understands the status quo when planning decisions cannot be the consistent winner if we want to achieve housing for all and facilitate the projects of the future. A changing vision that embraces more density, close to the services, amenities and jobs that make for great integrated communities.