The other day he was fuming about talk of a property bubble, and the day before that the lies about housing shortages and then it was something else or other, can't remember what.
I wouldn't be. Having seen some the regional market bloodbaths in some overseas markets, I'm happy enough sticking with the boring capital cities approach.
Prices of some quality properties in key suburbs of the inner-west of Sydney have grown by around a solid 25-35% over the past 4 years or so. Again, I'm not talking about prices doubling overnight, just strong, steady growth.
As anyone with even half a brain who invests in capital cities knows, it is preferable to aim to invest in the cities which have not experienced a recent boom which is precisely why I picked out Sydney at that time ahead of other cities which had already shown strong growth.
So yes, since its spurt through to Q1, 2004 price growth in Sydney has been lower than elsewhere, that's a given - but prices therefore haven't fallen from peaks in the same way as in other capital cities (hence "resilient") and I expect RP Data to report that strong growth has continued in Australia's largest capital through to January.
If you want to take the approach of carefully selecting time-frames for capital growth (or for that matter, individual suburbs like Canterbury) then pick any regional market you like from around Australia and note that prices are as cheap as chips as compared to quality city suburbs - that's due to poor long-term growth. Almost as pointless an argument...
The old regions versus capital cities debate has been well and truly done to death - you just have to take your viewpoint and go with it. I think the old phrase is: "let's agree to disagree".