I have no argument with the general thrust of this piece, but if there are solutions 'out there', as the author asserts in her closing comments, it might be instructive to learn what they are.

The solution is to stop increasing the population through high immigration rates since this is pumping the housing crisis. Immigration is providing a tap of cheap labour that is holding down the wages of the less skilled. There is an implicit assumption in this opinion piece that baristas, childcare workers, taxi drivers etc. should be payed low wages. In a stable population and a free market that would not necessarily be the case - wages would reflect the demand for the services. However, rapid population growth due to "skilled" immigration etc. is constantly undercutting the upward pressure on wages and simultaneously putting upward pressure on rents. (Only about a third of "skilled" migrants end up working in the former professions - the rest drive taxis etc.)

Ever heard of a flat-share?

As you say, ' a healthy society is based on relationships between human beings'.

Anybody who has travelled widely in Europe, and the US understands that the patterns of urban development there are generally very different than we have here in Australia. Yes, there are the major capital cities that are pretty much like our capital cities. But as well, the urban landscape there is characterised by many more small towns and villages spread skein-like across the landscape, connected by well developed road and rail infrastructure.

In Australia, our population is very concentrated in the major cities, with very little development of more widespread urban communities connected by good quality rail and road infrastructure. It is the intense concentration in the cities that leads to the very high housing costs. Land values are very high in the desirable areas, and the costs of development and construction are high. Landlords are generally not getting good returns on replacement cost - gross yields of 2-3% are typical in my knowledge.

The answer then, lies in long term planning (I'm talking about 50years) based on demographics. This should drive the development of regional towns and cities and the infrastructure to support them with them. For example, it is clear that along the Hume Highway, the towns of Mittagong/Bowral, Marulan, Goulburn could support much larger populations with relatively modest increase in further infrastructure.

We need long term, far-sighted planning to address this issue. The planning must also address decentralisation, and encouragement of enterprise. Unfortunately, the short electoral cycles here tend to mitigate against such approaches.

Herbert Stencil raises good points.
The first home owners grant is a farce. It is exactly analogous to giving a young couple a bucket of blood to hold, before throwing them into the shark pool.
We've all heard the stories about how “toxic loans” caused the Great Recession; about how banks gave loans to people “who had no right to have them”. How often is it mentioned that all these loans were sold on to people or corporations which immediately increased their interest payments?
Most of these loans became toxic simply because the lenders changed the rules, or the economic environment changed, because of changing rules.
A much more sensible solution would be a Government First Housing Fund, offering low, fixed interest loans (say 2.5%) capped at an affordable amount, say max $250.k. Obviously this wouldn't buy much in the City in the current climate, but it could buy something livable in regional centres, and demand could change the climate quite quickly.
Capitalists have always prided themselves on being able to respond to demand. If there was a new demand for houses priced at $250.k, I'm pretty sure you would very quickly see some serious innovation.
Capitalists also make a big deal about how they are always more competitive than the public sector. If the banks can provide a better deal than the Government Loan, so be it.
This would also be much cheaper than the current system. Instead of using tax payers money to inflate housing prices with deposit grants, the loans would be paid back.

Herbert; you and your very common sense approach ought to be running the country.
I thought that the article was right on the money; and, pardon the obvious pun. Past very short-sighted Govts have almost single-handedly created the problem, with endless tax breaks substituting for quite massive infrastructure project development and attendant decentralisation!
Consequently, we now have the highest median house prices in the English speaking world. The cost blow-out of deferred infrastructure projects invariably double inside a single decade, along with the deficits we need to endure to make up for the missing pragmatism.
If housing affordability follows current trend lines; by 2050 only 2% of the population will own a home; probably as high class prisons inside gated razor wire compounds.
Arguably the quite massive separation between the haves and the exponentially expanding have nots, will create squatting and slums on an unprecedented scale; and no go lawless ghettos, where not even armour plated policemen will venture.
Little wonder current conservative govts, want to disarm the law abiding population of all legal weapons, leaving only those with illegal weapons free to pursue their fatal activities.
Japan has much stricter gun control laws than those currently proposed by our enlightened legislators; and, the highest illegal gun ownership.
Moreover, it's a situation compound by a law abiding polite population, no longer passing on information about such issues, for fear of being implicated/punished or losing their current security?
We can see the consequences of our own actions before we take them; simply by studying the outcomes in other more populated places.
We live on a very large land mass and the concentration of most of our population, 70%, in already gridlocked overcrowded capital cities, is already producing an exponentially expanding lawless element; that suggests a probable future?
Doing what you've always done while expecting a very different outcome is madness! Housing cooperatives and real decentralisation, could see some of these very worrying trends reversed? Rhrosty.