On the rental affordability front I reckon the issue, to the extent that there is one, is around the burden of relocation and distribution of rents rather than the aggregate. Of course popular suburbs will have high rents as the highest income earners move there and this doesn't directly cause an affordability crisis. But people really don't like being forced to relocate to a less favorable area when their income has not increased as fast as others.
Regarding the distribution, are you aware of published datasets or research looking at either: the distribution of incomes/rent costs and associated property attributes (size, location etc) or, the minimum price of a 'viable' metro rental which I'd classify loosely as a property which meets modern acceptable habitation standards (excluding the derelict properties that appear when you sort realestate.com.au from low to high for example) within a 1 hour commute of an area with a diverse array of jobs (not necessarily a capital city CBD)?
The disconnect between these stats and people's experience is that if you earn a median income of $65k before tax, that gives a weekly after tax income of ~$1040. There are absolutely no advertised rentals for 25% of this or $260 per week besides rooms in boarding houses where up to 10 rooms share a kitchen and a couple of bathrooms. The median full-time working adult does not live like this. Even for a couple working full time, $520 per week puts you firmly in apartment territory without a lot of space for a family.
If the non-listed rental stock (bath) is significantly below the advertised price (tap) what would prevent landlords raising rates on their tenants? Are they purely leaving money on the table or could it be explained by leasing costs etc?
There is nothing to prevent in-lease increases (for existing tenants) and these are very common, on average once a year.
They are usually slightly lower increases than for new tenants, and the price for new tenants at settlement is often a bit less than advertised, though this has changed over time.
In 2023, it was 94.1% of tenants who saw increases (figure 10 from link above, will also display as a table).
For existing tenants it was 71.6% who saw increases (figure 11 - noting a huge uptrend since COVID, detail of the size of increases is also in following figures).
These changes reflects lease lengths - leases will be renewed/extended for existing tenants and price is part of that.
Your note of rent costs for key household types is also important. AHURI covered this and noted huge increases of high-income renting households and found:
'seen a noticeable retreat of 'single' or single-income renters from the mainstream rental sector, across all age groups, which indicates an increased necessity of a dual income to afford to pay rent — let alone to buy a home.'
I agree wrt existing tenant rent increases. In my experience every lease renewal comes with an increase, even if small. I'm not entirely sure limiting the increases to once a year helps very much though since you end up with a big step change to 'catch up' to market rate. The worst part is that it's a private negotiation where the cost of exiting is higher for the tenant than the landlord, both economically and socially/emotionally. Not that I have a solution here but when the vacancy rate is low it's vert difficult to negotiate down a rent increase.
I'd be interested in people's opinion of how much of this is caused by affordable housing location vs population/immigration vs construction costs vs increased dwelling quality/standards/regulation.
From first principles it just seems impossible to construct dwellings cheap enough. Below is my rough working which is a bit convoluted but essentially to house people on below median incomes you'd need to build dwellings for something like $150k each which seems completely impossible. Currently it costs 3-5x that which suggests the only way to make housing affordable would be via a huge tax/handout redistribution to a massive chunk of the population.
Rough working:
If we take the midpoint of the second lowest income group from that article as the target demographic for some back of the envelope numbers that's $700 p/w income, 25% of that is $175 for rent. Call it $9k round numbers annually (2021 dollars). If we assume both rents and property costs increase at CPI and a 5% cost of capital that's a $180k present value for the $175 per week perpetuity. That $180k has to buy some land (~$1000/sqm) and build and maintain a dwelling on it. I'll assume 50sqm of indoor space. If you depreciate the dwelling over a useful life of 30 years and 1% pa insurance/maintenance costs you're looking at needing a ~$30k endowment to fund that leaving $150k for the land and construction costs.
Thanks Ben, you're right the land price is the main thing.
For the new first-home buyer exclusive program, the government is taking land out of the cost base (and investors are not in this market for competition).
Governments are buying back existing rentals to convert to social or public housing in some cases, which meets urgent need and removes build costs.
