The short version

Headline inflation was flat in October on a monthly basis, lifting the annual rate to 3.8%. This was stronger than both our forecast and the market consensus for an annual rate of 3.6%.

Market services inflation accelerated in October, with our estimate of the RBA’s preferred measure increasing from 3.0% to 3.4% on an annual basis.

The stronger‑than‑expected outcome for October reinforces our view that the cash rate will stay on hold for an extended period.

Inaugural "monthly" inflation report reveals higher-than-expected figures

The October CPI marks the first publication of the new monthly CPI, which replaces the now‑retired monthly CPI Indicator. This new measure captures a much broader range of prices each month, aligning Australia’s inflation data with international best practice and providing a more comprehensive read on monthly consumer prices.

Headline inflation was flat in October on a monthly basis, lifting the annual rate to 3.8%. This outcome was slightly stronger than both our forecast and the market consensus for an annual rate of 3.6%.

The upside surprise was driven by stronger outcomes for market services, while clothing & footwear, and household equipment were also firmer than anticipated. In contrast, new dwelling costs eased slightly.

The October CPI provides new insights into inflation dynamics under the updated methodology. It indicates that annual headline inflation is running higher than suggested by the previous CPI Indicator. Similarly, the share of CPI items recording annualised growth above 3% appears larger than earlier estimates.

This release also introduces the new monthly trimmed‑mean measure. So far, monthly trimmed‑mean inflation has been tracking above the quarterly measure. However, given potential seasonal adjustment issues in monthly data, the RBA will continue to emphasise the quarterly trimmed‑mean measure as its key gauge of underlying inflation.

Overall, the October CPI print was a bit stronger than anticipated. While the RBA remains focused on quarterly measures, this outcome reinforces our view that the cash rate will stay on hold for an extended period. Signs of a pick‑up in market services will be of particular concern for the RBA. However, the signal from this release is still far from clear. The pick‑up in monthly market services inflation was largely driven by a spike in ‘other recreation’ prices, which makes the persistence of the rise a bit more uncertain.

Similarly, the easing of new dwelling cost inflation will provide the RBA some comfort. We do not hear from the RBA until the December meeting. But the clear risk is a switch to a more hawkish tone. Alternatively the RBA Board could maintain a straight bat given the uncertainty over how to read the new monthly data series.

The detail

Two key areas of focus for October were market services inflation and new dwelling costs.

Housing

The housing category fell by 0.8% in October, due to a sharp decline in electricity prices driven by changes in subsidy payments. New dwelling cost inflation eased, as expected, while rents inflation remained consistent with outcomes in recent months.

• Electricity prices fell by 10.2%/mth because of an increase in rebate payments in October. The Federal rebate payment for July was delayed until October in NSW and ACT, effectively doubling the subsidy these regions received in the month. The WA rebate payment also took effect in October, putting further downward pressure on prices. Under current policy, there is expected to be a pickup in electricity prices in Q1 2026 as the rebates roll off. However, there is some uncertainty around whether the rebates could be extended in the Government’s Mid‑year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO).
• New dwelling costs eased slightly in October to 0.4%/mth. However, this follows an acceleration of new dwelling cost growth over much of this year, with annual inflation increasing from 1.5% to 1.7% in October.
• Rents rose 0.2%/mth, broadly consistent with the pace of rents growth in recent months. The scheduled indexation of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) on 20 September 2025 contributed to this outcome, with part of the impact captured in September and the remainder in October. Excluding CRA adjustments, rents would have risen 0.3% in October.

Market services

Market services is a key measure of wage‑linked domestically driven inflation in the economy. Market services inflation accelerated in October, with our estimate of the RBA’s preferred measure increasing from 3.0% to 3.4% on an annual basis. On a monthly seasonally adjusted basis, we estimate that market services prices picked up to 0.5%/mth in October, from a flat outcome in September.

Much of the increase in market services inflation reflected ‘other recreational, sporting and cultural services’. These prices increased by 3.3% in October, following a 2.2% fall in September. It is not clear why these prices accelerated in the month or how persistent this increase could be.

Insurance prices increased by 0.6%/mth in October, following a 0.3% increase in September. However, the annual rate of insurance price growth is still running well below its levels from earlier in the year. It was 2.3%/yr in October, compared to 6.0% annual growth in April.

Dining out inflation slowed to 0.2%/mth, from 0.3%/mth in September and 0.6%/mth in August. Both restaurant and takeaway meals have seen price growth slow in recent months.

Maintenance and services for vehicles accelerated, rising by 0.5%/mth from 0.1%/mth in September.

Other categories

Travel prices picked up in October on a seasonally adjusted basis, with domestic holiday travel increasing by 3.7%/mth and international holiday travel up 1.9%/mth. On an annual basis, domestic travel prices rose 7.1%/yr, up from a 4.6%/yr in September. This acceleration of annual inflation reflects high demand for travel during the school holiday periods and major sporting events.

Furniture and household equipment inflation picked up to 0.9%/mth October, from a fall of 0.3%/mth in September. Transport prices increased by 0.3%/mth, while health eased slightly to 0.2%/mth.

 

Read the full report here.

Michael Mehmet, University of Wollongong and Mona Nikidehaghani, University of Wollongong

In June 1967, the world’s first “automated teller machine” or “ATM” was unveiled at a branch of Barclays Bank in north London in a grand ceremony.

