The City of Sydney Council will this week debate a motion that could see a major crackdown on Airbnb and other short-term rental services across the city, with a proposal to introduce a 60-day annual cap on unhosted, short-term rentals. The move, led by the Sydney City Greens, aims to address the mounting housing crisis by pushing property owners to return homes to the long-term rental market.

The proposal comes on the back of growing concerns that thousands of homes are sitting empty or are being used primarily as short-term holiday lets, even as rents soar and vacancy rates plummet. The Sydney City Greens argue that suburbs like Darlinghurst, Potts Point, Paddington and Millers Point have become hotspots for Airbnb listings, with entire streets dominated by properties used for short stays rather than homes for local residents.

“Right now, there are thousands of homes in the City of Sydney sitting empty in a housing crisis. These could be homes for families, a roof over the head for those wanting to build a life in our community,” the group said in a statement. “Property investors are buying houses and renting them out short-term for huge profits – even if it means these homes sit empty for a lot of the year.”

The push for stricter rules is modelled on a similar policy introduced by Byron Shire Council, which last year implemented a 60-day cap on unhosted short-term rentals after a well-publicised exodus of essential workers and families who could no longer find affordable accommodation. In Byron, the cap is intended to force property investors to choose between operating a short-term rental business for only two months each year, or making their homes available for longer-term tenants.

Advocates say this kind of limit has the potential to return thousands of homes to Sydney’s rental pool, with the Greens claiming that more than 5,000 properties could become available to Sydneysiders if the cap is adopted. “A 60-day cap forces property investors back to the long-term market, meaning more homes are available to people who want to live in our neighbourhoods and build a life in our community,” the statement reads.

The motion, which will be debated at the next council meeting, follows a petition already signed by more than 250 residents. The debate comes amid a broader national conversation about the role of short-term rentals in exacerbating Australia’s housing crisis, with other councils—including those in regional tourism hotspots—also considering or implementing similar measures.

If passed, the City of Sydney would join Byron Shire and a handful of other local governments in setting strict annual limits on short-term rentals, a move likely to be welcomed by renters and housing advocates but fiercely opposed by short-stay operators and property lobby groups.

The council meeting (set for later this month) is expected to draw strong opinions on both sides of the debate, with questions remaining about how such a cap would be enforced and whether the measure will have the desired effect in Sydney’s complex property market.

More public electric vehicle (EV) chargers will be built across Australia through a A$40 million funding boost, according to a recent government announcement. The new chargers will be a mix of fast chargers and kerbside chargers.

More chargers should mean more confidence for drivers to make the switch to EVs. But as researchers who study charging networks, we see a critical design flaw. The government is focusing on expanding the number of chargers. The problem is ensuring chargers actually do what they should: charge your car.

Most EV drivers charge at home. But when they use the public network, they need to know the charger is working. To track this, the government uses a metric called “uptime”, requiring chargers to be online 98% of the time. That sounds good. But it only measures whether a charger is connected to the network – not whether you can actually use it.

Fixing this gap will be essential to give motorists confidence in EV chargers – and speed up the slow shift to electric transport.

The uptime fallacy

Imagine you’re on a long road trip. You pull into a regional town, low on charge, and find the only fast charger is blocked by a petrol car. Or maybe the payment system is down. Or the cable has been vandalised. Or the charger simply refuses to “talk” to your car, failing the digital handshake needed to start a session.

For all these cases, the charger would still pass the uptime test. It’s online, communicating with its network. But it’s not actually able to do what drivers need it to do: charge the battery.

These issues are now common in Australia, especially the failed handshake problem where charging attempts fail right after they begin due to a communication problem between car and charger.

Australia has limited data on the prevalence of the problem. Our analysis of DC fast chargers funded by the Californian government shows the scale of the problem in a similar market. We found that while charger networks reported roughly 95–98% uptime, the chance of drivers successfully charging was substantially lower at 75–83%.

Public chargers aren’t just convenience – they’re essential

Around 80% of EV charging happens at home or at work in Australia.

But the public network is a lifeline for three crucial groups.

First, the millions of people who live in apartments (about 10% of the population as of 2021) or homes without off-street parking (about 25%). For them, public kerbside chargers aren’t a backup – they’re essential.

Second are the long-distance drivers who depend on highway fast chargers to travel between cities and towns. At present, our charger locations don’t always match up with where people actually want to drive and charge. This creates potential charging deserts. A single broken charger in one of these low-access areas can ruin a family holiday or a crucial work trip.

The third group is the growing number of freight and fleet operators shifting to electric vans and trucks. Charging reliability directly affects logistics schedules and business costs.

For all these users, charger reliability is especially important. Uptime won’t cut it.

