The final session of a parliamentary inquiry into generational housing inequity exposed a familiar pattern: lenders and industry bodies point fingers at policy settings and red tape, while the mechanics of who actually funds new housing construction remain conspicuously absent from the conversation.
The central bank confirmed that interest rate pain falls almost entirely on owner-occupiers carrying debt, a cohort that skews younger. Data presented to the committee showed two-thirds of older Australians say rate movements don’t affect them because they hold little or no mortgage debt, compared with only a quarter of younger borrowers. About one in three borrowers under 40 reported cutting spending on food and utilities to maintain repayments.
Roughly 1.6 million borrowers are now estimated to be at heightened risk of mortgage stress, a figure that has climbed as the cash rate reversed last year’s cuts and pushed back above 4.3 per cent across three hikes this year.
The friction argument
Broking representatives told the committee that complexity in credit assessment and government schemes creates unnecessary barriers for borrowers who can otherwise afford repayments. Their submission pointed to rigid serviceability buffers, duplicated verification steps and limited access to consumer data as structural problems that slow approvals and lock out marginal buyers.
The pitch: reduce friction in how credit is assessed, simplify access to deposit schemes through the broker channel, and introduce more forgiving buffers for borrowers refinancing to cheaper rates.
What the submission doesn’t address is how loosening those buffers interacts with the actual cost of servicing debt at current rates, or whether making credit easier to access does anything to increase the number of properties available to buy.
The deflection from major lenders
Bank executives appearing before the inquiry deflected responsibility toward planning constraints and tax settings. One could not provide figures on the share of profit derived from owner-occupier lending despite advance notice of the question. Another confirmed consumer banking, including home loans, generated roughly a third of the institution’s annual profit but declined to break out mortgage interest specifically.
All three of the country’s largest mortgage writers have reported application volumes down between 15 and 20 per cent since budget changes wound back negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions for investors. Yet each has delivered record profit.
The pattern: lenders acknowledge stress among younger borrowers, cite policy settings as the root cause, and avoid discussion of their own lending appetite for new housing construction.
The gap neither side named
Construction finance approvals have collapsed over the past 18 months as lenders tightened risk settings and pulled back from higher-density projects. That pullback preceded the recent policy changes and runs parallel to the same institutions posting record earnings from their mortgage books.
The unspoken question at the inquiry: if housing supply is the real constraint, and lenders are highly profitable, why has construction debt become so hard to access? And if the answer is that construction loans carry higher risk and lower returns than established-property mortgages, does that create a case for regulatory intervention to ensure the financial system funds the housing stock it also finances for end buyers?
Neither brokers nor banks raised it. Union representatives argued the system had become unjust, pointing to the decline of public housing and the treatment of home ownership as a speculative asset class, but stopped short of naming the construction-finance bind directly.
Key numbers
- Cash rate lifted from 3.6% to 4.35% across three hikes this year
- 66% of older Australians say rate rises don’t affect them vs 25% of younger borrowers
- 1.64 million borrowers estimated at heightened stress risk
- Application volumes down 15-20% at major lenders since May budget
- One major bank’s consumer division generated $2.3bn of $6.9bn total profit
Who carries the adjustment
Monetary policy operates through what the central bank describes as a cash flow channel: higher rates reduce spending by households servicing debt. That mechanism falls almost entirely on mortgaged owner-occupiers, who tend to be younger and carry larger loan balances relative to income.
Renters face a different pressure. Rental growth is driven by local supply and demand, not directly by the cash rate, though some of the mortgage stress accounts presented to the committee were described as harrowing by officials.
The distribution of pain matters because it determines who absorbs the cost of bringing inflation back to target. Younger cohorts are paying disproportionately, both through higher repayments and through reduced access to credit as serviceability tests tighten.
The policy bind and what could shift it
Serviceability buffers exist to prevent borrowers taking on debt they can’t sustain if rates rise further. Loosening them marginally for refinancing might help some borrowers access cheaper rates, but it doesn’t change the fact that servicing a loan at 6-plus per cent requires materially higher income than servicing the same loan at 3 per cent.
Simplifying deposit schemes and reducing assessment duplication could speed approvals at the margin, but speed doesn’t solve affordability if the underlying issue is price levels driven by supply constraints.
The construction finance gap is the leverage point neither side wants to name. If lenders face higher capital charges or liquidity requirements on construction debt, or if regulators decide the system needs a mechanism to ensure housing supply is funded even when returns are thinner, that shifts the risk-return calculus for the institutions currently focused on established-property lending.
No such mechanism was proposed at the inquiry. The committee’s final report is due by the end of September. Recommendations are likely to focus on planning reform, tax settings and access to government schemes, easier political territory than compelling lenders to hold more construction risk.
What happens in the next four months
Watch for how the committee frames responsibility in its final report. If it singles out serviceability settings, expect industry to push for buffer adjustments. If it points to construction finance, that opens a harder conversation about whether the banking system will voluntarily fund supply or needs regulatory encouragement.
For borrowers making decisions now: if you’re refinancing, the broker argument about assessment friction is real, comparison and switching remain harder than they should be, and broker channel dynamics show stress is rising across credit products, not only mortgages. If you’re trying to enter the market for the first time, policy changes to serviceability won’t move the dial unless construction picks up and adds stock.
Base case: minor adjustments to refinancing buffers, continued deflection on construction finance, no material shift in credit access for younger first-home buyers in the next 12 months. Upside scenario: inquiry names construction-lending collapse as a priority and forces lenders to hold more development debt. Downside: further rate rises without supply response, pushing stress higher and locking more younger borrowers out entirely.
Subscribe to the newsletter for weekly analysis of credit conditions, construction finance and what’s changing in mortgage settings.
General info, not financial advice.