That very first system looked a bit different to the one we know and use today. But almost six decades later, it’s hard to imagine a world where people could only withdraw cash during banking hours.

Now, in Australia and around the world, banks are placing enormous bets that a new kind of automation will transform their business model: artificial intelligence (AI).

On Monday, Bendigo Bank announced it had signed a multi-year agreement with Google to use the tech giant’s Gemini Enterprise AI platform to assist with a range of tasks, including assessing loan applications and detecting fraud.

It follows a major deal between Commonwealth Bank and OpenAI, announced in August, to “bring advanced AI to customers and employees”.

What does the future of banking hold, and who is responsible for managing the risks?

Some big changes have already happened

Banks have already been quietly deploying AI tools over many years to help with a range of tasks. If you have engaged with a chatbot recently, you have more than likely engaged with AI.

Currently, AI is helping banks and employees make decisions. It is scanning for fraud and scams, assessing credit scores, supporting trading and investment activities, and handling routine, time-consuming tasks.

That warning from your banking app about a dodgy transaction? Most likely AI. The suggestion the caller claiming to be from your bank might be a scammer? Likely AI again.

At Commonwealth Bank alone, AI tools have reportedly helped cut customer scam losses by half and slashed call centre waiting times by 40%.

The banks leading this charge aren’t just Australian. US investment bank JPMorgan, for example, has developed its own proprietary AI platform, LLM Suite, which has reportedly been rolled out across its business lines to help staff with a wide range of tasks.

What’s coming next

A recent report on AI adoption by research firm Evident Insights found that currently, about 85% of banks’ current usage of generative AI is internal, not client-facing.

But the next wave of AI adoption could be fundamentally different. Instead of just helping humans work faster, the technology could be trusted to make decisions and take action on its own.

This is called “agentic AI”. While only some banks – such as BNY – have tested it, the early results are promising.

Recent research by consulting firm McKinsey profiled the case study of one major global bank, which set up ten “teams” of AI agents to handle new customer applications from start to finish.

These AI agents checked government registries, verified identities, screened for sanctions, and compiled reports. Humans only stepped in for unusual cases.

The productivity gains? According to McKinsey, while basic AI automation might make a team 15–20% faster, giving AI full control could theoretically boost output by between 200% and 2,000%.

Hard lessons

Australian banks are betting heavily on this future. But they’re also learning painful lessons about the human cost. In July, 45 Commonwealth Bank call centre workers were told they’d lost their jobs after an AI chatbot was rolled out.

Then in August, after a dispute was raised by the Finance Sector Union, the bank admitted the process could have been handled better and reversed the job cuts in question.

Despite the bank’s backtrack, Commonwealth Bank Chief Executive Matt Comyn later told a technology festival in October that making the most of AI “needs to feel urgent”. He said leaders needed to take initiative, despite a temptation to sit back and follow.

What does all this mean for the future of banking?

The financial services industry is continuing to experiment with the best ways to use AI.

One option is to create AI-powered financial coaches that proactively message customers with personalised savings tips.

Another being explored includes “autonomous finance” systems that could manage your money with minimal input, optimising everything from bill payments to investment allocations.

This means that, in the near future, AI systems could run entire banking processes on their own. Imagine applying for a loan at 2am and getting approved five minutes later, with AI handling every single step.

What about the risks?

The public expects banks to deploy fair, explainable and secure AI systems. But the technology is moving so fast that regulators are scrambling to keep up.

There’s particular concern about algorithmic bias. If AI learns from historical data reflecting past discrimination, it could perpetuate or even amplify unfair lending practices.

For example, this could negatively affect borrowing ability for those historically seen as a “bad investment”.

The banks themselves are responsible for any mistakes made by AI. Accountability cannot be outsourced to algorithms. However, it is likely customers who will still feel the brunt of those mistakes.

Banking is set to be fundamentally rewritten by AI, whether we’re ready or not. That could mean cheaper, faster, more personalised banking.

But it also threatens jobs, raises privacy concerns and concentrates enormous power in algorithms most of us don’t understand.

As politicians turn up the heat on banks, the real test isn’t whether AI can transform banking. It’s whether that transformation will be fair and not just for the bottom line.

Michael Mehmet, Associate Professor in Marketing, University of Wollongong and Mona Nikidehaghani, Senior Lecturer in Accounting, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Food delivery drivers could win a major pay boost and better working conditions, under a landmark deal jointly proposed by the Transport Workers’ Union and Uber Eats and DoorDash – Australia’s two biggest food delivery services.

Those improved conditions would include accident insurance for injured or killed workers. Eighteen delivery workers have died on the job in Australia since the union began tracking fatalities in 2017.

The deal is yet to be reviewed and decided by the national workplace tribunal, the Fair Work Commission.

But this would be an historic deal if the commission does ratify it. It would apply not just to Uber Eats and DoorDash drivers, but industry-wide to other food delivery companies, such as Hungry Panda. It would also set a precedent in other areas of the “gig economy”: from rideshare drivers to contract carers hired via digital job platforms.

News of the proposed deal came the day before rival food delivery company Menulog stops taking orders in Australia. From November 26, Menulog customers and restaurants will be redirected to Uber Eats.

So how likely is it this delivery driver deal will become law? How much would it improve delivery workers’ lives? And what impact could it have on the price and experience of getting a home delivered meal?

