Property developers are allowed to keep ownership of new developments (so-called "build-to-rent"), or sell the new development (on a single title) to an investment trust. But corporations buying pre-existing house stock, without plans to redevelop it, are at a tax disadvantage compared to individual owners.
I don't think corporations are quite as powerful as you think. Certainly not in Australia. At the end of the day, individuals vote, corporations can't. Governments win elections by appealing to voters, not appealing to corporations. Indeed, almost all of the negative aspects of Australia's housing policies have come about through appealing to individual voters–the older generations who own a lot of property, the "aspirational middle class" who want to own a lot of property too, the "Mum & Dad investors", the professional class (property investment is popular with doctors and lawyers and I believe even software engineers), the small business owner class, etc–rather than being driven by corporate interests.
For these reasons, a lot of us younger generation folks actually value a high-quality rental property more than buying exactly that same house. [Yes, sure, you buy the house and you'll eventually pay it off, but you'd be surprised how many people don't believe they will be able to afford to retire at all, much less accumulate any wealth whatsoever.]
It can change when (and if) you have kids.
Uprooting our kids to move somewhere else is going to be a burden on them. I experienced that burden as a child, I don’t want to visit it on my own children unless it is (in other ways) a really compelling proposition. Especially as parent of a child with a neurodevelopmental disorder, who I know would find the disruption harder than the average child would
The only hope, in my opinion, is a giant, propaganda-driven cultural movement away from money and towards societal stability.