Economic Reform

<html><body>
Up until now it’s very clear that federal and state politicians do not want a debate on property markets as they well know that a major overhaul is what’s required – consumers would be much better off and government revenues would be significantly reduced.
This would explain why the last significant taxation review in Australia, happened back in 2000, with the introduction of the goods and services tax (GST).
In 2008, the then Rudd Government commissioned the Henry Tax Review which was then published in 2010 – this was supposed to be Australia’s tax system reforms for the next ten to twenty years. Sadly, this review was binned and never saw the light of day as it threatened the longevity of a politician’s career. More recently, Ken Henry had another attempt to shed light on Australia’s housing affordability woes – the recommendations were immediately muted.
In December 2016, the Turnbull government completed its 20-month inquiry into home ownership in Australia. The conclusion was that Australia had no structural problem with housing affordability! This would have to be the most embarrassing finding over the last decade of Australian politics.
Australia urgently needs a property inquiry that does not include politicians or banks – this must be independent with the findings released six months before the next federal election. Then constituents can decide who they will vote for based on these findings, and the logical person to head this is Ken Henry, although our elected politicians would cringe at such a thought.
 
The Turnbull Government sixteen months ago agreed to implement many of the findings from the Murray recommendations relating to bank competition – to this day the legislation has been ignored despite publicly agreeing to act. Much like the Turnbull Government announcing that the Productivity Commission would formally investigate an inquiry into bank competition- this too, has mysteriously disappeared.
Treasurer Scott Morrison indicated this week that the government was working on a housing affordability package in the May federal budget although he has effectively ruled out most of the solutions available that must be included.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/03/10/House-Prices-since-GFC.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/03/10/House-Prices-since-GFC.png" alt="">
Australia’s big banks testified at a parliamentary inquiry into banking this week and all found to much amazement that Australia’s property prices aren’t over-inflated. Of course, they are going to say that because if they said they hold grave fears (which they all do) then there would be a huge sell-off of their respective shares. Like just what are these inquiries supposed to achieve? Maybe a lie detector would be an intelligent start – where this graph has the banks not remotely concerned.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/03/10/Mortgage-Nation.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/03/10/Mortgage-Nation.png" alt="">
Again the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) left the cash rate at 1.50 per cent which takes me to a topic that I have written about – why does Australia have a one fit cash rate that fits all property markets? SGS Economics principal Terry Rawnsley announced that they found if interest rates were presently set for each state and territory that there would be massive variations across Australia. Sydney would currently be at 3.75 per cent, Melbourne would be 3.50 per cent, Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart at 0.25 per cent and Perth at 0.5 per cent. Why is the RBA not looking at these models? For example, if Sydney was at 3.75 per cent then the variable rate would be at 7.05 per cent – but we all know that this would not be good for the economy and the government’s economic standing in the global economy. I can tell you one thing, if Sydney had a variable rate of 7.05 per cent clearance rates would be half of where they sit today.
These are just a few of the discussions we should be having today, although a fair and true representation can only occur when vested and conflicted parties are not involved in the debate. Rather make the findings, and then have the much-overdue debate.
Although Canberra would rather let you know that they are steering Australia to absolute greatness. In less than a month, April 1 (and this is not an April Fool’s joke) Australia will lay claim and become the titleholder for the longest economic expansion ever recorded before once it posts our 104th quarter of economic growth.
Yep – there is a valid argument why Australia must not have any economic reform and this would explain why economic paralysis has spread so fast and wide in Canberra. They will also tell you this planning and research has enabled Sydney to post the strongest annual growth in house prices since 2003.
My-bad, I am obviously barking up the wrong tree.
ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985. 
He has also been writing real estate blog <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000.
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

