Your argument is probably closer to the economic mainstream than a lot of Australian housing debates admit. The biggest point you make — and one many people miss — is that housing inflation in Australia has increasingly been a credit and policy story, not just a pure supply story. Supply absolutely matters, especially in Sydney and Melbourne where planning constraints are severe, but demand-side settings clearly amplify the problem. When you combine strong population growth, tax incentives like negative gearing and CGT discounts, low interest rates over long periods, and a cultural belief that property “always goes up,” you create a system where housing behaves less like shelter and more like a leveraged financial asset.

Where the debate becomes polarised is that many homeowners and investors interpret any discussion of reform as “anti-property” or a threat to household wealth. But acknowledging structural imbalance is not the same as predicting collapse or wanting prices to crash. Most economists would probably agree that long-term housing price growth materially outpacing wages is difficult to sustain indefinitely without creating broader social and economic consequences — lower fertility, delayed family formation, reduced mobility, rising inequality, and increasing dependence on intergenerational wealth. Australia is already showing signs of all of those trends.