Canada Bans Foreigners from Buying Homes in a Bid to Make Properties More Affordable. Should Australia Follow Suit?

Since January 1, Canada has banned purchase of residential property by non-Canadians for two years.

Like many countries during the pandemic, Canada saw huge price increases for both sales and rentals as borrowing rates plunged to record lows, taking inventory with them.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said: “The desirability of Canadian homes is attracting profiteers, wealthy corporations, and foreign investors. Homes are for people, not investors.”

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/canada-bans-forei…

What do you think?

Would you like a similar scheme in Australia?

Poll Options

  • 977
    Yes, house prices must come down making it more affordable to everyone
  • 52
    No, I don’t think this would not work in Australia
  • 63
    No, I don’t want this scheme because I want my properties prices to go up

Comments

    • +1

      If foreigners were the main reason for unaffordable housing, how could 2021 see the most ludacris increase in house price while net migration was negative 84000?

      Low interest rates were one reason, but not the only. Lack of social activities, particularly travel, and the unavailability of other goods due to supply chain constraints meant that people saved up a lot more than they otherwise would have been able to. This, in turn, allowed them to afford more expensive houses along with lower interest rates.

      Remember that most people purchase with an LVR of 80%, so any increase in savings will unlock a five-fold increase in what they can afford. E.g., if you have $200K, you can afford a $1M house (ignoring stamp duty for sake of example) at an 80% LVR, but if you now have $300K, you can afford a $1.5M house. If everyone was able to save even just $50K more during the pandemic, you can easily see how house prices rose by $200-300K, plus lower interest rates unlocking more purchasing power.

      My speculation is that there are also likely to be social factors involved as well, including lockdowns encouraging people to purchase larger houses than they otherwise would have, lack of opportunity to travel or relocate overseas meant more people wanted to purchase and settle down. People who might have wanted to purchase for some time but were waiting out might have gotten spooked by rapidly rising prices and jumped in…etc.

      • +1

        There was also upward pressure on raw materials, which drove the price of new builds. Naturally this makes existing dwellings an attractive alternative to would-be new builds who then look at existing properties, driving the prices of these up, etc.

        I've seen the same question re: migration a few times in this thread and it seems to pretend the market exists in a vaccuum. In reality if we had increased migration during this time then we would've seen houses climb to whatever the market would tolerate (i.e. predictably higher, as the Australian market fared very well globally making it a favourable investment vehicle).

    • +1

      Because its a multi variable problem.

      I.e

      I bake strawberry cakes

      Cakes contain Eggs, sugar butter flour and strawberries.

      If strawberries drop to 50c per punnet because someone is suspected to be tampering with them at the farm.

      But Egg prices have doubled

      The strawberry cake is still more expensive. Because eggs play a larger role in my cake.

      • +1

        so shouldn't we address the egg price i.e. interest rate rather than go all out on removing strawberry i.e. foreigner altogether ?

        As in stands currently, foreigners are only allowed to buy new property anyway after an application with the FIRB. I doubt banning them will make price anymore reasonable.

        Bring back the 2 tiers interest system like 2017 will actually help.

        • Well adressing the egg price is ultimatey out of our control*.

          Not sure what the 2 tier intrest system of 2017 is? Link?

          • without the the cure being worse than the disease.
          • @Mrgreenz: higher interest rate for investor than OO. Curb the price almost as soon as it was introduce and price went berserker as soon as it was removed in 2020.

            • @tomleonhart: Ah yea, I didn't realise that was removed. I thought it was purely higher for Investments due to higher risk profile

          • @Mrgreenz: Back in 2017, APRA required commercial banks to limit the number of investment loans on their book, which made borrowing to invest much more expensive, that results in housing drop ~8%.

    • -2

      correct. Foreign purchases have little to no impact on the Australian market. Most of the rich foreign buyers are competing at the very high end of the market anyway. There have been numerous articles pointing out how little impact it has here but it appeals to the Xenophobic segments of the population who don't let facts get in the way.

      • -1

        Clearly didn’t read the FIRB report

  • -5

    No we shouldn’t follow Canada’s example of this. Its basic economy… people in Australia “can’t “ afford to buy their own homes, because they dont want to save or pay for a deposit & in turn, pay for a mortgage or do adulting responsibilities. There is the expectation that everyone else should help and pity thise who cant afford to buy a home… change your expectations to what you can actually afford, and there you gave it … you can afford to buy!

