How Australia compares internationally on home affordability and interest rates

Australian property has shown greater resilience against higher interest rates than many other real estate markets around the world, according to a new report. However, Australia has also not lifted its official cash rate as much as other countries during the global battle against inflation. Our cash rate of 4.35 percent is significantly lower than the United States’ rate range of 5.25 percent to 5.5 percent and only higher than a few nations such as France, South Korea and Japan.

Research by Australian real estate network PRD shows most property markets around the world have gone through the same market cycle since the pandemic ended. In most countries, there was a brief period of strong growth in home values as the world re-opened between 2021 and 2022, followed by declining prices as cash rates increased.

“Compared to other countries around the world, Australia has proved itself to be a more resilient market against successive cash rate hikes,” said PRD chief economist Dr Diaswati Mardiasmo. “Our property prices did not decline as sharply as New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, the UK, and South Korea.

“In terms of affordability, internationally, we sit in the middle. New Zealand, Canada, the USA, and Hong Kong are still more expensive than Australia, but the UK, South Korea, Japan, and France are more affordable.”

The report points out that this is one of the reasons why Australian property is still attractive to many international buyers and investors. For Australians, housing affordability has deteriorated by 15 percent over the past five years, according to the research.

“This means those who bought a property in the past five years are ‘worse off’ economically and in greater danger of mortgage stress, as opposed to those who bought property 10 to 20 years ago,” the report said.

Historically, it is unusual for Australian home values to rise at the same time as interest rates. This only occurred due to an imbalance between supply and demand. Dr Mardiasmo said other countries such as New Zealand, Canada, France, South Korea and Japan also have a housing supply deficit. Meantime, supply levels are improving in the UK, US and Hong Kong, she said.

For now, the Reserve Bank of Australia is holding the cash rate steady while monitoring the impact of its 13 rate rises between May 2022 and November 2023 on inflation. During a press conference earlier this month, Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock said a rate cut was unlikely this year.

Dr Mardiasmo said a stable cash rate creates a catch-22 in the market. “On one hand it provides stability, hence many believe that now is an ideal time to purchase. On the other, a stable cash rate has created ‘sticky buyers’ that no longer feel the need to rush …”.

Other countries are also keeping their cash rates steady, including Hong Kong, the US, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and South Korea. Some countries have begun cutting their cash rates, including Canada and France. Japan is the outlier after commencing a cash rate hiking cycle in March. This followed almost 14 years of negative or zero interest rates. The rate in Japan is now 0.25 percent.

For months, I have been one of the few commentators openly stating what the data was already showing: property prices had begun to fall.

The latest figures confirm it. Cotality’s June 1 Home Value Index showed Sydney values down 0.9 per cent in May and Melbourne down 0.8 per cent. ANZ has cut its national capital city forecast to 2.8 per cent growth this year, down from 4.8 per cent in April. CBA has also downgraded its outlook.

So the Federal Budget arrived at the worst possible time, with the wrong prescription, to treat a problem it fundamentally misunderstands.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has suggested that making it easier for first-home buyers to get a fair crack at auctions is a good thing. The reality is more complicated.

Driving property prices down does not simply hand a discount to first-home buyers. It affects the 1.4 million Australians employed by the property sector, the 67 per cent of household wealth tied to housing, and the state government revenues that fund schools, hospitals and roads.

The government had a choice: tackle supply constraints, link migration growth to housing completions and reduce spending, or increase taxes on property investors. It chose the latter.

Property is an economic pillar

Property is not simply another investment class. It contributes about 10.6 per cent of GDP directly, up to 15 per cent when flow-on effects are included, and employs more than 1.4 million Australians. It also generates more tax revenue than mining and underpins consumer confidence through the wealth effect.

Against that backdrop, the Budget removed negative gearing from established residential properties purchased after Budget night and replaced the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with cost-base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax from July 1, 2027.

The government calls this fairness. I call it a misdiagnosis.

The grandfathering trap

The policy is also internally contradictory.

Properties purchased before Budget night are grandfathered, allowing existing investors to retain full negative gearing and capital gains tax benefits until they sell. The logical response is simple: hold.

That means fewer properties coming onto the market, fewer rental listings and reduced transaction volumes.

The result is likely to be higher rents, reduced stamp duty revenue and further inflationary pressure at a time when the Reserve Bank remains focused on bringing inflation under control.

The government is attempting to fight inflation with one hand while fuelling it with the other.

Who really owns investment properties?

What is often lost in this debate is who Australia’s property investors actually are.

According to ATO data, 71 per cent of investors own just one investment property. They are not wealthy property moguls.

They are teachers, nurses, police officers and small business owners who have purchased an investment property as part of their retirement strategy.

For many Australians, property remains the most tangible and trusted pathway to building long-term wealth.

Removing the incentives that supported that investment does not hurt a billionaire developer. It hurts ordinary Australians trying to secure their financial future.

Investors aren’t the affordability problem

It is true that housing affordability has deteriorated significantly over the past two decades. However, negative gearing is not the primary cause.

Research by economists Ross Kendall and Peter Tulip found planning and zoning restrictions significantly increase housing costs.

Their work showed zoning lifted detached house prices well above marginal construction costs in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

Low interest rates, strong population growth, chronic under-supply and restricted access to development-ready land have all played a much larger role in pushing prices higher.

Punishing private investors does nothing to address these structural issues.

The Build-to-Rent advantage

At the same time the government is reducing incentives for Australian investors, it has created a more attractive tax environment for foreign institutional capital through Build-to-Rent projects.

Under current arrangements, foreign institutional investors can access a 15 per cent withholding tax rate through Managed Investment Trusts, accelerated depreciation benefits and exemptions from the new negative gearing restrictions.

State governments have added further concessions, including land tax reductions and exemptions from foreign investor surcharges.

Australian mum-and-dad investors receive none of these advantages.

The cumulative effect is striking. Foreign institutions can access a range of tax benefits unavailable to Australian private investors, while local investors lose concessions they have relied upon for decades.

This is not solving the housing crisis. It risks transferring ownership of Australia’s rental housing stock from local investors to offshore institutions.

Why state governments should worry

There are already signs these changes are affecting the credit cycle.

Major banks are removing negative gearing benefits from serviceability calculations for investment loans.

As market conditions soften, lenders become more cautious and investors find it harder to secure finance.

That matters because property transactions are a major source of state government revenue.

In NSW alone, transfer duty generates more than $12 billion annually. If transaction volumes fall significantly, the impact on state budgets will be substantial.

The consequences extend beyond stamp duty to GST collections, payroll tax receipts and land tax revenue.

The 95 per cent loan trap

There is another aspect of the Budget that concerns me.

The government has expanded first-home buyer deposit guarantee schemes, allowing eligible purchasers to buy with a five per cent deposit backed by the Commonwealth.

The intention is admirable. The timing may not be.

If prices in Sydney and Melbourne fall further, buyers entering the market with 95 per cent loan-to-value mortgages could quickly find themselves in negative equity.

They become trapped. They cannot sell without crystallising a loss, while the taxpayer guarantees the loan and the bank remains protected.

That is not wealth creation. It is a debt obligation.

After three decades working with debt and investment, I would never encourage my own children to borrow at a 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio.

A policy built on politics

The government had an opportunity to address the housing crisis by encouraging supply, reforming planning systems and reducing development costs.

Instead, it chose Robin Hood politics.

The optics may be appealing, but the economics are not.

Australians may ultimately pay the price through higher rents, weaker investment and a future in which an increasing share of the nation’s housing stock is owned by offshore institutions rather than local investors.

Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.