<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australian politicians are keen property owners. <a href="/expert-insights/investing/34160-the-propertied-federal-political-class-politicians-and-their-300-million-property-portfolio" target="_blank">Data compiled by Lindsay David, Deakin University’s Philip Soos and Paul Egan</a> from the parliamentary register of members’ interests shows the 226 members of federal parliament (both houses) have an ownership stake in some 563 properties. While these properties may be jointly owned with a spouse, this is an average of 2.5 properties per member.
In 2013, the 76 members of the Senate had 202 property holdings and the 150 members of the House of Representatives had 361 property holdings.
Top of the leader board is National Party Senator Barry O’Sullivan with a portfolio of 50 properties. David Gillespie follows with 18 and Palmer United Party Senator Clive Palmer has a seemingly conservative 13, although the total value of Palmer’s properties is unknown (see table below).
<img src="/images/2014/08/06/Table2-1.png"> 
Compiled by Lindsay David, Philip Soos and Paul Egan.
The estimated total value of these properties is said to be around A$298 million. This was calculated by multiplying the 563 properties by the median dwelling price of $530,000, as of July 2014. If these properties are located in major cities or other high-value areas the property holding could be substantially higher.
Property, democracy and fairness
Major Australian cities have been feeling the housing affordability squeeze for some time now. Owning multiple investment properties does nothing to ease the upward pressure on real estate prices or to increase first home buyer opportunities. Ensuring housing equality – for example, by providing adequate housing for all social groups – is becoming an increasingly complex task in Australian cities.
When the philosopher <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/" target="_blank">John Rawls</a> coined the phrase the “property-owning democracy” he was interested in how property might be used to satisfy the principles of justice as fairness. Rawls could hardly have known the illuminating irony he might cast on the property holdings of politicians.
Should we be alert, perhaps even alarmed, at the real estate investment practices of the guardians of Australian democracy? Well, maybe. Some 94% of the members of federal parliament owned real estate in 2013. More than 50% own investment or commercial property. By comparison, ABS data show less than 20% of the general population owned a property other than the one they lived in in 2012. But it’s politicians that set the taxation and housing policies that attempt to address our housing concerns.
Policy push
Senator Xenophon is currently <a href="https://nickxenophon.com.au/media/releases/show/home-affordability-a-super-idea/?Stage=stage" target="_blank">seeking</a> changes to the Superannuation Act that would allow funds to be released to purchase a first home. This would not put downward pressure on first home buyer housing stock. In fact, it could diversify the investment pool and lead to upward pressure.
According to the register, Independent Senator for South Australia Nick Xenophon has a portfolio of eight investment properties.
A spokesperson for Senator Xenophon said the register was outdated, but confirmed the Senator owns four investment units and his super fund also owns a property (under management). The correct figure is expected to be reflected in the next register of Senator’s interests.
Addressing housing disparity
Australia’s democratic process is predicated on notions of impartiality and transparency. The parliamentary register of members’ interests is an important citizenry “watch dog” mechanism. It is a mechanism that should be employed to monitor the property holdings of Australian politicians and then deployed to call their actions to account.
It is important to note that the research doesn’t show a causal link between property holdings and decisions of politicians. But it would be imprudent to assume prima facie that the property holdings of Australian politicians do not play a role in their political thinking, especially as this thinking relates to housing, taxation or even superannuation policy.
What is needed is a broader discussion about housing disparity that fully acknowledges and accounts for these vested interests and tools of political influence. This should include the politics and interests of the politicians themselves.
The naïve assumption that housing wealth will trickle down through a property-owning democracy have been shattered by the realities of 21st century Australian cities. The question which remains is whether our democratic processes can be reorganised to address these now clearly evident housing disparities. A discussion about the real estate ideologies that underwrite the investment agendas of Australian politicians seems like a fitting starting point.