    • +5

      What the typical income can afford has increasingly becoming smaller/less desirable over the past 4 decades.

      During the 1980s, it was relatively easy to afford a 3-bedroom house in a decent suburb on a single full-time wage while rearing children, without needing a decade of higher education, nor a fancy career in a large global business or bank.

      Good luck achieving that nowadays.

      • What the typical income can afford has increasingly becoming smaller/less desirable over the past 4 decades.

        That has always got to be the case though because obviously we can't have double the population we did in 1980 and expect to live in exactly the same places and in the same way as those in the 80s did. The abject failure was in planning and urban development, which we've just not put any thought into at all.

        My view on it (and I did work as a development economist at one stage in my career) is that it is inevitable that we would have to either live more densely or live further out from the CBD. However, the offsetting factor was that over time, urban development would counteract this.

        In other words, better transportation would mean that those living further out could commute to the city in a similar amount of time as those who lived closer did years ago. For example, if we had more efficient and higher speed rail, commuters who live 50 - 60km from the CBD can get in within ~30 mins, which would have been similar to someone who lived 25 - 30km from the CBD with slower transportation back then. However, this has obviously not happened in the way we had hoped. Additionally, plans to build satellite cities and outer-metro hubs have not taken off. On top of all of that, failure to invest has led to the stupid case where it takes everyone longer to get into the CBD now because of congestion in areas that have no public transport.

        And on density, we've not adapted to accepting living in denser urban developments. If one takes their "Aussie goggles" off for a second and look to other developed cities, e.g. London, Amsterdam and other EU capitals, Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Shanghai and other Asian capitals, we realise that high density living (regardless of your personal views on it) is vastly becoming the norm around the world.

        It's not a surprise that we've ended up in the situation we are in and it's only going to get worse.

  • +17

    Homes are for people, not investors.

    And that is why locals should also be barred from owning excessive amounts of "investment properties". I think 1 or 2 is enough and after that, no negative gearing or tax breaks, and 3 or more "investment properties" should be taxed virtually out of existence.

    There is no reason someone needs 20+ houses if not for greed.

    • +2

      Limiting the number an individual can own won't have an effect. You can just create a company to own them. Will just create a little more business for accountants.

      • +5

        Limiting numbers for anyone or any entity. I don't think a company should own any number of residential properties either.

        • It is better for renters when their property is owned by a corporation. Then they aren't as bothered when renters want to own pets or put up picture hooks etc as they own a lot of properties and the small risk of anything bad going wrong is spread amongst all of them and it is easier for corporations when renters live there long term.

          As opposed to mum and dad investors who can't stand any risk on their 1 or 2 nest eggs and are more restrictive and nasty to renters.

          • @Quantumcat:

            As opposed to mum and dad investors who can't stand any risk on their 1 or 2 nest eggs and are more restrictive and nasty to renters.

            Sounds like you've had bad experience because as a landlord I'm really not that restrictive for my one temporary rental property. I really don't understand why people have to be so strict anyway.

            • @Clear: Same here, but there are enough restrictive landlords in Australia to make renting unpleasant on average.

              They are strict because they're afraid of something expensive happening to their one and only big asset

              • @Quantumcat: You sure it's not just because PMs are the a holes?

                • @brendanm: I can agree with you there. My last PM was a real nasty piece of work to the tenants. Went elsewhere and they've been so good.

      • You can just create a company to own them

        OK so no company can own multiple residential properties then.

        • Except that's a bad thing for renters

    • I haven't heard any proposal how to unwind negative gearing, its a fundamental part of taxation… Australia will need to unwind it for companies too else it will be a pointless excercise…

    • +1

      I'm not a fan of property hoarding but it's not what is causing these issues. We can follow this through:

      Forcing those people to sell would not affect the real number of properties.

      Either the purchaser is another investor, and it goes back up for rent and nothing actually changes. The big investor puts their money elsewhere or finds a loophole, and hopefully there are enough small investors who can fill the gap. Sale prices may even go down because of the artificial increase in supply, but real supply is the same and it goes right back up quickly.

      Or the new owners move in and there are less rental properties for those of us who are not permanently settling where we happen to be living/working at the moment, and rental prices become worse to the point the truly disadvantaged are priced out and become homeless as we are seeing in QLD. Rental stock is necessary in the market.

