Well, Kimmy, clearly just throwing money at it didn't work or we would have the problem licked. What is your well thought out, rational and affordable proposal? Or is this just another ALP whinge.

And by the way, increasing taxes and/or reducing the value of everyone's home is not viable.

Bruce --are you a landlord or money lender,

Well sheesh Kim,

Maybe if supply of affordable townhouse/appartment type housing was increase and the 30-40 year old Gen-Xers could afford their first home and get out of the rental trap (or living with mum and dad), then maybe some follow on effects might occur for the homeless.

Oh dear - how silly of me. That would mean that the selfish baby-boomers that have invested in "bricks and mortar" would loose out when house prices come down!

Why would Howard care about a shortage of affordable housing? His business cronies and aspirational voters in their McMansions aren't suffering so there is no need to chase votes from those at the bottom of the heap.

Have a look ot our state Govts that have increased taxes,red tape ,excluded many builders through the home warranty insurances debacle,over regulated with ridiculus OH&S stupidity,made a mess of workers comp.etc.Yes more Labor Govt stupidity.They have trebbled the cost of building in the last ten yrs and now want to blame the Federal Govt.

The more tax we give them,the more they stuff up our lives.

Unhelpful party political rant, Kim.

What, exactly, are you proposing?

In some regions houses are available for less that the property cost to build in the first place. Land is essentially free.

Where the crisis does exist it can be severe, I don't dispute. But it's a symptom, not a problem. The problems that generate this symptom are manifold.

Is Kim proposing to eliminate negative gearing for investment property and slap capital gains tax on owner-occupied dwellings? A nightmare for Bruce who thinks that "reducing the value of everyone's home is not viable". Politically, maybe not. But as a matter of equity, fixing these tax stupidities would resolve one aspect of the shortage and materially lower prices.

Then there's zoning laws causing shortage of land or limiting use to which it can be put. Residents of affluent leafy suburbs go apoplectic at the very suggestion of high density accommodation in precincts around their local railway station. I doubt whether NIMBY slaying is a federal responsibility. (To his credit, Frank Sartor seems to have taken up the cudgel in NSW.)

Then there are community "quality" standards. As The Australian Financial Review pointed out recently, in parts of Sydney, government taxes and contributions add more than $150,000 to the price of a home. But what if you would live in a district with unformed roads, no public transport, no shops and rubble instead of front garden (and don't wish to move to Baghdad)? Septic tank instead of reticulated sewer, dependent on rainwater, recycling? No landline phone? Developers are cannot build them.

On top of that, there are global factors. There is a housing inflation bubble in many OECD countries.

Then there are people homeless due to family crisis, mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction... Separate problem again.

Plus a hardy band who prefer living on the streets and resist all attempts to get them to do anything else.

No, I haven't suggested answers either (350 words is too short). But to claim that the "housing affordability crisis" is "a problem" that the federal government should fix is dumb, and moreover poor politics.