Dallas Rogers is research fellow at the Urban Research Centre, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-western-sydney">University of Western Sydney</a>.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

drogers-JvoVgMGDGm

Our $300 million propertied federal pollies: How should they influence housing policy?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The great Australian dream to own a house has long been underwritten by the great Australian housing subsidy. Whether you are a <a href="https://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Living+in+Public+Housing/" target="_blank">public</a> or <a href="https://www.communityhousing.org.au/" target="_blank">social</a> housing tenant, a private renter or a homeowner, chances are your house was subsidised through a <a href="https://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Living+in+Public+Housing/Rent+and+Other+Charges/" target="_blank">rental subsidy</a>, <a href="https://www.firsthome.gov.au/" target="_blank">housing grant</a> or <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-deductions/In-detail/Investments,-including-rental-properties/Rental-properties-2012-13/?page=16" target="_blank">taxation credit</a>. On budget night there will be housing winners and losers, but it’s worth remembering we all live in subsidised housing.
Public housing subsidies
<a href="https://www.ncoa.gov.au/" target="_blank">The National Commission of Audit</a> urged the Commonwealth to limit its involvement in public and social housing by providing rent assistance to income support recipients.
If treasurer Joe Hockey followed through with these recommendations public housing tenants would have to pay market rent for their housing after receiving rent assistance. This would undermine the central purpose of public housing as a form of affordable housing tenure that provides very low-income people with housing at below market rates, often as a percentage of their income.
Providing rent assistance to people to contribute to market rate rental properties would be bad news for housing equity. The frail and elderly, those with carer responsibilities or complex medical needs, or very low-income Australians in public or social housing would be hit hardest.
Private housing subsidies
Private housing subsidies are like chocolate, we know that we should use them in moderation but we just cannot cut back. We often pretend they are not subsidies at all. AMP’s <a href="https://m.afr.com/p/national/big_talk_small_acts_on_bn_budget_AkRrPW2xaygUjpIodRK8IK" target="_blank">chief economist</a> Shane Oliver says “changes to negative gearing or the CGT exemption on the family home would be seen as ‘unAustralian’”.
<a href="https://grattan.edu.au/" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a> data suggests that more than 90% of private housing subsidies go to property owners over private renters (see figure below). This includes the roughly A$30 billion capital gains tax benefit for owner-occupiers and the A$7 billion negative gearing benefit for landlords each year.
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/48230/width668/rycjyqqy-1399860931.jpg" alt="">
Report: Renovating Housing Policy Grattan Institute
Often taxation concessions – the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programs-services/national-rental-affordability-scheme" target="_blank">National Rental Affordability Scheme</a> (NRAS) excluded – do not generate new housing stock. They all, with the addition of the first homebuyers grant, drive up property prices. This is good for homeowners and developers. It is bad for first homebuyers and private renters. The removal of housing subsidies that operate below or offset market rents would be catastrophic for the most disadvantaged people in Australian cities.
While the Commission of Audit was largely <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tax-the-flaw-at-the-heart-of-the-national-commission-of-audit-20140501-zr2oy" target="_blank">silent</a> on private housing taxation subsidies, under its recommendations <a href="https://tunswblog.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/what-commission-of-audit-says-about" target="_blank">NRAS would go too</a>. NRAS was designed to encourage private investors to provide affordable rental housing. Associate Professor <a href="https://theconversation.com/rental-affordability-scheme-fears-are-misplaced-24338" target="_blank">Michael Darcy</a> argues:
"NRAS is also a tax benefit, but it provides a fixed rebate of around A$10,000 a year for ten years. Investors can claim the rebate so long as a property is rented through an approved non-profit housing manager at 20% below the market rate. Potential tenants are means tested. In this way NRAS sought to keep investors in the affordable sector for the longer term."
Post-budget affordable housing?
The <a href="The%20forecast%20is%20grim%20for%20housing%20affordability%20in">forecast is grim</a> for housing affordability in many Australian cities. According to <a href="/expert-insights/buying/31139-sydney-now-has-170-suburbs-with-1-million-median-price-apm#.U22yxW34Izk.twitter" target="_blank">Australian Property Monitors</a>, of Sydney’s approximately 600 suburbs 170 now have A$1 million median house prices. This constitutes an increase of about 47 suburbs in six months.