Apartment builds bring economies of scale ref. land prices (and profit via onsale of units to rental property holders).
For private rents, the long trend has been to invest in existing property (90%+) with a view to capital gains, via the interaction of personal and rental income in the tax system. Yields are lower priority and build costs are not there, so that can help rents stay lower.
Median hold times across owner-occupied and investment properties is about 9 years, and a few years of net rental losses is often enough met with capital gains at sale.
Population is no doubt a factor in the broad (planning and delivery is crucial for this and all essential services and infra.) and as you say there are micro-level individual negotiations. Some places have caps for rent increases - in practice is down to the tenant and landlord to agree or take up the line, not a hard and fast rule. Often there are costs on mortgage rates, land tax that flow through, or the prospect that a return to market would get a larger increase.
Other consumer markets like energy and health insurance work in different ways and probably are more advanced than housing (certainly rentals) to date, both in terms of market efficiency (those prices changes as much in % and more frequently) and how they are managed.
You can find NSW policy here, where they now have a 12-month limit between increases, but it isn't a matter of advertised and in-lease - the landlord and tenant can agree variations without going to a market listing (and that's completely fair), which flows through to CPI data if the dwelling is in that sample:
Again this may be over-simplistic but the future value of $6500/year super contributions compounded for 40 years at 10% is ~$3m. Wouldn't you expect basically half of people to go over the cap by retirement? To be fair at 6% the future value is $1m so perhaps I'm being a bit optimistic about the rate of return but it's nominal dollars so making 10% pa over the next 40 years seems within the realm of possibility.
How would you feel about giving people an opt-out option of mandatory contributions if they are 'on track' to hit the cap in some way? For example you could request a withdrawal of that year's super contributions on your tax return if your balance is over some amount depending on your age. It would then be taxed as regular income. Those who are self-employed can already elect to forgo mandatory contributions why not give everyone that freedom if they have already alleviated their burden the state for retirement income.
To play devil's advocate here, although it might be true that median rent-to-income ratios have been stable for thirty years, average commute times may be getting longer as people have to move further away from the CBD to "afford" rent. Although you can also argue the other way that the quality of rental properties has increased over thirty years as well, even though median commute times are higher.
You can also look at the "financial stress" households are facing. But from what I remember from a previous conversation, even in that metric, average households are doing better than we were doing in the 90s.
Although some of the statistics used to decry the size of the Australian government were simplistic, they're at least directionally correct. Long-term government spending as a percentage of GDP has risen during COVID and never went down.
I think it's particularly frustrating how much money the government is wasting on new transmission projects to enable more renewables development instead of simply reforming the electricity market rules. But realistically, the biggest sources of government waste are probably in Medicare and the NDIS. What would you propose to solve this? To address fraud in the NDIS, we could take the American approach that enables whistleblowers to get a share of the money saved by the taxpayer, which is responsible for finding some 70% of Medicare fraud cases.
In the long run, I'd like to get away from the insurance-based model of healthcare and move towards the Singaporean Medisave model. We could make Medicare more means-tested and let Australians use their superannuation money for medical expenses.
I'd like to get your opinions on these big-picture reforms and whether they strike you as politically feasible or economically sound.
What stood out for me was your personal frustration with “wealthy whingers” who were grumbling about their taxes, when there are obviously people out there who aren’t as well off. I’d like to flip this, if you may. Aussie society today pays attention to & rewards whinging of all stripes. I read ABC news online every day, and every day there’s a new sob story! Someone or some group hard done by. They’re doing it tough. Sad photoshoot of said people, staring forlornly into the camera. Then without fail, the ABC seeks expert opinion, usually some university academic or a professional advocate. And almost without fail the solution is “more taxpayer funding!” To support these hard done by interest groups. Unless of course the story is about seniors getting scammed, then the prescribed solution is more laws and regulations! So to bring it back to wealthy whiners - despite their complaints, I think they have a valid complaint if we’re proposing they get stung by higher taxes. One because every Aussie is entitled to a whinge! And second because government spending only grows, it never shrinks as people’s circumstances improve and they can stop wanting transfers. All we seem to know is more and more redistribution. Yes there are Aussies struggling. Yet we still live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, the poorest Aussie is much better off than a few billion people on Earth living in abject poverty! But it’s unfortunate we as an economy have lost the capacity to enhance worker productivity & earn higher profits. So all we seem to do is look for new piggy banks to smash and raid!
