Bombshell deal to give select buyers the upper hand
This is great news for first-home buyers who don't have access to the 'bank of mum and dad' – but it's not without risks. It's a cautious welcome from me.
I've done some digging with the comparison experts at Compare the Market to break down the key differences in the two schemes. First, what's a shared equity scheme?
Inside billionaire Annie Cannon-Brookes' revamp of trashed island
A share in value growth
Governments are finally coming to the table with one of the biggest helping hands for first-home buyers I have seen.
The government acts essentially as a partner to contribute to the deposit purchase of a home in exchange for a share in the equity. So, the affordability barrier is lowered, and eligible participants buy out the government's stake over time or when the property is sold.
Both the Queensland Government's and the federal government's work on the same premise but differ in terms of eligibility criteria and limits on support. Strangely, it appears Queenslanders may have a choice between the two – but it's unclear at this stage.
HERE'S A COMPARISON:
Help to Buy (Federal)
Eligibility: Single income: Up to $100,000/year; Couple income: Up to $160,000/year.
Minimum Deposit: 2pc of purchase price
Maximum Property Value:
– QLD: $1 million (Brisbane and regional centres) or $700,000 (other)
– NSW: $1.3 million (Sydney and regional centres) or $800,000 (other)
– VIC: $950,000 (Melbourne and regional) or $650,000 (other)
– ACT: $1 million
– TAS: $700,000 (Hobart) or $550,000 (other)
– SA: $900,000 (Adelaide) or $500,000 (other)
– WA: $850,000 (Perth) and $600,000 (other)
Shared Equity: New homes: 40pc; Existing homes: 30pc.
Allocation Cap:
– National: 10,000 per year for four years in total
– QLD: Around 2,000 per year for four years
– NSW: Around 3,300 per year for four years
– Other states: TBA
Boost to Buy (QLD only)
Eligibility: Single income: Up to $150,000/year; Couple income: Up to $225,000/year.
Minimum Deposit: 2pc of purchase price
Maximum Property Value'
– $1 million (all regions in Queensland)
Shared Equity: New homes: 30pc; Existing homes: 25pc.
Allocation Cap:
– 1,000 in the 2025-26 Queensland Budget
We have already seen Victorians benefit from the Homebuyer Fund, a similar scheme where the state government contributed up to 25 per cent for an equivalent share in the property, but this has recently been discontinued.
Govt pays $3.3m for unliveable derelict house
So, are shared equity schemes worth it?
Anything to give a leg up for Australians to own a home is fantastic. It provides an opportunity for Australians to afford a home or one that was otherwise less achievable than before, with no payable Lenders' Mortgage Insurance (LMI).
It's especially helpful for those whose parents can't chip in for a deposit or act as guarantors.
Eligible would-be homeowners may also be able to stack Help to Buy or Boost to Buy schemes with other first-home buyer government incentives as a bonus – but be sure to check first.
However, it's worth remembering that there are risks. Here are my key tips if you're considering a shared equity scheme.
1. Rates may be higher.
Only select lenders will participate in these first-home buyer initiatives, reducing your choice and likelihood of being on a competitive rate. Mortgage brokers like Compare the Market can help you look for lenders offering these schemes.
2. Know your limits.
If you can only save for a 2pc deposit, should you really be buying a home? It may seem like an 'easy' win, but don't overreach yourself and understand what you can afford realistically now and down the line, accounting for potential interest rate increases and decreases and changes to the value of the equity share. I think a 2.5 per cent deposit for a single person is okay, but for couples, 5pc means pitching in $17,500 per person for a $700,000 purchase. It's not easy to save, but that effort means you're in a better position to buy.
3. Understand the risk.
Governments aren't just giving out money with no scrutiny. For Help to Buy, if your income exceeds the annual threshold for two consecutive years, you may be required to repay the government's contribution by refinancing. Essentially, they can pull out of the deal if you end up having a higher-paid job. Remember, a lot can happen in 30 years.
4. Increased demand.
These initiatives will again put increased pressure on the housing market that's already at boiling point – and will likely drive-up prices even more. Allocation caps may help but they're not a panacea.
5. Supply continues to be a barrier.
The federal government is still incentivising Australians to buy new, up to 40pc deposit for newly built homes. However, many first-home buyers cannot afford a new build, because of high construction costs which will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Until this is remedied, first home buyers are priced out in most areas.
Other than increased demand, there is also a side-effect on the property market here. I'm never comfortable with governments using a specific property value as a criteria benchmark for these types of incentives.
Why? Because it messes with home values. For example, a set $1m maximum means a home with around that now will end up selling too cheap in order to meet the shared equity incentive threshold. Conversely, any units around the $900,000 value may get artificially high selling figures. The solution is to base thresholds on incomes only – which is simpler and makes more sense to dictate budgets.
Some details remain patchy, but overall, it's great to see more being done to get young Australians into the property market sooner. Let's hope it helps.