What’s proposed and why it matters

On Tuesday, the Transport Workers Union, Uber and DoorDash announced they had made a joint submission to the Fair Work Commission for a new set of minimum standards for contract “gig” workers.

The proposed standards would include legally enforceable new protections for those workers, including:

• minimum safety net pay rates for all classes of transport types, such as bicycles and cars
• new dispute resolution processes
• new engagement and feedback mechanisms
• representation rights, and
• accident insurance for injured workers.

That accident insurance is really significant. It would make it easier for families of dead or injured drivers who get hurt on the job to get compensation.

‘The guts of a future standard’

There are currently four cases before the Fair Work Commission to do with digital labour platform workers and road transport contractors.

Having the union and two of the biggest companies in this area agreeing is a significant step forward.

The commission still has to go through its usual processes. But it is now more likely to say yes to this proposed deal. Even if it ends up deciding to impose other conditions, this submission is likely to be the guts of a future standard.

If that happens, it would deliver major improvements in pay and conditions for one of the most vulnerable and fast-growing workforces in Australia.

Better pay could improve safety and deliveries

Pay is extremely important for safety. If you’re on low pay, you have to work faster and for longer hours.

The Australian Financial Review has reported the new safety net payment under this proposed deal would be 25% more than now: a minimum of $A31.30 up to $32 an hour.

That rate would depend on the transport used for delivery (less for a bike, more for a car). It would be enforced based on those hourly rates.

Under the current method of pay per delivery, riders and drivers have a strong incentive to rush to get the work done. This deal would address that pressure to engage in dangerous practices.

Reducing that pressure to rush each delivery could also lead to improved service.

And if anything does go wrong, there would be better mechanisms for the workers to talk to the company about what happened and improve future deliveries too.

What it means for delivery price rises

Uber Eats and DoorDash have been reported as saying they wouldn’t expect significant price rises as a result of this deal.

It’s worth noting this has happened just as Menulog – which had about a quarter of the Australian food delivery market, only behind Uber Eats – is exiting Australia.

There is an argument the remaining delivery companies now have an opportunity to offset higher costs for drivers by winning some of Menulog’s market share.

But even if there did end up being a small price rise as a result of this deal, customers could feel better about ordering home delivery, knowing workers would be getting a fairer, safer deal.

A precedent beyond food deliveries

This is a world-leading proposal.

It would mean people working as contract workers don’t have to be found to be an employee by a court to have minimum pay and conditions like this.

We’re expecting to see a similar approach come up at the Fair Work Commission in other areas soon, including on “last mile delivery” – such as Amazon Flex deliveries – and for rideshare drivers.

It could also be relevant for other types of contractors hired through digital labour platforms, such as aged care or disability care. An estimated 14% of Australian workers have been engaged through digital labour platforms in some form already.

This proposal would set a precedent for all those areas.

Michael Rawling, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Franchise businesses have long been plagued by scandals. Domino’s is just the latest

Tijl Grootswagers, Western Sydney University and Daniel Feuerriegel, The University of Melbourne

Every November, Black Friday arrives with big claims of massive savings and “one-day-only” deals. We are bombarded with offers that seem too good to pass up. But beneath all this lies something far more strategic.

Black Friday is not simply about a day (now more than a fortnight) of discounts. It’s also a psychological event, carefully designed to take advantage of how our brains make decisions.

Understanding some of the science behind this process can help us recognise when we are being pushed to spend more than we intended.

Quick, quick, spend up big

When we decide between options, such as whether to buy a new TV, our brains weigh up bits of evidence for and against each choice. We compare prices, features, reviews and what we can afford. Once we feel we have enough information, we decide.

Normally this process takes time. The more important the decision, the more evidence we like to gather.

But when we are put under pressure, that changes. The brain lowers the threshold for how much information it needs before deciding. In other words, time pressure makes us decide faster and with less evidence.

This can be useful when acting quickly matters. If a spider lands on your arm, you do not calmly evaluate the pros and cons before flicking it off.

But during Black Friday sales, that same quick-decision process can lead us to spend impulsively.

OMG, they’re almost sold out

As well as tapping into “urgency”, Black Friday sales tap into “scarcity”. We know the sale lasts only a short time and many people are shopping at once. This creates a strong feeling of competition: if we do not act quickly, we will miss out.

While we’re browsing for a TV, the website says there are “only 8 left in stock”, and “12 people have this item in their carts”. Suddenly, it feels like a race. Even if you were not planning to buy right away, you might feel more compelled to “add to cart” before it’s too late.

That sense of scarcity changes how our brain processes information. When we believe something is in limited supply, we assign it more value, telling us the item must be good simply because others have it in their basket too.

What was I thinking?

When we make decisions quickly, we rely on less evidence and are more likely to make mistakes, a long-known psychological phenomenon called the speed-accuracy trade-off.

Under time pressure, our brain tries to find shortcuts to help evaluate options, such as how many people are viewing an item. But this may be less-useful information than details such as warranty, product quality or long-term value.

Signalling something is scarce can also discourage us from looking for more information. If it seems like a product might sell out, taking the time to compare prices or read reviews feels risky. The product could disappear while we’re still thinking.

Our brains prefer predictable outcomes and try to avoid unnecessary risk, so instead of getting more information, we act quickly.

