Australia to Ban Foreigners From Buying Some Homes as Costs Soar

(Bloomberg) -- 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.
Progressive Portland Plots a Comeback
Why American Mobility Ground to a Halt
How to Build a Neurodiverse City
SpaceX Bid to Turn Texas Starbase Into City Is Set for Vote in May
A Filmmaker's Surreal Journey Into His Own Private Winnipeg
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 Sunday. The restriction will then be reviewed to determine whether it should be extended.
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'll never be able to buy a home.
In Sydney, housing values have jumped almost 70% over the past 10 years, with the median dwelling price now around A$1.2 million ($762,000), according to property consultancy CoreLogic Inc. Rents have also been climbing.
Still, the ban is likely to have only a marginal effect on prices. Overseas investors bought A$4.9 billion of residential real estate — including vacant land, new and established dwellings — in the 12 months ended June 30, 2023, according to the Australian Taxation Office. Established dwellings accounted for about one third of the total.
The tax office will be given extra funding to help enforce the ban, O'Neil said Sunday.
The government's move to ban foreign purchases of established houses matches a pledge by opposition leader Peter Dutton made last year. An election must be held by May 17, and polls show it will be a close fight, with cost-of-living concerns and housing among the top three issues.
The Undocumented Workers Who Helped Build Elon Musk's Texas Gigafactory
The Unicorn Boom Is Over, and Startups Are Getting Desperate
The NBA Has Fallen Into an Efficiency Trap
Japan Perfected 7-Eleven. Why Can't the US Get It Right?
How Silicon Valley Swung From Obama to Trump
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

22 minutes ago

• Newsweek

How Could Strait of Hormuz Closure Impact Americans?

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Iranian lawmakers have voted to support closing the Strait of Hormuz—a vital route for global oil and gas shipments—in response to U.S. airstrikes on three of the country's nuclear sites on Saturday, a move that if agreed upon by the Supreme Leader, could disrupt energy markets and drive up prices worldwide and stateside. Why It Matters Following U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, Isfahan, Fordow, and Natanz, the world waits as Iran considers its response. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow, yet incredibly strategic waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, the strait is about 21 miles wide, with two shipping lanes that are 2 miles wide in each direction. Around 20 percent of global oil trade passes through the Strait, with any closure likely to spike global prices. What To Know In the first fiscal quarter of 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) noted that just under 15 million barrels of crude oil and condensate, and about 8 million barrels of petroleum products were transported through the Strait. There are very few alternative routes for the large volume of oil that passes through the chokepoint. The average 20 million barrels of oil products that pass through make up around 20 percent of the global consumption. The price of Brent crude oil was already climbing ahead of the U.S. strikes, increasing from $69 per barrel on June 12 to $74 per barrel on June 13. While the EIA estimates that a large majority, around 80 percent, of the oil-based product moving through the Strait go to Asian markets, around 2 million barrels a day end up in the U.S. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Tasnim/Getty Images If the Iranian government following the lead of the parliament, decides to close the Strait, Asian markets are expected to be most hit, but American markets will be too. Despite influence over the Strait, Iran doesn't supply the most oil that transports through it, Saudi Arabia does. Some experts have said that if Iran were to cut off access to the Strait, it could spike oil prices by 30 to 50 percent immediately, with gas prices likewise rising. "Oil prices would likely double, to well above $100. The extent to which that price shock would be sustainable is unclear," Marko Papic, chief strategist at BCA Research, told Newsweek in an email Sunday. He also noted that due to the overwhelming pressure campaign the country would face over its closure "the price shock would be of limited duration." "However," he continued, "it could impact confidence domestically, impact capex [capital expenditure] intentions by corporates, and thus trickle into the animal spirits [psychological factors that influence economic behavior] that affects not just stocks, but also the labor market." Fears that Iran could attack U.S. oil infrastructure in the region and levy its power over the Straits of Hormuz could "combine to make prices and speculation rise about the security and dependability of supply," Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, previously told Newsweek. "Lack of clarity of how long this condition will last will also lead to hoarding or preemptive purchasing by other nations, so there are competition supply fears that will drive up prices," he added. Iran has been reluctant to close to Strait, even during times of intense conflict during the heat of the Iran-Iraq war. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. NALINI LEPETIT-CHELLA,OMAR KAMAL/AFP via Getty Images) What People Are Saying Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, told Newsweek: "This is not an act that just stays in the Gulf region, it has wider global strategic ripples." Spencer Hakimian, founder of Tolou Capital Management, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday: "There are close to 50 large oil tankers scrambling to leave the Strait of Hormuz right now. Looks like the oil industry is expecting the Strait to be blockaded in the coming days." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Brian Krassenstein, who has over 900,000 followers on X wrote on Sunday if the Strait is closed, people can expect: "U.S. Gas Prices likely Skyrocket. Potential $5–$7/gallon range depending on duration. Military Escalation Risk. U.S. Navy and allies likely to respond. Tanker delays affect oil, LNG, and related goods." What Happens Next? Any final decision on Iran's response, whether negotiation or closing the Strait or other, however, will largely rest with the country's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The parliament vote to close the Strait merely advises him of the option to pursue.