*Andrew Winter is a property expert at Compare the Market.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
22 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Labor to introduce new Bill to protect penalty, overtime rates for 2.6 million award workers
Labor will move to protect penalty and overtime rates for about 2.6 million workers, saying 'hardworking' Aussies rely on the entitlements to 'keep their heads above water'. Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Amanda Rishworth will introduce the Bill on Thursday, and urged the Greens and Coalition to support the proposed legislation. The law would prohibit the Fair Work Commission to reduce an overtime or penalty rate, or substitute the entitlements if it reduces the overall take-home pay a worker would otherwise receive. An award would not be able to be altered if there was evidence that even a single worker would be worse off under an arrangement which traded an overtime or penalty entitlement. Ms Rishworth said the change would protect about 2.6 million award-reliant workers. 'If you rely on the modern award safety net and work weekends, public holidays, early mornings or late nights, you deserve to have your wages protected,' she said. 'Millions of hardworking Australians rely on penalty rates and overtime rates to keep their heads above water, which is why this Bill is so critical and should receive the support of both the Opposition and the Greens.' The election promise was prompted by a FWC review launched the Australian Retailers Association to allow senior management to take a 25 per cent wage increase above minimum award entitlements in exchange for overtime, weekend and public holiday penalty rates and rest breaks. The move has been backed by the supermarket giants, plus beauty giant Mecca, as well as Kmart, Costco and 7-Eleven. Prior to the election, then employment minister Murray Watt wrote to the FWC to stop large retailers from cutting the entitlements, in a rare act of government intervention. Enshrining penalty rates was a key demand from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, with secretary Sally McManus previously arguing workers should be compensated for sacrificing their weekends. However, the legislation will likely will likely be opposed by the Coalition, with industrial relations and employment spokesman Tim Wilson stating the independent FWC was already responsible for ensuring 'workers get the best arrangements possible for a fair days work'. Instead he lashed Labor's proposed Bill as being politically motivated. 'There is no threat to penalty rates,' he said on Saturday. 'What there is, is a political focus of the Government that isn't focused towards improving the economic conditions to help small businesses grow, to enable them to go on and employ the next generation of workers, to give those first generation, those first jobs to young Australians so that they can be independent and be able to get on with their economic futures.'
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Australian passport losing its power compared to many other nations
Australia has fallen from sixth to seventh place in the latest Henley Passport Index, trailing countries such as Singapore, New Zealand and the UK. The Henley Passport Index ranks passports according to the number of places travellers can enter without a visa or with visa-on-arrival access. Australia now shares seventh place with Czechia, Hungary, Malta and Poland. Singapore is the world's most powerful passport, with visa-free access to 193 destinations out of 227. Japan and South Korea are in equal second place, each giving citizens access to 190 destinations visa-free. Seven countries are in third place including France, Germany, Ireland and Italy. They have access to 189 destinations. In fourth place there are also seven countries including Belgium, Sweden, Norway and Portugal. They have visa-free entry to 188 destinations. New Zealand is in fifth spot, along with Switzerland, while the UK is in sixth place. The US has slipped to 10th place and is close to falling out of the top 10 for the first time since the index began almost 20 years ago. Afghanistan remains at the bottom of the list, with its citizens able to access just 25 destinations without a prior visa. Australians are still able to enter many countries without needing a visa beforehand. The data shows a general global shift towards more openness, mobility and passport strength. Over the past decade, more than 80 passports have climbed at least 10 places, and the global average number of destinations travellers can access visa-free has almost doubled from 58 in 2006 to 109 in 2025. Notably, China has climbed 34 places from 94th to 60th since 2015. China has granted visa-free access to more than a dozen new passports since January, bringing its total to 75. These include Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia. Henley and Partners chief executive Juerg Steffen said Americans were leading the demand worldwide for alternative residence and citizenship options, with British nationals also among the top five. 'As the US and UK adopt increasingly inward-looking policies, we're witnessing a marked rise in interest from their citizens seeking greater global access and security,' he said. 'Your passport is no longer just a travel document – it's a reflection of your country's diplomatic influence and international relationships.
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
New $800m payment for AUKUS was scheduled, Prime Minister says
Australia has sent another $800m to the US as part of the AUKUS deal, which the Trump administration has under review, but the Prime Minister says it was simply a part of the 'schedule'. Anthony Albanese was asked about the new payment that took the total to $1.6bn, which was reported in Nine newspapers on Wednesday. 'There is a schedule of payments to be made, we have an agreement with the United States as well as with the United Kingdom,' Mr Albanese told ABC's Afternoon Briefing. 'It is about increasing the capacity, their industrial capacity, and as part of that, we have Australians on the ground, learning the skills so that when it comes to the SSN-AUKUS, the submarines being built here in Australia, we have those skills.' Defence Minister Richard Marles earlier confirmed the report saying 'the payments are occurring in line with Australia's commitment to contribute US$2bn by the end of 2025, which underscores our commitment to the successful delivery of AUKUS Pillar I outcomes'. The US' review was announced in June and is being headed up by Elbridge Colby, the US undersecretary of defence. Mr Colby recently made headlines when it was revealed he was pressuring the Australian and Japanese governments to reveal what they would do if China invaded Taiwan. The AUKUS deal is a long-term arrangement that will cost upwards of $268bn, and as much as $368bn, over the next 30 years. Australia would buy nuclear submarines from the US, while developing our own capacity to build submarines in Adelaide. The new payment came as Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was 'worried' about the government's position on defence. 'I worry that the government – I think it's not just me worried, I think every expert looking at this is making these comments – they're deeply worried that we're not on our way to having the defence force we need in such an uncertain time,' Mr Taylor said.
