Which is a good thing yes? Or do you think it would be...

Which is a good thing yes?

Or do you think it would be preferable to force the struggling borrower to sell?

Unless the bank is owed more than the property is worth after costs (unlikely in most cases) they get their money back either way but by allowing interest only the customer is better off and it saves a whole lot of unnecessary costs.

So much of what is published as "news" is complete horses@&t, particularly the confected "cost of living" crisis. I shopped today at the market and basic fruit, vegetables, eggs and milk/bread are cheap as.

Electricity is expensive because we stopped investment in new capacity for 10 years
Gas is expensive because we allow the gas companies to sell it to SE Asia cheap and charge us top dollar here
Housing is expensive because raw material inputs have become more scarce and the labour market is still strong (try getting a tradie for basic maintenance)
All costs went up for a period because of distribution challenges and the cost of fuel which have both normalised

You want cost of living crisis, visit London. Prices are insane. Eating out is the same price in Pounds as $A for lower quality. That's BREXIT, who would have thought that putting a whole bunch of costs on trade both ways would inflate costs.

It won't be true for all in Australia but for some of the few who can't afford the mortgage on a house in this market (with the labour market still buoyant) they probably couldn't realistically afford it in the first place.