The astounding finding that home-owning adults will soon be in the minority marks an important tipping point and demands a change to prevailing attitudes about renters and landlords.

Lower home ownership is not itself a cause for concern. Many countries, Germany being the best example, combine high living standards, vibrant economies and a low home ownership rate.

Housing should satisfy a basic human need for shelter and security. It should suit the needs of each individual. Whether that is achieved by owning, or renting, should not matter.

Renters deserve the same sense of "ontological security" as home owners: the security and peace of mind that a home brings and a sense of belonging to a certain place and community.

Renters also deserve the same opportunity to build their savings in a tax-preferred way.

In reality, we have a system that divides people into haves and have-nots by property ownership, that gives too much tax incentive to property ownership, rather than alternative vehicles for wealth accumulation like cash and shares.

We need a revolution in renters rights.

First up, the term "landlord" needs to get it in the neck. The language implies something altogether too feudal. I am lord of this land, and you shall exist here at my pleasure.

Many property owners would view their property rights as inalienable. But if you want people to live in a property that you own, and you are happy for them to pay you for it, you do give up some of your rights as owner, including the ability to sell up at the drop of a hat.

Investment property owners should think of themselves, instead, as "housing service providers". After all, we have internet service providers in this country, not "cablelords".

Similarly, it's time we stopped viewing renters as second-class citizens, generously gifted a home by the generosity of their lord. Tenants should have a higher status as "housing customers". Housing is, after all, the major part of most budgets. It's time renters enjoyed a better focus on customer service.

Australians get most of their utilities delivered by inefficient monopolists. When it comes to renting, it's the opposite problem: service providers are a cottage industry of mum and dad investors and amateur speculators.

Our tax laws, particularly the discount on capital gains, encourage excessive turnover of property for quick gain. That is antithetical to the needs of renters for stable accommodation.

Many say the answer is longer lease periods. But just as landlords can't be sure they haven't got a dud tenant, tenants can never be sure they haven't signed up with a dud landlord.

What renters really need is longer notice periods to vacate. In many Australian states, landlords can terminate a periodic lease (one where the fixed period has expired) with only a few months' notice.

That may be fine for cashed-up young couples. It gets trickier when you have three children in local schools and there is a dearth of affordable rental housing in your area.

Currently, landlords also have the right to terminate a periodic lease without any grounds and without the right to appeal by a tenant. This opens the possibility of outright discrimination against tenants who may have complex needs, refuse unreasonable rent increases or who just make too many pesky requests for maintenance on the property.

Renters are always told their interests are aligned with property investors. Anything which dampens investment would hurt renters too because investors provide the rental housing. But the reality is if Australians didn't speculate on property like it's a casino, more renters could afford to buy.

And our current way of taxing property encourages the development of only a certain type of rental: mostly apartments in inner city, expensive areas with good prospects for capital growth. As our cities become more polarised, there is less incentive to build investment homes in the middle to outer suburbs where struggling family renters need it the most.

And there is a major flaw in the way we charge land tax that discourages the sort of large-scale, institutional property investors and managers which are more common overseas.

Currently, individual property investors are entitled to just one land-tax-free threshold, at about $500,000, and then must pay progressively higher rates of tax depending on the total value of the land they own.

In NSW, an investor who holds land worth half a million dollars pays about $1100 a year, according to Chris Martin, a housing expert at the City Futures Research Centre at the University of NSW.

An investor who owned 10 properties worth half a million dollars each, so $5 million, would end up paying $80,000 a year in land tax.

As a result, property investors tend to have only a few properties, which they either manage themselves, or through real estate agents, who, with noble exceptions, are more interested in earning sales commissions than the boring business of answering late-night calls about leaking sewerage.

Larger-scale property owners would have a bigger incentive to manage their tenants' needs in a timely and professional manner to maintain their reputation and attract good tenants.

Most landlords are good people, just as most people are good people. But our current system of renting leaves too much to emotion and chance. This can be good – renters can strike a good rapport with agents and owners and maintain a secure tenancy. But it can so easily go bad, leaving families without homes at relatively short notice.

As more Australians look to a life of renting, there is an urgent need to overhaul property taxation and tenant rights. It's time we cracked open the sacred tax shelter of property to help level the investment playing field by winding back negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and the exemption of the family home from pension assets test.

Applying land tax on a per square metre basis, not on a total holdings basis, was a key recommendation of the Ken Henry tax review. Doing so would end the disincentive for larger-scale landlords who may be more focused on keeping tenants happy, while also recovering more revenue from wealthy landlords and less from those who choose to invest in middle- and outer-ring rental housing.

At an individual level, we need to question the prevailing view of renters as a group of people who are somehow lacking – ugly caterpillars who have yet to make their destined transformation into beautiful home owners, but just haven't got their act together yet.

We must do better to support the interests of non-homeowners than simply exhorting them to buy.

After all, they're about to be the majority.

By Jessica Irvin 

Read the article online