logo
Home ownership is slipping out of reach for many Australians. Will the major parties' promises make a difference?

Home ownership is slipping out of reach for many Australians. Will the major parties' promises make a difference?

The Guardian14-04-2025
Housing was always going to be the hot topic this election campaign. And no wonder.
Home ownership is slipping out of reach for many Australians, especially the young and the poor, as house prices have risen much faster than incomes.
So it was no surprise that both major parties officially launched their campaigns with new pitches to support first home buyers.
But will they make a difference? And if not, what will?
In an announcement that no serious economist had been calling for, the Coalition pledged to make mortgage payments tax deductible for first home buyers who purchase a newly built home.
The plan would allow buyers to deduct the interest costs on the first $650,000 of their mortgage from their taxable income for the first five years after purchase, and only for individuals earning less than $175,000, and couples earning less than $250,000.
Like the Coalition's existing plan to allow first home buyers to withdraw up to $50,000 from their super to buy a home, making mortgage payments tax deductible would put more money in the pockets of first home buyers.
But the costs incurred in owning an asset should only be tax deductible if any capital gains are also taxed – as they are in countries that allow deductibility of mortgage repayments, such as the US – and no one is proposing taxing the family home. Which makes this policy just another first home buyers' grant by another name.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
But unlike first home buyers' grants, which do raise buyers' purchasing power, it's unclear whether making mortgage interest payments tax deductible will result in banks being willing to lend more to eligible first home buyers.
It's also highly regressive, subsidising 47% of high-earners' mortgage interest costs – offering a benefit of $87,000 over five years at prevailing interest rates for a primary income earner on $240,000 who deducts the interest on a $650,000 mortgage.
Those on low incomes – the group most likely to be priced out of home ownership – would receive much less. For someone earning $60,000, they would receive just $23,000 in tax savings on a $250,000 mortgage.
The good news is that the deduction will only be available to roughly the quarter of first home buyers who buy a newly built home, who make up less than 1 in 10 of all home buyers each year.
The plan may help build some extra homes, since the value of the tax concession will be priced into the cost of new homes, which could make some marginal developments feasible at a time when construction costs have spiked.
On the same day, Labor pledged to extend the First Home Guarantee scheme, which guarantees 15% of the property's value for first home buyers, allowing people to buy a home with just a 5% deposit and avoid Lenders Mortgage Insurance, which costs $23,000 for the average first home buyer.
There will be no caps on the number of places (currently 50,000 each year), nor on the incomes of first home buyers (currently $125,000 for singles, and $200,000 for couples), starting from 1 July 2026.
And property price limits will also be raised to average house prices in each city and region – rising from $900,000 to $1.5m in Sydney, for example.
The Coalition has also promised to expand the scheme – by raising the income threshold for the scheme from $125,000 to $175,000 for singles, and from $200,000 to $250,000 for couples, with the same property price caps as Labor.
The government expects that nearly 80,000 first home buyers would use the expanded scheme each year.
But again, the policy is unlikely to raise the rate of home ownership, since those struggling to afford a home are already eligible for the scheme. Abolishing the income caps will bring higher-income earners into the scheme – and they are already likely to buy a home anyway without the government's support.
More promising is Labor's announcement today that it would invest $10bn ($2bn in grants, $8bn in concessional loans) to partner with state developers and industry, to build up to 100,000 homes – with these homes reserved for sale only to first home buyers.
Australia has not built enough housing to meet the needs of our growing population, largely because state land-use planning regimes have made it too hard to build more homes in the established suburbs of our major cities.
Sharp rises in interest rates slowed housing approvals, especially for higher-density developments, as developers struggled for sufficient pre-sales to secure finance and commence construction. State-run developers can help get housing construction moving since they don't need to wait for pre-sales to start building.
If all built, these 100,000 homes would be enough to reduce house prices and rents by up to 2.5%, more than offsetting the impact on house prices of expanding the First Home Guarantee Scheme.
But Labor will have to work hard to avoid funding homes that state governments intend to build anyway, or saddling successful developments with requirements, like a mandated share of affordable homes offered to first home buyers at below cost, that make developments uneconomic to build.
It follows the Coalition's recently announced plan to offer councils $5bn (via an unspecified mix of grants and concessional loans) to connect new homes to roads, sewerage, water, and other infrastructure around housing projects.
And the government has already committed $3.5bn in incentive payments to the states if they can deliver on the National Cabinet Housing Plan to build 1.2m homes over five years.
At least, unlike past elections, both major parties are competing over who can get the most homes built. That matters, because housing will only get more affordable in Australia if we build more of it.
Brendan Coates is the housing and economic security program director at Grattan Institute
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Air Canada set to resume flights as cabin crew return to work
Air Canada set to resume flights as cabin crew return to work

Reuters

time4 hours ago

  • Reuters

Air Canada set to resume flights as cabin crew return to work

Aug 20 (Reuters) - Air Canada is set to resume its flight services on Wednesday, after a nearly four-day strike by its unionized flight attendants left more than 500,000 passengers stranded. "While the restart of our operations will begin immediately, we expect it will take several days before our operations return to normal," the airline said. The flight attendants' union and the airline had on Tuesday reached a tentative deal, but its details have not been disclosed. The union said unpaid work was over. Flight attendants had walked off the job on Saturday after contract talks with the airline collapsed. They had pushed for compensation for duties such as boarding passengers. The airline is yet to reinstate its third-quarter and full-year profit outlook, which were withdrawn due to the strike. The proposed wage hikes at Air Canada would mean up to C$140 million in incremental costs, according to Canaccord Genuity analyst Matthew Lee.