Fast decisions are not always a bad thing. Acting quickly can save time or prevent harm when we do not have complete information. This could include evacuating when the fire alarm goes off, even if you are not sure if there is an actual fire.

But during Black Friday, retailers create artificial urgency. Timers, “limited stock” alerts and “today only” banners are designed to mimic real scarcity, pushing our brains into decision-making overdrive.

Once that sense of urgency kicks in, rational thinking can take a back seat. We stop asking “Do I really need this?” and start thinking “What if I miss out?”

It’s the type of thinking that sees you buy a new TV that is only slightly better than the one you have.

Black Friday feels like a celebration of savings, but it is also a masterclass in behavioural and brain science. Every timer, pop-up and “only 3 left” alert is carefully crafted to grab your attention, and shorten your decision time.

Knowing how these tactics work can help you stay in control.

4 tips to stay in control:

1. Plan before the pressure hits – research what you really need and obtain more information before the sales season. This will help when the brain has to make decisions under time pressure.
2. Set a budget and keep it visible – decide how much you are willing to spend and remind yourself while shopping. This helps counteract the “scarcity effect”, reminding your brain that other limits also exist.
3. Pause before you purchase – when you feel the pressure, take a minute. A break lets your brain catch up with the excitement.
4. Ask yourself “Would I want this at full price?” This helps your brain focus on the actual value of the item.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying a good deal. But when you find yourself in the middle of all the excitement, it is worth remembering what is happening inside your brain, and who truly benefits.

Tijl Grootswagers, ARC DECRA Senior Research Fellow in Cognitive Neuroscience, Western Sydney University and Daniel Feuerriegel, ARC DECRA Fellow and Head of the Prediction and Decision-Making Lab, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Senate might be thoroughly sick of Pauline Hanson’s antics – on Tuesday it suspended her for seven days over her appearance in a burqa – but she’s Barnaby Joyce’s kind of politician.

Both are attention-seekers, and they know how to get the publicity they crave and need.

Days ahead of their likely political nuptials, Pauline cooked Barnaby a wagyu steak on her office sandwich press, serving it with a nice salad. Then (of course) the tableau appeared in the media.

Monday had already been eventful for the One Nation leader. After she was denied permission to introduce a bill to ban the burqa and other face coverings, she went to her office, grabbed her burqa (there from a similar stunt in 2017) and appeared back into the chamber in the garb.

Predictably, there was cross-chamber outrage; she was told to leave and take off the garment. When she refused, the Senate dealt with the situation by adjourning for more than an hour and a half.

On Tuesday it returned to the matter, with the government moving a censure against Hanson. The opposition tried unsuccessfully to water it down. But then in a decisive cross-party vote, 55-5, it was carried.

Hanson was given five minutes to explain or apologise. She told the chamber, “senators in this place have no respect for the Australian people, when they have an elected member who wants to move something and to represent them and have their say”.

Unmoved, the Senate then banished Hanson for seven days, which means she will miss the start of next year’s sitting.

Asked about the burqa affair, Joyce defended her and shrugged the incident off as “a bit of theatre in politics”.

But he didn’t want to get drawn too far.

“You talk to Pauline about it […] I’m not her dad. Go talk to her about it.”

Whatever Joyce really thinks about the burqa antic, it’s not likely to give him second thoughts about his apparent course.

One Nation is welcoming – a contrast to the Nationals where he has been relegated to the backbench without a shadow portfolio – and the minor party is riding on a polling high, rating 15% in the latest Newspoll.

Joyce said he will wait until the end of the week to announce his plans. “I just don’t want much of a circus,” he said, apparently seriously. “We’ll get to the end of the week and we’ll make a decision then.”

Assuming Joyce marches out the door, some among the Nationals will say good riddance. He’s been more than half way out for weeks, having declared he would not attend party meetings.

But for some Nationals, particularly Matt Canavan, who has always supported him and formerly worked for him, Joyce’s actions are a stab in the individual, as well as the collective, back.

“I mean, come on, Barnaby, do you really want to go and join the circus, or do you want to stay in a real team that’s really focused on delivering change?” Canavan said on Tuesday.

“The question is this. Is this move from Barnaby about the Australian people, or is it about himself?”

Joyce answered Canavan’s question decisively.

“I’m a front row forward and front row forwards wanna be in the middle of the ruck and that’s where I like to play,” he said. “And […] if I’m staying in politics that’s where I’m going to play,” he told Sydney radio. “I don’t like being sort of stuck down the back.”

With bridges in flames behind him in the Nationals, Joyce sees One Nation as the opportunity to play “in the middle of the ruck” and potentially, eventually to captain the team.

How will the Pauline Hanson-Barnaby Joyce show play out? Hanson, 71, whose term ends in 2028, said on Tuesday that she will run for another term. So it’s unclear when she will cede the leadership. If things dragged on too long, Joyce could become quite impatient.

And when leadership is concerned there can be many a slip between cup and lip.

Whether these two drama-creating, dominant personalities can co-exist without a blow up will test each of them.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

After a week when the chips (literally and figuratively) were down for global markets, especially with all eyes on the AI chip wars, we're asking the big question everyone is. Is now the time for investors to “buy the dip,” or are more falls coming?

This week's episode of Switzer Investing TV asks just that of Shaw and Partners’ expert market-watcher, Adam Dawes.

