AFR: More pain ahead for renters nationwide

Article from the Australian Fiancial Review.

More pain ahead for renters nationwide
Mar 16
Robert Harley


In Perth, potential renters are bidding for houses. In Sydney, workers are moving into backpacker accommodation.

Across Australia, a rental crisis is growing - delivering better returns to investors but pain to hundreds of thousands of renters.

The federal opposition's spokesman on housing and urban development, Kim Carr, said that Australia had an acute shortage of housing stock, and both renters and buyers were suffering from some of the highest housing costs in the world.

With vacancy rates falling, rents rose in every capital city last year, according to Real Estate Market Facts, released yesterday by Mortgage Choice and the Real Estate Institute of Australia.

In Perth, where the number of empty rentals is at the lowest level for a decade, the median rent for a three-bedroom house increased by 21 per cent.


For two-bedroom units, the rises in median rent ranged from 3.4 per cent in Sydney to 29 per cent in Perth.

The vice-chairwoman of National Shelter, Mary Perkins, said the figures understated the extent of the crisis.

"There is less and less investment at the low- and middle-income end of the housing market so that people in this bracket are having a hard time finding affordable accommodation," she said.

"People are moving to cheaper areas, they are downscaling. At the bottom end of the market, they are going into temporary accommodation like caravan parks or 'lounge surfing' with friends."

Most expect the situation to worsen. An ANZ economist, Ange Montalti, yesterday warned of a looming chronic shortage in Australian housing stock.

In the latest ANZ Residential Snapshot, he warned that the current level of building activity, about 138,000 starts a year, could not meet the underlying demand of about 161,000 dwellings and "significant shortages are going to develop relatively quickly".

"With rental affordability at its lowest level on record, buyer affordability at difficult (albeit moderating) levels and subdued investor activity, it is little wonder tenant demand for rental properties is outstripping supply," Mr Montalti said.

He expects rental growth to accelerate in 2007 - a move that will improve returns to investors.

Macquarie Bank's head of property research, Rod Cornish, said rents would continue to rise. "They are rising because of very low supply in some cities," he said.

"Developers have not been able to get projects up and running and this is likely to be in place for the next few years."

Mr Cornish said that the shift would not have a sudden impact on prices because investors needed confirmation of a sustained pick-up before they made a return to the market.

Nevertheless, as vacancies tightened, and rentals began to rise, there was "less likelihood of investors selling property".

REIA deputy president Graham Joyce took the opportunity to remind politicians, bureaucrats and analysts not to tinker with negative gearing.

"This was tried in 1985 with such obvious and disastrous consequences for people trying to rent that negative gearing was reinstated in 1987," he said with an eye on the federal government's current international benchmark study of taxation.

"The notion of abolishing negative gearing or concessions to capital gains tax would be tantamount to sabotage of the rental market."

Developing a framework to meet the housing needs of the future. AFR Housing Congress in Sydney, March 30-31.



GarryK
 
The whole "Australian housing is overpriced compared to other countries" makes me laugh.

Yes, Australians pay alot of their household income for housing. But that is a conscious (or in some cases unconscious) choice. Comparing apples with apples we pay alot less for an equivalent property.

I grew up in England. Living in a small cramped 2 bedroom house with a tiny backyard was the norm. I came to Australia and the houses were huge for the same price. The location was better too (climate, facilities, infrastructure, jobs).

My wife is from Taiwan. She tells me that in parts of the city you cannot walk on grass - there is so little that people will wear it out if everyone trampled it. Everyone lives in apartments. Nobody (except the very very rich) could even consider a house.

Here in Oz we want it all. A house on its own title. A private yard. Polished floors, ensuite, flashy kitchen, etc etc. Our society is wealthy enough that large proportions of our disposable income can be spent on achieving our aspirations. If people lowered their expectations (ie settle for standards seen in may other developed countries) , they would find housing much more affordable.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting Dis,

I have often wondered how our housing costs as a proportion of income can be the most expensive in the world and yet everyone seems happy to continue along those lines.
Your point about the housing standard is a very good point.

While ever we keep trying to keep up with the jones's and participate in this consumer society to the extent we do, I suppose nothing will change.
Most Aussies are suffering from Affluenza and don't even know it.:(

If they were prepared to accept a 12-15 square house instead of 30 or 40 squares, I am sure the affordability would look really great!

Very interesting thought.

Maybe there IS an upside for CG growth over the next 5 years.:)

Now I feel better - I am confident that the silly x and y gen people will continue to lust after all those consumer goods and will be able to pay for it.
 
GIDDO said:
I have often wondered how our housing costs as a proportion of income can be the most expensive in the world and yet everyone seems happy to continue along those lines.
Your point about the housing standard is a very good point.

While ever we keep trying to keep up with the jones's and participate in this consumer society to the extent we do, I suppose nothing will change.
Most Aussies are suffering from Affluenza and don't even know it.:(

I wonder if this is really the case..... are we all reallly happy to pay this much for housing?

If you brake it down.........

1) People who owned property pre boom - yep they don't mind that much, because hey they owned property before the boom, they'll pay the higher costs from the rise in value of their own property.

2) People who buy property after/ at the end of the boom but did not own before - well this group would not be so happy, because it takes a huge chunk of their income to pay for the mortgage, but the banks are happy to lend to them at 100%, and they can finance their lifestyle with easy credit - so they pay the market price.....

As a % of the population, the number of people in group (1) are way bigger than the number of people in group (2). But the people in group (2) will be the predominant purchasers of property in the future.........

So while on the surface it seems as though people are happy to continue along these lines, you have to remember only a small % of transactions pushed prices to these levels (compared to the total housing market) and an even smaller number of these transactions were from people who did not own property before. So yes most of us seem happy along these lines - because the vast majority of people did not have to actually purchase property at these prices (and those that did, were often aided by increases in their own assets)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the theme of the thread - rent rises would definitly ease the cash flow position of most investors, and make property investment more affordable. But they would have to move a lot to even start to sway potential owner occupiers in a big way.

I'm also pretty sure its rent rises that are used in the CPI measure (as opposed to house prices) - so you may not want to pray for dramatic rises, or the mortgage payments could increase aswell

TJ
 
Back
Top