I think the double hit of removing negative gearing and allowing home ownership as a super investment would do wonders.

I also think decentralisation of the Australian economy would help as well, but that would take to much commitment by fed and state governments to every happen.

This makes sense Graham. And ought to be available as a concept to also dramatically shorten the time spent paying down the mortgage?

The only likely problem are the vendors, many of who will see only increased bank balances for them!? While this is essentially a good idea! It needs to be coupled to other reforms, like always releasing enough land so that supply outstrips demand.

Or applying capital gains on land that is rezoned then sat on in excess of 12 months, so it appreciates to gain entirely unearned income! Land banking is part of the problem, as are other forms of similarly entirely parasitical unearned income! Rezoned land needs to be developed for sale as urban estates! Not sat on while the development passes it by!

Negative gearing ought to be retained for everything except residential real estate! It's long past time the taxpayer was taken off the hook to support indolent Landlords?

Moreover, we need to revisit capital gains exceptions etc! Our welfare budget is very limited and ought to be exclusively reserved for genuine need, rather than genuine greed!

I've bought and done up houses! That's how you make money and from residential real estate! It's way past time we stopped looking at basic human shelter as an investment, but rather as an essential human right!

When we are once again able to make that shift in our mindsets? We might gradually return housing affordability? Long overdue decentralization would also assist! And that is dependant, to a large extent on the roll out of rapid rail and the NBN!

We have to stop simply putting the interests of profiteering developers/vested interest first! And replace that with a service model that rolls out affordable housing; and given a good enough product! Allow the inevitable profits take care of themselves!

And in so doing, give our economy a housing lead shot in the arm! Alan B.

The elephant in the room is, why have superannuation in the first place?!

The bottom line is, what's a better and a more covert way to make more people lose more of their life-savings, than to force them into superannuation, where their savings are not as much under their control, where they fall prey to greedy managers who collude with government in stealing their money? The more savings people lose, the longer they have to work, thus the economy is heated up and more taxes are raised.

As for housing affordability, people should be able to buy a plot of land, including even parts of a friend's/relative's land rather than a fully-fledged formal property, then build a small improvised shack there with their own hands, perhaps with some help from family and friends, then over the years as they earn more money they could expand and build more rooms. At the moment, government does not allow this, requiring all sorts of regulations and licenses which make it impossible for the ordinary small people to build themselves up.

Well said Graham. I have always felt that super contributions were a rip off. The wage earner had to lose out on wage rises to contribute to super, & the 9% they don't get as young people is a catastrophe for the better managers.

Just when they are trying to get into home ownership, & perhaps starting a family they need all the money they can get hold of. The last thing they need is to be losing income in a government attempt to limit their future pension requirements, in 40 or more years.

They should definitely be able to use that income to buy a home, the best superannuation investment you can make. I only see it as suitable for home purchase, super payments should otherwise continue, but should be available to use when needed for home purchase.

Two of my kids would not have been able to get into home ownership at a reasonable age, if we had not been willing & able to help.

while there is merrit in allowing FHB to dip into thier super for a deposit, there are many factors to consider.

firstly, there must be a law that once the asett is sold, borrowed/against, the super must be paid back.

Then, consideration must be givn to possible price increases, because the more appoved buyers there are usually means increases in prices, as like what happened when the first home owners grant kicked off, about 2001 at $7K. Every home on the market increased by about $10K over night. Pointless.

About the best way to address housing affordabillity is to change potential buyers thought patern whereby they seek out 'A' home, rather than 'THE' home as is often the case.

There is no easy fix because anything that devalues homes is more dangerous than the benefits gained by a small few by falling values.

Its a very slipery slope and hardley one that can be fixed by anyone we have voted for in the past ten odd years.

I think young people are still able to afford a mediocre big home with good morgage.