He didn’t shy away from the pun (to my delight). With so much riding on AI, are investors staring down another serving of AI chips and market dip, or is it time to refill the plate and get back in?

Dips are good, but be picky

Dawes’ view is bullish, at least selectively. “Any dip is good to buy because it shows resilience in the market,” he said, pointing to how beaten-up tech names like Xero and Life360 have started to bounce back. Dawes has been actively buying these names for clients, convinced that some of the hardest-hit tech stocks now offer solid opportunities.

But he warns against indiscriminate buying. “You have to be a little bit careful,” Dawes said, noting that while parts of the market are showing value, others such as lithium stocks and the big banks aren’t in the same position.

“Stock picking is going to be essential coming into Christmas and the Christmas rally,” he stressed

Will the dips continue into 2026?

Dawes’ view is bullish, at least selectively. “Any dip is good to buy because it shows resilience in the market,” he said, pointing to how beaten-up tech names like Xero and Life360 have started to bounce back. Dawes has been actively buying these names for clients, convinced that some of the hardest-hit tech stocks now offer solid opportunities.

But he warns against indiscriminate buying. “You have to be a little bit careful,” Dawes said, noting that while parts of the market are showing value, others—such as lithium stocks and the big banks aren’t in the same position. “Stock picking is going to be essential coming into Christmas and the Christmas rally,” he stressed.

Dawes' pick for the dip

Dawes highlighted Life360 (360) as a standout recovery story, saying it’s been “hit way too hard” and now looks well positioned. On the small-cap side, he flagged Echo IQ (EIQ), a speculative AI heart-health play, as another name worth watching, though he disclosed personal ownership and cautioned on the risks involved.

Peter ran through a list of analyst targets for stocks like Xero, WiseTech, and ZIP, with Dawes agreeing that some of the positivity is justified, but warning that in certain cases, market enthusiasm may be running ahead of fundamentals.

Both Peter and Dawes lean toward buying the dip, but only in carefully chosen sectors and stocks.

There’s no blanket endorsement of the entire market: the rotation theme is in play, with opportunities emerging outside the usual blue-chip names. The risk of further volatility and economic curveballs remains high, so the key is to stay disciplined, know your holdings, and avoid getting swept up in “Santa rally” hype without a plan.

It's always important to do your own research, but now more than ever. Pick your spots, don’t chase the crowd, and prepare for a rockier road into 2026, then potentially a stronger market further out, if history and the global strategists are right .

If you're reading this in Parliament today, it might be time to stop. Australian government cybersecurity teams have issued a very real warning that a Chinese delegation currently in Parliament House might be taking in more than just the architecture.

Protocol meets paranoia in Parliament

Zhao Leji, one of the most powerful men in the Chinese Communist Party, arrived in Canberra yesterday for high-level talks with Australia’s political leadership. As the current Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, Zhao ranks third in the CCP hierarchy, just below President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.

His portfolio covers not only legislative matters but also significant influence over the party’s discipline, personnel, and strategic direction, making him one of the chief architects of Beijing’s global engagement and domestic policy.

Zhao’s visit is seen as a diplomatic gesture amid recently thawing relations between Australia and China, after years of trade disputes and mutual suspicion over cyber security and political interference.

The official agenda is wrapped in polite language about “pragmatic cooperation” and “bilateral ties,” but the subtext thanks to Pauline Hanson (as ever) is now about power, security, and influence in the region.

MPs, Senators told to 'lock down' their phones

On the eve of Zhao Leji’s high-profile arrival this week, the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) sent a memo to all MPs, their staff, and other Parliament House occupants. We know this because, against the advice in the email, prominent race-baiter and unlikely Senator, Pauline Hanson, shared it to her almost 800,000 Facebook followers.

The email laid out the dignitary’s schedule and gave strict instructions about movements in the building, the official route of the delegation, and privacy measures. None of which would be out of place for such a sensitive visit. But it was the paragraph at the bottom that raised eyebrows across the building.

“There may be intermittent disruptions to Wi-Fi access during the periods outlined above,” the DPS wrote.

“Within the identified areas, internet connected devices including phones, tablets and laptops should be powered down. Where devices must be used, please ensure phones and iPads are updated with the latest software version and placed in lockdown mode, and laptops should have Wi-Fi and Bluetooth switched off.”

This isn’t standard procedure for a foreign guest. It is, in fact, classic counter-espionage: the kind of advice that would come from Australia’s intelligence agencies, not building caretakers.

Sound the alarm: Pauline Hanson might be onto something. Ignoring her predictable racially-motivated drivel, the email itself is quite something for security-watchers everywhere.

Even encouraging the use of Apple's Lockdown Mode should raise eyebrows. This is a mode designed specifically to resist spilling electronic secrets to anyone targeting your devices. It's designed for diplomats, journalists, or activists at risk from nation-state attackers. When enabled, Lockdown Mode radically restricts the ways your iPhone or iPad can interact with the outside world, sacrificing convenience for maximum protection against sophisticated hacking.

The warning reflects a real and present fear that the Chinese delegation might attempt to intercept wireless signals, access unprotected devices, or conduct signal intelligence collection inside the heart of Australia’s democracy.