Aussies saw decades of prosperity thanks to the China dividend and post WW2 demographic winds ie we were recipients of a lot of dumb luck. And now thanks to dumb mismanagement, the wealth is disappearing, the capital stock is not advancing and now we’re using debt and tax hikes to maintain standards of living. The wealthy are entitled to their whinge because we eye them off as cows to be milked harder or piggy banks to be smashed and raided! The whingers of every stripe now dominate all conversations! Until we face correction by the bond market, we can put off very hard choices and borrow and deficit spend our way to greatness!
'If you’ve got more than $1.6 million in a superannuation account, you’re in the top 1% and you’ve worked hard to get there, that’s fabulous,” Morrison said at the time. “But that $1.6 million is the limit.”
He spoke further on concessions involved at other points, and his analysis was succeeded by the Retirement Income Review when he was PM and by successive Intergenerational Reports.
Importantly, those with less super have this balance full considered, 'unrealised' or not, in the Age Pension assets test. The exception is the family home/main residence with no concession distinctly for super.
If super balances go up, pension payments reduce or stop (and health care cards with it).
There's indexation of thresholds but the maximum for a full pension considering all assets ex-main res. is usually $470k.
For a part pension it's a touch over $1mill., a third of $3mill and still just half $2mill. (comparing all assets to super alone)
The same liquid assets definitions hold for working-age benefits like JobSeeker but at a much lower limit. They don't usually have super to hand but all assets (down to 'personal effects') are means tested.
It's at most six months for valuation updates, not price at sale but current or near current, unrealised value. There are not concessional rates for super distinct from ex-super assets on the pension taper or means test.
A large number of retirees are tested for unrealised gains not only in the Age Pension, but in paying council rates and land tax on property they have not sold.
The intergenerational reports speak clearly to the balance of Age Pension and super concessions.
With less of the latter a higher asset test for the Age Pension could be supported.
At one point a couple of months ago, it was put that the super change was like taxing income before receipt.
In fact, that is exactly what the PAYG withholding system does,.which forms the bulk of federal revenue (much higher than international comparison). There is not indexation of thresholds under PAYG.
Let's not forget too the 3 mill. level in 2060s is within the Aged Pension, not a self-funded retirement.
In 2067, the top of the pension means-test would rise to $3.46mill. indexed to inflation.
Someone with $3 mill. bevomes a part pensioner with health care card access.
So when it's said (as some this week say) an average 22 year old will be above $3 mill. by retirement, that would refer to a pensioner, not a self-funded retiree.
We don't always see that noted.
Their super would (per above) be means-tested for their pension, and the balance of spending on their super concessions and pension funding is the objective of any genuine policy framework.
Tax concessions are generally considered a form of government spending (at $200 Billion+ in the Tax Expenditure Statement). If there is resistance to tax concessions being changed, that isn't a comment on fiscal restraint, it's the opposite.
The data referred here is not correct as a measure of private rents (what Core Logic cover). It does not use CPI data directly, but Census data indexed to the CPI.
The ANU paper states the Sydney Census-CPI rent to be $580 in March 2025:
'asking rent for Sydney in March 2025...is around $750 per week. The all rents median for Sydney based on ABS Census and CPI data for March 2025 is around $580pw.'
This NSW, statewide median is already 12% higher than the suggested Sydney CPI rent of $580.
The Sydney rent is usually substantially higher, and off a $650 NSW state median it is likely to sit close to $750, per asking rents cited.
These numbers are accurate to private rents, not a mix of public and social housing, CRA-deflators etc.
