Australia’s housing debate is as fiery as ever, with renters squeezed by rising costs and prospective buyers feeling locked out.

In this Get Rich Slow Club episode, Tash and Ana sit down with Dr Cameron Murray – an Australian economist and author of The Great Housing Hijack . Together, they unpack what’s really driving the country’s housing challenges.

From media narratives to rent controls, interest rates to property cycles, this episode is a whirlwind tour through the data, the policies, and the myths surrounding the so-called housing crisis.

First, what does an economist actually do?

Cameron describes economics as a mix of desk-bound research, writing, data wrangling, and plenty of debate.

“We read and we write about the economy all day and argue with each other quite a lot,” he says. “We assemble lots of data and make pretty charts and tell stories about it and write books.”

These arguments aren’t surface-level spats. Economists often look at the same data and draw wildly different conclusions, because they’re working from different models of how the world works. Housing, in particular, is a hotbed of disagreement.

Is there really a housing crisis?

Ask 10 people what the “ housing crisis ” is, and you’ll get 10 different answers. Some say it’s unaffordable home prices. Others point to skyrocketing rents or low vacancy rates. For Cameron, the term itself has become a catch-all for any housing-related complaint.

“People will just call anything related to housing that somebody doesn’t like a crisis right now,” he says.

Still, he agrees that today’s conditions are tough, especially after a rapid increase in interest rates. But context matters. He points out that during COVID, interest rates fell. First home buyer activity doubled in a single year. That boom, he argues, is now being unwound.

“You can’t just say today it is hard to buy a house without recognising that, in 2019 and 2020, it was the easiest time to buy a house in the last 30 years," he says.

Cameron also cautions against using buzzwords like "crisis" without being specific about what aspect is being discussed. Housing affordability , rental supply, and interest rates all have their own dynamics. If we don’t separate them, we risk applying the wrong solutions to the wrong problems.

The rent affordability myth

Contrary to media narratives, Cameron argues that renters today are not spending more of their income on housing than in decades past. Drawing from ABS data, he says renter households have consistently spent about 20% of their income on rent since at least the early 1990s.

“You go to Canada, same survey, same result: a flat line. You go to the UK, same result. You go to the US, same result," he says.

Why does it feel so much worse, then? He explains that the COVID-era economic reshuffle pushed some people down the rental ladder. Those with public sector jobs or stagnant wages have found themselves priced out of their preferred suburbs. That mismatch between expectations and reality is what’s fuelling much of the current frustration.

There’s also the psychological aspect. Social media, Cameron notes, amplifies the sense of falling behind. It's no longer just about keeping up with your neighbours; it's about comparing yourself to thousands of people online who seem to be thriving.

Why property prices rise – and fall

As an economist, Cameron says there’s a simple way to bring home prices down: raise interest rates. But that also makes buying harder. Lower interest rates, meanwhile, make borrowing easier – but send prices soaring.

So what do we want?

“We want it to be easy to buy a house,” he says. “Okay. Why don’t we just put the interest rate down and we’ll double the number of first home buyers like we did during COVID? But then prices will go up, and we don’t want that.”

He argues that much of the angst comes from treating the housing market as though there’s a perfect solution – one where prices fall but access increases, rents stay low, and investors stay happy. The truth, he says, is that there are trade-offs. Every winner comes with a loser.

“If we make the asset price cheaper, everyone who owns the asset loses their equity. If we make rents cheaper, renters save money and landlords lose income. If we don't understand that symmetry, we're not going to understand the politics of housing," he says.

This zero-sum nature of housing means any policy will have political consequences. That’s why politicians are often hesitant to intervene decisively.

Landlords selling isn’t a disaster

One of the most controversial claims Cameron makes in this episode is that landlords selling to first home buyers isn’t a problem – in fact, it’s necessary.

“The only way to increase homeownership... is for the owners of some of that housing stock, who are landlords, to sell to tenants who become first home buyers. So mechanically, we must force landlords to sell to increase home ownership.”

He challenges the media narrative that landlord sales create a rental shortage. The homes don’t disappear, he points out. They simply transfer to a new owner, often someone who plans to live there.

And historically, Cameron notes, this is exactly how Australia increased homeownership post-World War II – through large-scale transfer of housing from landlords to owner-occupiers, coupled with policies like rent controls and public subsidies.

Rent freezes, planning reform and political pushback

What about rent controls, banning investors, or negative gearing ? Cameron is cautious. While policies like rent freezes help tenants in the short term, they can discourage investors and reduce housing supply over time. Likewise, blaming local planning rules for housing affordability ignores the global picture.

“You can’t blame your local politician for a global macroeconomic trend,” he says. “Is [ Premier of New South Wales] Chris Minns also to blame for expensive housing in Toronto or Vancouver or Berlin?”

Instead of reactionary policy changes, Cameron suggests thinking bigger and looking globally at the systems that have worked. That means being open to overhauls, not just tweaks.

Public housing as a solution

Drawing on international examples, Cameron advocates for a broader, more inclusive public housing system. He highlights Singapore’s model, which dramatically increased homeownership by offering subsidised public housing for sale. In just two decades, Singapore’s homeownership rate jumped from 20% to nearly 90%.

Cameron envisions an Australia where public housing isn’t just for those in need, but a mainstream, affordable option that relieves pressure from the private rental market.

“Public ownership of subsidised public housing ... you could get there in 10 to 15 years,” he says. “And the more broadly we allow people to access it, the more political buy-in you’ll get.”

He also flags the importance of public housing being high quality, so people don’t feel they're settling for less.

But change won’t come easy

Of course, that kind of shift would spark fierce resistance. Cameron notes how doctors once pushed back against Medicare, arguing they should be able to set their own prices. Landlords and developers, he predicts, would fight tooth and nail to protect their interests if large-scale public housing was proposed.

“Everybody does this, right? Everybody [lobbies], so we have to expect it," he says.

He also raises equity concerns. What happens when one person pays market price for a home while their neighbour scores a discounted public unit? Managing those tensions – through subsidies, resale restrictions, or parallel markets – would be crucial.

So, what’s the goal?

Ultimately, Cameron doesn’t believe in prescribing a single “ideal” housing outcome. But he does believe we can design systems that reduce suffering and improve access – particularly for renters stuck in competitive, unstable markets.

His rough vision? A future where 10–15% of Australians can own or rent through a public housing system, shrinking the size and volatility of the private rental market.

“I often say homeownership is the greatest rent control we have,” he says. “You compete once and then it’s controlled.”

The big picture

Through all the complexity, Cameron’s message is clear: housing outcomes are not random. They’re the result of policy choices, economic cycles, and social values. Rather than debating over planning rules or individual politicians, he argues we need to zoom out and ask bigger questions.

What kind of housing system do we want? Who are we trying to help? And what trade-offs are we willing to make to get there?

If we want something different – a fairer, more stable, and more inclusive system – we’ll need to rethink the foundations of how housing works in Australia.

If this episode sparked something in you, give it a five-star rating, drop a review, or better yet, share it with a friend. And if you're just starting out, the first ten episodes will get the financial gears turning. Follow us at @getrichslowclub and catch our personal updates at @tashinvest or @anakresina.

Happy investing!