China's history of hacks

China’s ruling Communist Party has a long, well-documented history of conducting cyber espionage against foreign governments, politicians, and even businesspeople. You hear the words "state-sponsored" hackers a lot when it comes to China. That's how interested in collecting electronic intelligence it is.

For decades, Western security services have warned that any senior Chinese delegation should be assumed to include skilled electronic intelligence operatives, whose job is to vacuum up as much data as possible from wireless networks, Bluetooth signals, unsecured devices, and even physical security lapses.

It has long been observed by intelligence officials and experts that Beijing’s security and foreign affairs doctrine is built on the idea that any information, no matter how benign, could be valuable to Chinese state interests. Whether it’s government negotiations, commercial secrets, or even gossip about internal political divisions, Chinese intelligence agencies have repeatedly targeted parliamentarians, diplomats, and business leaders using sophisticated cyber capabilities.

This is the country, for example, that hacked the New York Times, not because it wanted to do damage. But because it wanted to know the stories it was writing and opted not to publish.

China even has form inside the very building we're talking about. The Australian Parliament’s own computer systems were compromised by Chinese state-backed hackers in 2019, in an incident that triggered a national security review and mandatory password resets for all MPs and staff.

I've spent a lot of my life covering cyber stories and even spent time behind the lines working inside the heart of one of Australia's largest banks on cyber threats (Which Bank though, you'll have to guess).

The cyber experts I've encountered often say that those travelling through China should take fresh "clean" devices with them that don't contain any personal or sensitive information as they'll often be compromised for the secrets they may contain.

And Australia has repeatedly found itself at the sharp end of Chinese political influence tactics many times in recent years, with episodes ranging from soft power diplomacy to outright scandal.

The most notorious case is that of a former Labor senator forced to resign after revelations he’d accepted donations from Chinese-linked businessmen and publicly echoed Beijing’s position on the South China Sea.

Australian Universities, too, have seen controversy: the Chinese government’s has been accused of shaping academic debate and silencing critics on campuses. Meanwhile, there are the repeated cyber attacks on Parliament, hacking of political parties, and foreign interference warnings from intelligence chiefs in Canberra and all over the world.

So as Zhao Leji moves through the halls of Parliament today, there may be a few nervous officials swiftly Googling how to lock down their devices. In case you're wondering, by the way, here's how you do it.

You're welcome.

There’s no shortage of opinions in the generational standoff over housing in Australia. Millennials are sure they have it tougher, Boomers insist it was harder “back then,” and every cocktail party eventually spirals into a debate over who actually got the short end of the property stick. The truth is, the numbers tell a story that’s a lot less black-and-white than most would like to admit.

After uploading this week’s episode of Switzer Investing TV to YouTube last night (it’s very good, you should watch!), a comment on our channel caught my eye.

A conversation Peter was having on the channel about home loan interest rates yesterday struck a chord with Martee888 who said:

“I wonder why people are so concerned about interest rates because I am old enough to remember in the 1980s rates were over 12% and peaked about 16% in 1990.”

It’s easy for the Millennial in me to want to jump on my soapbox at that comment with my usual stump speech. Housing is more expensive now, the cost of living is insane, homes could be bought in the 1990s with little more than a good handshake and a smile. All that jazz.

But before firing the latest salvo in this nation’s endless generational war, I decided to do something many of my Millennial brethren probably skip: I decided to do a little more research.

What I found made me want to try and settle this one as best I could.

Owning in 1990: high rates, low costs

The story of housing in the early 1990s is impossible to tell without confronting the monster in the room: interest rates. In 1990, the Reserve Bank’s official cash rate peaked at a staggering 17.5%, the highest on record for Australia.  But, why? How could that be allowed to happen?

The late 1980s had been a boom era, with easy credit, fast-rising property prices, and a speculative fever that spilled over into the stock market and real estate. By 1989–1990, inflation was running red hot and the government slammed the brakes, using sky-high rates to cool the economy. They succeeded, perhaps too well, tipping Australia into a painful recession.

For home buyers, this meant brutal mortgage repayments, even on what today would be considered modest loans.

The average home loan balance in 1990 hovered around $67,700. The typical full-time annual wage was about $27,000. Using these numbers, a principal-and-interest mortgage at 17.5% over 25 years would’ve cost about $990 per month in repayments. That’s around 44% of the average pre-tax income going directly to servicing the loan. These days, Australian banks class "mortgage stress" as a scenario where more than 30% of your household budget goes to housing. So, yeah, I guess you could well and truly call it "a stressful time" to own a home.

Still, there were a few saving graces. House prices were much lower in absolute terms and, crucially, as a multiple of income. In 1990, the median house price in Sydney was about $194,000. In Melbourne it was $137,000. These amounts, while daunting at the time, meant the average home could be bought for 3–4 times the average annual wage.

Most buyers could afford a detached house, not a one-bedroom apartment, and land supply was less of a choke point in the cities than today.

So while high interest rates made home ownership a serious test of nerve and cashflow, the “cost of entry” to get on the property ladder was lower, both in real and relative terms.

Admittedly, your wallet took a pounding every month, but at least you didn’t have to sell your soul to get a foot in the door.

If you lived it, I know it was tough no matter what the numbers say to make up for the struggle. Don't take up arms against me yet, reader.

There's another side to this coin, after all.

Owning a home in 2025: high costs, low rates

Fast-forward to 2025 and the landscape has been flipped on its head.