      So banning people with a lot of money from the market may help a few first time buyers, but it disincentivises construction and potentially hurts renters.

      Builders would be less willing to take on the high-density multi-unit projects Australia needs if they can't sell their units to investors, and we would have just banned the ones with the most money. Why would developers take the risk? Now we actually lose supply, and things are worse for everyone.

      The solution is to increase real supply, instead of moving it around.

    • -3

      By your logic:
      * a person owning 2 or 3 luxury rental homes total value $10million is acceptable.
      * a person owning 20-30 entry level homes total value $10million is greedy and should be taxed out of existence.

      • +1

        Yes, because the people who are now locked out of buying one of those 20 - 30 affordable homes wouldn't have been in the market for any of the 2 or 3 McMansions in the first place.

  • +3

    I think it is a popular move to make though I don't think it would achieve a lot in isolation.

    I believe any changes need to target shifting housing to be viewed primarily as homes. How that is achieved I don't know though Labour losing the previous election has put progress in this area back at least 5 years. It may now be the independents to start campaigning on these issues and see where public sentiment lies.

    I bought during peak FOMO period and the experience was awful. What annoyed me most was saving the extra amount for stamp duty upfront and the real estate industry being heavily favoured to sellers. In SA, it was a lot of blind offers for places, not knowing until after the sale was posted online whether I missed out by 1K or 100k. Cleaning up the RE industry would be a good start.

    • I don't love them but we do need investors. Rental stock is essential to the market, and a lack of rentals can be a big problem - just look at the news out of QLD.

  • +6

    "No, I don’t think this would not work in Australia" What sort of nonsense is that?

  • -1

    House prices rose during covid as a result of returning expats from abroad. Thousands of people returned home due to the uncertainty of covid and needed somewhere to live, thus the market couldn't support the influx which led to bidding wars and the inevitable increase that we see now in purchasing and renting. Foreign house buying probably has a net zero effect on our housing. In small English towns for example it has economic impacts as most of the towns are holiday homes so vacant 3/4 of the year. Our problem is more people had more money thus willing to spend it whether viable or not. Cars, caravans, trades etc have all ridden this ludicrous wave of insanity. We can only hope that in time most of it gets back to reality.

  • +1

    Was so many years ago Think about the time of Joe hockey Most probably Scummy changed it as soon as he got in (remeber he did not have to even tell the minister supposedly in charge as he was the one in charge)Maybe that is why prices are being to skyrocket again So many people from over seas buying here thru corporations and then leasing the places so they can live the high life back where they are now

    • Don't forget ScuMo installed PhiLow in the RBA to fire up the interest rates and push us into recession — it might help the Libs return to power once Labor gets blamed for the mess, not sure what other motives are at play with their wheeling and dealing.

  • -5

    Property sales are under the admin of State like governments.
    All you get is a piece saying fee simple!
    Non-residents just need to bribe corrupt-'banese and all is fine.
    Good luck re-selling once there is a real govt in charge again!

    now go ahead and NEG me again and again well too bad it does not change facts…..

    • Property sales are under the admin of State like governments.

      Non-residents just need to bribe corrupt-'banese and all is fine.

      Albanese is federal though? Not sure i follow the logic.

      • He brought us half speed internet,
        he sent heaps of money to his comrades in Xi land and believe or not he even just sold the fed cops buildings!!
        Can't give you details, they will crucify me!

        • I think you have Albanese confused with Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abott. (Albanese wasn't even calling the shots back then anyway?)
          The Labor party wanted fibre to the premises the entire time, the liberals crippled it by cheapening out on a hybrid solution.

          You may have dropped your tin foil hat methinks.
          Might want to drop the grudge and have a bit of a read.

          • @Drakesy: I guess the city rates different.
            Out in the bush the whole of QLD outside the SE corner is just full of desperation.
            No school principal just shoots cops, they were very dedicated people being harassed into desperation.
            Most of the fibre system idles unused up here as it is around 10% the speed that you pay for.
            Not saying the liberals were great, but here we can now bribe 2 out of 3 cops so we sleep on our car keys.
            Never seen it so bad. Albanese handed some just 7 millions for the local fed cop shop. It was actually built originally on Crown Land, somehow Labor managed to sell it off to a mate!