Most popular EV charger apps rely on uptime as a way to show charger reliability, but some apps go beyond this to show more useful data, such as the last successful charge. Drivers can feel more secure choosing a charger proven to have recently delivered a successful charge.

Reliability beyond uptime

One solution is to shift away from a reliance on uptime and use a better metric.

In the United States, a large industry consortium recently hashed out what this might look like. Our research contributed to one of the outcomes: new customer-focused KPIs (key performance indicators) for chargers.

How do they work? Rather than relying on network data showing a charger is online, these KPIs draw in multiple sources of data, such as:

• using charger reviews to quickly spot repeat failures such as blocked charging, payment glitches and safety issues
• using vehicle and charger telemetry to pinpoint where and why charging sessions fail (while protecting privacy)
• regular on-site audits for damage, accessibility, lighting and the ease of locating the charger to catch issues missed by data
• verifying these data sources by comparing reported uptime with actual charging success rates.

Better still, by combining this data with maintenance logs and weather patterns, we can build predictive models to forecast when a charger is likely to fail and schedule proactive repairs.

This rigorous approach would give drivers far better confidence in public chargers.

Australia could easily adopt a similar approach, given the data, partners and capabilities already exist.

The first step would be a proof-of-concept to demonstrate how to fuse data from networks, vehicle telemetry and user check-ins and reviews with real world audits. Next would be publishing an open standard for charger KPIs and work with states and networks to roll it out nationally.

Boost security

A truly reliable network must also be secure. In the US, vandalism and copper theft have become real issues. One operator has installed GPS trackers in its charging cables. Thankfully, Australia hasn’t yet seen these issues at the same scale. But it would be naive to think our network is immune. As the charger network grows, so does its vulnerability.

The solutions are to invest in proactive measures such as good lighting, CCTV and tamper-proof designs, as seen across Norway and other leading EV nations.

If these problems escalate in Australia, it will be another source of charger anxiety, where drivers fear being left with a drained battery far from home. The end result will be that more drivers stick with petrol cars or choose plug-in hybrids.

Kai Li Lim, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, The University of Western Australia and Research Fellow in E-Mobility, The University of Queensland and Tisura Gamage, Graduate Student Researcher in Transport Technology, University of California, Davis

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

The price of gold surged above US$4,100 (A$6,300) an ounce on Wednesday for the first time, taking this year’s extraordinary rally to more than 50%.

The speed of the upswing has been much faster than analysts had predicted and brings the total gains to nearly 100% since the current run started in early 2024.

The soaring price of gold has captured investors’ hearts and wallets and resulted in long lines of people forming outside gold dealers in Sydney to get their hands on the precious metal.

What explains the soaring price of gold?

A number of reasons have been suggested to explain the current record run for gold. These include greater economic uncertainties from ballooning government debt levels and the current US government shutdown.

There are also growing worries about the independence of the US Federal Reserve. If political interference pushes down US interest rates, that could see a resurgence in inflation. Gold is traditionally seen as a hedge against inflation.

But these factors are unlikely to be the main reasons behind the meteoric rise in gold prices.

For starters, the price of gold has been on a sustained upward trajectory for the past few years. That’s well before any of those factors emerged as an issue.

The more likely explanation for the current gold price rally is growing demand from gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

These funds track the movements of gold, or other assets such as stocks or bonds, and are traded on the stock exchange. This makes assets such as commodities much more accessible to investors.

Before the first gold ETF was launched in 2003, it was considered too difficult for regular investors to get gold exposure.

Now gold ETFs are widely available, gold can be traded like any other financial asset. This appears to be changing investors’ view of gold’s traditional role as a safe-haven asset in times of political or financial turmoil, when other assets such as stocks are more risky.

In addition to retail investor demand, some emerging market economies – notably China and Russia – are switching their official reserve assets out of currencies such as the US dollar and into gold.

According to the International Monetary Fund, central bank holdings of physical gold in emerging markets have risen 161% since 2006 to be around 10,300 tonnes.

To put this into perspective, emerging market gold holdings grew by only 50% over the 50 years to 2005.

Research suggests the reason for the switch into gold by emerging market economies is the increasing use of financial sanctions by the US and other governments that represent the major reserve currencies (the US dollar, euro, Japanese yen, and British pound).

Indeed, Russia became a net buyer of gold in 2006 and accelerated its gold purchases following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. It now has one of the largest stockpiles in the world.

Meanwhile, China has been selling down its holdings of US government bonds and switching to buying gold in a process referred to as “de-dollarisation”. It wants to reduce its dependency on the US currency.

Emerging market central banks also lifted their gold holdings after Russia’s exclusion from the international payments system known as SWIFT and a proposal by US and European governments to seize Russian central bank reserves to help fund support for Ukraine.

