There was a newspaper report about how much real estate our politicians own and by the looks of it many of them are possibly negative gearing, so it would be very doubtful for our politicians to change laws that are currently benefiting themselves.

Another assumption, is who is more likely to donate to political parties? There by influencing political decisions.

The "Big End of Town" like the rules just the way they are so you can forget any reforms, personal gain for politicians is FAR more important than any picayune problems like affordable housing for the general population, anyone would think the author thought we were living in an ACTUAL democracy!
"Governments make rules to suit the governors, NOT the governed"!

Wolly B:
Nailed it in one W.B.
What we need are people willing to divest themselves of real estate investments, before they get into politics.
After all, the notion/claim is to serve the people and feather the national nest, as opposed to self service and feathering the personal nest. [Or he who must be Obeid.]
For mine, doing the job and serving/advancing your fellow Australian, should be reward enough!
And we have enough of those to fill all our parliaments ten times over; and dare I suggest, with far more capable people, than the patently self serving demographic, currently swaggering around the halls of power!?
Even so, they're already handsomely rewarded with salaries, gold card entitlements and generous retirement packages.
And then we wonder, why there seems to be so much corruption in today's politics?
Australian politicians should be serving the exclusive interests of Australians; not foreigners, (foreign investors, no names no pack drill) with great big fat cheque books!? Surely they understand what killed the Celtic tiger!?
Under the original Westminster system, there were no political salaries, and all the pollies were unpaid volunteers, who often set aside personally lucrative careers/business interests, to also serve!
Perhaps if it were mandatory to draw political candidates exclusively, from self supporting semi retired people, who had been successful in other non political careers, and or business!?
We would get people far more (genuinely) concerned about our and their grandkids; and experience far better outcomes, including a long overdue return to affordable housing!
And a far more desirable outcome, than a carefully created, massive, economy killing, real estate bubble burst!
After all, there is no better way to literally destroy real estate values, than to get into a war, that could be long drawn out, and cost the national purse far more than initially envisaged!
Perhaps war bonds,(thirty year self terminating) would be a safer more lucrative investment?
Rhrosty.

My first thought on reading this was, what is this bloke smoking?

Then, was he advising Rudd/Gillard when they threw billions at schools, for nothing more than a few overpriced assembly halls?

Then, perhaps his teaching economics for 27 years has something to do with the incompetence seen in that profession.

To suggest government build houses he must not have noticed, or preferred to ignore, that government housing commissions can always manage to spend much more than twice the going rate for the houses they build. Could his ideology, & preference for big government colour his thinking?

Hell during the schools fiasco, our local school got a 5 pedestal, & one urinal toilet block for very little more than the cost of 3 nice 4 bedroom 2 bathroom suburban homes. Now that's government efficiency for you.

Then he tells us what a good idea government keeping all that lovely negative gearing money would be. Yep bureaucrats are always after more government money to do crazy things like build school halls, or public housing, at ridiculous prices.

What we need is to get government hands out of the pockets of home builders. If they dropped the $100,000 their charges build into the cost of any new home, affordability would skyrocket, & we wouldn't need public housing.

If some of his $5 billion savings were to go to universities, even more kids could be taught drivel like this, in the name of tertiary education. A damn good reason to keep it in the hands of the private sector.

Of course the problem has nothing to do with expectations. No public sector tenant would stop complaining if they were given my home to live in. Too ordinary by half, not a single stainless steel appliance to be seen, & no ducted air conditioning.

It's pieces like this that give my generation a bad name.

Our cigar smoking Treasurer who said, "it is time to end the age of entitlement."

Gets paid around $240 per night he spends in Canberra, to stay in a house majority owned by his wife and father. Admittedly this is totally legal.

Good article. I particularly like the proposed second step. I find it staggering that we allow our homes to be just another asset class in which foreign millionaires can invest. How many of the rich in developing countries have made their money ethically and legally? Bugger all, in my opinion. Yet we allow them to outbid young Australians who are then forced to rent.

If you don't live here, you don't need a home here.

By the way, if Hasbeen can't be polite in his comments, he should tape record his own bile and listen to it later, rather than bothering us with it. The school halls program was a major success. No amount of biased ranting can alter the fact that the halls will deliver value to local communities for decades.