  • It seems that not many have realised that currently, an ordinary foreign invester can only buy newly built property here and has to pay much higher stamp duty, which already excludes the majority of options. Not to say that newly built properties are mostly of rip-off prices that satisfy local developers' pockets.

    • +2

      But it is abetting the developers in charging these prices.
      If the internationals weren't doing it the developers might actually have to improve their quality/value ratios rather than delivering crumbling shoeboxes.

  • +1

    Another factor for causing the house price to shoot up is abolishment of negative gearing that is being contemplated. Look at what happened in 1985 before it was quickly reneged.

  • +2

    Let's do this!

  • +15

    Prior to Covid, I was in Asia a lot for work and almost everyday in the local papers, there would be ads in the main pages for properties in Australia. In the ads the syndicates would highlight the numerous tax breaks in Australia for property ownership. They would have forum nights in 5 star hotels to where participants would get hidden insights to other loopholes/tax avoidance in the Australian residential market for property owners.

    Getting rid negative gearing and tax breaks on investment properties in capital cities would definitely see a change to the above.

  • -4

    People need to understand that home ownership is not a rite of passage. You aren't entitled to affordable home ownership.

    Home ownership aspirations are tied to your income. For the most part YOU control YOUR income.

    Don't expect the government to make it easier for you.

    • +7

      Don't expect the government to make it easier for you.

      But we can expect them to make it harder for us ;)

      • +1

        ScuMo and Lowe are working hard to make that happen now.

  • +5

    I think it would be a great idea.

    While they're at it.

    1. Cap negative gearing to one house outside of your PPOR
    2. Put in place an Airbnb levy
    3. Put in place a vacancy tax

    I've heard of new apartment being used as a money laundering vehicle by international companies/individuals - pushing up demand. They then would lease out these to no one at exorbitant rents back to themselves/their company.

    It's not every day that you can money launder and make money off it.

    • +2

      Would not work without plans how to stop companies doing it, whats the plan for that?

  • +5

    The Libs would never agree to it and if Labor even thought about it, the Murdoch and News Corpse press would have a field day claiming this would lead to empty houses and renters going homeless.

    This already happened when Qld Labor tried to suggest that non Queenslanders should pay a higher tax rate for buying properties there in an attempt to curb rising house prices. They were forced to not go ahead with the proposal because of the negative press.

    https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/tax/101496280

    As long as the country is held hostage to corporations who run the media, we'll never see any positive change.

    • +1

      Agreed, Perrottet and the NSW Libs which are controlled by big corporate/Murdoch media refused to co-operate with QLD and withheld the data of NSW land titles holders.

  • Should be by birth right, hell the indigenous people should own by right, not leader committees(hell most indigenous people don't even get income from their ancestral land)

    The irony here tho is, convicts that served their sentences back 1800's and on wards were told never to leave NSW, but can claim land as their own, white convict colonists slaughtered (being your descendants)indigenous people and varied ways either were hanged on barb wire or shot.

    Australia's past isn't pretty but we should be proud of the future not destroy a country for idealolgy.

    So make it like the Philippines and Thailand (own by right or marriage, because the current systems geared for the rich.)

  • correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought there is already a restriction for non-citizen and non-permanent residents to buy existing properties?

    foreign investors are allowed to buy new properties?

    • FIRB, unsure how its policed, may also restrict per individual basis for residential properties…

      • i thought its already policed as part of the buying process itself?

        but i wonder as well as i'm a permanent resident but no one ever asked for my visa during the intent to purchase or settlement itself… or maybe cause i had a mortgage that it was assumed that I'm a resident anyway? they do ask for visa as part of the mortgage process…

      • +1

        FIRB is a joke. According to their own figures, they reject maybe ONE or two applications every year. They just approve everything.

    • Yes it's called a tax levy, your property will be heavily taxed while your out of Australia, and any tax not paid will forfeit the property.

      But even still buying property as a foreigner is the great Australian dream.

  • +4

    The more interesting thought is what will happens to all the Chinese money that are no longer welcome in Canada. Will they flood the Aussie market? Given the restrictions with Covid in china for the past 3 yrs, I suspect more wealthy Chinese are looking to move abroad and Australia is now even more appealing with Canada banning foreign investors.

