Kim Macdonald: Owning a house should be a must-have for all, not a luxury only for the rich or lucky

Two young men in the audience at Wednesday’s UWA panel discussion about the Great Australian Dream of home ownership were angry. Not because they were struggling to get on the property ladder. As one of the men explained, he managed to scrape into the market when the buying was cheap. But his younger sisters did not and now their prospects are looking grim. His comments reflect a trend happening across the State, where siblings raised in the same homes and socioeconomic demographics, with similar jobs and aptitudes, are now facing very different futures. And this young man was angry enough to get out of bed at the crack of dawn to find out from experts whether anyone had any solutions that would help his sisters get a fair go. The question posed by the UWA Public Policy Institute, led by director Paul Maginn, was whether the dream could be revived for the next generation of buyers. Is government doing enough by tweaking the property market at the edges? Or, as Maginn asked, should it adopt the stance that housing is an essential piece of infrastructure, as vital as transport, health and education? The resounding answer among the event’s discussion — including me — was a resounding yes. The State and Federal governments should adopt the view that a secure roof over people’s heads is a human right. Speaking on the panel, UWA Centre for Social Impact director Paul Flatau said the postwar Australian government enshrined this stance in policy, with the Australian Housing Commission explicitly stating “a dwelling of good standard and equipment is not only the need but the right of every citizen”. By 1966, home ownership peaked at 73 per cent, and by the 1970s, the Great Australian Dream was believed to be the most powerful ideology in social and political life. But as Flatau said, from the 1980s onwards, policymakers in effect turned their backs on the commission’s vision that a dwelling of good standard was the right of every Australian citizen. As panellist Tanya Steinbeck said, in more recent decades, government focus has been on sugar hit, vote-winning, demand side stimulus. But we don’t the need any more stimulus, she said. We do not have a demand problem. Steinbeck, who heads up the Urban Development Institute of Australia (WA), made the point that policies regularly dished out by government are politically safe interventions, which in public policy terms is often referred to as falling within the Overton window, that is, the publicly acceptable range of ideas. She has called for a public mind shift, or an expansion of the the Overton Window, by opening up to radical or historically unthinkable policies like large-scale public and affordable housing construction. She also sees value in reconsidering property taxation, including stamp duty, capital gains tax and negative gearing. For my own part, despite being a beneficiary of negative gearing benefits, I find it incredible that it has continued unabated when so many young people are struggling to get their first home. Not only is it incentivising and helping mostly wealthy baby boomers compete against first home buyers for properties, but it diverts money that could otherwise be invested into income-producing businesses or start-ups. As another angry young man in the audience pointed out, these property investments sit idle, doing nothing to create jobs or grow the economy. I believe it is time for the Federal Government to either reduce negative gearing benefits, or limit the incentive to perhaps one investment property. Speaking on the expert panel on behalf of Perth’s most vulnerable people, ShelterWA’s Kath Snell said increasing the supply social and affordable housing was essential, as it was the “backbone of a just housing system”. Herself a product of social housing in Wales, she has watched in dismay at the fearful response to the State Government’s decision to put social and affordable housing at the 19-storey Fraser Suites in East Perth. Clearly the Overton window is only slightly ajar for some. About 70 per cent of the tower will accommodate low-income earners, like some teachers and nurses. But even the 30 per cent who are likely to be unemployed social housing tenants deserve a safe roof over their heads. Isn’t that what the Aussie fair go is all about?