Leviticus 25:23.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered last week’s federal budget in the now familiar language of restraint, compassion, and responsible management, which is how modern governments announce that the underlying condition remains largely untouched.

Housing affordability again occupied a central place in the rhetoric. Relief is to be targeted, pressures are to be be eased and Australians will be supported through difficult conditions. The language was, as ever, careful, measured and therapeutic - almost. One increasingly suspects the Commonwealth no longer governs the economy so much as supervises the national emotional response to it.

Yet beneath the language sits a simpler reality. If homes becoming genuinely affordable would politically damage existing homeowners, then what precisely is housing policy attempting to achieve? The question sits awkwardly at the centre of almost every affordability announcement made over the past decade, carefully avoided, much like a relative who has started discussing inheritance during Christmas lunch.

Governments speak gravely about affordability while carefully avoiding policies likely to reduce the value of residential property in any meaningful way. The contradiction is no longer hidden. It is merely managed politely.

Negative gearing survives substantially intact. Capital gains concessions remain. Existing arrangements are protected through grandfather clauses drafted with the delicacy of inheritance law. Australian reform increasingly works like this: we recognise this arrangement is economically harmful and socially corrosive. Therefore nobody currently benefiting from it will be affected.

The phrase “grandfathered” has acquired an almost sacred quality in Australian politics. It reassures the public that reform is indeed occurring, provided one defines reform as preventing future misconduct while preserving present advantage indefinitely.

Governments now describe even the mildest adjustment to property concessions as “bold reform”, usually while simultaneously explaining that all existing arrangements will remain untouched indefinitely. It resembles announcing a ban on smoking beginning with unborn children sometime in the late 2040s.

Housing offers the clearest example of the wider condition. A society ordinarily understands shelter as foundational infrastructure. Australia converted it into a speculative asset class and now speaks with genuine surprise about the social consequences. Younger workers drift further from employment centres. Families delay permanence. Essential staff disappear from entire districts, tent encampments emerge quietly at the edges of prosperous towns while investment seminars continue explaining how to “build passive income through property”. This is not misfortune, it is the predictable result of a system designed, at every point of reform, to protect itself.

Still, the moral language surrounding the market remains remarkably gentle. Investors are routinely described as “mum and dad” participants, as though ownership of multiple leveraged dwellings were primarily an act of modest domestic stewardship. The heavily subsidised continue to regard themselves as economically embattled. Australia may be the only country where ownership of three or properties is presented as evidence of financial vulnerability - the asset-rich have become, in the language of public sympathy, the financially anxious.

Budget night therefore becomes less an exercise in economic transformation than a ceremony of managed reassurance. The Treasurer’s task is no longer to resolve the crisis. It is to reassure the public that the crisis is being supervised by serious people wearing sober expressions, a national attempt to make structural decline feel responsibly managed.

This explains the extraordinary caution surrounding housing reform. If prices were ever permitted to fall substantially, millions of Australians would confront the uncomfortable possibility that their retirement planning depended almost entirely upon preventing younger Australians from entering the market at all.

So the system proceeds exactly as before, accompanied by increasingly sophisticated language explaining why meaningful change must occur carefully, gradually, and preferably to somebody arriving later.

The emperor, at this point, is not merely naked. The court physician has begun presenting the nudity as evidence of fiscal discipline.

If you know someone who’d appreciate this, they probably will. Please share. Sharing's nice.
...
If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more, 'Buy the Goose a Coffee →'.
...
The views expressed are those of the correspondent. Factual claims draw on publicly available sources.