Interest rates may look tame in comparison (today’s average new owner‑occupier mortgage sits at around 5.7% p.a.) but the size of the mountain borrowers need to climb has become Everest-esque.

The average new home loan balance in Australia now hovers just below $680,000. Sydney’s median house price is back over $1.4 million, with Melbourne and Brisbane not far behind.

At the same time, the average full-time wage is about $104,000 per year. That means the median house price is now roughly 13–14 times the average annual income in Australia’s largest city, up from just 4–5 times income in 1990.

Even for a “starter” apartment, prices often exceed half a million dollars.

Getting a deposit together is its own saga. With lenders requiring at least a 20% down payment to avoid lenders mortgage insurance, young buyers in Sydney are looking at scraping together $200,000–$300,000 before they even set foot at an auction.

For many, that means a decade or more of saving. And even then, the goalposts are constantly moving. The average saver these days is battling rent rises, stagnant wage growth, and the cost of living that just keeps climbing thanks to what the RBA calls "sticky" inflation. No matter what Michelle Bullock labels it, any young person would call it a pain in the proverbial.

The shape of housing itself has changed, too. Where the dream in 1990 was a freestanding house with a backyard, new buyers in 2025 are far more likely to be squeezed into smaller apartments, units, or townhouses. ABS data shows the average new home size is shrinking, and supply simply isn’t keeping up with demand. A report came out just last week that to lower the cost of Australian housing to the point that people on average incomes could afford it again, the government would need to figure out how to build an additional 1.2 million homes right now. That's over 11% of all property currently in Australia that we're short as you read this.

Population growth, planning restrictions, and the rise of the “investor class” have left first-home buyers fighting for a dwindling share of properties, often at record prices.

But here's the real number for our debate. Despite interest rates being less than a third of what they were in the 1990s, today’s borrowers still spend around 50% of their pre-tax income on repayments. Add in utility bills, groceries, childcare, and transport that are all rising faster than wages? It's clear the game has changed.

For many, just getting through the door is the real victory.

Boomers vs Millennials and Gen Z: who ultimately had it 'better'?

If you strip away the nostalgia, the “back in my day” war stories, and the righteous indignation, the numbers reveal a simple truth: owning a home in Australia has never really been easy. For anyone. The difference is in the obstacles you faced, not whether those obstacles existed at all.

It’s tempting as a Millennial or Gen Z to look at old newspaper ads showing a Sydney house for $150,000 and scoff at how easy Boomers must have had it. But context is everything.

The brutal reality in 1990 was that monthly mortgage repayments could swallow nearly half your income. High interest rates meant the cost of debt was a daily threat. One small shock, a lost job or a rate rise, and you were in trouble. Yet, the hurdle to get a start was far lower: the average house cost around three or four times the average wage, and most people could save a deposit within a few years.

Today, the story is inverted. Interest rates are historically low, but property prices and loan sizes are off the charts. That $1.4 million median house price in Sydney is more than 13 times the average wage. It means the real barrier isn’t the cost to service a mortgage, it’s getting a toe on the property ladder in the first place.

Deposits are daunting, rent soaks up would-be savings, and the actual homes available are often smaller and less family-friendly than they were a generation ago.

Meanwhile, almost 50% of pre-tax income for new buyers still disappears into mortgage repayments, even at low rates. Factor in higher living costs, slower wage growth, and a chronic housing shortage, and the struggle takes on a new dimension.

If you really want to compare “who had it easier,” you have to ask: what did it take to get in the door, and how much of your life did the mortgage claim, once you were inside?

In 1990, it was hard, but possible. In 2025, it’s possible, but much harder, and for many, simply out of reach.

There’s another wrinkle too: time. Homeowners from the 1990s have enjoyed three decades of falling rates and a property market that’s mostly gone sky high thanks to the rise of the investor and property becoming this country's national sport.

According to RBA data, the average interest rate paid by a mortgage-holder over the last 35 years (from 1990’s peak to today) works out to around 3.9% p.a.. For anyone who bought early, survived the rough years (genuinely, well done), and held on, the reward has been extraordinary equity growth and much lower repayments over time. That’s an advantage today’s first-home buyers can only dream about, as Millennials and Gen Z stand to end their lives as the first generation to significantly end their run economically worse-off than the generations that came before them.

The real winners

As I come to a sort of generational dead-heat, I started to realise who the real winners are here. Like in any war, you look at who profits, and you find some clarity.

It's the banks.

The Commonwealth Bank alone has posted a cumulative profit in excess of $200 billion over the last 35 years, with annual profits routinely topping $10 billion in recent years. Profit. Not revenue.

Over the last 30-50 years, the property game has been good to the lenders, regardless of which generation is signing the mortgage papers.

It's the reason they probably don't mind us fighting about this. It's the same as billionaires watching those living on the minimum wage (if they even can these days) fight those who make $300,000 a year. The real enemy is much higher up the ladder than both parties trading blows.

It's easy to blame each other in YouTube comments and at family barbecues, the uncomfortable truth is that the system itself is built to make buying a home a struggle, no matter the decade.

And as long as that’s the case, the argument over “who had it easier” is mostly academic. Because generational war never changes.

This week on Switzer Investing TV: Are the chips down for markets, or is it time to buy the dip? Plus, the future of broadband competition and whether micro-cap stocks are set for a revival.

