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.

Kim,
The Howard Government is interested in one thing and one thing only, the concept of "back to the future" they will make the rich much richer, at the expense of the poor. They have already come a long way down this road, and if the ALP wants to correct this situation in the future, now is the time to be formulating policy for the growing number of "poor" in this nation.

Infrastructure is badly needed, in housing, transposrt, education and health. Some of us have cut our expenditure to the bone, including food, and still can't make ends meet. We need a committed "centreist" ALP Government, not the duplication of the extreme right Howard jugernaught. And we need it soon.,

I know Kim. Why don't you let some homeless people move into your house, or better still, buy another house and let it be used by homeless people.

Clearly you believe that the government is the saviour for all sort of malady's. Perhaps you should instead look to your own efforts to help those in need.

Today, housing shortages....tomorrow food shortages.........any Bets?

Kim

Thank you for your article. Even so, I could not detect any solutions provided by you?

The tragedy of mentally ill homeless people seems to be avoided by all political parties. Given that 1:100 people are likely to develop long term (chronic) schizophrenia (which is incurable), what does the Labor party intend to do? Is the NSW Parliament a good example? Homeless people are no longer permitted to sleep on the steps of NSW Parliament House - just move 'em on mate, seems to be the interim solution.

The Labor Government in NSW should be ashamed of the 1983/4 Richmond Inquiry/Report. That's when homelessness truely began for mentally ill people, and it has become worse year by year. I know. I have been a mental health nurse since 1978. I saw people who I had nursed, and who had been institutionalised for most of their adult lives - eating out of garbage bins in Rozelle and Balmain. The then Labor Government created the scenario - which in contemporary society, seems to be taken for granted.

Bring back asylums (vis a vis, places of safety) for people with chronic mental illness. They need not be large institutions as in the past. It is affordable - and in the long term could: save people's lives, give people a quality of life, and in the long term, save tax payer's money.

As a community mental health nurse (in the past), I can assure you that I know what I am talking about. Yes, I believe in a least restrictive environment, but if it does not provide quality of life (as I saw far too many times), then a return to a similar but of course smaller insitution, could be Government (and tax payer) affordable.

The Government does not have any money. We give you our money. You need to learn to spend it wisely.

Cheers
Kay

Kay,
If the Howard government continues to cut funding to the States for Housing Commission accomodation, these people aflicted with mental illness will remain on the streets. In Queensland alone, Howard has cut $600 million in funding to Queensland's Housing Dept, in favor of subsidised rents, thus putting money in the landlord's pocket. Unless we break away from the concept, that the wealthy need to be made wealthier, and the bottom of society, can remain on the bottom, nothing will change.

I note Bruce and Alan Grey's comments, I am unable to find a thread of humanity or compassion in them. It is a sad reflection on modern day Ausatralia, the "buggar you, I'm all right Jack" philosophy. This is the eventual position one adopts when "money becomes your God" a position that good people like Kay, can never adopt, given her life long committment to others. A position I might say I fully support, people before profit I say.

Kim,

I put it to you that state governments (all presently Labor) have an equal role to play in the alleviation of homelessness, the ongoing support of SAAP services, and indeed, the provision of large tracts of affordable housing for the next generation which has been disenfranchised by the market forces of low interest rates, share market outflows, the rise of investors and housing speculation.

NSW Labor is the worst culprit for doing nothing, in the state most severely affected.

We don't need more empty rhetoric and hand-wringing, we need action from the cronyist right-wing Labor types who prefer to get into bed with developers, big business and merchant banks, we need state Labor parties to remember who they are supposed to be representing. If it's not too late - the damage of a boom market may already have been done. The minor parties and Independents have far better, comprehensive and more cohesive affordable housing policies than either Labor or the Coalition. Drop me a line if you need any practical, workable suggestions. When Labor has all the states, the excuse that 'we're in Federal opposition, God, we wish we could do something, but our hands are tied' is simply not good enough.

THERE IS AN ELEPHANT IN THE LOUNGEROOM BUT KIM WILL NOT SEE IT

Australia's population goes up by 1 million every four years, one of the highest growth rates in the developed world. Are house prices going to go down while population keeps growing? Kimmy, look at me - the property council (check their website) are the greatest supporters of Howard's high immigration policy, they get bonanza profits at every one else's expense. When Labor starts backing a stable population, they might stand a chance of attracting some votes, but they won't because they are in the pockets of the property industry as much as the Coalition. And the Dems. And the Greens. We live in a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy.

Thermoman,

I appreciate your comments, especially lack of trust in organised political parties and politicians in general, and the derangement of 'leadership' in our society. However, the NSW Greens with Sylvia Hale as housing spokesperson have put forward some very constructive suggestions for affordable housing. I have a speech from Hansard where an articulation of the problem and a number of workable, fair solutions were extremely competently put forward by Sylvia, only to receive constant disparagement from NSW Labor, who said her proposals were 'disliked', in the case of one Amanda Fazio. I am attempting to find out from Amanda's office as to just why an affordable housing policy is so 'unlikable' to Labor. I would point out that parliamentary salaries of people like Amanda Fazio of Labor are up into the $200,000 mark with perks including a generous expense account taken into account, it's clear that as soon as they are earning a good income, thoughts of the less fortunate are immediately out the window. Not to mention the extremely generous contributions property developers make to the Labor Party, and their enthusiastic presence at Labor Party functions. I sincerely don't think you'll find the Greens being so open to that sort of influence when it comes to policies on the built environment and affordable housing -- they are really acting like 'responsible Labor' because the Labor Party will not.

Cheers,
Sean

http://www.housingaffordability.blogspot.com