logo
Who actually benefits from the Coalition and Labor's housing policies?

Who actually benefits from the Coalition and Labor's housing policies?

The Guardian20-04-2025
The major parties have pledged to give Australian renters a hand to enter the housing market, but experts warn their flagship policies will only help a narrow group of people.
So who will benefit from homebuyer help – and will more people be helped into the market?
Here's what you need to know.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
Most of Australia's 8 million renters will not benefit from first home buyer assistance proposals, according to analysis seen by Guardian Australia.
That's because only a small proportion of renters enter the housing market each year – and they generally have the highest incomes, according to researcher Ben Phillips, who is an associate professor at the Australian National University's Centre for Social Policy Research.
'It's probably going to be benefiting people who are going to become homeowners anyway,' Phillips says.
Excluding pandemic lockdowns and the global financial crisis, about 100,000 households enter the housing market annually, according to home loan data from the last two decades.
Nearly half of all renters sit in the bottom 40% of income levels, compared with just one-fifth of first home buyers.
'If you're in the bottom two quintiles of income, you're probably not really going to have enough income to be servicing a mortgage, whichever way you go,' Phillips says.
'There's not a lot that we've seen in the election campaign to really help those people, and they're the people who really are struggling.'
That leaves nearly half the renting population, or 4 million Australians, beyond the reach of homebuyer help even before the new policies arrive.
This scheme could benefit as many as 60,000 first-time buyers but will put more cash in higher earners' pockets and may not bring additional people into the housing market, experts say.
The Coalition would let first home buyers deduct a portion of their repayments from their taxable income if they buy a newly built home, benefiting nearly 30,000 households annually on average – though the Housing Industry Association estimates it could be double that.
The HIA expects the scheme would see the existing pool of first-time buyers swing towards buying new builds. At present, first-time buyers tend not to buy new builds, preferring existing homes, but those that do are likely to be on higher incomes.
Top earners would particularly benefit from this policy as they pay higher rates of tax and therefore would get more money back from deductions.
They may even get the bulk of the benefits unless banks treat the deduction as a genuine increase in income and let lower earners borrow more, according to Matt Bowes, housing expert at the Grattan Institute.
'It may not increase people's borrowing capacity, it may just be giving them a free kick in that initial period of the loan,' he says.
Bowes says it's not clear whether the policy would lift more people would into the market.
This proposal could help up to 30,000 people enter the housing market every year, the government estimates, though a lack of income caps may see the benefits go to those who would have the means to enter already.
The expanded first home guarantee is open to all first-time buyers but is expected to be accessed by a 'pretty narrow band of new first home buyers', Labor's housing minister, Clare O'Neil, has said.
By covering mortgage insurance and reducing upfront payments to a 5% deposit, the policy would let buyers get home loans sooner, permanently bringing forward the number of people who can buy, according to Peter Tulip, chief economist at the Centre for Independent Studies.
'It's a big subsidy, so that would mean you would get an ongoing increase in the flow into home ownership,' he says.
But high earners would gain access to the expanded scheme if the government removed income caps, Bowes warns. The Coalition is proposing a smaller expansion that retains some income caps.
About 160,000 extra people could enter the housing market in the first year of this policy's operation, but Tulip estimates the boost would only be temporary.
First home buyers trying to secure a deposit would be allowed to put in 40% or no more than $50,000 of their own superannuation under the Coalition's proposal.
That would more than double the number of first home buyers temporarily, before it returned to current levels, according to Tulip's research on a similar scheme.
The Coalition's housing spokesperson, Michael Sukkar, says the policy 'will accelerate' homebuyers' decisions.
Wealthy people and higher earners would see less benefit from super for housing as they may be better off leaving their retirement savings untouched, Tulip says.
'They can already save a deposit or get help from their parents, so they don't actually need help from the government,' he says.
This policy would make it permanently easier for some first-time buyers to make both the deposit and the repayment on their homes but will take in just 10,000 people each year for four years.
The plan, set to open later in 2025, was originally only for individuals on capped income and loan sizes, but Labor raised those caps in March's budget.
Joint applicants and single parents earning $160,000 would be permitted to co-purchase homes alongside the government as costly as $1.3m in New South Wales.
The scheme would permanently increase the number of first home buyers year-on-year and could help renters whose incomes would otherwise be too low to enter the market, though increased caps could end up helping middle-income earners more, according to Grattan expert Bowes.
'With a scheme that has a limited number of places, you increase the risk that it becomes a lottery, and those low-income people who would most benefit are the ones who miss out,' he says.
Relaxed lending standards by lowering the serviceability buffer could temporarily help borrowers' earnings go further and help them enter the market.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has said a cut to the buffer would enable 'tens of thousands more Australians' to get a home loan.
Economists agree more people could buy if regulators lowered that rate, which banks add to their lending interest rates when assessing a borrower's ability to repay loans.
'It allows people to borrow more and if you can borrow more, then maybe you can out-compete other people in the home market,' Bowes says.
But like all of the buyer help policies on offer, looser lending rules would see growing numbers of people bidding ever greater amounts of money on a slow-growing supply of housing, worsening affordability, he says.
'Given high house prices, how useful is that to a broad range of people who are locked out of home ownership?'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Congregation flees after arsonist sets fire to an Australian synagogue door
Congregation flees after arsonist sets fire to an Australian synagogue door