UPI

41 minutes ago

• UPI

Iran, Israel exchange airstrikes as US officials divided over bombing

1 of 3 | Israeli security stands in front of a residential building hit by an Iranian ballistic missile in Tel Aviv early Sunday morning, June 22, 2025. Iran launched two waves of missiles at Israel following the American bombing of its nuclear sites. Photo by Debbie Hill/ UPI | License Photo June 22 (UPI) -- Iran and Israel exchanged targeted airstrikes Sunday after President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear sites in Iran, leaving his administration and lawmakers divided over U.S. involvement. "We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program," Vice President JD Vance said in an interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. It marked the first major official rhetoric that the United States is indeed "at war." Vance declined to confirm that Iran's nuclear sites were completely destroyed, saying that the U.S. has "substantially delayed" Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. His comments come after Russia said Sunday that other countries could provide Iran with nuclear weapons. The strike by the Trump administration has divided his supporters. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, criticized what she called "neocon warmongers" in a post on social media Sunday afternoon. "America is $37 TRILLION in debt and all of these foreign wars have cost Americans TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars that never benefited any American," the lawmaker wrote in her post. "American troops have been killed and forever torn apart physically and mentally for regime change, foreign wars, and for military-industrial base profits. I'm sick of it. I can easily say I support nuclear-armed Israel's right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don't want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel's wars." Rep. Thomas Massie, another Republican, went as far to call the strike on Iran "not Constitutional" in his own post. He later criticized fellow Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson for stating that Trump "made the right call" with the airstrike. "Why didn't you call us back from vacation to vote on military action if there was a serious threat to our country?" Massie said in his remarks to Johnson. He reiterated that point Sunday in an interview with CBS News' "Face the Nation." Massie was joined on "Face the Nation" by fellow lawmaker Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat, with whom he worked last week to introduce a war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. forces from striking Iran without authorization from Congress. Khanna said in the interview that Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed a desire for Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes but the lawmaker noted that Iran had already been under a nuclear deal that the United States withdrew from. According to Khanna, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which was negotiated by Iran, the United States and the European Union in 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency did not find a single violation. "In the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan, Congress first got the briefings. Congress met and debated. It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an authorization of use of military force," Massie added. "We haven't had that." The Israeli Defense Forces said in a statement Sunday that the Israeli Air Force used 30 fighter jets to attack dozens of military targets across Iran. "As part of the wave of attacks, fighter jets first attacked the 'Imam Hussein' strategic missile headquarters in the Yazd region, where long-range Khoramshahr missiles were stored," the IDF said. "From this headquarters, approximately 60 missiles were launched towards the State of Israel." The IDF added that it also hit missile launchers and military sites for the production of air defense batteries, and a drone warehouse in Isfahan, Bushehr and Ahvaz. Air raid sirens sounded across most of Israel on Sunday as Israeli Police acknowledged impacts from Iranian missiles on Sunday, including a strike in Tel Aviv that left at least six people with minor injuries, while videos shared on social media purportedly showed damage in Haifa. Meanwhile, Iranian state media reported Sunday that the Houthis -- formally known as Ansarullah -- expressed support for Iran after the U.S. strikes and would "stand by any Arab or Islamic country against U.S. aggression."

Boston Globe

42 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Europe frets about US retreating from region ahead of NATO

With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former president Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after the U.S. struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark about the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Advertisement Up until early June, no official from the United States had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. Advertisement It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the United States turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries, long reliant on American hard power, will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. Advertisement If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the U.S., is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. Advertisement 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. Advertisement 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said.