This number flows through to rental affordability, showing much higher prices, and drastically changes the conclusions presented.
It's also the trend that dwelling sizes for houses are not increasing and the number of apartments is increasing.
Apart from NSW, which has the highest rents, two other states (this is from direct ABS data) are higher on median rent than the ANU paper's $580 figure given for Sydney in March 2025.
This trend through COVID is not the same as the ANU paper presents. The post-COVID trend is also in magnitude clearly different between the ABS analysis of direct data and the ANU render.
The 2023 ABS data shows rent increases are common and frequent for existing as well as new tenants (figures 10-13 at link above). The 'turnover' figure is for changes of residence, not rent increases.
This is not media hype, though that often is present on this topic, or social media hype. This is the real data from the ABS that actually speaks to in its research. The ANU paper has not cited the ABS research from 2023.
Improved rental data is extremely important for public policy but direct engagement with available data is also a good sense check. For the ANU paper that potentially could have improved the analysis.
Thanks for the discussion Cameron and Ben.
On the rental affordability front I reckon the issue, to the extent that there is one, is around the burden of relocation and distribution of rents rather than the aggregate. Of course popular suburbs will have high rents as the highest income earners move there and this doesn't directly cause an affordability crisis. But people really don't like being forced to relocate to a less favorable area when their income has not increased as fast as others.
Regarding the distribution, are you aware of published datasets or research looking at either: the distribution of incomes/rent costs and associated property attributes (size, location etc) or, the minimum price of a 'viable' metro rental which I'd classify loosely as a property which meets modern acceptable habitation standards (excluding the derelict properties that appear when you sort realestate.com.au from low to high for example) within a 1 hour commute of an area with a diverse array of jobs (not necessarily a capital city CBD)?
The disconnect between these stats and people's experience is that if you earn a median income of $65k before tax, that gives a weekly after tax income of ~$1040. There are absolutely no advertised rentals for 25% of this or $260 per week besides rooms in boarding houses where up to 10 rooms share a kitchen and a couple of bathrooms. The median full-time working adult does not live like this. Even for a couple working full time, $520 per week puts you firmly in apartment territory without a lot of space for a family.
If the non-listed rental stock (bath) is significantly below the advertised price (tap) what would prevent landlords raising rates on their tenants? Are they purely leaving money on the table or could it be explained by leasing costs etc?
Your question at end is answered in the ABS 2023 paper - https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-information/information-papers/new-insights-rental-market .
There is nothing to prevent in-lease increases (for existing tenants) and these are very common, on average once a year.
They are usually slightly lower increases than for new tenants, and the price for new tenants at settlement is often a bit less than advertised, though this has changed over time.
In 2023, it was 94.1% of tenants who saw increases (figure 10 from link above, will also display as a table).
For existing tenants it was 71.6% who saw increases (figure 11 - noting a huge uptrend since COVID, detail of the size of increases is also in following figures).
These changes reflects lease lengths - leases will be renewed/extended for existing tenants and price is part of that.
Your note of rent costs for key household types is also important. AHURI covered this and noted huge increases of high-income renting households and found:
'seen a noticeable retreat of 'single' or single-income renters from the mainstream rental sector, across all age groups, which indicates an increased necessity of a dual income to afford to pay rent — let alone to buy a home.'
You can find the analysis covered at:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-25/more-rich-households-renting-low-income-renters-retreating-ahuri/103507558
This is sober, sensible, measured analysis that speaks to the points you are making and shows there is reform in this space.
This is excellent analysis thank you!
I agree wrt existing tenant rent increases. In my experience every lease renewal comes with an increase, even if small. I'm not entirely sure limiting the increases to once a year helps very much though since you end up with a big step change to 'catch up' to market rate. The worst part is that it's a private negotiation where the cost of exiting is higher for the tenant than the landlord, both economically and socially/emotionally. Not that I have a solution here but when the vacancy rate is low it's vert difficult to negotiate down a rent increase.
