Food ,clothing and shelter are the basics that will satisfy basic human needs.Shelter in our cities has now become a very expensive necessity.

Our State Govts have used housing as a cash cow,with their stamp duties, environmental charges,and restricted land releases to push up prices to shore up their bottom lines.

To understand the high cost of housing we need to look at the history that has made this commodity so scarce in a country that has so few people in such a vast continent.

Globalisation has made us a country in which service industries provide income for the massses.With Globalisation jobs have been concentrated in the cities,since the reduction in tarrifs our regional centres have been shrinking as people moved to the cities looking for work.

The car is no longer the expensive item it once was and this coupled with low interest rates has seen more available money over inflating the values of housing.Credit is also too freely available with banks loaning money to people who have a marginal capacity to repay the loans.

Our State Govts have also inflated prices.38% of a cost of house/land in NSW is made up of Govt charges and taxes.They now want first home buyers to pay for infrastructure.Add into the mix the home warranty debacle that has excluded many builders from the market and things like ridiculous OH&S regulation,has seen the cost of building escalate.

The solutions are to release a lot more land to first home buyers at reasonable prices.Put in rapid rail systems like they have in Europe to our close regional centres so people can work in our cities.Eventually these regional centres reach a critical mass which makes them.No stamp duty for first home buyers.Eliminate the waste and bureaucracy in our Govts so more money can be spent on infrastructure.In fact we should consider slowly eliminating our State Govts by amalgamating councils and slowly transferring State responsibilities to them and the Federal Govt.

the nips have a wonderful mass transit system- allows them to commute two hours each way. to a box the size of your garden shed.

how about instead we just reduce the population? solves the water problem too. solves the energy demand too. solves the species extinction problem too. will need to cull, but just reduce medical support for the over 70's and stop immigration, and bob's yer uncle.

Check out the new form of Architecture, saving money and not expensive. In and around the British Isles, Europe, they are converting huge packing crates into quite luxurious homes and they have a guarantee of 25 years! It solves space shortage, gaining more parking space around the units. They are stackable and if there is an accident in the case of fire, only one unit burns and apparently does not spread to the rest of the dwellings, due to the fire resistant inner and outer coating. They are able to be painted any colour you wish. They come in 1-2-3 bedroom units and are quite popular with young couples or single people just starting off in life. The units can be moved around and relocated to wherever you desire, so if one needs a change of scenery, just call your local crane contractors and have it moved. Great if one switches jobs and cuts having to go house hunting!

Demos,
when you speak of the 70's, are you referring to oxygen thieves? Culling seems a bit harsh, have you by any chance seen the old movie "soilent green"? Its about life far into the future where if you are close to your death bed, they close you in a small room, play relaxing music whilst you relax on a bed and show you movies of peace and tranquility, deers and rabbits and all the wonderful things in life, when you eventually pass-on, they wheel you out and dump you on a conveyor belt, where you travel to a factory-like set up, turn your body into little buscuits and due to the food shortage in those years to come, feed you to the population. what a way to go!

It realy is very easy, & the solution will solve a number of other problems, including a major inequity.

Disperse the public servants.

After the huge push for one vote, one value, we are left this inequity. We are all bleed of money to fund the burgeoning public service, but only Brisbane & to a lesser extent a couple of major coastal cities benefit. The regions are left broke, & without even reasonable access to government.

So with one vote, one value, how about one vote, one public servant, or part of one. Lets have the same number of public servants in each electorate.
This way we get decentralisation by the only large employers, state & commonwealth, in the country, some taxes returned to where they are raised, & some well paid employment, where nothing exists now. We also find a good use for all those empty bank buildings in the bush. Hell, we might even get banks!

The city gets to stop the continued expansion of inner city office workers, with all the conjestion problems that creats.

The bush gets some equity, jobs, & income. Probably followed by better communications, & transport.

Tax payers save some money, office space will be cheeper in the bush, & public servants get cheeper housing, in the regions. A lot of pressure will come of housing prices in the South East, as well

Its a win for every one

If public servants claim they can work from home, they should have no trouble working away from the polly's, & with 40%+ population now in the SE Queensland corner, there will still be enough left to massage the pollys egos, as required.

For many years I have been hearing with wonder people complaining about
the cost of housing.
All sorts of people, pollies etc etc keep coming up with suggestions,
the latest being not enough land available.

I have known the reason why housing is so expensive for years and I
think all here have missed the reason also.

It is really very simple.
It is market forces !
Oh you say, we all know that but you look at the market from the wrong end.

It crux of the matter is borrowing on two incomes.
Ask anyone what happens to prices if you place twice as much money
into any market.
Simple, prices rise to meet the amount of money in the market.

Way back about 1970s or 80s the feminists complained that it was unfair that
lending authorities would only lend on the husbands income.
Governments adopting the politically correct attitude complied against
advice from the banks, with the request and forced the lenders to
lend on both incomes.

The market said fine, here is a new flow of money and up went the prices.

Then it bit the feminists on the backside.
Suddenly they lost the choice on working or having a baby.
The result much to the detriment of womens health was very late
childbirth ages. Women trying to do two jobs at once and all these
added costs of child minding. Choice went out the window,
They had to work, no choice.