DJB
Affordability is not just about home ownership. If the price of houses goes up, sooner or later rents will go up too, because landlords want to make a reasonable return on their investments. There can be quite a long lags, and the process is distorted by negative gearing, but in the long run rental values as a percentage of house prices tend to return to equilibrium.

"the cost per square metre jumped from $111 to $350 – a 300% increase".

215% actually, a substantial difference.

"grew from $800 to $1200 – a 50% increase".

Got it right that time. Does it matter? I think so - if the author can't get simple arithmetic right why would one take notice of the rest of the article?

215% is correct. My error, and a rushed one at that, I do apologise.
Still, 215% to 50% is a bit of a difference.

The author should realise that 'we' are not here to service the economy, it is the economy that should service us. Promoting growth for growth's sake is in the former camp. A measured approach to population is needed to ensure that we can all maintain a decent standard of living without sacrifing the environment in which we live. The author's seeming attitude of entitlement is one of the major problems in this debate.

<A measured approach to population is needed to ensure that we can all maintain a decent standard of living without sacrifing the environment in which we live.>

Is this the subtle version of the "population growth brings prosperity" mantra? Where is the evidence for this? I've been looking for a reason for years, and all I ever see are hollow mantras, scaremongering and abuse given in support of population growth.

Housing could be very affordable, but with a secretive and often corrupt development process, and government laden with huge infrastructure charges for a growing population, affordability is a difficult proposition.

Does it matter? Yes, because as all the pop growth zealots are always saying, we are headed for an ageing crisis and need to save for retirement. The irony is that the zealots' solution of high immigration both loads up government with debt and reduces the populations' ability to save. The difference in savings over the course of a loan can easily amount to several hundred thousand dollars. So the great "solution" actually makes a problem more likely.

Some solution.

House prices go up, house prices go down…. The laws of supply and demand

Most houses are purchased with mortgage finance and banks have specific rules of finance which, for the vast majority of purchasers is a mortgage at 80% of the purchase price subject to an ability based on the borrowers earning record or
in a minority of cases, the normal capacity constraints are waived for an additional interest premium or
in another class of minority of cases, the capital lending is increased above 80% of the property the mortgage is secured against.

Now those rules have not changed except recently, to get slightly tougher for the minority cases.

In the early 1990s the average price of houses fell significantly, as Keatings socialist incompetence pushed the economy into “the Recession we had to have”

More people chasing same supply of houses = increased demand = price increases

Fewer people with jobs and the same supply of housing = fewer qualifying for mortgages = less demand = prices fall

What is a huge great lie is “Affordability”

Because “affordability” is no different to what it has been for many years….

Prices go up and down, adjusting to keep “finance cost at approximately 30% (generally ranging between 27% - 33%) of gross family income, adjusted for expected cost of subsistence and other commitments (Credit Card Debtpayments etc) and thus affordability remains relatively constant.

Now if you are telling me "affordability" is under pressure because we have a few greens and running-scared socialists in government, hell bent on increasing the energy costs used both by households and in the production of a house, then I suggest you address the question direct and don’t blame "housing affordability" on the house itself.

Another point, if people decide not to save and to spend more on superficial vacations, expensive cars and the like, then that reflects an individuals’ inability to save for their own benefit aka a lack of personal responsibility or they have personal expectations above and beyond their personal capacity and again, nothing to do with "housing affordabiltiy"