Join Peter Switzer as he sits down with:

• Adam Dawes (Shaw and Partners) to discuss whether now’s the time to buy after the latest market slump—or if more volatility is coming

• Brian Maher (CEO, Aussie Broadband) on how they’re taking the fight to Telstra and what’s next for business broadband

• Chris Cuesta (THP Asset Management) on US small caps, the AI bubble debate, and where the next rotation could take the market

 

Timecodes:

• 01:31 — Adam Dawes on whether the dip is a buying opportunity, the outlook for a Christmas rally, and why stock picking is critical right now

• 03:09 — Sector views: Tech rebound, value in X20 and X50, and where the volume is in the Australian market

• 05:41 — Big caps vs the rest: What do analysts think about the ASX 20? Potential upside, stock-by-stock

• 06:23 — Election year caution: How US politics could impact markets, and why 2026 could be big for stocks

• 07:28 — Volatility ahead: What to expect in 2024, and why investors should “hold the line” with conviction picks

• 08:02 — Stock picks and analyst forecasts: Zero, WiseTech, Life360, Aristocrat, James Hardie, ZIP, and more

• 11:08 — Dawes’ latest high-conviction picks: A large cap and a high-risk small cap with AI upside

• 13:06 — Aussie Broadband CEO Brian Maher: How they’re challenging Telstra, where the margins are, and what business customers want

• 15:28 — Broadband market strategy: Packaging services for SMBs, growth plans, and how Aussie Broadband helps other telcos grow

• 17:58 — Fund manager spotlight: Chris Cuesta (THB Asset Management) on the US small-cap landscape, “special situations”, and his best-ever investment discovery

• 19:13 — US market cycles: Why small caps may be due for a comeback, the “Nifty 50” analogy, and the impact of Buy American and antitrust trends

• 23:36 — AI: Bubble or not? Real-time adoption, the difference vs the dot-com era, and where speculation fits into the AI story

 

Subscribe so you don’t miss future episodes.

If you’ve ever tried to buy a home at auction, you know how frustrating it can be to show up thinking you can afford a particular property, only for it to sell for far more than the advertised price.

Now, the Victorian government wants to make this experience a thing of the past. Under new laws to be introduced into state parliament next year, real estate agents will have to publish a seller’s reserve price at least seven days before a property goes to auction.

Currently, Victorian auction rules allow agents to provide a price guide, but do not mandate disclosure of the seller’s reserve price before the auction.

This gap can enable illegal underquoting, where properties are advertised below their expected sale price to attract more bidders.

The new law aims to close this loophole by requiring sellers and agents to disclose the genuine reserve price – the minimum amount the seller is willing to accept – at least seven days before the auction. It’s a step in the right direction for fairness and transparency, and a first for Australia.

So, what will the changes mean for home buyers, real estate agents and property prices? And could other states follow Victoria’s lead?

What is underquoting?

Underquoting occurs when an agent advertises a property at a price significantly below the seller’s reserve or market expectations. It is illegal under federal consumer law and subject to further state-specific legislation.

However, enforcement has been challenging, in part because reserve prices don’t have to be made public. Sellers currently don’t even have to disclose a reserve price to their agents before auction day.

Behavioural economics helps explain why underquoting fuels emotional bidding at auctions. Buyers anchor their expectations to low advertised prices, even when unrealistic, and loss aversion drives them to bid aggressively to avoid missing out.

Herd behaviour can amplify this dynamic as large crowds at an auction signal high demand, often leading to the “winner’s curse” – paying more than a property’s intrinsic value.

Why go to auction in the first place?

Auctions are a popular way to sell property in Australia. They’re most common in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.

One driver of this popularity is they create competitive tension, often resulting in higher sale prices, especially during a booming market. They also provide certainty of sale on a fixed date (if the reserve price is met) and allow transparent bidding in real time.

For buyers, the flip side is this competitive environment can amplify psychological biases, leading to emotional bidding and driving up prices.

Less uncertainty, but more ambitious reserves

Victoria’s move to mandate reserve price disclosure is likely to have a range of impacts.

When it comes to auction behaviour, the requirement may reduce uncertainty and temper emotional bidding. Buyers will have clearer signals about affordability, potentially curbing any unrealistic expectations.

However, this transparency could also anchor buyer expectations higher if it leads to sellers setting more ambitious reserves, sustaining competitive pressure.

What about house prices?

While the reform improves transparency, its impact on overall price levels is likely to be limited. Structural drivers – such as supply constraints, population growth and interest rates – will continue to dominate price trends.

Auctions may become more rational, but prices in high-demand areas may remain high.

Real estate agents will need to adjust their marketing strategies. Underquoting as a tactic to attract large crowds will no longer be viable. Compliance costs may rise, and agents could face penalties for failing to disclose genuine reserves.

Will the rest of the nation follow?

There is no clear indication yet that any other states plan to adopt Victoria’s model. NSW is tightening penalties for underquoting, but its approach remains focused on accurate price guides rather than reserve price disclosure.

Queensland is unlikely to follow, as its policy philosophy favours banning price guides altogether rather than adding new disclosure rules.

Overall, Victoria’s move represents a significant step towards improving fairness. But on its own, it is unlikely to solve broader housing affordability challenges driven by structural market forces.

Jian Liang, Senior Lecturer in Property Economics, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.