Government

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Urban Development Institute of Australia commends the State Government for introducing new strata laws that bring the NSW scheme into the 21st century.
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Strata managers, developers and property legal professionals have been working with the government over the past four years to reach an outcome that reflects modern day society. 
The strata laws under which we have been operating are the oldest in the world so the system was in desperate need of an upgrade. 
The exponential growth in the popularity of strata ownership means that reform was essential to bring strata line with modern life. 
This is a fantastic outcome that will give owners of apartments more flexibility to renew dilapidated apartment buildings which are costly to maintain. 
And these new laws will give owners the opportunity to make more profit from the collective sale of a strata development then if they were to go it alone. 
As the Bills do not apply to existing strata schemes, only future strata schemes with current strata owners having the option to opt in, so it will take time to see material change in the NSW system. 
And in reality any collective sale of the strata development is complex and will take up to two years to achieve. The sale would have to go through courts and those in opposition will have the opportunity to argue their case. 
 
Stephen Albin is the Chief Executive Officer of the Urban Development Institute of Australia NSW and can be contacted <a href="https://www.udiansw.com.au/pages/home" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

New strata laws bring NSW into modern day: UDIA's Stephen Albin

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Suspicion of Chinese corporations investing in Australia is not well justified when you consider the growth of private enterprise in China and the state of the Chinese Communist Party.
The fierce public debate about Chinese corporations investing in Australia is spurred by several misleading ideas about how much control the Chinese government has and its intervention with private businesses. 
The fact is, massive privatisation has been ongoing in China since the 1980s, involving millions of business enterprises. Currently around 70 percent of Chinese industrial output is now produced by non-state controlled business firms, and over 80 percent of the industrial workforce in China is now employed in the private sector. 
Private enterprises have been the growth engine of the Chinese economy, providing 95 percent of the growth of the urban workforce in the past three decades, and many now compete with state-owned conglomerates for brand recognition and size. Inevitably, private firms have started expanding overseas to find new markets and diversify their investments.
A common claim is that despite many Chinese investors being private corporations, they are still effectively controlled by the governmentthrough the Chinese Communist Party.
It’s true that if there are more than three party members within any organisation in China, those members have the right to set up a Communist Party branch. This includes employees of private corporations, and there are currently party branches within approximately 13 percent of private Chinese firms, a figure which rises to 53.1% among larger private firms. 
But this does not necessarily result in party control over those corporations’ business decisions. Li Zhangzhu, the Deputy Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party branch within Yuanfang Group, a large private firm based in Henan Province, declared:
"What the boss of a private enterprise cares about most is business results. The boss will only pay attention to and support [Chinese Communist Party] building if it helps to promote the growth of the business and increases profits."
Academic Bruce Dickson found that attempts to build the Communist Party’s presence in the private sector actually promoted private business interests rather than those of the party’s leadership. 
The Communist Party simply cannot afford to alienate private entrepreneurs because it relies on them to deliver continuing economic growth and provide employment. Without this the party would lose its legitimacy and power. 
A recent survey of several hundred private Chinese corporations by Fan Xia of Shandong University found that if there was a time conflict between an activity scheduled by the firm’s Communist Party branch and their regular work duties, 91.8% of CCP members in private firms would not participate in the party activity unless their CEO gave them permission. 
Another assumption is that the party and the central government control Chinese society with an iron fist). In fact, there is plenty of evidence of massive corruption and policy divisions that cast doubt on whether the party can even control itself. 
In the current anti-corruption campaign, more than 447,000 Communist Party officials have been investigated since 2012, with over 230,000 of these criminally prosecuted in the courts, ranging from the lowest level apparatchiks right up to politburo (policy-making) members, Supreme People’s Court justices and military generals.
Some senior Communist Party officials have been convicted for accepting bribes totalling tens of millions of dollars, according to Chineseand Western media sources.
Many of these bribes were paid in return for promotions within the Party hierarchy or government bodies. For instance, 45 representatives were expelled from the National People’s Congress in September 2016, after evidence emerged that they had used bribery to obtain their nominations; and 454 delegates (out of 612) were expelled from the Liaoning Provincial People’s Congress for similar reasons. 
Research suggests that the party has lost control over its own personnel system and cannot guarantee that its officials are competent or honest. It also explains why a government communique in 2016 referred to many “dangers” that may threaten the very existence of the party, “including the slacking of officials, incompetence, isolation from the people and corruption”.
Contrary to the popular misconception that China is a highly centralised state, few laws and policies are enforced in a uniform way throughout the country. 
For example, in Shenzhen, a Southern Chinese city with over 10 million people, half the buildings within the city have no legal titles and have been rented or sold to millions of people illegally. Relying on the illegal private housing market was the only way for the local government to provide sufficient housing for the millions of migrants arriving in Shenzhen from other parts of China over the past three decades.
This example of decentralised decision-making also counters another assumption about large-scale investment by private Chinese firms in Australia - that it’s part of a “unified” Chinese government strategy to undermine our national security. 
In fact, outward foreign investment from China has become increasingly decentralised, so that the vast majority of investments under US$1 billion are now approved at provincial or municipal government levels. There is also a lot of competition between different Chinese regions and provinces in seeking the economic benefits of investment overseas. 
There needs to be more acknowledgement of the complexity of the influences at play within Chinese corporations rather than just jumping to the conclusion that all are controlled by the Chinese government. Especially if these businesses are bringing economic benefits by investing in Australian businesses and infrastructure.
Colin Hawes is associate professor, University of Technology Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/colin-hawes-111743" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