I'd be interested in people's opinion of how much of this is caused by affordable housing location vs population/immigration vs construction costs vs increased dwelling quality/standards/regulation.
From first principles it just seems impossible to construct dwellings cheap enough. Below is my rough working which is a bit convoluted but essentially to house people on below median incomes you'd need to build dwellings for something like $150k each which seems completely impossible. Currently it costs 3-5x that which suggests the only way to make housing affordable would be via a huge tax/handout redistribution to a massive chunk of the population.
Rough working:
If we take the midpoint of the second lowest income group from that article as the target demographic for some back of the envelope numbers that's $700 p/w income, 25% of that is $175 for rent. Call it $9k round numbers annually (2021 dollars). If we assume both rents and property costs increase at CPI and a 5% cost of capital that's a $180k present value for the $175 per week perpetuity. That $180k has to buy some land (~$1000/sqm) and build and maintain a dwelling on it. I'll assume 50sqm of indoor space. If you depreciate the dwelling over a useful life of 30 years and 1% pa insurance/maintenance costs you're looking at needing a ~$30k endowment to fund that leaving $150k for the land and construction costs.
Thanks Ben, you're right the land price is the main thing.
For the new first-home buyer exclusive program, the government is taking land out of the cost base (and investors are not in this market for competition).
Governments are buying back existing rentals to convert to social or public housing in some cases, which meets urgent need and removes build costs.
Apartment builds bring economies of scale ref. land prices (and profit via onsale of units to rental property holders).
For private rents, the long trend has been to invest in existing property (90%+) with a view to capital gains, via the interaction of personal and rental income in the tax system. Yields are lower priority and build costs are not there, so that can help rents stay lower.
Median hold times across owner-occupied and investment properties is about 9 years, and a few years of net rental losses is often enough met with capital gains at sale.
Population is no doubt a factor in the broad (planning and delivery is crucial for this and all essential services and infra.) and as you say there are micro-level individual negotiations. Some places have caps for rent increases - in practice is down to the tenant and landlord to agree or take up the line, not a hard and fast rule. Often there are costs on mortgage rates, land tax that flow through, or the prospect that a return to market would get a larger increase.
Other consumer markets like energy and health insurance work in different ways and probably are more advanced than housing (certainly rentals) to date, both in terms of market efficiency (those prices changes as much in % and more frequently) and how they are managed.
You can find NSW policy here, where they now have a 12-month limit between increases, but it isn't a matter of advertised and in-lease - the landlord and tenant can agree variations without going to a market listing (and that's completely fair), which flows through to CPI data if the dwelling is in that sample:
https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/renting-a-place-to-live/rent-increases
'When and how often can rent be increased:
Rent cannot be raised within the first 12 months of a tenancy.
After an increase, the landlord must wait at least 12 months before another increase.
This limit applies to fixed term and periodic agreements.'
On super:
Again this may be over-simplistic but the future value of $6500/year super contributions compounded for 40 years at 10% is ~$3m. Wouldn't you expect basically half of people to go over the cap by retirement? To be fair at 6% the future value is $1m so perhaps I'm being a bit optimistic about the rate of return but it's nominal dollars so making 10% pa over the next 40 years seems within the realm of possibility.
How would you feel about giving people an opt-out option of mandatory contributions if they are 'on track' to hit the cap in some way? For example you could request a withdrawal of that year's super contributions on your tax return if your balance is over some amount depending on your age. It would then be taxed as regular income. Those who are self-employed can already elect to forgo mandatory contributions why not give everyone that freedom if they have already alleviated their burden the state for retirement income.
Ben you will be interested by the excellent ABS papers last week and in 2023:
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/latest-insights-rental-market
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-information/information-papers/new-insights-rental-market
These present different conclusions (as noted above) on the level of rents in Sydney and other places.
You are also correct to look at distribution including new builds in new areas.
A trend to 'shrinkflation' where rents are steady or up and dwelling sizes (types) are smaller is very important to living standards.
