kiro kompiro
Reserve Player
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2026
- Replies
- 75
Your RBA quote from 2015 actually supports the more nuanced view, not a simplistic "immigration is the sole cause" argument.
Yes, high immigration increases housing demand — no serious person denies that. Adding the population equivalent of Canberra in a single year obviously pressures rents and prices, especially when concentrated in Sydney and Melbourne. The RBA was clear....
Strong population growth underpinned by immigration, combined with smaller households, pushed underlying demand ahead of supply. But that's exactly why my point holds: immigration is a contributing factor that exposes and worsens deeper supply-side failures. If Australia had maintained responsive housing construction, planning reforms, and infrastructure investment over the past decade-plus, this level of migration wouldn't have produced the same crisis. The severity of today's shortages — chronically low completions relative to need, zoning bottlenecks, slow approvals, and infrastructure lags shows the supply system has been broken for years, not just overwhelmed recently.
The 2015 RBA piece itself framed it as a mismatch or periods where population changes aren't met by dwelling supply adjustments lead to big price swings. We've had that mismatch. Blaming immigration alone ignores how inelastic supply turns normal demand growth into a crisis. Ignoring supply failures while running very high migration creates the vicious circle.
The mature policy question isn't "immigration or housing?" It's whether we can coordinate migration intakes with actual housing delivery and infrastructure so they don't keep getting out of sync. Business lobbies love the flexible labour supply, but that doesn't magically build homes. We need both realistic migration settings and serious supply reform. Anything less is performative politics, not solutions.
The important phrase is underpinned by immigration. Record immigration (aka "strong immigration" in the article) is the thing that rising house prices are built on. Hence underpinned by.
It doesn't matter that interests rates were low, it doesn't matter if construction supply was better, if there is no demand. House prices would drop. Construction costs would drop. Infrastructure costs would drop.
As for the argument that "supply didn't meet demand", its a nonsense argument because you could say the same thing as the population approached infinity even though there is no infinite capacity to build or provide suitable land. Just keep building more un til we hit 300 million. What's the problem?
The problem is Victoria is up to its eyeballs in debt from building infrastructure to cope with population growth and is jacking up State taxes to stop from going bankrupt. GDP per capita is going backwards. No-one's quality of life is better because of record "strong" immigration.
The population growth- as you point out- needs to be in sync with the capacity to build. So why isn't it?
There is no synchronization because there never has been a population policy. We have never as a nation discussed what is the desirable population target and why.
Without that policy-if we don't know how many people we are building for- how can we know how much to build, when and where?