China’s private companies are unjustly labeled as Communist Party plants: Colin Hawes

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
On Monday, a scarifying account of Tony Abbott’s prime ministership appears in the bookshops. By journalist Niki Savva, The Road to Ruin: How Tony Abbott and Peta Credlin Destroyed Their Own Government will paint a graphic picture of political disaster.
In recent days we’ve seen Abbott step up to an intense level of activity. A 4000-word essay for Quadrant defending his government. A well-publicised dinner with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and effective endorsement of Japan’s bid for the submarine contract. Condemnation of the Safe Schools anti-bullying program in media comments.
And, most significant of all, an intervention in the tax debate at Tuesday’s Coalition partyroom meeting – the first time since losing the leadership he has weighed in at that forum on policy.
Some around the government see a link between the imminent appearance of the Savva book and what Abbott is doing – an attempt at putting his version of the past and seeking, to the extent possible, to erect firewalls. Regardless of whether they’re right, Abbott’s decision to inject himself into the tax debate has significant implications for Malcolm Turnbull.
Abbott is not a threat to Turnbull. But in the context of the volatile tax issue and a vociferous backbench, the amplified voice of a former leader is unhelpful.
Consider where Turnbull is on tax. With the GST change now overboard, he has had to retreat to a modest package. Options still on the table include trimming superannuation concessions, tightening negative gearing, and overhauling deductions, with proceeds used for limited income-tax cuts.
Given previous expectations about reform, many would find the result disappointing even if the government took up all these options. But some backbenchers are pushing back hard especially on negative gearing, buttressing their case by the argument – with obvious attractions for Turnbull – that it is easier to demolish Labor’s policy if the government stays with the status quo.
That was a point Abbott made strongly in the partyroom, when he endorsed the view of a colleague who had expressed discomfort about talk of capping negative gearing.
According to the regular post-meeting briefing, Abbott reminded the partyroom of “two truisms” – that “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem”, and “you can’t reduce taxes by raising taxes”. He said Turnbull in parliament had “brilliantly” destroyed the ALP’s tax proposals. But the corollary, he warned, was that the Coalition could not go down the same path itself – or its words would come back to haunt it.
Abbott instead urged the government go down the savings path; savings were very difficult, as the 2014 budget showed, “but we have to revisit that task”.
In another burst of wicked flattery, he said that with Turnbull’s communications skills and the new team, “this can be done and this is the challenge”. “We’re a low-taxing, small-government party, and these are the fundamentals for the cabinet to consider as we finalise the tax package.”
In a return of mutually insincere compliments, Turnbull said leadership was about both continuity and change, and many of the things the Turnbull government was doing represented continuity from the leadership shown by Abbott. He told Abbott that “Scott Morrison and I are completing the process of looking right across the board in our review of the tax system, which you and Joe Hockey started … continuing the process that you, Tony, so openly and courageously began.”
Turnbull finished by congratulating Abbott for opening up the tax debate. It was convenient to overlook that Morrison only recently said that when the new team came in, work had to start on a plethora of options which had been previously taken off the table.
One of those was negative gearing, which Abbott had not wanted touched, despite the inclination of Hockey. At least Abbott is being consistent in saying it should be protected, albeit either disingenuous or weak-headed in suggesting the new salesmen could sell extensive spending cuts before an election.
On negative gearing, the government has turned mute. Morrison is on record about its “excesses”. But Turnbull declined to be drawn on what they are, as the opposition pursued him on Tuesday. The normally imperturbable Finance Minister Mathias Cormann was uncomfortable when pushed on excesses. “The treasurer can talk for himself. I am the finance minister – I look after the expenditure side of the budget.”
Earlier at the party meeting, Morrison, still desperate to get enough money to address – even in a small way – bracket creep, said: “When it comes to tax policy we are dancing on the top of a pin head. We have very few options. There is no burden-free decision in the tax debate. If you choose not to act, you will nevertheless be acting by default and increasing the income tax rate through bracket creep.
“Let no-one think that doing nothing on the tax debate is without consequences.”
A frustrated Morrison might feel he’s on a pin head. For Turnbull – with Tuesday’s Essential poll joining Newspoll in having the Coalition and Labor tied on 50-50 – it feels more like a barb-wire fence.
Michelle Grattan is professorial fellow, University of Canberra and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-grattan-20316" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull wield swords of flattery in negative gearing tax face-off