The three p’s of property are now political, paralysis and persuasion: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
It’s become a truism of Australian politics that important economic reform peaked in the 1980s and 1990s.
Sometimes the early years of the Howard government in the late 1990s are given credit as well.
This Grattan Institute map of important reforms illustrates the story.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355743/original/file-20200901-18-1sru2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355743/original/file-20200901-18-1sru2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 Notes: Reforms that were not passed, or that were subsequently substantially wound back or repealed, are shown shaded out. A/T/M = Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison. FTAs = Free Trade Agreements. PBO = Parliamentary Budget Office. GBE = Government Business Enterprise. CBA = Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Airline IPO = the sale and Initial Public Offering of Qantas in 1993 and 1995. <a class="source" href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2020/08/oecd-track-record/">Access Economics (2019); The Economist (2011); Grattan analysis</a>
<hr>
Indeed, it looks like Australian governments have merely ‘improved’ at unwinding the reforms of their predecessors, and the reforms they propose for themselves.
But it’s possible that this is all just the rosy-hued memories of former <a href="https://www.ceda.com.au/CEDA/media/General/Publication/PDFs/CEDA-Top-10-Speeches-of-2017-Paul-Keating-Final.pdf">politicians</a>, <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/speech/reflections-on-australias-era-of-economic-reform">public servants</a>, and <a href="https://www.afr.com/opinion/australia-must-rediscover-the-spirit-of-the-1980s-reformers-20180222-h0whbg">journalists</a>.
It might also be that today there are fewer policy reforms worth doing – perhaps most of the big ones have already been done.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355750/original/file-20200901-14-m6y0gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355750/original/file-20200901-14-m6y0gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
To test whether previous governments really were better at reform than more recent governments, we would need a running list of reforms proposed in advance, so we could see what proportion were adopted.
Between 1972 and 2018, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development produced 31 <a href="https://www.oecd.org/economy/australia-economic-snapshot/">Economic Surveys of Australia</a> – roughly one every 18 months.
Each publication put forward reforms that the OECD believed would increase economic growth and living standards.
The good old days were better
Our <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2020/08/oecd-track-record/">analysis of the full series</a> finds that between 1984 and 2001 the overwhelming bulk of these recommendations were taken up by the Hawke and Keating governments, and by the Howard government in its first two terms.
But from roughly 2003 onwards, the record is a lot more patchy: many more of the reforms recommended by the OECD have been either rejected, only partially implemented, or (in the case of carbon pricing) implemented and then unwound.
<hr>
Fate of OECD Economic Survey recommendations
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355776/original/file-20200901-24-wqmkwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355776/original/file-20200901-24-wqmkwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> 
Policies that the OECD recommended but which ran into the sand include reducing the gap between the company tax and top personal income tax rates, implementing a mining resource rent tax, reviewing negative gearing, creating competitive neutrality among Australian ports, aligning the eligibility ages for superannuation and the age pension, including more of the value of owner-occupied housing when calculating eligibility for the age pension, and raising Newstart.
 
A number of other proposed reforms continue to sit in the too-hard basket, including increasing the rate and coverage of the goods and services tax, swapping stamp duties for property taxes, congestion charging for roads, and the use of smart meters for time-of-day electricity pricing.
An imperfect measure, that tells us something
As a means to evaluate the history of reform, the OECD Economic Surveys aren’t perfect, but they’re guide.
It’s true that the scope and number of OECD recommendations has expanded over time, but that expansion was already underway during the Hawke/Keating and Howard eras.
And it’s arguable that these days, the OECD recommends smaller reforms - it certainly recommended many more between 1997 and 2010.
It’s likely that the OECD’s recommendations are partly influenced by the views of the government of the day. But many recommendations have been suggested under one government and implemented by the next.
And while OECD recommendations aren’t gospel, many policy experts support most of them. For instance, all of the policies that are on the OECD’s continuing wish-list are <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/commonwealth-orange-book-2019/">also advocated</a> by the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/state-orange-book-2018/">Grattan Institute</a>.
Our review of what happened after the OECD surveys is broadly consistent with popular wisdom, or at least the recollections of old men (usually men) that the good old days really were better.
 
And it is consistent with work in progress by <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/official-reform-efforts-hit-multi-decade-low-20200811-p55kp9">Alphabeta</a> reviewing the history of Australian economic reform.
Our review also shows that it often takes a long run-up of research, advocacy, and detailing before a government implements a major reform. Many reforms were only implemented after sitting on the slate for well over a decade, including the goods and services tax, lower tariffs, a more flexible award system, lower company tax, and competition in utility industries. Reforms often require patient advocacy.
It’s hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Australia has got worse at it. But our review of the OECD’s recommendations for Australia over the past 48 years is consistent with the oft-cited view that governments in the most recent 20 years have rejected many more significant reforms than governments in the 20 years before them.
There’s plenty still on the slate for the 20 years to come.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870">John Daley</a>, Senior Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rory-anderson-1151011">Rory Anderson</a>, Researcher, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-economic-reform-the-old-days-really-were-better-we-checked-145296">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Economic Reform

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Economic Reform

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News