    • +1

      This is logical but the wealthy Chinese guy is not wanting to buy your cheap 1 or 2-bedroom apartment/entry-level crap that first-home buyers are after.

      I have friends of Significant Investor Visas and they are on a different level.

  • -3

    The government should start by confiscating all properties owned by non-citizens and overseas companies, and convert them into public housing. The feds cannot do this acccording to the Constitution but State governments can.

    • +4

      That would be a great way to completely alienate Australia from the global economy

  • +1

    I honestly believe why the Australian government is addicted to this housing boom is because it looks absolutely amazing on a portfolio boosting up Australias networth, why because as long as the Australian government imposes strict rules on sale of properties for retirees, and people on Centrelink on a huge proportion makes australia look good on paper, and with superannuation imposed rules all that stored assets and evaluated assets makes Australian government bat shit crazy for jacking up the prices.

    Imagine if Australia wiped away every super followed by every dwelling as public housing no one would invest in Australia, not that anyone does after the collapse of Holden.

    • +4

      the aus govt are all landlords, and all their buddies are too.

  • Did they also ban Permanent Residents (PR) or are PR can buy? Because that also makes a massive difference in numbers.

    • +2

      PR's and refugees are exempt.

  • +2

    It won't happen because much of Australia's economic growth in recent decades has come from population growth and allowing foreigners to own property is an incentive to come here over US, UK, Canada or NZ.

  • +3

    As some others have suggested, a more immediate 'fix' would be to impose a hefty 'vacant property' tax, including on holiday homes and similar. Maybe payable monthly?
    So many liveable properties not even available for rent is ridiculous.

    The tax collected should then be set aside specifically to increase the quantity of social housing.

    • What is vacant?

      If I held a vacant property which I now know will be taxed, I would just lease the property my nephew and make it look like he is renting it from me - and of course, rent amount being family rates i.e nought.

      Governments already slug owners a variety of taxes - land tax, CGT, stamp duty, ongoing rates, and levies and more…… taxiing more is not a creative way because savvy investors, will find more creative loopholes.

      • I'm sure there are ways to monitor that the property is actually rented, that money is paid, and it is at or near current commercial rates.
        The rent would need to be declared by you as income, so the ATO becomes involved.

        • +1

          Interestingly there is a similar argument being put forward by some Sydney Inner West mayor who believes landlords should be taxed higher for having empty shops and that has been quickly shot down.

          I would see this kind of residential property vacant tax shot down very fast as well if it was ever proposed.

          Firstly, what is the definition of vacant? This is the most difficult part. A week? two? three months? 12 months? I mean, when we rented our place out, there has been up to a few weeks where there is nobody living it when we are finding the next tenant. I dont want to pay more tax than I need to if my property is vacant out of my control. Or when we do some repairs and renovations that could take several weeks.

          Now, what happens if I am putting a for rent sign up and actively trying to get the property rented but nobody wants to pay my price OR even better reason, none of my potential tenants are not good enough for my standard. Do I get slugged a tax too because nobody is living in it?

          I am not trying to convince you otherwise, but I think this tax is going to be much more difficult (for politicians) to sell the bulk of Australians - of whom 1 in 10 adults own an investment property.

          • @TheMindsetTraveller: The points you raise are probably valid but not insurmountable. For investment properties it could just be (another) cost item that needs to be absorbed, regardless if the owner likes it or not (not many of us like taxes).
            The point of such a tax is to make properties available for people to live in.

            For holiday homes, I can't see any valid argument for not taxing the owners.

          • +1

            @TheMindsetTraveller: If you've put your property up for rent and no one is willing to pay your price, then lower your asking price or cop the tax. Sounds like a reasonable way to improve housing affordability for the average guy.

      • One of the ways is if a property is consuming less than x litres of water a day then the building is considered vacant.
        Mind you that could result in people just turning on taps.

        • Good to see you shot down your own argument.

        • I've heard about this previously. Probably indicative of the greed of people having a vacant property and willingness to waste resources just to avoid paying a tax.

        • Just need to add everywhere remote controlled water meters to collect water usage stats and a bit of machine learning to differentiate real water usage vs a tap that is just turned on. It will create another market for taps that simulate "real usage" and more IT and smart plumber workplaces :)

  • +3

    need better infrastructure less migration to capital cities. Plenty of regional areas have affordable housing..

