RBA interest rates: ‘Cautious' board worried June inflation will be higher than forecast
The RBA surprised many observers by keeping the cash rate at 3.85 per cent at the meeting, after two cuts earlier this year.
Pressure for mortgage relief had built leading up to the meeting after data showed monthly inflation had slowed in the year to May.
But those figures do not show the complete picture of cost of living, and the RBA instead watches quarterly data to make decisions.
The board's call on July 8 hinged on concerns that numbers for the June quarter might be slightly higher than forecast, according to meeting minutes published on Tuesday.
'The sharp declines in the monthly indicators for headline and trimmed-mean inflation were likely to have overstated the easing in underlying inflation momentum,' the board minutes said.
'Movements in components of the monthly CPI data that contained new information suggested that underlying inflation in the June quarter could be slightly higher than the staff had forecast.
'This reflected upside surprises to new dwelling costs and consumer durables inflation in April.'
Yet the board was confident inflation was slowing, giving a clear signal that more rate cuts will be on the way — when the time is right.
Spending was improving amid an uptick of investment into new houses, while the jobs market was 'tight' and had so far not slowed as much as the RBA anticipated.
The board's call on the strength of the labour market will receive the most scrutiny after new figures showing a modest rise of unemployment released just days after the RBA meeting.
The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.3 per cent last week, while new jobs were stagnant.
Taken together, those numbers suggest the labour market was not soaking up population growth, but do not imply widespread job losses.
The figures sparked analysts to fire up calls for an interest rate reduction and financial markets on Monday night factored in a slim chance of a bumper-sized 50 point cut.
While the board had earlier been concerned that a looming global trade war would send the local economy off the rails, the threat had eased a little by the July meeting.
US President Donald Trump backed down on some of the most severe tariff proposals and pushed out the negotiating deadline for many countries to August.
Consumer and business confidence in Australia had not been hit as badly as in other major countries, the board said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Trump has put USA back on top. Australia should follow his lead
Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Melbourne suburbs where house prices are rising fastest
Melbourne suburbs with large family homes and neighbourhoods well located to benefit from future infrastructure projects have recorded large price increases in the past 12 months, outstripping citywide growth. Melbourne's median house price rose 1.6 per cent to almost $1,064,000 in the 12 months to June, the latest Domain House Price Report this week showed. Domain chief of research and economics Dr Nicola Powell said the quarterly growth rate of 2.3 per cent appeared to show Melbourne's property market was exiting its years-long slump. 'Largely, what we've got is a turn-around in market conditions across Melbourne,' she said. 'It's the sharpest lift in 3½ years for house prices and the sharpest in two years for unit prices.' House prices rose the most in Aberfeldie, up 21.6 per cent in the year to June to a median of $1,946,000. It was followed by Fairfield, up 18.8 per cent to $1.63 million, and Heidelberg, up 14.3 per cent to $1,308,000. Unit prices rose the most in Moorabbin, climbing 25.9 per cent over the same period to a median of $750,000. Next was Caulfield South, up 25.3 per cent to $799,000, and Fairfield, up 20.1 per cent to $587,000. Powell said the large movement in house prices in some suburbs appeared to be driven by families looking to upgrade to a larger home before forecast Reserve Bank rate cuts prompt more growth. 'Melbourne has underperformed in relation to other capital cities … and families are looking to take advantage of that value before prices rise further,' she said. 'The top performer for house prices, Aberfeldie, is really up there. Riverside location, period homes … it's prime for families.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
The Melbourne suburbs where house prices are rising fastest
Melbourne suburbs with large family homes and neighbourhoods well located to benefit from future infrastructure projects have recorded large price increases in the past 12 months, outstripping citywide growth. Melbourne's median house price rose 1.6 per cent to almost $1,064,000 in the 12 months to June, the latest Domain House Price Report this week showed. Domain chief of research and economics Dr Nicola Powell said the quarterly growth rate of 2.3 per cent appeared to show Melbourne's property market was exiting its years-long slump. 'Largely, what we've got is a turn-around in market conditions across Melbourne,' she said. 'It's the sharpest lift in 3½ years for house prices and the sharpest in two years for unit prices.' House prices rose the most in Aberfeldie, up 21.6 per cent in the year to June to a median of $1,946,000. It was followed by Fairfield, up 18.8 per cent to $1.63 million, and Heidelberg, up 14.3 per cent to $1,308,000. Unit prices rose the most in Moorabbin, climbing 25.9 per cent over the same period to a median of $750,000. Next was Caulfield South, up 25.3 per cent to $799,000, and Fairfield, up 20.1 per cent to $587,000. Powell said the large movement in house prices in some suburbs appeared to be driven by families looking to upgrade to a larger home before forecast Reserve Bank rate cuts prompt more growth. 'Melbourne has underperformed in relation to other capital cities … and families are looking to take advantage of that value before prices rise further,' she said. 'The top performer for house prices, Aberfeldie, is really up there. Riverside location, period homes … it's prime for families.
