Big Nana,

The problem with your argument is that (in Sydney or Melbourne at least) regulations driving up the cost of the land that the house sits on accounts for the vast majority of the cost of the house. See for example

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/01/23/australian-housings-regulatory-price-boost-not-about-to-end/

"A fully finished new house (three bedrooms, two garages) costs as little as $150,000. Preparation of the land with sewerage, local roads, water and other utilities costs around $70,000 per block. The land itself is mainly used for agriculture and is intrinsically worth maybe $2,000 a block. Yet that new house in western Sydney costs upward of $700,000...

"Some expenses that turn a western Sydney house/land package costing $250,000 into a house that sells at $700,000 are due to taxes. But these are mainly attempts by the government to grab some of the price inflation resulting from the shortage of new blocks that their policies create.

"Our high cost housing position is earned in the regulatory department. In this we are the world champions. The Victorian planning authority has identified over 600 separate approval decisions for a new house in Melbourne. And that excludes the all-important strangulation of the first stage planning permission, the “release” of land to allow it to be built upon."

In other words, you could build a tarpaper shack with an outdoor dunny, assuming that it was allowed, and it would still cost a fortune.

An interesting article, because Oz politicians borrow heavily from the political debate in the UK,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12099635/Since-when-did-it-become-a-human-right-to-own-your-home.html

There's definitely a lack of action and
a failure of leadership around affordable housing.

Several groups have been blamed for pushing up
property prices.

1) Investors or "speculators" in the market.
Baby boomers treating their homes as investment
properties. - Treating property as an asset, rather
than a shelter has been a big criticism of our
housing market - with "mum and dad" landlords
being blamed for purchasing entry-level housing
that would otherwise be snapped up by 1st home
buyers.

2) Retirees refusing to "down-size."

3) Banks offering cheap and easy credit.

4) Foreign buyers. Chinese investment in Australian
property has greatly increased and anti-foreign
sentiment is growing.

Agree with all of that Foxy, except the notion retirees ought to downsize. Particularly if one finds cell block sized accommodation claustrophobic.

I don't need size just space and the serenity it alone confers!

Other than that, an all purpose bedsit cave and amenable company will do fine. Dogs make such wonderful pets, particularly bitches, don't they?

And in that undemanding package, one gets always congenial company, a burglar and smoke alarm and a pocket rocket, always alert, security device.

Mine always loved a ride in the car to anywhere, but refused to take a turn at the wheel no matter how tired I was. Albeit well versed in the art of backseat driving along with barked instructions and used to bark her head off (pick it up, hike) at statues of horses/cats/other dogs/royal dignitaries.

Eventually I'd only have to point and whisper, look, horse/cow/bull/bird/stranger, to get both ends working at maximum warp, simultaneously.

Except for soldiers standing head bowed, rifle in the port position, then she'd raise a right paw and give a sad little sorrowful whine.

I swear she was almost human. And took after a fearless red kelpie I adopted years earlier, Wouldn't back down or quit, when she sensed the boss was in strife.

With friends like that, we really do need affordable housing With a back paddock or a decent yard!

A recent study by a college Professor showed it was far cheaper to care for the oldies in their own homes, with minimum intrusion. And more ammunition for the return to affordable housing case!

And very doable with the right leadership coupled to the right policies.

And the lack of those who, through patent vested interest, always run interference!
Alan B.

Foxy,

Your points are valid. While there would be no rental properties (except for public housing) if there was no investment by landlords, the number of people now investing in properties has definitely affected the ability of young families to buy. Housing has become a business opportunity for older people who already have their own homes, and they are blocking youngsters from ownership.

I'm all for 'little' people making a few bob, but I do a lot of teeth-grinding when I see people on TV smirking about the number of entry-level houses they own to make money when those houses could be in the hands strugglers. I know there is no right to home ownership, but it means security and a sense of pride and worth if you do own your own home. And, people still like to leave 'something to the kids'.

As for Chinese investment, well I don't believe in foreign ownership of domestic dwellings, and the current stampede by overseas investors is definitely raising prices. All very moralistic, I suppose, but people come before money, and I'm sure most of us oldies want our descendants to have at least as much as we had. They seem to be doomed to less.

The housing industry is the most pampered one in the country. The Property Council is a bully with too much influence on government.

Many Regional centres in Australia have very affordable housing. If the self entitlement generation believe that somehow because they have an arts degree that they deserve a cheap house near Bondi beach then they are dreaming. Some small towns not far from the city have houses starting at about 150k. People are still flown into places like Geraldton and Karratha for work. You are not entitled to live next door to mum and dad unless they pay for it or you do. Stop complaining.