In much of Europe that's stone because wood has mostly been harvested to the point of extinction (and wood is expensive to transport long distances). Whereas in North America wood remains an inexpensive building material. Wood, combined with modern insulation and building codes, can be safe and efficient enough for modern homes.
As someone who has lived in both parts of the world, wood takes some getting used to but you start to appreciate it after some time. Specifically brick may provides better noise isolation, heat retention, arguably can look nicer than drywall, but on the downside once a home is built modifications can be extremely challenging/expensive (whereas drywall/wood is almost like LEGO in terms of being able to re-configure non-load interior walls, even for handy homeowners themselves).
Will a brick home outlast a wood home? Absolutely, no question.
But that advantage is largely lost in the US. Cheaper land means homes are more spaced out, and wood construction means they're cheaper to re-build, so homes are often completely gutted or entirely re-built so a new owner can put their personal "stamp" on their home, whereas it is impractical to rebuild a European home due to neighbor proximity, cost of brick construction, and land size (i.e. there's often no other configuration that's workable for the lot).
So these days, I don't consider one superior to the other. They both have advantages and trade-offs, and frankly the contest is irrelevant as brick isn't suddenly going to get cheaper than wood in the US nor wood get cheaper than brick in Europe.
A Steel framed, clad house can be constructed relatively quickly, but is also durable. Alterations aren't as easy as with wood, but are significantly easier then concrete.
With modern insulations and soundproofing, you can have a lot of the benefits of concrete or stone. Plus, there's less thermal mass in the structure, which is a big advantage when building in Australia; Your primary challenge is keeping the inside cool in Summer.
In Europe, and most of developed countries in Asia, you can't even have gas in an apartment building made of concrete.
That moreover strange how it's not banned yet, given how militant building codes are in America.
See https://www.monolithic.org/homes for the serious solution, if you really want the toughest home possible.
Also, at least in my area high quality cement was not available locally until the late 1930s. You can really see a difference in the quality of cement in the basement of houses built before vs after. Of course, wood is abundant as well.
It is inexpensive, readily available, and easy to use with minimal training and tooling.
What alternative building material do you propose?
Also even when new builds here are timber framed they still use bricks for the exterior.
Reinforced masonry, if properly designed, will certainly beat wood, and nails too.
Check out the Cypress Structure collapse in the 1989 earthquake. There were similar failures of reinforce concrete spans in the later Northridge earthquake.
The manufacture and transport of concrete for buildings also has a much more severe environmental impact.