1 million more by 44

I was recently asked by the Queensland Government to outline how the state might deliver one million additional homes by 2044.

The initial request was for a digital roundtable. Instead, I chose to put pen to paper.

mine writing always crystallises what I want to communicate. So rather than offer off-the-cuff remarks, I’ve set out my view below.

Here’s what I think needs to happen.

If Queensland is serious about delivering one million homes by 2044, including 53,500 social and community dwellings, the solution extends well beyond approvals. It requires land use reform, price discipline, infrastructure charging change, tax reform and better utilisation of existing housing stock.

At a high level, however, the solution rests on five interlocking reforms.

Five interlocking reforms

1. Use all available (and under-utilised) land in the right locations

Queensland cannot deliver one million homes relying solely on conventional greenfield expansion and traditional infill.

There is substantial under-utilised land in strategic locations including:

• Government-owned sites
• Shopping centre car parks
• Light industrial land near rail
• Car yards and low-intensity commercial uses around transport nodes

Some of these uses can be encouraged to relocate to more appropriate precincts, freeing well-located land for housing. At grade carparks can be built over with housing, relocating the cars under the new development.

Not all product in these locations must be permanent high-rise construction.

Modular, prefabricated and staged builds can activate land quickly and with limited infrastructure grid impact.

In certain locations, even temporary housing solutions can improve affordability and labour mobility.

Many younger households prioritise proximity over dwelling size.

When travel time and transport costs are factored in, a smaller well-located dwelling is often more affordable in total living cost terms than a larger detached home on the fringe.

If Queensland is to achieve scale, it must use existing urban land more efficiently.

2. Deliver supply for key workers

The housing gap is not only social housing. It is key-worker housing.

Teachers, nurses, police, hospitality staff, trades and early-career professionals increasingly struggle to access housing near employment nodes.

In practical terms, this means targeting:

• Sub-$500,000 purchase price (or sub-$500 per week rent) in regional centres
• Sub-$750,000 purchase price (or sub-$750 per week rent) in Southeast Queensland

Under current cost settings, those price points are difficult to deliver consistently.

Without supply at these levels, labour shortages intensify, and economic productivity suffers.

This requires smaller dwellings, attached product, car parking flexibility in transport-rich locations and construction innovation.

Note: Volume without price discipline will not solve the structural problem.

3. Incremental density increases in established urban areas

Density reform need not be radical to be effective.

Moving standard low-rise developments from three to four storeys. Or from four to five storeys.

One or two additional levels applied consistently across appropriate corridors produces meaningful yield uplift without fundamentally altering neighbourhood character.

Equally important is assessment nuance.

Rigid car parking minimums, excessive setbacks and punitive heritage site requirements are suppressing viable projects. Standards calibrated to past household structures and car dependence do not always reflect contemporary living patterns.

At the lot level, landowners should be encouraged - not deterred - from optimising land use:

• Duplexes instead of single dwellings
• Backyard homes
• Triplexes on appropriate sites
• Small-lot subdivisions, permissible down to say 120m² for example

Incremental density across thousands of sites will likely deliver more durable supply than sporadic large-scale rezonings.

4. Reform infrastructure charging in greenfield estates

Greenfield delivery remains essential, particularly in outer SEQ and regional Queensland. However, the current infrastructure charging model distorts outcomes.

Queensland’s infrastructure charging framework is largely structured around per-dwelling or per-lot charges. In contrast, jurisdictions such as Victoria commonly apply growth area contributions on a per-hectare basis, which reduces the marginal penalty for higher-yield development.

When charges are applied per dwelling, density is penalised. When applied per hectare, yield optimisation is encouraged.

This structural difference materially affects lot sizes and product mix.

There is clear evidence of land inefficiency across parts of the Lockyer Valley, Scenic Rim, Somerset and Toowoomba - not because of market preference alone, but because the charging structure discourages compact development.

If higher yields and more efficient land use are desired, infrastructure reform must sit at the centre of the policy response.

A practical lever would be product mix targets in new estates:

• Minimum 25% missing-middle product in outer and regional estates
• Rising toward 75% in more urban growth corridors

But those targets will only be commercially feasible if charging structures align with density.

5. Reform stamp duty and improve housing utilisation

Queensland’s transaction-based stamp duty materially reduces mobility.

It discourages downsizers from selling large, detached homes. It discourages rightsizing across life stages. It locks households into dwellings that no longer match their needs.

Replacing stamp duty with a broad-based land tax system would increase transaction fluidity, free up larger homes for growing families and improve alignment between housing supply and housing demand.

The issue is not simply how many homes exist. It is whether households are appropriately matched to the existing stock.

In addition, approximately 10% of private dwellings across the state are unoccupied at any given time. This is particularly evident in inner-urban apartments, lifestyle markets and certain coastal locations, but also includes detached housing in core areas.

Incentive-based policy mechanisms could encourage full-time occupation:

• Differential rating structures
• Vacancy levies
• Incentivised long-term leasing models

Bringing even a fraction of currently under-utilised dwellings back into effective supply would materially improve availability without building a single additional home.

The overarching challenge

Approvals are not the core constraint.

Feasibility gaps, infrastructure settings, tax distortions and product mismatch are equally binding.

The objective should not be to approve one million dwellings. It should be to ensure one million appropriate, affordable and deliverable homes are supplied either via new stock and/or by using the existing stock more efficiently.

This requires structural reform across planning, taxation, infrastructure funding and land policy.

In conclusion

Queensland can reach one million homes by 2044. But without stamp duty reform, infrastructure charging change and better utilisation of existing stock, the target risks underperforming.

The solution is not just more supply - it is smarter supply, greater mobility and policy settings that reward efficient land use and housing alignment.

About Michael Matusik Michael is director of independent property advisory Matusik Property Insights. He is independent, perceptive and to the point; has helped over 550 new residential developments come to fruition and writes his insightful Matusik Missive