In Melbourne “<a href="/expert-insights/buying/30973-investors-up-first-home-buyers-down-in-the-melbourne-market" target="_blank">the numbers of first home buyers have shrunk to record lows</a> ” as more first home buyers remain in rental accommodation or live with family members.
There is scope for innovation with public, non-government and private sector housing models and taxation policy. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is certainly not perfect, but at least it provides additional housing stock that operates below market rates.
As the details of the budget come in, the great Australian housing subsidies will be revealed. But Hockey has indicated he will take most of the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tax-the-flaw-at-the-heart-of-the-national-commission-of-audit-20140501-zr2oy" target="_blank">tax reforms to the next election</a>. Any move toward greater housing equity would require a significant recalibration of public and private housing subsidies and taxation reforms.
When housing subsidies are revealed on budget night, remember, we will always need housing options that operate outside the market for the poorest and most disadvantaged Australians.
Dallas Rogers is Research Fellow - Urban Research Centre at University of Western Sydney.<a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-western-sydney"></a>
Dallas Rogers does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. 
Photo courtesy of Steve Davidson/Flickr/<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons</a>.
</body></html>

At budget time, remember we all live in subsidised housing

<html><body>
The forecast is grim for housing affordability in Sydney, according to a recent government <a target="_blank" href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/B3D723202932C63ACA257C61001D07AF/%24File/Trends%20in%20home%20ownership%20-%20FINAL.pdf">briefing paper</a>. In the last decade median rent for all properties in the inner ring of Sydney more than doubled from A$195 to A$560.
We can expect little policy movement on private housing subsidies by the federal or state governments. <a target="_blank" href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-negative-gearing-is-bad-policy-21882">Negative gearing</a> has increased the wealth of middle and high income Australians. Developers endlessly lobby governments for taxation concessions. No major political party would dare propose reform.
Whether the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy has been successful in providing affordable housing is debatable. The strategy does more to <a target="_blank" href="https://db.tt/j7ZibMAR">underwrite the problem</a> of housing affordability than address it.
<a target="_blank" href="https://strategies.planning.nsw.gov.au/MetropolitanStrategyforSydney.aspx">The strategy</a>, part of the “Global Sydney” vision from the NSW state government, is almost 10 years old. Updated <a target="_blank" href="https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/HousingDelivery/Population_projections_Brochure_NSWGrowing.pdf">government forecasts</a> suggest Sydney’s population will grow to 5.8 million by 2031 - approximately 200,000 more people than predicted in 2010.
Young (under 15) and elderly (over 65) people will account for the biggest growth rates. People aged 18-25 are already feeling the housing affordability squeeze. As are elderly private renters.
The Global Sydney vision
The strategy set out plans for the provision of 770,000 additional homes, 760,000 new jobs, and new transport networks to meet the demands of a growing city.
In 2005 the NSW Premier stated in the opening pages of the strategy text:
"Sydney is Australia’s only truly global city and one of the world’s great metropolises."
At the national level, the globalisation of Sydney is inevitable and useful in geo-political and economic terms. But at the local level, the Global Sydney vision leads to costs and benefits for different social groups. The government’s eagerness to position Sydney as a global city has important local repercussions for urban planning and affordable housing provision.
Crucially, it represents a fundamental reorganisation of the way we think about the city. Rather than thinking about Sydney as an urban space within which the rights of the city’s inhabitants might be protected, the global city of Sydney is pitched as facing the harsh economic realities imposed by the global world.
Global cities and urban zones
Central to the vision is an assumption that global cities move foward to betterment. Ideas such as social progress, economic growth, and increased property prices are all contingent on moving the city from its blemished past to an improved future.
In Sydney, this has resulted in a rethink of the purpose of the greater Sydney region. Some sections of the city were promoted as sites that could be used to capitalise on specific locational advantages, such as “growth centres” and “business parks”. Visually, the city was represented as a network of zones made up of a “global economic corridor” connecting the “powerhouse of Australia’s economy” to the “airport”, “major shipping networks”, and the “shopping districts and malls” within the “regional hubs”.
