It would be good to think the Coalition's latest burst of interest in making housing more affordable means the issue, which has become a political football with advocates of extreme solutions emerging from both the far left and the far right, is being taken seriously.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
To adopt such a view would be optimistic in the extreme.
The Coalition's proposed Affordable Housing Finance Corporation is nothing more than an attempt to corporatise public housing through the provision of low cost finance to the community housing sector.
The corporation would source large sums of capital from the bond market and then break this down into smaller packages which would be lent out to, presumably not-for-profit, community housing organisations.
These would then build homes in bulk and let them out to people having difficulty sourcing affordable rental accommodation.
This is remarkably similar to what state and territory public housing departments have been supposed to be doing for a century and longer.
While the plan has much to commend it in that those same state and territory governments have not invested sufficiently in public sector housing to meet the ever-rising demand for such properties, it does not address the headline issue giving a whole generation sleepless nights.
That is the well documented inability of many under-35s, whether single or otherwise, to afford a decent home within coo-ee of where they work and want to live and play.
The massive surge in the price of homes since the beginning of the millennium, especially in the capital cities, means even with both partners working home ownership in reasonable proximity to inner city areas is beyond the reach of more and more young families.
Saving for a deposit has become a desperate race to secure the requisite amount of money before house prices rise again and an even bigger deposit is needed.
It is a marathon more and more young Australians have found themselves losing.
While the AHFC proposal has great merit in that it will act as a sea wall against the rising tide of homelessness, it does nothing for those who have followed Joe Hockey's advice to get a good job but find they still can't afford to buy a home.
It is hard to see how the lot of tomorrow's middle class can be improved short of structural reforms along the lines of abolishing or modifying the negative gearing regime to put first home buyers on a level playing field with cashed up investors who can currently claim interest payments and purchase and maintenance costs as tax deductions.
The $64 million question is how this can be achieved in a way that is acceptable to an electorate that loves to dabble in residential property investment.