this author should consider the possibility that there are some things that he also doesn't "get".

Including the fact that we obviously can't cope with population increasing forever. So if zero population growth is really as economically distastrous as he suggests (and I'm confident it doesn't have to be) then working out the economic system to suit zero population growth is mandatory

Leave the question mark off; Elliot rightly points out a problem. The only trouble is his solution, but not surprising given his background. The lack of affordability is due to the high immigration rate. The illusion remains that immigrants are poor and crowd into cheap houses. Today most come in well heeled. Go to an auction in the ring around the inner suburbs and watch who is bidding. A friend of mine attended an auction where the Chinese auctioneer spoke in Chinese to the two competing Chinese bidders.
The professionals have invaded the central suburbs, so those on median incomes have to go out to far flung subdivisions. Apart from the mortgage the costs of car transport (there is no public transport) makes the proposition untenable. If population growth was slowed, public transport would catch up.
Mining is producing the wealth; it employs 2% of the workforce. Properly taxed it will provide Government with a base to pay for services. Mining also leads to a high $A; we are increasingly importing labour intensive goods and services so labour will be available for care, which is not import competeing.

Outrider and Jeremy

The article presents pretty clear and compelling evidence that the problem is caused by supply, not demand.

Maybe Supply and Demand have nothing to do with the problem. In the US there was massive oversupply in many areas and the prices were propped up by easy credit. The prices dropped when the money supply was throttled back and the easy credit became restricted.

In Australia, the problem is compounded by tax policy. If you try and save to buy a house, you are penalized with high marginal tax rates and inflation. It is usually better to borrow as much as you can, especially in an appreciating market. People were able to borrow too much which encouraged them to pay too much for their houses which caused price inflation.

House price inflation is also not a new phenomenon. It has been with us all through the last century except for a gap during the Great Depression and World War 2. The day after the Japanese subs shelled Sydney was probably the best time to buy a waterfront property.

Ross Elliott needs to ask why governments are imposing all of these charges. According to a letter to the editor of the Economist by Labor MP Kelvin Thomson, each new immigrant requires $200,000 to $400,000 in infrastructure, mostly from the public purse. New migrant families, like the rest of us, need houses, roads, schools, hospitals, sewer systems, power plants, etc., etc., and they need them immediately. However, judging from the UK experience, it is likely to be more than 20 years before they have contributed enough to pay for their share of them.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/6869.html

How does government get the money? It can't force the migrants to pay up front and then give them a tax credit because very few could afford it. It can't borrow the money because it would then have to slow down immigration to allow the loans to be repaid. All that is left is to raise taxes to just below the level that would provoke a revolt or to let infrastructure and public services deteriorate. So yes, the immediate problem is supply, but a lot of the constraints on supply are ultimately due to demand. According to Infrastructure Australia, we now have an infrastructure backlog of $770 billion.

If low population growth is such a problem, how can European countries such as Switzerland, Norway, Finland, and Germany with bigger aging problems than us and very low or no population growth rank so high on both the UN Human Development Index and the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index? See also Mark O'Connor's blog for a response to the issues raised by Bernard Salt

http://markoconnor-australianpoet.blogspot.com/

and his article on OLO that appeared last Thursday.

This article would have been so much better if the author had explained why owning one's house is a good thing. If the author could show research proving this is good for society, then it naturally leads to what to do about affordability. Otherwise, it comes across as special pleading.