Imagine a nation where its own young generation is becoming its biggest export – not through talent or innovation, but by fleeing across borders due to homes that feel like distant fantasies. That's the stark reality facing Australia today, and it's a trend that's not just alarming, but could reshape the country's future. But here's where it gets controversial: is this mass exodus a failure of policy, or a symptom of deeper economic forces we all ignore?
Recent findings from Home in Place reveal that over half of Australians between 18 and 35 are seriously considering relocating abroad for more affordable living options. And that's not all – a solid 16 percent are fully committed to the idea. Martin Kennedy, the executive manager at Home in Place, spoke with NewsWire, describing the situation as 'deeply concerning,' though he admitted it's not entirely unexpected given the relentless rise in housing costs. 'What the data really tells us is that if we're not proactive, our young people might become our primary export,' he cautioned. He went on to ask a poignant question: 'At what point do young adults simply throw their hands up and wonder why bother with university, accumulating massive student loans, if the job on the other end can't even cover basic rent, let alone the dream of homeownership?'
Let's break that down for beginners: Student debt can pile up to tens of thousands of dollars, and when wages don't keep pace with living costs, it creates a vicious cycle. For example, picture a recent graduate working a full-time job but still struggling to pay rent – this isn't just frustrating; it delays major life steps like starting a family or pursuing further education.
Official figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics paint a clear picture: Approximately 221,000 long-term residents and citizens have left Australia permanently in the past financial year, marking an 8 percent increase from the year before. Meanwhile, the property market shows no signs of cooling down. Data from REA Group indicates that national home prices surged by 7.5 percent in the last 12 months, pushing the median house price up by a whopping $65,200. That means a typical home now costs around $858,000 – a 51 percent jump from just five years ago. And for renters, the news is equally grim: Rents climbed by 3.8 percent in the year leading up to September 2025, according to ABS data.
Home in Place's survey highlights the personal toll: Over half of those surveyed spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent, with a quarter dedicating over half of it just to keep a roof over their heads. This financial strain is causing young Australians to postpone significant life events, such as moving out from their parents' homes, starting families, or even pursuing higher education. Kennedy pointed out that when rent consumes such a large portion of earnings, it's understandable for people to seek greener pastures elsewhere. 'You can't fault them for thinking they might find a better opportunity abroad,' he noted.
And this is the part most people miss: The core issue isn't just high prices; it's a housing policy that's fundamentally flawed. Kennedy argues that Australia's approach to housing is creating a 'underclass of renters' rather than a society of homeowners. 'What's so exasperating is how our housing policies are framed around boosting homeownership,' he explained. 'But looking back at the last decade, we've done the opposite – we've fostered a class of renters whose earnings and savings can't match the skyrocketing property values.'
Independent economist Saul Eslake echoed this critique in a previous NewsWire interview, urging politicians to 'stop the nonsense' after six decades of first-home buyer programs that have primarily benefited sellers. 'Any initiative that lets people spend more on housing than they might otherwise will only drive prices higher and reduce ownership,' he warned. For instance, the Albanese government's recent expansion of the 5 percent deposit scheme for first-time buyers – now open without limits, starting October 1 instead of January – aims to help, but it was previously capped at 50,000 homes, including allocations for first-home buyers, regional areas, and single parents.
Kennedy sees value in aiding first-time buyers, but only if it's paired with increased housing supply. He referenced the post-war era, when efforts to support new homeowners coincided with limiting investor influence in the market, leading to a boom in ownership rates. 'Supporting first-time buyers isn't inherently bad,' he said, 'but without curbs on investor activity, it just fuels demand and inflates prices.' And here's the controversial twist: For the past 25 years, Australia has focused on boosting demand without addressing supply shortages, potentially exacerbating inequality.
To curb these rapid price hikes, Home in Place advocates for governments to dedicate 10 percent of new homes to social or affordable housing. Kennedy emphasized the urgency: 'All administrations, past, present, and future, must confront the reality that a massive segment of the population is being priced out of housing in their own homeland.' Without offering an alternative – be it affordable homes or freedom from debt – he argued the only solution is a significant boost in social housing supply.
He pointed to international examples for inspiration: Nations like the Netherlands, Austria, and the UK allocate at least 15 percent of their housing stock to social options, with the Netherlands hitting nearly 35 percent. In contrast, Australia stands at just 4.4 percent, and that figure is declining. 'The drop in Australia since the mid-1990s stems from governments halting investments in social housing,' Kennedy explained. To put it simply, social housing means government-funded homes available at lower costs for those in need, often with subsidies to keep rents affordable. In the 1950s and 1960s, the public sector provided about 15 percent of new homes; today, that's dwindled to 1 percent. 'This single statistic essentially sums up our housing crisis,' he concluded.
Without a course correction, Kennedy warns, we won't just see 50 percent of young people threatening to leave – we'll witness even more making the move permanent. This could spark debate: Is exporting talent through emigration a hidden economic strategy, or a preventable tragedy? Do you agree that social housing should be a top priority, or is there a better way to tackle this? What counterpoints do you have – maybe that high prices reflect a strong economy? Share your opinions in the comments below; let's discuss!
