Rachel Ong ViforJ, Curtin University; Andrew Beer, University of South Australia, and Emma Baker, University of Adelaide

As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.

Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Guarantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.

The Liberals will allow first homebuyers to access their super for housing and deduct mortgage repayments from their income tax, while lowering the mortgage serviceability buffer.

While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.

But first, the extent of the problem

It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.

Between 2004 and 2024, the national dwelling price to income ratio climbed rapidly from five to eight, hitting ten in Sydney.

Advertised rents have climbed by more than 20% since the start of COVID. https://www.youtube.com/embed/chg3Faq6hzo?wmode=transparent&start=0

The public housing waitlist is around 170,000 households, and the number of homeless persons rose from 95,000 to 122,000 in the two decades to 2021.

Policies of the past decade have not worked, and in some cases they’ve made it worse. So what would help?

1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution

When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.

Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.

Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.

Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.

2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both

Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.

During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.

All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.

It is true both parties have proposed supply measures, such as Labor’s plan to build 100,000 new homes exclusively for first homebuyers.

However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.

3. Think beyond new supply

The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.

We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.

4. Aim before shooting

Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.

Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.

Currently, 11% of aspiring first homebuyers are able to meet deposit and repayment requirements to purchase a home. https://www.youtube.com/embed/AvLJhqLPIZU?wmode=transparent&start=0

Labor’s plan to lift the income limits and caps on available places will open up the scheme to many homebuyers who don’t need government-funded assistance for a home purchase.

The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.

5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens

As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.

For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.

Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.

But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.

The elephant in the housing policy room

At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.

Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.

By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.

Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University; Andrew Beer, Executive Dean, UniSA Business, University of South Australia, and Emma Baker, Professor of Housing Research, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Gary Mortimer, Queensland University of Technology

About 14% of Australians experienced personal fraud last year. Of these, 2.1 million experienced credit card fraud, 675,300 were caught in a scam, 255,000 had their identities stolen and 433,000 were impersonated online.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics latest Personal Fraud Survey, between July 2023 and June 2024, Australians lost A$2.1 billion through credit card fraud.

This was up almost 9% from the previous year. Even after reimbursements, the loss was still $477 million.

These figures do not include financial loss through identity theft, or phishing, romance, computer support and dodgy financial advice scams.

Why the increase?

Research shows the more frequently we use technology, the more likely we are to be scammed. Monica Whitty from the Cyber Security Centre, University of Warwick, found victims of cyber-frauds were more likely to score high on impulsivity measures like ‘urgency’ and engage in more frequent online routine activities that place them at great risk of becoming scammed.

We communicate via email, we shop online, use dating apps and allow technicians to remotely access our computers. Meanwhile, amazing “get rich quick” opportunities are apparently being liked by our friends on our socials almost every day.

But too many of us do not stop and think, “is this legitimate?” It is no wonder we see personal fraud and scams increase every year.

While the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures suggest older Australians (aged 45 and over) are more exposed to card fraud, research has found demographics are not a significant predictor of fraud victimisation.

Taking risks

Being too trusting, drives complacency, which produces gullibility. Think about an online dating sites. The site uses a multi-factor authenticator, it requires you to authenticate your photo, password protect your profile and read the scam warnings.

A site’s apparent legitimacy increases your trust. Research has found if you perceive a platform to be legitimate you could be exposed to romance fraud. Fraudsters may be operating within a site, even if it is legitimate.

Another strong predictor of exposure to online fraud is self-control. Self-control theory predicts individuals with low self-control tend to pursue their own self-interest without considering the negative consequences.

Simply, if the investment scheme looks “too good”, they will mostly likely click on the link and get scammed.

Giving away too much

Some individuals are prone to self-disclosing personal information online – and scammers love personal information. Self-disclosure is defined as the amount of information a person decides to make common knowledge.

Sometimes, we disclose, even when we don’t intend to. A common phishing technique on social media is status updates that read, “Your porn star name is your first pet’s name and the first street you lived on.”

They’re interesting, funny and bring on a healthy dose of nostalgia, but the answers to those questions that you tap in for all to see are also most likely to be your security questions on your bank accounts.

The most common scams in 2023-2024:

• Buying or selling scams (1.4% or 308,200)
• Information request or phishing scams (0.7% or 148,800)

What is the government doing to protect me?

The Australian government recently passed legislation which targets scams. It places increased responsibilities on banking and finance, telecommunications and digital platforms organisations to protect customers.

Suspicious numbers can now be accompanied a warning of “potential fraud” on your smartphone screen. Banks are also informing customers about the latest scams. Some banking transactions can verify the identity of the payment recipient, to ensure the details you have match the actual account holder.

While these will not stop all scams, they are a step towards reducing the number of victims and the amount of money lost to fraudulent approaches.

Six steps to protect yourself

There are some small but powerful steps we can all take to reduce the likelihood of financial harm.

1. Passwords: it is important to have strong, unique passwords across your accounts. Using a password manager can help with this.

2. Multi-factor authentication: many platforms will allow you to add extra layers of security to your account by using one-time passwords, authenticator apps, or tokens.

3. Review privacy settings: be aware of the different settings on your accounts and ensure you are in control of what information you provide and what can be accessed by others.

4. Be vigilant: know what you see and hear may not be real. The person or company you are communicating with may not be authentic. It is okay to be sceptical and take time to do your own checks.