Anthony Albanese channels Gen Z in parliament with ‘delulu' jab at Australian coalition
Anthony Albanese channels Gen Z in parliament with ‘delulu' jab at Australian coalition

The Independent

time9 hours ago

  • The Independent

Anthony Albanese channels Gen Z in parliament with ‘delulu' jab at Australian coalition

Resurfaced footage shows Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese using the Gen Z slang word "delulu" in parliament. Mr Albanese used the phrase "delulu with no solulu" to describe the Coalition's energy and economic plan, fulfilling a dare from the Happy Hour with Lucy and Nikki Podcast in March 2025. His use of the term prompted a mix of laughs and cheers from the parliamentary chamber. The word "delulu", a play on delusion, was officially added to the Cambridge Dictionary on Monday, 18 August, as part of a significant update. Watch the video in full above.

Australia's relations with Israel are lying in tatters
Australia's relations with Israel are lying in tatters

Spectator

time10 hours ago

  • Spectator

Australia's relations with Israel are lying in tatters

Australia and Israel are – were – traditional allies. A former leader of Australia's Labor party and then president of the United Nations General Assembly, Herbert Evatt, played a significant role in the establishment of Israel in 1948. In recent decades, Labor prime minister Bob Hawke was one of Israel's staunchest international supporters, once observing 'if the bell tolls for Israel, it tolls for all of us'. That was then. Now, Australia's Labor government, headed by left-wing prime minister Anthony Albanese, and his factional ally, foreign minister Penny Wong, are clear that their sympathies are no longer with Israel almost two years after the 7 October atrocities. Last week's decision that Australia's government will recognise Palestine at next month's UN General Assembly session was message enough to Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his government. This week, however, the deterioration of relations between Canberra and Jerusalem went toxically further. What a farce of tit-for-tat and name-calling With almost no notice, Albanese's government cancelled the visa of Simcha Rothman, a senior right-wing member of Netanyahu's governing coalition and chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice committee. On Tuesday, Rothman was due to start a short speaking tour organised by the conservative Australian Jewish Association. According to the Association's chief executive, Robert Gregory, Rothman was to engage with and support the local Jewish community as it confronts rising anti-Semitism. His visa was applied for five weeks ago and approved ten days ago. If Rothman was going to be knocked back, Gregory told Australian TV, the visa should never have been issued. Indeed, the exercise looks intended to make a political point. The Australian Department of Home Affairs cancelled Rothman's visa. In a long and detailed official statement of reasons, the bureaucratic decision-maker justified the decision, concluding: I am satisfied that the visa holder's presence in Australia would or might be a risk to the good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community – namely the Islamic community. There's no question Rothman wouldn't be best friends with Australian Muslims. He is, after all, from one of Israel's conservative religious parties. Some of his public statements on the conflict in Gaza have been, to put it mildly, intemperate and robust, but it also appears that selective quotes on Gaza and Hamas were taken from Rothman's media interviews to support the decision. But as an elected member of Israel's parliament, whose visit was mainly to be focused on Australia's Jewish community, should he have been banned not only from entry to Australia now, but for the next three years? Home Affairs minister Tony Burke thinks so. 'Our government takes a hard line on people who seek to come to our country and spread division,' he said. If you are coming to Australia to spread a message of hate and division, we don't want you here. Under our government, Australia will be a country where everyone can be safe, and feel safe. Indeed, even though his official delegate signed the decision, it's inconceivable that Burke would not have been consulted. Given his own Sydney constituency has a large Muslim minority, his harsh language on the visa cancellation is hardly surprising. Nor did the Australian government ban several controversial Islamist visitors undertaking speaking tours in the past year. These included speakers who, on the record, celebrated Hamas and its barbaric actions. After Israel's foreign minister, Gideon Sa'ar, quickly retaliated for Rothman's treatment by cancelling the visas of three Australian officials attached to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, his counterpart Wong aggressively went further, declaring: At a time when dialogue and diplomacy are needed more than ever, the Netanyahu government is isolating Israel and undermining international efforts towards peace and a two-state solution. She added, 'This is an unjustified reaction, following Australia's decision to recognise Palestine.' Like a quarrelling spouse determined to defy facts to win their point, Wong sought to blame Israel for her own government's precipitate actions against an Israeli MP. Dialogue and diplomacy, indeed. Yet the spat got still worse. Angered by Australia's decision to recognise Palestine, and obviously stung by personal reflections on him by Albanese in justifying Australia's recognition decision, Netanyahu himself let fly on Twitter. He also wrote a caustic open letter to his opposite number, labelling Albanese 'weak' and, effectively, an enabler of anti-Semitism. To which home affairs minister Burke replied, telling the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 'Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry.' What a farce of tit-for-tat and name-calling. Netanyahu took the bait, but having declared words are bullets, the Australian government fired a fierce fusillade of its own. Relations between Australia and Israel are now more than frayed: they're absolutely tattered. Having rushed to join Britain, France and Canada in recognising a Palestinian state in a fit of 'me too', thereby winning Hamas's praise, Albanese and his ministers are using Palestine recognition less to influence outcomes in Israel and Gaza and more to prove to their left-wing activist supporters, and Muslim voter base, just whose side they are on. Him being little loved in Australia, Netanyahu's over-the-top reaction perversely benefits Albanese in the court of Australian public opinion. Australia's government willingly accuses their cancelled Israeli visitor, Rothman, of fomenting discord and division. Yet they are doing precisely that themselves. In this political climate, many in Australia's Jewish community no longer feel safe there, and some are contemplating leaving the country of their birth. Rightly or wrongly, they feel their own government is abandoning them. Australians smugly like to think of themselves as a diverse but harmonious people. As this tawdry diplomatic episode highlights, however, Australia's much-vaunted multicultural society increasingly is fragmenting into a loose collection of ethnic and religious tribes, its politics pandering to what divides, not what unites.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store