<a style="font-size: 0.8em;" href="https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/40730/area14mp/xcc63v9h-1391567906.jpg"><img width="470" src="https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/40730/width668/xcc63v9h-1391567906.jpg"></a>
<a style="font-size: 0.8em;" href="https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/40730/area14mp/xcc63v9h-1391567906.jpg"></a>The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy highlights key regions for economic activity. NSW Government
The strategy commodifies the urban space of the city. In other words, the various zones of the city are thought of as a tool through which the government might better integrate Sydney into the global economy. But to enable this Global Sydney vision, changes had to be made at the local level.
Urban renewal, housing affordability and privatising public property
Historically, public housing has been a key housing affordability policy mechanism. Evaluated through the Global Sydney vision and metropolitan strategy public housing estates are portrayed as outdated places that are preventing the future economic progress of the city.
NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure says:
"What do we mean by renewal? Renewal is not simply about increasing housing densities. Urban renewal is about transforming under-used or dilapidated areas…"
Sydney has many underused or dilapidated areas, but how the Department measures these two criteria is important.
For example, in terms of land-use planning, many consider the low housing density profiles of some Sydney suburbs close to the city and transport centres to be an underuse of urban space. “80% of the city will be untouched” by the strategy <a target="_blank" href="https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/research/centres/cf/CFpresentations/mayorsforumhandouts.pdf">argued</a> Professor Bill Randolph in 2006.
There has been local <a target="_blank" href="https://www.smh.com.au/nsw/public-housing-no-bar-to-property-gains-20131025-2w6zbhttps://www.smh.com.au/nsw/public-housing-no-bar-to-property-gains-20131025-2w6zb.html">resistance</a> to housing affordability programs that threaten to impinge on the housing landscapes of wealthier Sydney suburbs.
In the strategy, measuring an underused or dilapidated area was conditional on the commodification of urban space. A place is defined as underused or dilapidated so that it can be redeveloped to extract a financial return from this undervalued urban commodity.
In the case of public housing estates, they are not defined as dilapidated to provide much needed maintenance, or as underused to increase the public (i.e. affordable) housing supply. Estate redevelopments do not revitalise the rights of poor urban populations.
Instead, they label these urban spaces as “economically unproductive” and the tenants as socially dysfunctional. Both the housing stock and tenants are thought of as dilapidated.
Announcing a public housing estate redevelopment by <a target="_blank" href="https://theconversation.com/funding-the-future-after-the-demise-of-ppps-18869">public-private partnership</a> in 2005 the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer">state government</a> said, “much of the public housing stock is either at the end of its economic life or requires significant refurbishment”. They suggested that public housing estates were “burdened with more than their share of problems, made worse by low concentrations of private housing”.
During redevelopments, changing the housing-tenure profile or dispersing tenants across the city in pursuit of global city credentials, irrespective of the disruptions to the often long-term residents of these estates, is justified.
Australia needs a new housing vision
The strategy’s criterion for defining urban spaces as underused or dilapidated means public housing and tenants are viewed as part of the city’s dilapidated past. It also reinforces private and non-government housing as part of the city’s global future.
Infilling affordable housing projects into the parts of the city where it is most needed has generated strong local opposition within this context. This threatens the rights of low-income citizens to long-term affordable housing in the city.
Reducing public housing supply, increasing non-government housing supply or providing <a target="_blank" href="https://theconversation.com/why-falling-house-prices-arent-the-calamity-the-media-would-have-you-believe-4547">taxation concessions</a> for mum and dad investors and developers has not addressed the housing affordability problem in Sydney.
Australia needs a new housing vision from which progressive affordable housing policies can be built. A vision that is not conditional on private housing subsidies and the privatisation of public property.
Dallas Rogers is a research fellow with the Urban Research Centre within the University of Western Sydney’s School of Social Sciences and Psychology.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydneys-global-vision-bad-news-for-local-housing-affordability-22761">original article</a>.
<img width="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/22761/count.gif" height="1" alt="The Conversation">
</body></html>

Dallas Rogers

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News