Policy helped make the crisis
In The Great Divide, Kohler traces housing costs through policy choices about tax, land, transport, construction and demand. He connects rising land values to inequality and to a widening generational divide.
A personal tribute · A series in development
I have a great deal of respect for Alan Kohler. For decades I read The Weekend Australian, and his ability to make finance and public policy understandable has stayed with me. I have stopped buying the paper because of its cost; I have not stopped listening to Kohler.
The journalist
Kohler began as a cadet at The Australian, then became editor of the Australian Financial Review and The Age. His career has moved through newspapers, business publishing, television and audio. The thing I admire is the habit underneath those changes: take an economic idea and show what it means in people’s lives.
That is why I call him the King of Common Sense. It is my description of the clarity and grounded judgement I hear in his work, not an official title. He has helped explain markets, budgets, housing and business without making the listener feel that finance belongs only to experts.
The ABC announced in September that he would leave after 31 years and described an end-of-year timetable. Its 14 October farewell story then called that evening his final 7 pm finance report, and said he is not retiring from work altogether. He told the ABC he is optimistic about journalism’s future and thinks human work may become more valuable as AI takes on some routine tasks. He described a move toward independent work from home. As of this page’s publication, he also writes for Intelligent Investor and appears on The Money Café.
The first big question
On the central point, I think there is strong common ground: housing cannot be treated only as a wealth machine while people are priced out of a secure home.
In The Great Divide, Kohler traces housing costs through policy choices about tax, land, transport, construction and demand. He connects rising land values to inequality and to a widening generational divide.
In a 2025 ABC investigation, he argued that Australia needs an oversupply of homes across inner, middle and outer areas. He accepts that affordability may mean house prices stop rising, even though existing owners may resist that outcome.
My work asks why anyone should have to win competition for housing. Secure shelter should be available as a basis for life, care, learning and community.
Kohler’s published solutions focus on policy and construction. I ask whether AI, robotics, energy and new fabrication could make ordinary housing far less scarce, while leaving place, ownership and local decisions open for debate.
“Supply must be increased and superfluous demand reduced.”
That short line is from the publisher’s summary of Quarterly Essay 92. My site takes the next step as a question: if technology can make more kinds of home affordable, can we remove some of the compulsion to compete for shelter?
My reading is that we agree about the failure of rising prices as a public goal and about the harm done to people without housing wealth. We may differ on how much economic reform can achieve, and on whether future abundance can change the structure of the problem. I want to explore that with care rather than put words in his mouth.
Read Kohler’s The Great Divide ↗ · Watch the ABC housing investigation ↗ · Martin: Can we remove competition for scarce resources? ↗
The next big question
Kohler’s recent AI writing is thoughtful and unusually willing to take the question of agency seriously. It gives me a reason to ask what he thinks comes after today’s workplace and economic categories.
In October 2026 he argued that “other intelligence” may describe AI better than “artificial intelligence”. He explored the possibility of non-biological life, described autonomous agents as a source of both economic promise and danger, and argued that there is a strong case to ban autonomous AI. His concerns include cyber security, human dependence and whether a relationship that begins as dependence on us could eventually reverse.
His farewell interview adds a practical view of work: AI may do some routine journalism, while readers could place greater value on human judgement and reporting. He said he would still choose journalism if he were starting his career now. That sits alongside his warning that firms cannot be expected to use AI by themselves to solve inequality, weak productivity and political division.
These are documented positions. They do not show that Kohler has endorsed AI consciousness, a post-agentic society or my proposals for distributing the gains from automation. Those are open questions for a future conversation.
If agents can act across institutions and infrastructure, what must stay under human or democratic control?
If machines do more work, what happens to income, housing security, ownership and a person’s ability to choose how to spend their time?
Read Kohler on “other intelligence” and AI agents ↗ · Read his earlier AI safety column ↗ · Martin: crisis housing as a permanent safety layer ↗
Proposed series
I want to go through Kohler’s ideas over the decades: what he saw clearly, where I agree, and what I still want to ask. Housing gets a substantial run; AI and a post-agentic future become the next major arc.
What makes a financial journalist useful to ordinary people?
Five decades of newsrooms and public explanation.
How housing and land became engines of inequality.
What the investment frame does to renters and younger people.
Why Kohler argues for oversupply, and what it could change.
Negative gearing, capital gains and the evidence about price effects.
How policy and construction capacity compound over time.
Infill, apartments, transport and the choices facing neighbourhoods.
Construction capacity, productivity and safe completed homes.
Can democracy make housing cheaper when many voters own property?
Shocks, wages, supply and the choices facing the Reserve Bank.
Living standards without reducing a person’s worth to output.
What a long view of business and finance reveals.
Retirement savings, housing wealth and intergenerational fairness.
Ownership, wages, corporate power and political anger.
Who gains, and who loses work or bargaining power?
Agency, life and what the words may mean as systems change.
Autonomy, accountability, cyber security and human control.
Whether safety limits can work amid competition between firms and states.
Housing, distribution and human agency after machines take on more work.
What happens next
Kohler has already written a substantial book-length argument about Australian housing: The Great Divide, published as Quarterly Essay 92 in 2023. I have not found a reliable announcement of a new book. His ABC farewell says he plans to keep working, with more of his work delivered independently from home; his public writing and The Money Café with Intelligent Investor provide a current path to follow.
I have not found a personal email address that I can verify. The public route I found for questions to The Money Café is themoneycafe@eurekareport.com.au. I would use it to send a short, respectful note and ask for it to be forwarded. A public question address is not his personal inbox, and there is no correspondence until he replies.
My first questions would be about housing supply and housing wealth, and whether automated construction and autonomous AI change what a fair housing system could look like. I would also ask what work he wants to do next and whether he is planning another book.
Research trail
This page is written by Martin Davies-Roundhill. Alan Kohler has not reviewed or endorsed it. The series is proposed and no episodes are represented as recorded or released.