Further de-dollarisation efforts by emerging market economies are expected to continue. Many of these economies now view the major Western currencies as carrying unwanted risk of financial sanctions. This is not the case with gold. This could mean financial sanctions become a less effective policy tool in the future.

Could gold have further to run?

Ongoing demand from Russia and China, and investor demand for gold ETFs, means the gold price could rally further. Both factors represent sustained increases in demand, in addition to existing demand for jewellery and electronics.

Further price rises will likely fuel increased ETF inflows via the “fear of missing out” effect.

The World Gold Council last week reported record monthly inflows in September. For the September quarter as a whole, ETF inflows topped US$26 billion and for the nine months to September, fund inflows totalled US$64 billion.

In contrast, emerging market central bank demand for gold is less affected by price and more driven by geopolitical factors, which supports increasing demand for gold.

Based on these two drivers, analysts at Goldman Sachs have already revised up their price target for gold to US$4,900 an ounce by the end of the 2026.

Why gold’s rise is a win for Australia

What does the current gold rally mean for Australia?

As the world’s third-largest producer of gold, with at least 19% of known deposits, Australia will benefit from further increases in gold prices.

In fact, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources now expects the value of gold exports to overtake liquefied natural gas exports next year.

This will see gold become our second-most important export behind that other “precious” metal: iron ore.

Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney

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

In a speech to the National Press Club yesterday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke declared war on bitcoin ATMs, saying they were a notorious link in the money laundering chain for some pretty horrific activities.

Wait, what’s a bitcoin ATM?

You may have seen a few at your local shopping centre or even a petrol station here and there.

Bitcoin ATMs are physical kiosks that allow people to buy cryptocurrency, like bitcoin, with cash or debit cards. While they look like regular ATMs and sometimes stand alongside them in convenience stores, shopping centres, and petrol stations, their function is quite different. Instead of withdrawing or depositing cash from a bank account, users insert cash, enter a digital wallet address, and receive cryptocurrency directly to their phone or online wallet.

Australia now has about 2000 bitcoin ATMs according to AUSTRAC, making us the third-largest market for these machines globally. That’s a rapid expansion: six years ago there were just 23, and three years ago, around 200. This explosive growth has outpaced most other countries, with new machines cropping up in urban centres, small suburban shops, and even near university campuses. Unlike conventional ATMs, where people both deposit and withdraw funds, the overwhelming majority of bitcoin ATM transactions (about 99%) involve depositing cash to buy crypto, rather than converting crypto back into cash.

This spread has made it easier than ever for Australians to get involved in the world of digital assets, but it has also raised new questions about how these machines are being used and misused.

How are they being misused?

While bitcoin ATMs were designed to make it easier for people to buy digital currency with cash, Australian authorities say they’ve also become a key vulnerability in the fight against organised crime.

Ideally, someone looking to buy bitcoin would use a regulated exchange, where every transaction is linked to a bank account and an identity check. In practice, bitcoin ATMs create a loophole: people can deposit large amounts of cash with less scrutiny, making it harder for law enforcement to trace the money’s origins.

According to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, crypto ATMs have been directly linked to money laundering, scams, fraud, illegal drug trade, and even child exploitation. Recent figures from AUSTRAC—the government’s financial intelligence agency—show that almost 150,000 transactions flow through these machines each year, moving about $275 million in cash. When investigators looked at the most frequent users, the findings were stark: 85 percent of the biggest users were either running scams or acting as so-called “money mules,” moving dirty money on behalf of criminals.

One example Burke shared was the case of a 77-year-old Australian widow. After meeting a man online through a dating app, she was convinced to start using bitcoin ATMs to send money, believing she was helping someone she cared about. The scammer coached her through each transaction, sometimes keeping her on the phone as she fed tens of thousands of dollars in cash into different ATMs across the city. By the time authorities caught on, she had lost $430,000 of her savings.

AUSTRAC also points out that older Australians, especially those aged 50 to 70, are most at risk. This age group makes up nearly three-quarters of all bitcoin ATM transactions by value, and they are often the ones targeted in elaborate scams. For these reasons, authorities say, bitcoin ATMs are not just a tool for legitimate investors—they’re also an easy entry point for some of the worst criminal activities operating in the country.

The coming crackdown

In response to mounting evidence of bitcoin ATMs being exploited by criminals, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has announced sweeping new powers aimed squarely at shutting down the loophole. Speaking at the National Press Club, Burke revealed that new legislation is being drafted to amend Australia’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. The key change? Giving the chief of AUSTRAC—the nation’s financial intelligence agency—the authority to restrict or even ban high-risk products and services, with crypto ATMs top of the list.