<html><body>
When Australia’s head cashier Joe Hockey proudly announced that he had nailed an illegal foreign purchase with the $39.000 million sale of Villa del Mare or Villa del Nightmare as I prefer to call it he would not have realised he had opened the largest can of worms in Australian property history. Mark my words this is a now a major election issue that must be intelligently resolved given what is actually happening now is unprecedented and will cost a party an election if it continues to go unchecked and ignored.
I have said for many years now that the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) is right up there in terms of the most hopeless departments in Canberra. As was the case with Villa del Mare you don’t need to contact FIRB all you need to do is just buy it and if investigated once the divestment order is issued just phone a friend (as was the case with Villa del Mare) and transfer the property into an Australian residents name – which is totally legal and requires no further questions. 
This now opens the flood gates for all illegal purchases to follow suit as this is the legal precedent thanks to this approved divestment order. We can also expect criminals from all over the world will be eyeing Australian real estate as a wonderful vehicle to wash the proceeds of crime. What we have now is a person on unemployment benefits can appear as the owner on say a twenty plus million dollar home due entirely to the many legal loopholes. 
When we look back on federal governments in action we note that they only act quickly on three things – terrorism, natural disasters and wars. When you look at what’s happening to Australian property you could say that today it has a bit of all three in its DNA. 
The burning question is how do you fix this to ensure that the loopholes are closed once and for all? Well that’s easy as I have always been mystified as to why federal governments are so backwards and lazy in keeping records on Australian property. 
All that needs to be done is when a property exchanges the lawyer or conveyancer immediately after exchange logs onto the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) website under Australian Property Register (password protected of course) and provides the name(s) of the purchaser, their address, who acted for them, the address of the property and wait for it – their tax file number. Then the ATO can wash this data as well as providing the information to the FIRB for review. 
If you have a divestment order and the owner phones a friend to transfer the property into their name in order to hold onto the property. Then Joe Hockey should immediately get rid of his stupid $5,000 fee on a foreign purchase and replace it with an annual Federal Property Holding Tax at 1.75% of the calculated land value. In the case of Villa del Mare that would be a $525,000 annual tax – so get the foreign buyers to assist Australia in getting its budget back to surplus faster.
But sadly it’s just not that simple given from July 1 the Abbott government is set to release its Premium Invest Visa (PIV), which is for sale at $15 million. Once an applicant has completed their PIV and handed over the required $15.000 you are rewarded with permanent residency in less than twelve months. The PIV replaces the SIV (Significant Investor Visa) which required $5.000 million investment over a four year term to then get permanent residency. You could be excused for asking oneself just who exactly does the SIV and PIV benefit? But I’m sure you already know the answer to that. 
In the meantime the House of Representatives Economics Committee has announced a “new” inquiry into home ownership. I find that simply fascinating given none of them would actually know what exactly they are looking for. The Chair of the Committee, John “Love ‘n Deuce” Alexander, said that ‘home ownership is an issue that lies at the core of the Australian dream and represents the largest investment that most taxpayers will make during their lifetime.
The importance of this issue throughout our nation makes it worthy of a detailed inquiry.’ Well isn’t that riveting? Submissions to the inquiry are requested by 26 June 2015, and the proposed reporting date is 03 December 2015. 
Oh I get it the Abbott government will release its action plan just before the next election. See I told you foreign ownership is an election issue. 
I wonder what will happen when I email them this blog titled ‘My Submission’.
MOSMAN – 2088
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 102
• Number of houses on the market last week – 57
• Number of houses on the market this week – 57
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 72
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 50
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 49
CREMORNE – 2090
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 7
• Number of houses on the market last week – 3
• Number of houses on the market this week – 4
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 27
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 13
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 10
NEUTRAL BAY – 2089
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 7
• Number of houses on the market last week – 3
• Number of houses on the market this week – 3
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year– 48
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 31
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 27
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

