There's cheap housing alternatives, but if people want the best of lifestyles, good positions, money rolling in and all the latest cars and toys then the choice is limited to the big cities (that's where the larger salaries are) with all the huge costs associated with city living.

I know 2 couples, friends of mine, who decided it wasn't worth trying to live like most of those around them. One couple bought a beautiful caravan and annex in a lovely over 50s caravan park south of Brisbane. It's in a beautiful location with lots of space and trees. They were able to afford to purchase it outright, and their site fee is tiny. These people are happy, while some of my other friends are miserable trying to pay off huge mortgages and other mountains of debt. The other couple did their homework, and were able to buy a house in a large, but off the beaten track, country town. They now have no mortgage and no stress. Is their income less? Yep, lots less. But they don't need the money as they already own their home. And guess what? They're now happy.

There's lots of alternatives, but most people are not prepared to sacrifice income and potential lifestyle. So they live a worrying, stressful life.

It is a bit of a stretch to claim that the Australian housing market is a free market. Government jacks up demand with a massive immigration program. At the same time it severely restricts supply with a hugely restrictive and obscured development process. While the restriction is often attributed to things like preserving the character of an area or reflecting the wishes of residents, the grotesque developments which often get approval in secrecy would suggest other motives.

Then there are those who suggest that the problem relates to people wanting to build mansions. This is spurious as there is severe restriction over what people can build. For example, you cannot buy a serviced block of land and stick a donga on it. Why not? I would suggest that the absence of these structures is the result of development restriction, not extravagance.

I can remember an elderly couple forced out of their home after they were firebombed. They had no insurance, and as there was no legal provision to be compensated as victims of crime, they were stuffed. What would have helped them greatly was the right to bulldoze their block and place a prefabricated dwelling or caravan on the block. Provided the structure meets health and safety standards, what is the problem?

The current situation in the housing market is entirely the result of restriction, not of freedom.

The trouble with all that Fester is that if people were allowed to build their dongas and caravans in any street in any town and any city, the neighbours would loudly complain about the resulting drop in property values. People who had a $500,000 city property would find it would then be worth $300,00, and people who had a $100,000 outback town property would find it would then be worth $60,000. Because there's currently millions and millions of property owners, hardly any of them will be happy with the upcoming donga to be built next door. If your idea was allowed, and building restrictions sufficiently relaxed to make a difference, then there would be massive public demonstrations all over Australia. Homeowners of Australia will definitely NOT accept any law that will reduce their property values.

If there is to be any new solution, it needs to be a solution that maintains current property values. Otherwise it's doomed, because any government who tries will simply be voted out.

That is spurious and alarmist, courageous. What would happen is that you would very quickly get a balance of supply and demand. You might see a few going up on new housing estates, as this would be an alternative to people having to borrow heavily to build. It happened a lot in the 1950s without any protest. New Aussies would live in their shipping containers, saving until they could afford to build. The shipping containers didn't go up all over the place as you would speculate, only where the land was cheaper. The only difference I would like to see today is the enforcement of health and safety standards.

What you would not see is the rampant construction of utterly hideous multiplex shoe boxes which gain approval via secret processes. I'd much rather see a few dongas dotted about (they can be made to look very aesthetic) than these vomitorious monstrosities. And the bonus for the donga is that it can be quickly relocated when the occupants have saved enough to build, which adds to the supply side.

http://www.fabprefab.com/fabfiles/containerbayhome.htm

Housing should be a legally enshrined right. It shouldn't be seconded to personal taste. It definitely shouldn't be seconded to supporting the construction of hideous multiplexes via secret approvals.

Hmmm, Fester wrote "It happened a lot in the 1950s without any protest, new Aussies would live in their shipping containers"

They did? And "a lot"? Maybe Fester you should check the history. I was 18 years old in 1950, I remember the the 50s well. I don't recall new Australians ever living in shipping containers then. There's one thing I do remember though and it's the introduction of containerisation in Australia when Australia had it's first regular visit from a container ship, the Encounter Bay, in 1969.

I Googled "shipping containers new Australians" and I got just 113 hits, none of them being a link to anything about new Australians living in containers in the 1950s.

Now Fester, it's not "spurious and alarmist" for me to suggest that property values would be lowered if governments relax building restrictions to allow dongas to be erected next door to established or new housing. In the real world, people complain when a neighbour does anything that reduces one's property value, and when governments do the same thing people SCREAM. If a very high standard house is built next to your house, the value of your property will be enhanced. If a low standard house is built next to your house, the value of your property will be lesser than it would otherwise be. That's the real world Fester. Like it or loathe it, that's how the market operates.

As I previously said, for any new solution to work, truly work in the "real" world, then it must not reduce the value of homes that are already built: There's no other way. People will not tolerate the lowering of their property values in order to have cheap property available so others can get "their" living space. Fester, that's the real world, and the real world is harsh.

Fester, do you have a cheap housing solution, available to all, that will not affect in any way the value of the current properties? If you have, then THAT'S the type of thing that would work. If you haven't, then you'd better get working on it.

courageous

In the 1950s Australia had a similar or worse housing shortage on a per capita basis as the present. In New South Wales it was estimated that up to half the housing built by owner occupants, and there were quite a few rough constructions. Some photographs of examples are on display at the National Museum.

http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/nation/suburbia/

Now despite you being about in the 1950s while all this building of a much lower standard than I am advocating was taking place, you state no recollection of this construction, let alone any recollection of mass protests about it. Yet you insist that there will be ugly dongas popping up everywhere and massive protests should people be restored their right to build housing of a better quality today. Thus I think you are doing nothing more than scaremongering.

<There's one thing I do remember though and it's the introduction of containerisation in Australia when Australia had it's first regular visit from a container ship, the Encounter Bay, in 1969.>

Before this many new Australians used shipping crates to make temporary housing while they saved. Again, you have no recollection of it, nor of any massive protest about it.