If the laws are passed by Parliament, AUSTRAC’s CEO Brendan Thomas says the agency will be ready to act immediately. “Having a power like this enables the CEO to adapt to the evolving risk environment in more responsive ways,” Thomas said. He cited the rapid spread of these machines, noting that the number of crypto ATMs in Australia has jumped from 23 six years ago to around 2,000 today. According to Thomas, the vast majority of large transactions through these machines are tied to scams and money mules, with much of the money being funneled to high-risk jurisdictions overseas.

The new powers would let AUSTRAC move quickly to clamp down on products or services seen as particularly vulnerable to abuse, without waiting for years of regulatory catch-up. That could mean stricter controls, tighter identity checks, or even outright bans on some types of crypto ATM transactions. The government and AUSTRAC say these steps are needed to protect the community, especially vulnerable groups like older Australians, from losing their savings to increasingly sophisticated criminal networks.

The details of the proposed laws are expected in the coming weeks.

Victorian Liberal senator James Paterson has, figuratively speaking, taken his Liberal colleagues by the scruffs of their necks and given them a good shake. His blunt message is, get out of your funk and cooperate in rebuilding the house.

In his Tuesday Tom Hughes Oration, Paterson did put it more politely, but he still didn’t mince words. “We must call time on the apology tour.”

“[We must] resolve our internal differences about our direction amicably”, he said (stressing both the importance and the difficulty of this), and “develop a coherent and compelling alternative policy agenda”.

Debate and discipline have to be balanced, which means “there is a time limit on this soul-searching process.

"We must do it now at the start of the term so it does not drag on forever. An ongoing mass public therapy session doesn’t exactly scream ‘ready for government’.”

There was more. Forget being tempted to ape Nigel Farage’s right wing Reform Party that’s doing so well in the United Kingdom. Apart from anything else – and Paterson expressed scepticism about what Reform preaches – he pointed out the obvious. Lurching off in that direction won’t work in our compulsory voting system.

Nor should the Liberals “become a free market version of the Teals, which accepts the cultural zeitgeist and contests no social agendas advanced by the left”.

And certainly they should forget the idea of a split in the party on ideological grounds. That “would be about as successful for us as Labor’s split in the 1950s was for them”.

“Instead, we must seek to understand and incorporate the reasonable concerns of the good faith actors on the right who today express dissatisfaction with the direction of the Liberal Party.”

Of course the adjectives are significant: what are “reasonable” concerns, and who are “good faith” actors will be, to an extent, in the eyes of beholders.

Paterson, who is finance spokesman and a member of the leadership team, is seen as one of the best talents in the much-depleted Liberals.

He’s a skilled attack dog. After Andrew Hastie’s dummy spit, he stepped in temporarily as acting home affairs spokesman, and last week gave the government an awkward time in Senate estimates over the ISIS brides.

If positions were based on merit Paterson, not Michaelia Cash, would be Liberal leader in the Senate.

Paterson is now taking it upon himself to analyse his party’s parlous situation, to make suggestions about what needs to be done (as well as warning what should not be done), and to argue to the demoralised and fractious troops that they can actually do it.

On Wednesday Liberal Leader Sussan Ley was initially coy when pressed about whether Paterson had discussed his speech with her before delivering it. Later she said she had read it beforehand.

Who really cares what she knew of it? There was hardly anything Paterson said to which Ley could reasonably object and indeed, this was the sort of speech she should be giving.

Paterson’s contribution is notable not just for its content, but for who he is – a conservative who voted for Angus Taylor after the election but is supporting Ley’s leadership. That’s at least for the time being.

His support is especially important when radical conservatives such as Hastie and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price are rejecting her leadership (despite Hastie’s declarations on the contrary). If Ley loses a pragmatic conservative like Paterson, she’s probably done for.

Paterson frankly acknowledged and used history to make his points, including the failure to make generational change (from John Howard to Peter Costello before the 2007 election) and misreading electoral victories (after 2019).

On the tricky debate about whether the party’s eyes should be primarily on the “base” or on swinging voters in the centre, Paterson argued this was a “false choice”.

“We need to appeal to both our traditional supporters and swinging voters. It is only a question of sequence,” he said. He advocated starting with the base (with support for the flag, the ANZAC tradition, Australia Day and the like): symbols valued by the base that do not turn off the swinging voters.

Paterson’s faith in such sequencing, let alone the practical management of it, does seem overly optimistic. Juggling the base and the pitch to the swingers is at best a delicate operation and can at times become near impossible.

In broad terms, Paterson wants the Liberals to land on “a policy agenda based on limited government, free markets and lower taxes”. Making that fit together in the contemporary world, however will require a big effort. Let alone crafting politically acceptable detail.