Feds should hang up on the ‘phone a friend’ loophole: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
With another federal election now passed all the political rhetoric about infrastructure will be buried until the next election in three years’ time. Sadly, in Australia our elected governments are only interested in the one thing – taxes.
Since the early 1980’s politicians have conveniently discussed the construction of a high – speed rail link along the east coast where typically nothing has happened, although you can be guaranteed that it will be mentioned again prior to the next federal election. In 2013 the High Speed Rail Study Phase 2 Report estimated that a conventional High Speed Rail Express trip from Sydney to Melbourne would take 2 hours and 44 minutes (about the same time it takes to check into an airport). Sydney to Brisbane would take 2 hours and 37 minutes. Again these reports end up in the too hard basket.
Sydney is now recording the highest prices ever recorded with no signs of easing as the official cash rate keeps going down and this will be the case for easily the next decade. What is urgently required is a high – speed rail link from Sydney to Newcastle and Sydney to the Southern Highlands then to Wollongong. This is the only feasible way that property prices will ease given it’s now urgently required that these three cities are inter – connected.
In 2013 CoreLogic reported that the number of Australian suburbs with a median home value in excess of one million dollars was 264. Their latest data now indicates that this has now jumped to 570.
To provide a frightening case study in June 1992 I sold a home in Ourimbah Road Mosman for $320,000. Every two years I provide the owners with an updated weekly rental and value as the subject property is in a Superannuation Fund. In 2002, our estimated value was $775,000 to $800,00 with a rental of $600.00 to $700.00 per week. In 2006, our estimated value was $1,150,000 to $1,250,000 and the rental $900.00 to $925.00 per week. In 2014, our estimated value was $1,550,000 to $1,600,000 and the rental $1,500.00 to $1,600.00 per week. This week I assessed the property for 2016, our estimated value was $2,300,000 to $2,500,000 and the weekly rental was now $1,800.00 to $2,000.00 per week.
Little wonder the retiring Reserve Bank of Australia governor Glenn Stevens had plenty to say this week on the Australian economy in his farewell speech. Ultimately, low interest rates could only do their job when “someone somewhere has both the balance sheet capacity and the willingness to take on more debt and spend.” Obviously aimed at the federal government to start building better infrastructure in Australia. Private sector debt in Australia for companies equates to 125 per cent of GDP where the government’s debt sits at 40 per cent of GDP.
It’s quite simple that the Sydney property market needs to expand to Newcastle, Hunter Valley, Southern Highlands and Wollongong. Our federal government is spending money on public servants and social services with very little going into new infrastructure which would then drive development, employment and ease the ever growing property prices. Sydney in this instance would be the perfect test case to identify that if you get all the market machinations right you can ease property prices.
The only problem with this is that nobody wants to push and prod the elected governments of the day into direct action. It’s high time politicians became accountable instead of prime ministers claiming the mantle as being the infrastructure prime minister. In a report on High Speed Rail I read: “fast trains to connect the eastern seaboard cities of Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane are feasible, practical and profitable today. The project can be done for about $30 billion, about a quarter of the cost estimated on old paradigms in 2013. And it can be done in less than seven years, not the 30 to 35 years previously suggested.”
“The trains could be the 21st century equivalent of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, and would need little or no direct government funding.”
So one needs to ask the question – why then is nothing happening? Unfortunately, the answer may well be that Australian politicians have no train of thought.
<h5>MOSMAN – 2088</h5>
Number of houses on the market this time last year – 47
Number of houses on the market last week – 42
Number of houses on the market this week – 51
Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 41
Number of apartments on the market last week – 41
Number of apartments on the market this week – 44
<h5>CREMORNE – 2090</h5>
Number of houses on the market this time last year – 2
Number of houses on the market last week – 7
Number of houses on the market this week – 10
Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 18
Number of apartments on the market last week – 17
Number of apartments on the market this week – 16
<h5>NEUTRAL BAY – 2089</h5>
Number of houses on the market this time last year – 2
Number of houses on the market last week – 7
Number of houses on the market this week – 8
Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 25
Number of apartments on the market last week – 20
Number of apartments on the market this week – 20
ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">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/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000.
</body></html>

