Australia slaps 2-year ban on foreigners buying existing homes as prices soar
Australia 's government will ban foreign investors from buying established houses for the next two years as part of an election pitch to tackle surging home prices.
From April 1, foreign investors will be banned from buying established property until March 31, 2027, Housing Minister Clare O'Neil said in a statement on Sunday. The restriction will then be reviewed to determine whether it should be extended.
O'Neil said in comments televised by the Australian Broadcasting Corp that the ban would likely free up around 1,800 properties per year for local buyers.
'These initiatives are a small but important part of our already big and broad housing agenda which is focused on boosting supply and helping more people into homes,' the minister's statement said.
Australia's housing is some of the most unaffordable in the world and soaring property prices will be a key election issue amid a broader cost-of-living crisis, especially among young voters who fear they will never be able to buy a home.
In Sydney, housing values have jumped almost 70 per cent over the past 10 years, with the median dwelling price now around A$1.2 million (US$762,000), according to property consultancy CoreLogic Inc. Rents have also been climbing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
11 hours ago
- Asia Times
US attacks hurt but Iran's nuclear ambition will endure
With stealth bombers and bunker busters, the US just punched a hole through the heart of Iran's fortified nuclear program. Multiple news outlets reported that US forces struck Iran's three primary nuclear sites, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, late Saturday (June 21) in a significant escalation of Middle East tensions. The operation follows Israel's June 13 air offensive, which targeted suspected Iranian weapons development sites and other military targets. In a televised address, US President Donald Trump declared the 'spectacular' operation had 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's enrichment facilities while warning of more precision strikes if Tehran refuses peace. The US strikes involved B-2 bombers, six so-called bunker-buster bombs on Fordow and 30 Tomahawk missiles on Natanz and Isfahan. Iranian media said the sites were evacuated earlier. The IAEA said no radioactive contamination was detected from the attacked facilities. Trump emphasized the US does not seek regime change and reached out diplomatically after the attack. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the strikes, calling them historic. Iran maintains its program is peaceful and vowed to continue nuclear advancement. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the attack as a 'dangerous escalation,' warning of global fallout. The coordinated use of stealth bombers and deep-penetration munitions against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan demonstrated a calibrated show of force aimed at degrading Iran's breakout capability without crossing the threshold of full-scale war or regime decapitation. Describing the defenses and importance of the Iranian nuclear sites just hit, CNN reports that Natanz, Iran's largest enrichment complex, houses 50,000 centrifuges in hardened underground layers, where targeting subterranean power is key to disruption. CNN adds that Fordow lies 80–90 meters beneath mountainous terrain, is impervious to most munitions and can rapidly produce weapons-grade uranium. It adds that Isfahan, central to Iran's nuclear research and development, hosts three research reactors and multiple conversion and fuel production lines operated by 3,000 scientists. CNN observes that these deeply embedded, high-output sites are both extremely resilient and strategically essential, making them high-risk yet high-priority in any strike calculus. While Israel has previously attacked those facilities, it does not have any ordnance that could destroy deeply embedded facilities such as Fordow. A ground raid similar to the January 2025 operation against Iranian underground missile facilities in Syria is its only plausible option. However, those nuclear sites are arguably much more distant, complex, heavily defended and fortified compared to the missile bases Israel raided in Syria, making an air attack with US-delivered ordnance was the better option to take them out. According to Defense Today, the GBU-57 can penetrate over 200 feet of reinforced concrete using a high-density Eglin steel (ES-1) casing. According to the report, the GBU-57 carries 2,400 kilograms of AFX-757 and PBXN-114 explosives, ten times the power of its predecessor, the BLU-109. Defense Today states the 20.5-foot GBU-57 is deployable only by B-2 bombers, two per plane, and is the US Air Force's top option against fortified Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) targets. Regarding the Tomahawk cruise missile, Naval Technology notes that the munition is designed for precision land-attack missions from naval platforms. The report states that the 1,300-kilogram, 5.56-meter subsonic cruise missile flies at 880 kilometers per hour and has a range of 1,600 kilometers. Naval Technology says that, although in service since the 1980s, the Tomahawk's Block V upgrade adds advanced navigation, satellite communications and in-flight retargeting capabilities. It adds that the missile could be armed with W80 nuclear warheads or a unitary 450-kilogram high-explosive warhead, with variants supporting submunitions and maritime strikes. The War Zone (TWZ) notes that while specifics of the operation remain classified, the B-2s may have launched from Diego Garcia or forward locations under extreme secrecy, supported by extensive electronic warfare to disrupt Iranian command and control. TWZ reports that the mission aimed to degrade critical enrichment infrastructure while minimizing exposure, marking the US's kinetic entry into the Israel-Iran conflict. While it may be too early to say whether the US strikes destroyed Iran's nuclear sites, as Trump has claimed, Newsweek reports the targeted facilities were evacuated beforehand, suggesting significant quantities of highly enriched uranium (HEU) may have been removed. Further, it remains unclear how Iran will respond to the massive blow to its nuclear program. According to Israeli National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi, military strikes alone won't destroy Iran's nuclear program; Israel's goal, as Brookings notes, is complete dismantlement, but that may be wishful thinking. Underscoring this point, Carlo Caro writes in Cipher Brief that Iran's nuclear infrastructure includes redundant nodes across military, academic and industrial sectors, possibly enabling rapid reconstitution after a strike. Caro notes that Iran's domestic centrifuge manufacturing eliminates reliance on foreign supply chains, while its passive defense doctrine mirrors North Korean survivability strategies. He states that crucial assets, such as design archives, simulation models and trained personnel, are mobile, concealed and legally ambiguous under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Thus, he suggests precision air campaigns will merely delay progress and cannot dismantle Iran's institutionalized nuclear latency or strategic breakout potential. Given those caveats, Brookings notes that overthrowing the Iranian theocratic regime may be the only way to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. However, it warns that regime change is difficult and that a successor regime, most likely led by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), is unlikely to be less interested in nuclear weapons than its predecessor. Highlighting the difficulty of engineering regime change in Iran, Narges Bajoghli writes in Time that the Islamic Republic's deeply entrenched, multilayered defense architecture and institutional resilience make regime change unfeasible. Bajoghli points out that, unlike Iraq or Libya, Iran fields a dual military, the regular Artesh and the elite IRGC, backed by the pervasive Basij network, enabling asymmetric warfare and internal control. She emphasizes that decades of siege doctrine, hardened by war and sanctions, have fostered a system built for survival, not collapse. Bajoghli also writes that Iran's leadership is decentralized under a competitive authoritarian framework, enabling continuity even under duress. She stresses that foreign-imposed regime change would likely galvanize nationalist resistance, replicating Iraq's catastrophic aftermath after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Rather than destabilize the Iranian regime, Bajoghli says airstrikes risk reinforcing Iran's nuclear deterrence doctrine and undermining prospects for diplomacy. Further, an emboldened and determined Iran doubling down on its nuclear program could lead to a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, for one, has warned his country would acquire nuclear weapons if Iran crossed that threshold.