“At the same time, we must not shy away from important debates about our culture, identity and sovereignty which are not going away in an age of disruption, and which matter so much to our supporters,” he said.

The Liberal party is full of those who see the glass as half empty if not drained altogether. Paterson is seeking to present it – at least publicly – as potentially half full.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

After months of vociferous pushback from the superannuation industry and wealthy investors, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has softened his proposed super tax reforms. The move is a pragmatic political compromise – but it also raises questions about policy consistency and long-term fairness.

The revised plan has three key elements:

• a boost to the Low-Income Superannuation Tax Offset. The offset ensures low-income workers don’t pay a higher tax rate on their super contribution than on wages
• a redesigned 30% tax on “future realised earnings” from superannuation balances between A$3 million and $10 million, with a higher 40% tax rate for balances above $10 million.
• the new $3 million and $10 million thresholds will be indexed to inflation.

What are the merits of the changes?

The low-income super tax offset boost is the clearest win. By increasing the offset from $500 to $810 and lifting the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000, the government is giving low-income earners – most of them women – a fairer tax break on their retirement savings.

This measure helps correct a long-standing imbalance: super tax concessions overwhelmingly favour high-income Australians.

At the top end, introducing two new tax brackets makes the system more progressive, meaning those on higher incomes pay a higher tax rate. The new rates will be 30% on balances between $3 million and $10 million, and 40% on balances above $10 million.

At present the tax on superannuation earnings is 15%.

The decision to index these thresholds ensures wealthier super members aren’t hit by “bracket creep” as asset values rise.

Crucially, shifting the tax base to realised earnings fixes one of the biggest design flaws in the original proposal, which would have taxed unrealised capital gains that could later evaporate. That earlier plan faced fierce backlash from industry and legal experts for its complexity and perceived unfairness.

Low-income payments won’t rise with inflation

Broadly, this is good policy – but with caveats. Taxing only realised earnings is a more defensible approach. It avoids a situation where a super member could face a tax bill when the value of their investments rose. For large super funds, it makes the regime easier to administer.

However, it creates a new distortion.

When tax applies only upon the sale of an asset (such as business, farm or shares), wealthy investors may hold on to “winning” assets indefinitely to defer paying tax, a phenomenon known as the “lock-in effect”. This can discourage portfolio rebalancing and reduce liquidity.

The biggest inconsistency, though, lies in indexation.

The government will index the $3 million and $10 million thresholds, protecting the top 0.5% of super balances held by about 80,000 people from inflation.

Yet the low-income offset – the key benefit for many thousands more low-income earners – will not be indexed.

That means its real value will steadily erode, while the benefits at the top end remain inflation-proof.

If fairness is the guiding principle, as Chalmers has said, then this asymmetry undermines it.

Plus, there’s a hit to the budget

The federal budget impact will be modest but symbolically important.

The government estimates the revised plan will cost $4.2 billion over the four years of the forward estimates, mainly due to the one-year delay. However, in the first full year (2028-29), it is projected to save $1.6 billion, even after the low-income offset boost.

For perspective, super tax concessions are expected to cost nearly $60 billion in 2025-26. These tax breaks are on track to exceed the cost of the age pension by the 2040s.

While these reforms won’t close that gap, they signal a modest but necessary re-calibration of super benefits.

How will future earnings be taxed?

This is the most consequential – and most uncertain – part of the announcement.

Under the revised plan, the new tax will apply only to “future realised earnings”. This approach is fairer and more workable than taxing unrealised gain each year.

But the government hasn’t yet spelled out how these realised gains will be allocated to individual fund members, especially in large self-managed super funds (SMSFs). That’s no small detail.

If the rules aren’t clear, members could simply hold onto assets and indefinitely postpone their tax bills. To stop this from becoming a loophole, Treasury will need to spell out what counts as a “realisation” — the moment a paper gain turns into a taxable one. That could mean when an asset is sold, transferred, or converted to cash, or at milestones such as retirement or withdrawal.

What about the balances over $10 million?

People with more than $10 million might move assets out of super – and that may be a good thing.

Those with more than $10 million in super already hold far more than is needed to fund a comfortable retirement. Facing a 40% tax on future realised earnings, many may shift assets out of super into non-concessional investments taxed at standard income or capital gains rates.

That outcome would improve fairness in the broader tax system. Superannuation was designed to support retirement, not to serve as a low-tax inheritance vehicle. A modest exodus of ultra-wealthy funds would be a healthy correction.

A fairer outcome

The revised plan fixes key design flaws, preserves much of the intended revenue, and delivers a fairer outcome for low-income earners.

Yet it still leaves gaps – especially the failure to index the low-income super tax offset – that will quietly chip away at its fairness over time.

