Danielle Wood

So I think it's an issue where there has been movement and I suspect we will continue to see movements.

It's – look, I'm a subscriber to what they call the housing theory of everything, which is, you know, that housing does sit at the centre of a lot of challenges.

So, you know, it's a productivity issue if you can't – if people can't afford to live –

close to jobs and opportunities, you know, that creates an overall economic drag.

It's an inequality issue, particularly a generational inequality issue.

If young people can't afford, again, to live near jobs and infrastructure,

It can create challenges, much broader challenges around fertility, around climate, if we're kind of pushing people to the fringes.

So, yeah, I do think that it is such a critical thing to get right.

And I know it's an issue that you're very passionate about as well.

It's hard not to be when you're in public policy.

Look, I think anyone that's looked at the target and the progress that's been made will see that it's not going to be met.

I think the government did the right thing in setting a target and putting money on the table for states.

I think that was absolutely what was needed.

I think what we've seen is the challenge of setting the target in terms of

numbers of houses where there's a whole lot of broader things in the environment that can come and make it hard to deliver and you know obviously that hit at a time of supply chain disruptions and soaring costs of materials and things all of which made it very hard for the states to have any chance of making the progress that they needed and

I would like to see the money that's put on table and probably more money put on the table tied to specific actions that the states can take to make it easier to supply housing.

I mentioned the regulatory environment before.

It is incredibly complex.

complicated.

There are lots of barriers to supply.