The type of dwelling is important to many making the decisions you note, including upsizers and downsizers at different life stages.
This is exceedingly important to the future of the country and data flows and analysis need to see continued improvement.
To play devil's advocate here, although it might be true that median rent-to-income ratios have been stable for thirty years, average commute times may be getting longer as people have to move further away from the CBD to "afford" rent. Although you can also argue the other way that the quality of rental properties has increased over thirty years as well, even though median commute times are higher.
You can also look at the "financial stress" households are facing. But from what I remember from a previous conversation, even in that metric, average households are doing better than we were doing in the 90s.
Although some of the statistics used to decry the size of the Australian government were simplistic, they're at least directionally correct. Long-term government spending as a percentage of GDP has risen during COVID and never went down.
I think it's particularly frustrating how much money the government is wasting on new transmission projects to enable more renewables development instead of simply reforming the electricity market rules. But realistically, the biggest sources of government waste are probably in Medicare and the NDIS. What would you propose to solve this? To address fraud in the NDIS, we could take the American approach that enables whistleblowers to get a share of the money saved by the taxpayer, which is responsible for finding some 70% of Medicare fraud cases.
In the long run, I'd like to get away from the insurance-based model of healthcare and move towards the Singaporean Medisave model. We could make Medicare more means-tested and let Australians use their superannuation money for medical expenses.
I'd like to get your opinions on these big-picture reforms and whether they strike you as politically feasible or economically sound.
What stood out for me was your personal frustration with “wealthy whingers” who were grumbling about their taxes, when there are obviously people out there who aren’t as well off. I’d like to flip this, if you may. Aussie society today pays attention to & rewards whinging of all stripes. I read ABC news online every day, and every day there’s a new sob story! Someone or some group hard done by. They’re doing it tough. Sad photoshoot of said people, staring forlornly into the camera. Then without fail, the ABC seeks expert opinion, usually some university academic or a professional advocate. And almost without fail the solution is “more taxpayer funding!” To support these hard done by interest groups. Unless of course the story is about seniors getting scammed, then the prescribed solution is more laws and regulations! So to bring it back to wealthy whiners - despite their complaints, I think they have a valid complaint if we’re proposing they get stung by higher taxes. One because every Aussie is entitled to a whinge! And second because government spending only grows, it never shrinks as people’s circumstances improve and they can stop wanting transfers. All we seem to know is more and more redistribution. Yes there are Aussies struggling. Yet we still live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, the poorest Aussie is much better off than a few billion people on Earth living in abject poverty! But it’s unfortunate we as an economy have lost the capacity to enhance worker productivity & earn higher profits. So all we seem to do is look for new piggy banks to smash and raid!
They are of course entitled to whinge like everyone else! I have many problems with most of those whingers too
Aussies saw decades of prosperity thanks to the China dividend and post WW2 demographic winds ie we were recipients of a lot of dumb luck. And now thanks to dumb mismanagement, the wealth is disappearing, the capital stock is not advancing and now we’re using debt and tax hikes to maintain standards of living. The wealthy are entitled to their whinge because we eye them off as cows to be milked harder or piggy banks to be smashed and raided! The whingers of every stripe now dominate all conversations! Until we face correction by the bond market, we can put off very hard choices and borrow and deficit spend our way to greatness!
Super policy objectives have been floated a while across the board.
Scott Morrison said re super tax changes in 2016:
'At over $2 trillion the national savings box can be ticked," he said.
"It's not an estate planning tool, that's not what we believe superannuation to be'
He also said ( more at https://theconversation.com/tax-free-super-for-the-super-rich-is-a-bad-deal-for-the-rest-of-us-and-morrison-said-it-first-200706 )
'If you’ve got more than $1.6 million in a superannuation account, you’re in the top 1% and you’ve worked hard to get there, that’s fabulous,” Morrison said at the time. “But that $1.6 million is the limit.”
He spoke further on concessions involved at other points, and his analysis was succeeded by the Retirement Income Review when he was PM and by successive Intergenerational Reports.