By choosing political pragmatism over policy purity, Chalmers has sidestepped another superannuation standoff.

Natalie Peng, Lecturer in Accounting, The University of Queensland

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

Aussies are the third richest people on the planet. Why is this so?

If you’re an average Australian, you’ve just won a bronze medal in the annual race to see which country’s populations are the world’s wealthiest! Yep, we came in third, trailing Switzerland and the USA. And we were seen as a huge improver, rising seven places since last year’s survey.

When you think about it, one determined politician and a team of short-sighted politicians are behind our surge in wealth. More on that later.

The work on who’s the richest globally is done by insurer Allianz that has a vested interest in knowing who has what, what needs to be insured and what they can reasonably charge. The table below shows the top 10 wealthiest countries. Note our Kiwi cousins are in 5^thplace.

Source: Allianz/AFR

The AFR’s Andrew Mobbs poured over the data and noted the following:

1. We rose seven places.
2. Japan dropped eight places to number 19!
3. Sweden slipped six places to number 11.
4. Our exposure to real estate and superannuation, helped by a surging stock market, has powered our relative wealth higher.

Considering this final point, it clearly shows the determination of Paul Keating to make superannuation compulsory and put a place in plan to raise what Canberra takes from our salaries to invest in high growth assets, such as shares. Keating’s move has made the average Aussie wealthier. A bi tick to our former PM.

Meanwhile, the lack of foresight by ensuring politicians in not doing enough to increase the supply of housing, while letting immigration levels rise without considering where people live and how much it costs to find housing, has led to a fantastic rise in house prices. The dumb, lazy play by too many politicians has made those with properties the third wealthiest in the world. Those politicians don’t get a tick, despite the payoff for those whose assets have carried us into the top three richest countries.

But this survey isn’t just a “wow, look at that” affair because Hobbs says the wealth-building companies of the world are now eyeing off Australia. “The surge in Australian wealth, particularly in the $4.2 trillion superannuation sector, is attracting the interest of global wealth managers, said Ben James, the chief executive of high net worth investment adviser Escala Partners. “Just over 48 per cent of Australians’ gross financial assets are invested in insurance and superannuation products, well above the global average of just under 26 per cent.”

Experts predict our super industry will grow by 9.5% to 12% over the years, which has captured the attention of global wealth-related businesses. There’s also a view that via super funds and education, Australians are now more sophisticated investors, with greater exposure to overseas stock and bond markets, which has helped drive up returns from investing.

Also, our lack of housing supply as our population grew has pushed up property prices and the wealth of Australians who own a home. In fact, Australia has had one of the fastest growths in population of Western economies in the whole world.

This is how tradingeconomics.com sees our property story: “Residential Property Prices in Australia increased 3.47 percent in June of 2025 over the same month in the previous year. Residential Property Prices in Australia averaged 8.07 percent from 1971 until 2025, reaching an all-time high of 37.57 percent in the first quarter of 1989 and a record low of -7.42 percent in the second quarter of 2019”.

An average rise of property prices of 8.07% per annum over 1971 to 2025 is a huge return from any safe asset like property. And for those who’ve owned a bricks and mortar asset over that time have a lot of shortsighted politicians to thank for that.

Meanwhile, younger Australians better start voting for those politicians who’ll move heaven and earth to increase the supply of housing ASAP.

Markets took a breather overnight to all close up a small margin. Here's what's making news today.

Elevator Pitch: what you need to know to start your day

• The US shutdown has delayed a lot of new data and stats around the nation's economy, but one publication still made it out which gives a tentative green light to the US economy (Reuters)
• CBA's Matt Comyn will likely stay in the bank's top job until 2028, AGM reveals
• Australia's fertility rate has hit a record new low (ABC)

• RBA Governor Bullock set to speak today from Washington DC

Overnight markets and ASX outlook

• Modest increases overnight as global stocks all closed in the green. In the US, the S&P500 closed slightly up (+0.40%) at 6671; the NASDAQ joined the party, up 0.68% to close at 22,670; abroad, Euro markets joined in with an almost 1% gain, seeing the EURSTOXX50, closing at 5605; the Nikkei arrested its week-long downward momentum to close at 47,672 (up 1.76%), and the Hang Seng closed up 1.84% to reverse yesterday's losses at 25910. ASX futures are relatively flat this morning, up 0.19%..

In the diary: today's data

Australia

• • Labour force data (September): Economists expect around 30,000 new jobs, with unemployment steady at 4.2% and participation rising to 66.9%.
  • RBA Governor Michele Bullock speech: Fireside chat at the Nomura Research Forum in Washington DC.
  • RBA Assistant Governor Christopher Kent speech: Speaking at the CFA Society Australia Investment Conference.
  • Santos: Third-quarter production update scheduled.

