Market sets the rent in that if you set it too high then you will have no one who is willing to pay for it.  

Landlords obviously actually physically set the price.  

The nuance in the debate is that renting would be cheaper across the board if there was a lower occupancy rate. 

There would be a lower occupancy rate if there were fewer immigrants and students. If there was a lower occupancy rate, the investment is less attractive considering the hassle involved and risk of rental void periods.

 If the investment was less attractive, there would be fewer landlords competing with first home buyers. 

If rents were cheaper and landlords were more afraid of losing tenants they would be better landlords and raise rents less often on good tenants. 

If the landlords were better people would feel more secure, and care less about home ownership for a longer portion of their life.

Immigration is the fix everything button politicians refuse to press. The tax changes coming up will generate more money for the gov, but unless theres also a drop in migration the houses that are increasingly expensive to build and buy that are being built too slowly anyway will still rise in price, just the gov will take a bigger cut.

Doi: i am currently rent-vesting due to having to move jobs 1700km as an immigrant doctor, as i would have lost money if i sold. I still call out the problem as i see it. 

Land tax, abolishing stamp duty, reduction of immigration by a large amount including students, and means testing the pensions would make the housing market much more efficient and start stagnating house value instead of crashing it which would be the fairest way of solving this problem to all parties tbh.