The Standard
16 hours ago
- The Standard
Airlines keep avoiding Middle East airspace after US attack on Iran
Russia says any use of tactical nuclear weapons by US in Iran would be catastrophic, TASS reports
HKFP
19 hours ago
- HKFP
Pride Month: Celebrating equal love in Hong Kong is no brainer
The clock is ticking. In just four months, the Court of Final Appeal's order requiring the Hong Kong government to implement a framework for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships will hit its deadline. The government now must make a choice: either come up with a complex new legal framework from scratch or take the straightforward, proven path that nearly 40 jurisdictions around the world have already taken. That path is the inclusion of all couples in marriage. With nearly 25 years of worldwide experience to draw from, the lesson is clear: equal marriage is the only fair, simple and equitable solution. Marriage can offer same-sex couples the clarity, dignity and full protection they deserve – and the social harmony that Hong Kong values. Only ending the denial of marriage will settle the debate. The evidence is compelling: inclusive societies attract talent, investment and tourism. Thailand's recent legislation to include same-sex couples in marriage has been hailed as a favourable advance with substantial economic implications. According to a recent study, equal marriage could bring an additional four million visitors to Thailand per year, generating roughly US$2 billion (HK$5.7 billion) in added economic value over the next two years. Tourism is a key pillar of the Hong Kong economy. As the city strives to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and reaffirm its status as a global hub, embracing equal marriage would send a powerful message: that Hong Kong is open and future-oriented. And beyond tourism, the simple inclusion of same-sex couples in marriage will make it easier for businesses to thrive. The case for marriage equality, of course, is not just about economics; it's also a matter of public health. Research from around the world has shown that equal marriage leads to better mental and physical health outcomes. It reduces the stress, anxiety and depression that arise from institutional discrimination and social exclusion. Most strikingly, jurisdictions that have ended marriage discrimination have reported significant drops in suicide attempts among LGBTQ+ youth – a powerful reminder that dignity and legal recognition can save lives. A government survey released five years after Taiwan legalised same-sex marriage in 2019 – the first in Asia – showed that the legislation had a positive impact on public attitudes. More than 69 per cent supported equal marriage in 2024, up from 60.4 per cent in 2021 and 37.4 per cent in 2018. Equal marriage also streamlines public administration. It removes the need for parallel legal structures such as civil union, which not only create administrative inefficiencies, but also reinforce stigma by treating same-sex relationships as inferior. Opponents of change often invoke 'traditional values.' In truth, what we frequently call tradition is often more fluid than we think. In Hong Kong, Chinese customary marriages weren't abolished until 1971 – a reminder that the institution of marriage has always evolved with the times. Same-sex couples share the same aspirations as everyone else: to love, commit and care for their families. These are the values the law should protect and affirm. Today, Hong Kong is ready to welcome same-sex couples in marriage. A 2023 survey found that 60 per cent of the population supported marriage equality. Likewise, a 2025 survey revealed that 70 per cent of individuals in committed same-sex relationships expressed a strong desire to marry. The popular will is clear – it's time for the law to catch up. Fortunately for the government, the right law is also the easiest one to write. It does not need to create a new non-marriage marital status that provides legal protections and responsibilities across the hundreds of legal and economic provisions at stake – a status that will perpetuate, not end, discrimination and debate. Instead, the government can enact in effect a one-sentence change to the law, affirming the right to marry regardless of the sex of the two parties seeking to marry. The legal deadline will be met, and, more importantly, the people of Hong Kong will celebrate and move forward together, to the applause of the world. With courage and leadership, Hong Kong can become the 40th jurisdiction in the world– and the fourth in Asia – to show that families are helped and no one hurt when the law respects the dignity and inclusion of all. It's time for love to win here in Hong Kong. HKFP is an impartial platform & does not necessarily share the views of opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views & regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, security law, Bill of Rights and Chinese constitution. Opinion pieces aim to point out errors or defects in the government, law or policies, or aim to suggest ideas or alterations via legal means without an intention of hatred, discontent or hostility against the authorities or other communities.