Today’s big number

$206 million: the latest quarterly revenue surge from Telix Pharmaceuticals as it increases year-on-year take by 53%.

The Qantas hack is not just a wake-up call for airlines. It is a warning for any company that thinks outsourcing technology or customer data will keep them safe. Australia’s top financial regulator now wants the nation’s finance sector to tighten up before another major breach happens.

ASIC’s message is clear. Offshoring will not protect you from data breaches.

After a malicious actor broke into Qantas systems and leaked customer information onto the dark web, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has put finance companies on notice. ASIC’s latest review found big holes in the way banks, wealth managers, and advisers use offshore service providers. The regulator says poor oversight and weak risk management are putting consumers and investors in harm’s way.

“Advice licensees and responsible entities can outsource services but they cannot outsource their fundamental obligations,” ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said. “When licensees neglect their responsibilities, consumers, investors and financial services businesses can be exposed to harm, such as exposure of personal information through cyber incidents.”

Critical functions, critical risks

ASIC’s review found many finance businesses are sending sensitive tasks and data offshore. Too many are not monitoring these third parties. Some do not even have a risk framework in place. The regulator says ticking a box is not enough.

“The more critical the outsourced function, the greater the risks to consumers and investors,” Kirkland said. The risk gets worse when overseas providers are not being supervised. Foreign laws can also create conflicting obligations, and key business functions can leave Australian control.

The message is simple. Storing, managing, or processing customer data overseas does not make you safe from attack or from liability.

Enforcement is coming

ASIC is not just issuing warnings. Now, regulator has already taken enforcement action against firms like FIIG Securities and Fortnum Private Wealth for failing to manage cybersecurity risk. In 2022, the Federal Court ruled against RI Advice for breaching its obligations by failing to manage cyber risks. That case is now a warning for other companies.

“Financial services firms cannot drop their guard. Cyber-attacks are more prevalent and growing in sophistication,” Kirkland said. “All licensees must proactively review governance frameworks and address issues that threaten to undermine public confidence in their business and in turn, the financial system.”

ASIC will keep monitoring how finance firms manage risk around offshore providers. The regulator promises to hold companies to account when they fall short.

The trade dispute between the United States and China has resumed. US President Donald Trump lashed out at the weekend at Beijing’s planned tightening of restrictions over crucial rare-earth minerals.

In response, Trump has threatened 100% tariffs on Chinese imports.

But with the higher tariff rate not due to start until November 1, and the Chinese controls on December 1, there is still time for negotiation.

This is no longer a trade dispute; it has escalated into a race for control over supply chains, and the rules that govern global trade.

For Australia, this provides an opening to build capacity at home in minerals refining and rare-earths processing. But we also need to keep access to our biggest market – China.

A long-running battle

Since 2018, the US has sought to choke off China’s access to semiconductors and chipmaking tools by restricting exports.

China last week tightened its export controls on rare earth minerals that are essential for the technology, automotive and defence industries. Foreign companies now need permission to export products that derive as little as 0.1% of their value from China-sourced rare earths.

Rare earths are essential to many modern technologies. They enable high-performance magnets for EVs and wind turbines, lasers in advanced weapons, and the polishing of semiconductor wafers. An F-35 fighter jet contains about 417 kilograms of rare earths.

By targeting inputs rather than finished goods, China extends its reach across production lines in any foreign factories that use Chinese rare earths in chips (including AI), automotive, defence and consumer electronics.

Who holds the upper hand: chips or rare earths?

The US plan is simple: control the key tools and software for making top-end semiconductor chips so China can’t move as fast on cutting-edge technology.

Under that pressure, China is filling the gaps. It’s far more self-sufficient in chips than ten years ago. It now makes more of its own tools and software, and produces “good-enough” chips for cars, factories and gadgets to withstand US sanctions.

Rare earths aren’t literally “rare”; their value lies in complex, costly and polluting separation and purification processes. China has cornered the industry, helped by industry policies and subsidies. China accounts for 60–70% of all mining and more than 90% of rare earths refining.

Its dominance reflects decades-long investment, scale and an early willingness to bear heavy environmental costs. Building a China-free supply chain will take years, even if Western countries can coordinate smoothly.

A window for Australia?

Australia is seen as a potential beneficiary. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to meet Trump on October 20 in Washington, many argue the rare-earths clash offers a diplomatic opening.

Trade Minister Don Farrell says Australia is a reliable supplier that can “provide alternatives to the rest of the world”. Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, has made the same case.

The logic seems compelling: leverage Australia’s mineral wealth for strategic gain with its closest security partner. But that narrative is simplistic. It risks drifting from industrial and economic reality.