Importantly, those with less super have this balance full considered, 'unrealised' or not, in the Age Pension assets test. The exception is the family home/main residence with no concession distinctly for super.
If super balances go up, pension payments reduce or stop (and health care cards with it).
There's indexation of thresholds but the maximum for a full pension considering all assets ex-main res. is usually $470k.
For a part pension it's a touch over $1mill., a third of $3mill and still just half $2mill. (comparing all assets to super alone)
The same liquid assets definitions hold for working-age benefits like JobSeeker but at a much lower limit. They don't usually have super to hand but all assets (down to 'personal effects') are means tested.
It's at most six months for valuation updates, not price at sale but current or near current, unrealised value. There are not concessional rates for super distinct from ex-super assets on the pension taper or means test.
A large number of retirees are tested for unrealised gains not only in the Age Pension, but in paying council rates and land tax on property they have not sold.
The intergenerational reports speak clearly to the balance of Age Pension and super concessions.
With less of the latter a higher asset test for the Age Pension could be supported.
At one point a couple of months ago, it was put that the super change was like taxing income before receipt.
In fact, that is exactly what the PAYG withholding system does,.which forms the bulk of federal revenue (much higher than international comparison). There is not indexation of thresholds under PAYG.
Let's not forget too the 3 mill. level in 2060s is within the Aged Pension, not a self-funded retirement.
In 2067, the top of the pension means-test would rise to $3.46mill. indexed to inflation.
Someone with $3 mill. bevomes a part pensioner with health care card access.
So when it's said (as some this week say) an average 22 year old will be above $3 mill. by retirement, that would refer to a pensioner, not a self-funded retiree.
We don't always see that noted.
Their super would (per above) be means-tested for their pension, and the balance of spending on their super concessions and pension funding is the objective of any genuine policy framework.
Tax concessions are generally considered a form of government spending (at $200 Billion+ in the Tax Expenditure Statement). If there is resistance to tax concessions being changed, that isn't a comment on fiscal restraint, it's the opposite.
The data referred here is not correct as a measure of private rents (what Core Logic cover). It does not use CPI data directly, but Census data indexed to the CPI.
The ANU paper states the Sydney Census-CPI rent to be $580 in March 2025:
'asking rent for Sydney in March 2025...is around $750 per week. The all rents median for Sydney based on ABS Census and CPI data for March 2025 is around $580pw.'
The ABS has just published the NSW median for March 2025 as $650 (Table 3 of https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/latest-insights-rental-market ).
This NSW, statewide median is already 12% higher than the suggested Sydney CPI rent of $580.
The Sydney rent is usually substantially higher, and off a $650 NSW state median it is likely to sit close to $750, per asking rents cited.
These numbers are accurate to private rents, not a mix of public and social housing, CRA-deflators etc.
This number flows through to rental affordability, showing much higher prices, and drastically changes the conclusions presented.
It's also the trend that dwelling sizes for houses are not increasing and the number of apartments is increasing.
Apart from NSW, which has the highest rents, two other states (this is from direct ABS data) are higher on median rent than the ANU paper's $580 figure given for Sydney in March 2025.
The ABS has published another good paper in 2023, using their CPI data set (dollar values) directly, which shows the CPI and asking rents grew very closely from 2005 to COVID (figure 2 https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-information/information-papers/new-insights-rental-market ).
This trend through COVID is not the same as the ANU paper presents. The post-COVID trend is also in magnitude clearly different between the ABS analysis of direct data and the ANU render.
The 2023 ABS data shows rent increases are common and frequent for existing as well as new tenants (figures 10-13 at link above). The 'turnover' figure is for changes of residence, not rent increases.
This is not media hype, though that often is present on this topic, or social media hype. This is the real data from the ABS that actually speaks to in its research. The ANU paper has not cited the ABS research from 2023.
Improved rental data is extremely important for public policy but direct engagement with available data is also a good sense check. For the ANU paper that potentially could have improved the analysis.