5. Money transfers: never send money you are not willing to lose. Too often, people will send money before realising it is a scam. Never feel rushed or forced into any financial decision. It is OK to say no.

6. Credit monitoring: if you know or suspect you have been scammed, you can enact a credit ban, meaning no one can access your details or take further action in your name. This can be a good short-term solution.

And if you are scammed …

Anyone can report money lost in a scam to ReportCyber, the Australian online police reporting portal for cyber incidents. If you have received scam texts or emails, you can report these to Scamwatch, to assist with education and awareness activities.

Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Brendan Coates, Grattan Institute; Joey Moloney, Grattan Institute, and Matthew Bowes, Grattan Institute

Of all the problems facing Australia today, few have worsened so rapidly in the past 25 years as housing affordability.

Housing has become more and more expensive – to rent or buy – and home ownership continues to fall among poorer Australians of all ages.

Housing makes up most of Australia’s wealth, so more expensive homes concentrated in fewer hands means growing wealth inequality, with a marked generational divide.

To unwind inequality, we need to make housing cheaper, and that means building much more of it.

Housing has become more expensive

The price of the typical Australian home has grown much faster than incomes since the turn of the century: from about four times median incomes in the early 2000s, to more than eight times today, and nearly 10 times in Sydney.

Housing has also become more expensive to rent, especially since the pandemic.

Rental vacancy rates are at record lows and asking rents (that is for newly advertised properties) have risen fast – by roughly 20% in Sydney and Melbourne in the past four years, and by much more in Brisbane, Adelaide, and Perth.

Home ownership is falling fast among the young

Rising house prices are pushing home ownership out of reach for many younger Australians.

In the early 1990s it took about six years to save a 20% deposit for a typical dwelling for an average household. It now takes more than 12 years.

Unsurprisingly, home ownership rates are falling fastest for younger people. Whereas 57% of 30–34 year-olds owned their home in 2001, just 50% did so by 2021. And just 36% of 25–29 year olds own their home today, down from 43% in 2001.

And home ownership is falling fastest among the poorest 40% of each age group.

Fewer homeowners means more inequality

People on low incomes, who are increasingly renters, are spending more of their incomes on housing.

The real incomes of the lowest fifth of households increased by about 26% between 2003–04 and 2019–20. But more than half of this was chewed up by skyrocketing housing costs, with real incomes after housing costs increasing by only 12%.

In contrast, the real incomes for the highest fifth of households increased by 47%, and their after-housing real incomes by almost as much: 43%.

Wealth inequality in Australia is still around the OECD average but has been climbing for two decades, largely due to rising house prices.

In 2019–20, one-quarter of homeowning households reported net wealth exceeding $1 million. By contrast, median net wealth for non-homeowning households was $60,000.

Since 2003–04, the wealth of high-income households has grown by more than 50%, much of that due to increasing property values. By contrast, the wealth of low-income households – mostly non-homeowners – has grown by less than 10%.

The growing divide between the housing “haves” and “have nots” is largely generational. Older Australians who bought their homes before prices really took off in the early 2000s have seen their share of the country’s wealth steadily climb.

This inequality will get baked in as wealth is passed onto the next generation.

Some Australians will be lucky enough to inherit one or more homes. Others – typically those on lower incomes – will receive none.

To unwind inequality, we need to make housing less expensive

We haven’t built enough

Australians’ demand for housing since the turn of the decade is a story of historically low interest rates, increased access to finance, tax and welfare settings that favour investments in housing, and a booming population.

But one widely-blamed villain – the introduction of the 50% capital gains tax discount in 1999, together with negative gearing – is likely to have played only a small part in rising house prices.

That’s because the value of these tax advantages – about $10.9 billion a year – is tiny compared to Australia’s $11 trillion housing market.

Instead, the biggest problem is that housing construction in recent years hasn’t kept up with increasing demand.

Strong migration over the past two decades has seen Australia’s population rise much faster than most other wealthy countries in recent decades, boosting the number of homes we need. Rising incomes, and demographic trends such as rising rates of divorce and an ageing Australia, have further increased housing demand.

Yet Australia has one of the lowest levels of housing per person of any OECD country, and is one of only four OECD countries where the amount of housing per person went backwards over the past two decades.

This is largely a failure of housing policy. Australia’s land-use planning rules – the rules that dictate what can get built where – are highly restrictive and complex. Current rules and community opposition make it very difficult to build new homes, particularly in the places where people most want to live and work.

More homes would mean less inequality

Fixing this will allow mores home to get built, moderate house price growth, and reduce barriers to home ownership. In turn, this will reduce the inequalities created by our broken housing system.

Easing planning restrictions is hard for governments, because many residents don’t want more homes near theirs.

The good news is that the penny has started to drop and state governments – particularly in Victoria and New South Wales – are making meaningful progress towards allowing more homes in activity centres and on existing transport links.

But now the real test begins: how will governments respond to the backlash from people who would prefer their communities to stay the same?

How well governments hold the line against the so-called NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) will tell us a lot about what we can expect to happen to inequality in Australia in the future.

Brendan Coates, Program Director, Housing and Economic Security, Grattan Institute; Joey Moloney, Deputy Program Director, Housing and Economic Security, Grattan Institute, and Matthew Bowes, Associate, Housing and Economic Security, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.