NBC News

timea day ago

  • NBC News

Congregation flees after arsonist sets fire to an Australian synagogue door

An arsonist set fire to the door of a Melbourne synagogue and forced the congregation to flee on Friday, seven months after criminals destroyed a synagogue in the same Australian city with an accelerant-fueled blaze that left a worshipper injured. A man doused the double front doors of the downtown East Melbourne Hebrew Congregation and set it alight around 8 p.m., a police statement said on Saturday. Around 20 worshippers sharing a meal to mark the Shabbat Jewish day of rest evacuated through a rear door and no one was injured, police said. Fire fighters extinguished the blaze which was contained to the front entrance, police. A wave of antisemitic attacks has roiled Australia since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas assault on Israel triggered the war in Gaza. Jewish and Muslim organizations and hate researchers have recorded drastic spikes in hate-fueled incidents on both groups. The Australian government last year appointed special envoys to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia in the community. Last December, two masked men struck the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne's southeast. They caused extensive damage by spreading a liquid accelerant with brooms throughout the building before igniting it. A worshipper sustained minor burns. No charges have been laid for that attack, which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese blamed on antisemitism. The Victorian Joint Counter-Terrorism Team, which includes Victoria state police, federal police and Australia's main domestic spy agency, said the fire was likely a politically-motivated attack. Police say synagogue attack is a serious crime Acting Victoria Police Commander Zorka Dunstan described the latest synagogue fire as a serious crime. Police released a CCTV image of a suspect. 'I'd like to make it very clear that we do recognize that these crimes are disgusting and abhorrent. But at this stage, we are not declaring this a terrorist incident,' Dunstan told reporters. 'In the course of our investigation, we will examine the intent and the ideology of the persons involved, or person, to determine if this is in fact terrorism. At the moment, we are categorizing it as a serious criminal incident and responding accordingly,' she added. A terrorism declaration opens the investigation to more resourcing and can result in charges that carry longer prison sentences. The synagogue's president, Danny Segal, called for the wider Australian community to stand with his congregation. 'We're here to be in peace, you know, we're here for everybody to live together and we've got a fresh start in Australia, such a beautiful country, and what they're doing is just not fair and not right, and as Australians, we should stand up and everybody should stand up,' Segal told reporters. Protesters harass diners in Israeli-owned restaurant Also in downtown Melbourne on Friday night, around 20 masked protesters harassed diners in an Israeli-owned restaurant. A Miznon restaurant window was broken. A 28-year-old woman was arrested for hindering police. Anti-Defamation Commission chair Dvir Abramovich, a leading opponent of antisemitism in Australia, said diners were terrorized as the group chanted ' Death to the IDF,' referring to the Israel Defense Forces. 'Melbourne, for one night, stopped being a safe place for Jews,' Abramovich said. Melbourne Lord Mayor Nicholas Reece condemned both the synagogue and restaurant incidents. 'These criminal acts against a Melbourne synagogue and an Israeli business are absolutely shocking,' Reece said. 'All of us as a community need to stand up against it.' Victoria Premier Jacinta Allan said both incidents were designed to 'traumatize Jewish families.'