The first hard truth is that Australia has the resources, but doesn’t control the market. It is a top-five producer of 14 minerals, including lithium, cobalt and rare earths, yet it doesn’t dominate any of them. Australia’s strength is in mining and extraction, rather than processing.

Here lies the strategic paradox: Australia ships the majority of its minerals to China for processing that turns ore into high-purity metals and chemicals. Building alternative, China-free supply chains to reduce US reliance on China would decouple Australia from its main customer for raw materials.

Demand from the defence sector is not enough. The US Department of Defense accounts for less than 5% of global demand for most critical minerals.

The real driver is the heavy demand from clean energy and advanced technology, including EVs, batteries and solar. China commands those markets, creating a closed-loop ecosystem that pulls in Australia’s materials and exports finished goods. Recreating that integrated system in five to ten years, after Beijing spent decades building it, is wishful thinking.

There will be no simple winner

The US restrictions on chips and the Chinese controls over rare earths are twin levers in the contest between two great powers. Each wants to lead in technology – and to set the rules over global supply chains.

We’ve entered a period where control of a few key inputs, tools and routes gives countries leverage. Each side is probing those “chokepoints” in the other’s supply chains for technology and materials – and using them as weapons. In the latest stand-off, Trump has floated export controls on Boeing parts to China. Chinese airlines are major Boeing customers, so any parts disruption would hit China’s aviation sector hard.

There will be no simple winner. Countries and firms are being pulled into two parallel systems: one centred on US chip expertise, the other on China’s materials power. This is not a clean break. It will be messier, costlier and less efficient, where political risk often outweighs commercial logic.

The question for Australia is not how fast it can build, but how well it balances security aims with market realities.

Marina Yue Zhang, Associate Professor, Technology and Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

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

Big EV companies think that 'range anxiety' is the only thing keeping potential buyers out of their electrified driver's seats, but new data out today shows it's more than that. Here's what's stopping Aussies from buying EVs.

Two curious pieces of data dropped early Wednesday morning, all pointing to why Australians won't join the electrified future. Data from an exclusive Fairfax poll asks the real questions to potential EV owners. Meanwhile, the Australian Automotive Dealer Association has also dropped a nugget of wisdom on us.

So, what's keeping Aussies behind the wheel of petrol-power?

What's your next car?

Data from a Fairfax and Resolve out today showed that 35% of Australians surveyed would be buying petrol or diesel for their next vehicle when purchasing in the upcoming 12-24 months. Less than a third of respondents (11%) said they'd be looking at fully electric. Many, however, are putting their feet in both camps, with 21% saying they'd go hybrid and another 12% said they were unsure.

Other barriers included:

• the high price of EVs (even for those claiming a tax benefit)
• a lack of charging infrastructure (even at home) amid the perception of "limited" range and the time it takes to charge back up
• and amazingly almost a third of folks are just still unsure about the technology.

Head over to the SMH to read the full results and take in all those wonderful graphs.

EVs have poor resale value: AADA

Fresh figures from the Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA) show that electric vehicles are losing value faster than any other category in the used car market. While total used car sales stayed steady in September (200,916 vehicles sold nationally) price drops in the new EV market are rippling through to the second-hand sector, dragging down resale values.

“Used EV prices have dropped faster than the rest of the market, which isn’t surprising given the big discounts now being offered on new models,” said AADA CEO James Voortman. “We’re seeing those price cuts flow through to the second-hand market, so buyers are getting better value but sellers are facing steeper depreciation.”

That’s a problem not just for private owners, but for trade-ins and fleet operators too. Falling resale values reduce dealer margins and inflate replacement costs, making electric cars harder to justify for both families and businesses.

 

How are electric cars selling in Australia?

Despite the concerns, more Aussies are still making the switch to electric motoring. Momentum has returned to the EV market in the last month with almost 3000 new electric vehicles driven off lots around the country.

That arrests a downward trend that had been emerging in previous months as sales of new EVs came off the boil.

Meanwhile, in internal combustion land, petrol and diesel vehicles are proving far more stable in value and demand. The same AADA report shows that used combustion-engine cars are selling faster than at any other point this year, with the average vehicle taking just over 42 days to move off the lot — down from more than 51 days in March.

Unlike their electric rivals, traditional vehicles aren’t being hit by sudden price cuts or tech obsolescence. Dealers say steady demand, predictable resale values, and widespread servicing infrastructure keep the market ticking over. In other words, buyers know what they’re getting — and what it’ll be worth later.

With EVs facing steep depreciation, long charging times, and concerns about range and infrastructure, many Australians see petrol power as the safer financial bet. Until prices settle and confidence grows that electric cars can hold their value, the internal combustion engine looks set to keep humming along for a while yet.