Blame our governments for high property prices: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
At a time where it would seemingly be an unfortunate game of “free-for-all” in the real estate and property arena that has negative-compounding effects on the public, the question remains; what institution or governing body, should take centre stage and curve the unethical practices of many agents, by adopting and implementing higher standards in new-training curriculums, before issuing licenses? 
Will it be the Real Estate Institute NSW (REINSW) or should Fair Trading and NSW Government offices alone handle the accreditations and certifications? Perhaps it should only be handled by specialists groups that are privately owned. Bodies that are licensed and empowered by the respective State Government.
No matter what the right or wrong answer may be, one thing is clear: it is presently a free-for-all in training provided to upcoming would-be real estate agents, as it is in the same agent’s behavior in and on their field of practice. It appears the answer is not closer today than it was yesterday. 
The reason for this article continues to center around current practices followed by real estate agents. Behavior that stems from practices adopted by agents in falsely presenting property to market and to bait consumers. Also further alarming discoveries of property not being properly represented. I have heard of property that has sold for 10 percent it’s true worth under a “forced legal auction [campaign]” and this being one of many that warrants further investigation and an article of its own. 
Staying true to this article and not being tempted to discuss our findings about these forced auctions, as I’m sure they will also make a great piece to read later on over another coffee; allow me to briefly discuss the anomalies around our industry’s state of affairs when it comes to training.  
The Real Estate Institute’s role
Admittedly, very little is known about the level and standard of training provided by REINSW. The actual course is not dissimilar to any other certification or licensing course found outside its walls. 
One thing for sure is that there is a common thread occurring, as most of the recipients of allegations and accusations labeled at agents for bad and unethical behavior, are actually members of the REINSW themselves. So the question is, how many have been trained and licensed through the REINSW's classrooms?
Yet, it is the voice of the REINSW that mainly calls on reform and changes to education but it appears in their eyes this will work, only if they are in control of the course curriculum and standards. 
I find it difficult to see how organizations with so much to offer as a lobby group, want to corner the market in so called implementing “ethical-training” measures but only as they see it. I won’t even venture into notions of parliamentary representation as a political party which has come from my friends in office at the REINSW.
My question to REINSW is simple. What other industry organisations and lobby groups train and license the work force they represent? 
The NSW Government
It is no secret and we all understand that our NSW Government Institutions are sadly under-resourced and therefore unable to maintain what I thought was once a well-controlled and monitored training and licensing unit. 
It’s not to say they don’t provide the service through TAFE courses. Again sadly, with privatization, options that are more readily accessed are available and the latter being the path of least resistance to many wanting to enter the industry. It is a no brainer to guess, where the wannabe real estate agents obtain their accreditations from.
The Private Sector
Most of the private Training Facilitators I know are both ethical and provide rigid and structured programs. I say most but despondently not all. 
Sadly, I feel it is in this lack of oversight by the government that some private institutions run what may well be questionable programs and courses to license an individual to sell and manage, the most valuable assets people have. 
However, this oversight cannot be blamed entirely on the current system, again how can governing bodies run proper audits when they are understaffed? 
What I am aware off is this: an audit is conducted on a private facilitator once every 5 years.  Please do tell me how this does not dissuade operators from implementing free-for-all training programs with very little accountability? 
I do not have the answer to what is the ideal solution but: if the real estate institute wants to rule the nest in providing training, again I say clean out your own house before preaching to the masses. If the Private Training Facilitators is the answer, then the governing bodies should implement auditing measures that are less susceptible to low rate training practices. Finally, if the government is to resume control, perhaps it’s also time the Federal Government got involved and laid down the law. Legal requirements with more stringent penalties and levels of accountability and all, before licensing individuals to deal with major assets.  
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

