Ray White Group Chief Economist, Nerida Conisbee, has revealed significant regional disparities in the availability of homes under the scheme’s price caps, highlighting a fundamental imbalance between government demand stimulation and housing supply.
“Melbourne has emerged as the capital with the greatest number of homes under its $950,000 cap,” Ms Conisbee said.
“More than 33,000 houses and 26,700 units sold below the limit in the past year, meaning around 60 per cent of Melbourne’s house sales and 86 per cent of unit sales are eligible.”
She said that Sydney, despite its reputation for unaffordability, follows closely behind Melbourne in total eligible properties.
“Sydney, with its higher cap of $1.5 million, is close behind, supported by a large apartment sector where 85 per cent of sales fall under the threshold,” she said.
The analysis reveals the Gold Coast as the most challenging market for scheme participants, with severely limited options in the detached housing sector.
“Only 1,734 houses sold under the $1 million cap over the past year, representing just 26.9 per cent of all detached house sales,” Ms Conisbee said.
“Even though units remain more attainable, with 70 per cent under the threshold, the small number of eligible apartments still trails every other city surveyed.”
Ms Conisbee said that the scheme itself has become a significant driver of demand in the affordable segment of the market.
“More first-home buyers can compete, earlier, and with smaller deposits,” she said.
“The problem is not that too many people want to buy property. The problem is that we have failed to build enough of it.”
According to Ms Conisbee, the contrasting availability between cities reflects different approaches to development and planning.
“Melbourne and Sydney have benefited from more balanced policy settings. Medium-density development, new masterplanned communities and stronger supply pipelines mean a larger share of affordable stock remains available, even as demand rises,” she said.
The Gold Coast market faces particular challenges that have pushed many properties beyond the reach of scheme participants.
“Construction costs, planning delays and a heavy shift toward premium product have pushed vast numbers of homes above $1 million, shrinking the pool of options for those the scheme is designed to support,” Ms Conisbee said.
She warned that without addressing supply constraints, the scheme might actually worsen affordability pressures in some markets.
“More demand without more supply doesn’t improve affordability. It makes the challenge more acute,” she said.
While acknowledging the scheme’s benefits in removing deposit barriers, Ms Conisbee called for greater focus on increasing housing supply.
“Without a significant acceleration in supply, especially well-located townhouses, smaller family homes and quality mid-rise apartments, first-home buyers will continue competing for a rapidly diminishing set of opportunities,” she said.