    • +3

      No they don't. regional areas have some of the higher costs and levels of homelessness.

      • and costs of everything else out here is more than the city with reduced access to services and resources such as doctors, etc.

  • Perhaps housing could be made to be a public asset instead of a stock market to be traded for profits.

  • +4

    Should, but too many rich and influential people (including government) are making a lot of money on property, so it'll never happen.

    Also, unfortunately the entire economy is based on digging up materials and building and selling houses

  • PRs should still get to buy though. Non PRs should be limited to apartment purchases.

  • +1

    what is the purpose of this poll again? Should or should not - won't happen.

  • -1

    Terrible idea IF you are an owner as you want your properties (which is most likely your highest asset) to grow, grow, grow.

    It might be a great idea IF you want to buy your first home, but the real question is ….. how much of foreign investment IS really affecting property prices? Are cashed-up foreigners wanting to buy a $500k apartment? (Ignore the FIRB requirements here).

  • +5

    Ban Chinese nationals from buying Aussie resi and commercial property. Before you say its racist, go and try to buy chinese property.

    • go and try to buy chinese property.

      They won't sell unless you plan to open a business and invest millions and hire chinese labor.

    • How about New Zealand?

  • +3

    Our major party politicians would rather their property portfolios increase by importing cashed up migrants than house ordinary Aussies.

    • +1

      Labor wanted to change negative gearing laws back in 2016 and 2019. I voted for them both times.

      How many people here want housing to be cheaper yet voted for the LNP back then? They’re the problem. It’s like hitting yourself in the face, really.

      • +3

        True. Although Labor ultimately ditched it too as the boomers were worried their $2 million houses they paid $10,000 for in 1970 might drop in value.

        • +3

          Exactly. Even "socialist" Labor (as they are often referred to as on these forums) now realise there is no way Aussies will ever vote against housing.

          The only party that might even remotely consider doing so is the Greens, and yeah, they won't ever be voted into majority power lmao.

          We are screwed, and it's thanks to everyone who voted the LNP back in 2016 and 2019 — the last time our housing market could ever be fixed. At least Lowe has grown some balls this year (probably because he's not under Morrison's thumb anymore) and done the right thing by jacking up rates.

          • @Ghost47:

            At least Lowe has grown some balls this year (probably because he's not under Morrison's thumb anymore) and done the right thing by jacking up rates.

            Doubt it has anything to do with Morrison. For all of the flack that Lowe has gotten, the RBA's actions throughout the pandemic have largely been in line with global standards.

            If anything, it actually appears that he has been more aggressive in raising rates given the public pressure.

      • +2

        Unfortunately Labor got cold feet on the wrong topic with that one.
        The majority of Australians want negative gearing scrapped (as far as the polling goes)

        The Labor party unfortunately lost that election due to the scare campaign by the Libs that Labor was going after the pensioner's, boomer's etc super franking credits. Thats what utimately cost them the election.

        • +4

          Arrogant Bowen and Shorten lost that election.

          • @Senatekill: I actually met up with Shorten. On some topics he could have outsmarted Albanese.
            But at the time Turnbull was bulled away so the holy man scored a win.

  • Canadian house prices were already through the roof well before covid

    Will be interesting to see the affect, but will be hard to measure since rates have gone up everywhere and I think that has the biggest impact anyway

  • +3

    100% this should happen in Australia, A lot of asian countries i travel to have been doing this for as long as i have been going there. There are lots of countries that dont allow it, for some "strange" reason Australia does…

  • And maybe showing foreign buyers have their Govt clearance and show money lawfully obtained.
    Do Oz authorities notify their Governments?

  • Allow foreign nationals to buy metro apartments and houses in rural and regional areas that have labour shortages. Ban them from buying anything with land in major metropolitan centres.

  • +2

    Should they? Yes, along with removing negative gearing and the CGT discount, and banning holiday homes.

    Will they? No. Always follow the money - even though it would be the ethical thing to do, banning foreign buyers would put downward pressure on the investment properties owned by politicians, their donors, and other high income individuals.

    I believe the single best thing Australia could do right know would be to require the roughly 1 million vacant properties in Australia to be sold or put on the rental market. Doing so would have a significant positive impact on house prices and rents.

Login or Join to leave a comment