O'Brien on Liberal ‘soul-searching' amid nuclear and net-zero policy review
O'Brien on Liberal ‘soul-searching' amid nuclear and net-zero policy review

The Guardian

time3 days ago

  • The Guardian

O'Brien on Liberal ‘soul-searching' amid nuclear and net-zero policy review

After a bruising election loss, the Coalition is at a crossroads. Can it reinvent itself as a credible alternative to Labor, or will internal divisions over nuclear energy, net zero and the Liberal party's identity doom it to another term in opposition? Guardian Australia chief political correspondent, Tom McIlroy, speaks with the deputy opposition leader, Ted O'Brien, about the road ahead – from climate policy to rebuilding trust – and whether the Coalition can rise from the ashes of defeat

Sheep farmer's ex-wife LOSES battle over £80MILLION ‘gift' he gave her for kids… after she divorced him & kept cash
Sheep farmer's ex-wife LOSES battle over £80MILLION ‘gift' he gave her for kids… after she divorced him & kept cash

Scottish Sun

time3 days ago

  • Scottish Sun

Sheep farmer's ex-wife LOSES battle over £80MILLION ‘gift' he gave her for kids… after she divorced him & kept cash

The ruling has been upheld by the Supreme Court BAAH HUMBUG Sheep farmer's ex-wife LOSES battle over £80MILLION 'gift' he gave her for kids… after she divorced him & kept cash Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A SHEEP farmer's ex-wife has lost a five-year legal battle to keep half of a £80million sum he gave her as part of a tax avoidance scheme. Clive Standish, 72, transferred the multi-million pound gift to his former partner Anna in 2017, with the intention of eventually placing the money in an offshore trust for their children. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 5 Clive Standish will keep the majority of an £80million gift he gave his wife Credit: Central News 5 It was initially decided by the High Court that Anna should receive half of the funds Credit: Champion News Clive, a former chief financial officer at UBS, made the decision to move the funds over to his Australian wife to exploit her non-dom status and avoid a crippling 40% inheritance-tax rate. The former banker believed he would face a bill of about £32 million if he died with the money in his name. But the pair's 15 year marriage later hit the rocks and divorce proceedings began in 2020 with the assets still in her name. It was initially decided by the High Court in 2023 that Anna, 57, should receive half of the funds in the settlement. Read more News CHEEKY BURGERS Uber Eats kitchen cooking burgers set up in asylum hotel is SHUT DOWN But last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that her share should be reduced from half to £25million. The amount was judged to fairly represent her contribution to raising the children and looking after their home. And despite Anna's recent attempts to overturn the decision, the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court yesterday. Five judges argued that the sum was not a marital asset because it had not been shared by the couple and Mr Standish had intended it for their children. The ruling said: 'Tax planning schemes to save tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace. 'The problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80 million should not be retained by the wife.' Fresh twist in Eamonn Holmes & Ruth Langsford's divorce as celeb pair battle over £3.6m home His wife never established two offshore trusts as he had expected, so Clive was judged to be the sole owner of those assets when divorce proceedings began. Lord Faulks, representing Anna, tried to argue that the money had become shared property after the initial transfer, adding that she had contributed by accepting the gift. Mr Standish moved to Australia in 1976 and married Anna in December 2005, before the pair moved to the UK five years later. The couple lived together at Moundsmere Manor, an 18-bedroom mansion near Preston Candover, Hampshire. Clive's laywer, Tim Bishop KC, explained that in June 2004 his client was worth £57.3 million, while Anna had 'no significant pre-marital wealth'. The marital assets at the time of the split amounted to £132million, almost all of which had come from Clive's initial fortune. Mr Bishop added: "The husband made the transfers in March 2017, but the wife failed to transfer the assets into trust by the time the marriage ran into problems in 2019 and then broke down finally in 2020". Delivering the Supreme Court ruling, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens agreed with the Court of Appeal's verdict. 5 The pair lived together at Moundsmere Manor in Hampshire Credit: Champion News Service 5 Clive moved the funds over to his Australian wife to avoid inheritance-tax Credit: Champion News Service Ltd They said: "There was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because the transfer was to save tax and it was for the benefit of the children not the wife. "The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them. "Transfers of capital assets with the intention of saving tax do not, without some further compelling evidence, establish that the parties are treating the capital asset as shared between them. "The 2017 assets comprise the husband's pre-marital assets and earnings that the husband made in the years 2004-2007, to which the wife contributed by being the home-maker and child carer during those years. "In relation to a scheme designed to save tax, under which one spouse transfers an asset to the other spouse, the parties' dealings with the asset do not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between them. "Rather, the intention is simply to save tax."

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