Suburbs around Royal North Shore Hospital, like North Sydney, have a median house price of approximately $1.57mil.
I was born in 1968, squarely Generation X, and like many of my peers I grew up believing home ownership was the natural finish line for adulthood. You studied, often for free, found secure work, saved a deposit, and bought a home. My three millennial children do not inhabit that world, their economic starting point is fundamentally different and unless we confront that reality we can’t fix the housing system that is failing them.
Today’s young Australians face a collapse in real buying power and far higher barriers to secure home ownership, with the median housing price in Sydney increasing from approximately $76,500 in the 1980s to $1.752 million today. At the same time, the economy has shifted towards insecure, gig‑based work. These types of jobs are disproportionately held by younger people, undermining their ability to borrow, save or even secure long-term rentals.
Graph displaying the changing median housing price in Sydney. Source: AFR
Meanwhile, the policy environment continues to exacerbate the problem. Decades of tax and planning decisions, from the late‑1980s capital gains tax changes to the liberalisation of negative gearing, have cemented housing as a speculative asset rather than essential infrastructure. Housing has become a wealth‑building tool for older generations, and a locked door for those following behind.
Recognising that truth is step one. Step two is designing bold, credible mechanisms that actually shift the dial. Here, the public debate is narrow. Much of the recent attention has centred on Build‑to‑Rent (BTR) as the next big solution. And BTR unquestionably has a role: it brings institutional capital into rental supply, professionalises management, and increases the stock of long‑term rentals.
But BTR has a blind spot: affordability for essential workers. Without additional levers, market‑rate BTR simply creates high‑amenity rentals that many nurses, teachers and early‑career graduates cannot afford. If we want BTR to support economic functions, it needs structural intervention.
This is where a surprisingly under‑examined model becomes powerful: the Defence Housing Australia (DHA) sales‑and‑leaseback framework. Another alternative is land lease, however this comes with zoning, financing and market constraints.
For decades, DHA has quietly operated one of the most successful public–private housing partnerships in Australia. Its sales‑and‑leaseback model attracts private investors by offering guaranteed rent, long leases, secure tenants and coordinated maintenance. In return, DHA receives capital to deliver and manage housing for defence personnel.
The Regional Housing Taskforce submission makes the case plainly: The biggest lesson from the DHA model is the potential of a sales-and-leaseback model to attract private investment into the affordable housing sector. Applying this concept to housing for essential workers would likely require some form of government guarantee, but crucially, the government incurs a reduced cost in doing so.
The need is acute. Major hospital precincts across NSW and Australia are struggling to retain staff because they cannot afford to live nearby. A night‑shift nurse at Royal North Shore, Westmead or Lismore often faces a commute that would be unacceptable in any other advanced economy.
Imagine BTR projects structured with a DHA‑style government rental guarantee for a portion of units; key‑worker covenants that ensure rent remains tied to wages; and institutional capital drawn in through reliable long‑term returns, all located near health, education and emergency‑services hubs.
By integrating DHA‑style leaseback into BTR housing, governments can create a credible essential‑worker housing asset class, something investors can understand, underwrite and scale. It would also ensure the people who keep our communities functioning can actually live in them.
As a parent of three millennials, I don’t want a system that advantages them because of who their parents are. I want a housing system that works for the generation behind mine, one that doesn’t demand that young people wait for an inheritance to get a foothold.
Bold thinking doesn’t mean experimental thinking. It means being willing to repurpose what already works.
DHA’s model works. Build‑to‑Rent works. Combined and targeted to essential worker needs they could help restore the intergenerational fairness that Australia has lost.
The question for policymakers is simple: If we already have the tools to fix this, what are we waiting for?
Recent Comments