Will Robots Make Australian Housing Cheaper by 2030, or Are We Missing the Opportunity?

We keep talking about Australia's housing crisis. Not enough homes, construction costs rising, labour shortages and developers struggling to make projects viable. But I have been looking at some of the developments in construction robotics recently, and I wonder whether we are missing a much bigger opportunity.

An Australian company has developed a robot capable of laying hundreds of blocks an hour. Japan has been manufacturing homes using industrialised production methods for decades, and automated housing factories are becoming increasingly sophisticated. So why are we still building most Australian homes using traditional, labour-intensive methods?

Having worked in quantity surveying for around 25 years across Australia, the UK and US, I find this particularly interesting. We spend enormous amounts of money estimating, managing and negotiating construction costs. But how much are we actually doing to change the way buildings are constructed?

And if robotics can genuinely reduce construction costs, why aren't we having a much bigger conversation about investing in the technology here in Australia?

The technology is already here

Australian company FBR has developed the Hadrian robotic bricklaying system, with its latest machine achieving more than 285 blocks per hour during factory testing in 2025. That is an impressive achievement, although factory testing is very different from delivering an entire residential development.

But think about what this could mean. Bricklaying is only one component of residential construction. We are also seeing robotics being developed for drilling, surveying, material handling, prefabrication and the automated assembly of building components. And then there is the development of humanoid robots, which could eventually undertake tasks traditionally performed by construction workers.

I don't expect a robot to turn up tomorrow and independently build an entire house. But could we see robots performing a significant proportion of repetitive construction tasks by 2030? I think that is becoming increasingly realistic on certain types of projects. The bigger question is whether the economics will stack up.

What could robotics actually save?

This is where I think the construction industry, and particularly quantity surveyors, should be paying much more attention. Let's take a hypothetical house with a construction cost of $500,000. Assume labour represents 35% of that cost, or $175,000. If robotics and automated manufacturing could reduce labour expenditure by 30%, the potential gross saving would be $52,500.

That is more than 10% of the original construction cost. Of course, this is only an illustration, not a forecast. Robots require substantial capital investment, maintenance, operators, energy and sufficient work to justify their cost. There are also costs associated with redesigning construction processes, transporting manufactured components and integrating automated systems with traditional trades.

But even if the net saving were considerably smaller, the impact across hundreds or thousands of homes could be substantial. And we haven't considered the potential savings from shorter construction programmes. Developers carry financing costs, insurance, site overheads and other expenses throughout construction. If automation can reduce the time required to complete a project, the financial benefits could extend well beyond direct labour savings.

As quantity surveyors, shouldn't we be modelling these alternatives and challenging the way projects are delivered? Rather than simply measuring what construction costs today, perhaps we should be spending more time investigating what it could cost tomorrow.

What can Australia learn from overseas?

I have also been looking at the differences in construction costs between Australia and countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia. International construction cost comparisons suggest significant differences between these markets. Of course, wages, building standards, specifications, productivity and regulatory requirements vary considerably. It would be misleading to suggest Australia could simply replicate Indonesian construction costs.

But surely we should be asking which parts of those differences are unavoidable and which could be addressed through better construction methods. Japan provides another interesting comparison. Its industrialised housing sector has spent decades developing factory-manufactured housing systems, standardised components and increasingly automated production processes.

Rather than treating every house as an entirely separate construction project, manufacturers can produce components in controlled environments where robotics and repeatable processes become more economical. I suspect this is where some of the biggest opportunities will emerge. Not necessarily robots replacing every tradesperson on a building site, but factories producing substantial parts of our housing before they even arrive on site.

Are we about to miss another manufacturing opportunity?

This is something I have been discussing with Queensland's housing leadership, particularly around modular construction and the potential to develop greater domestic manufacturing capability. Australia has already watched major manufacturing industries disappear, including automotive manufacturing.

Now we have an opportunity to establish a new industry around modular housing, robotics and automated construction technology. But are we doing enough to encourage investment? We frequently discuss government funding for housing, planning reforms and incentives for buyers. What about incentives for businesses prepared to invest in the technology that could reduce the cost of producing homes?

One area I have raised is whether targeted depreciation incentives for qualifying manufacturing equipment and robotics could encourage investment in Australian housing factories. There is an important distinction between depreciation of manufacturing equipment and the tax treatment of the completed buildings themselves. Any reform would need to be properly assessed.

But surely we should be examining policies that encourage productivity and increase our capacity to deliver housing. Otherwise, we may find ourselves importing manufactured homes and building components from countries that invested in these technologies before us. We have seen that happen in other industries.

Why would housing be any different?

Will construction look different by 2035?

I don't believe robots will replace every bricklayer, carpenter, electrician or plumber over the next decade. Construction sites are complicated environments. Buildings differ, conditions change and many tasks require experience and judgement. But I do believe the industry could look very different by 2035, particularly for large residential developments, repeatable housing designs and modular construction.

We may see fewer people undertaking certain repetitive tasks and more people operating, maintaining and supervising automated systems. Construction programmes could shorten, manufacturing could become more predictable and developers may have greater certainty over delivery costs.

For quantity surveyors, this could also fundamentally change how we estimate projects. Instead of relying predominantly on traditional labour rates and trade productivity, we may increasingly need to understand factory production costs, robotics utilisation, equipment investment and automated manufacturing processes.

And that is something our profession should be preparing for now.

Are we asking the right questions about housing affordability?

Australia is not alone in struggling with housing affordability. Canada, the UK, Ireland and other developed economies face many of the same challenges around housing supply, construction costs and development feasibility. Yet much of our debate continues to focus on taxation, property investors, immigration and government housing targets.

All of these issues matter. But even if we approve more developments and release more land, somebody still needs to construct the homes, and the numbers need to stack up. If we continue building using the same methods, with the same labour constraints and increasing costs, how much improvement can we realistically expect?

I am not suggesting robotics will solve Australia's housing crisis overnight. The technology still needs to prove itself commercially, particularly when compared with established construction methods. But I think we are approaching a point where automation could start to make a meaningful difference.

We have spent decades learning how to measure and manage construction costs. Perhaps the next challenge is learning how to fundamentally reduce them.

And that raises a question for developers, builders, quantity surveyors and government. If robots could help us build homes faster and cheaper, are we doing enough to prepare for that change, or will Australia be left importing the technology from countries that moved first?

I'd be interested to hear what others in the industry think.

Mark Kilroy Chartered Quantity Surveyor | Founder & CEO, Koste markkilroy.com.au