ealmedia-arK4DBYLjS

Curbing the free-for-all mentality of the real estate industry: Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
Back in my distant and naive past, I regarded Time Magazine as a quality publication. It had the aura of authority and integrity in the presentation of global news. Until one day it published an article on a subject I knew well. I was appalled at the inaccuracies and the sensationalism.
It was the worst kind of tabloid journalism in a publication with pretensions to quality. I could never again see the magazine in the same light, because I began to wonder about the authenticity of its information on other subjects.
I’ve just had a similar experience with GetUp. I’ve admired the achievements of the GetUp movement as an expression of people power and I’ve supported many of its campaigns, particularly those related to environment. My support of some of these campaigns was based on the assumption that the arguments they presented were anchored in facts.
That all changed this week when GetUp launched a campaign against negative gearing. I received the GetUp email letter asking for my support and could scarcely believe what I was reading. It was a dishonest and emotive rant littered with falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims.
Sadly, it was based on the kind of misinformation that is rife in real estate media. The people who wrote it are either unethical or incompetent - probably a mix of both.
Everything the organisers of this movement tell me on any subject henceforth will be tainted by the suspicion the information has been distorted or fabricated.
Because that is certainly the case with the “information” presented on negative gearing.
The people who wrote the GetUp statement smelled the blood of Joe Hockey following his alleged gaffe about housing affordability. I say “alleged” because there is nothing in Hockey’s statements (that the key to affording a home is a good job that pays well and enhances your chances of getting a loan) that justifies the media hysteria that followed. Further proof that a rational debate on any subject is beyond the scope of Australian media.
The GetUp statement began with the claim that there are “millions of frustrated first home buyers priced out of a skyrocketing housing market”.
This is plain wrong and easy to disprove. Australia has 8.6 million households, of which 6 million are home-owners and much of the rest (according to the research) are renters by choice. The research shows that 25% of all current residential sales are to first-time buyers, which means around 120,000 households bought their first property in the past 12 months. The two affordability indexes published quarterly indicate affordability overall is strong and, if you remove Sydney from the equation, the best it’s been in 12 years.
It’s impossible on those numbers to substantiate the claim that there are “millions of frustrated first-home buyers” across Australia.
The claim about “a skyrocketing housing market” is patently absurd, given that only one of the eight capital cities has a boom market. Of 16 major markets (eight cities, each with a house market and a unit market), based on the latest annual price data, six are going backwards (prices decreasing), seven have price growth below 3.5% and only one has double-digit growth. One big growth market out of 16 does not, by any definition, constitute a skyrocketing property market.
This suggests the campaign is based on two false premises: that we have a skyrocketing market and that there are millions trying to buy who can’t.
And the GetUp argument goes downhill from there.
It takes a further leap of imagination in claiming that negative gearing is “one of the root causes” of the alleged affordability problem. This, like all the sweeping statements in the GetUp letter, is not supported by any factual evidence.
An 18-month federal parliamentary inquiry was unable to produce any evidence that negative gearing had any bearing on the cost of housing for first-home buyers. The final report said they suspected it might, but couldn’t provide any definitive evidence that it did. After 18 months of inquiry, which included four time extensions.
Then there’s this statement: “Negative gearing forces everyday Aussie home buyers to compete with investors armed with generous tax breaks looking to buy their second or third property. It reduces home ownership and locks many out of the housing market, increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots.”
The claim that investors are commonly buying second or third investment properties is contradicted by ATO data showing that three-quarters of investors own only one property. The statement also assumes that all property investors are negatively-geared, whereas the ATO evidence shows that 640,000 Australians own investment property but don’t claim negative-gearing deductions. I’m one of them.
It further claims: “A massive $4.2B in negative gearing tax breaks per year go to the top 10% of income earners.” That is another lie. There are many different figures bandied about in terms of how much is claimed in negative gearing benefits - the Green have quoted two different figures this week, $2.9 billion and $4.2 billion, but to suggest it all goes to the biggest income earners is, once again, clearly false. The ATO data shows that most Australians who own an investment property earn less than $100,000.
The GetUp statement also lies when it claims: “There's consensus among housing experts and economists that negative gearing is one policy area driving unaffordable housing in Australia.” No such consensus exists, nor anything remotely like it. In my reading of media, those who see a link between negative gearing and housing affordability are very much in the minority, albeit a very noisy one populated by people from the lunatic fringe, like dodgy forecaster Saul Eslake.
Beyond the inaccuracies and sweeping political statements, the GetUp campaign is based on the notion that eliminating negative gearing will somehow make housing cheaper. The process by which that would occur is not explained - possibly because it makes no sense.
There is also the furphy that increasing housing supply will somehow, again miraculously, bring down the cost of housing. There’s evidence that a massive oversupply will cause prices to fall but how we convince large numbers of developers and builders to be willing to lose money to create such a scenario is not explained. There’s no evidence that an orderly increase in supply, which is what we’ve had in Australia for three years now, will lower prices.
There’s also this statement: “The thing about bubbles is that they eventually burst. If we don't take some heat out of the property market now, we could see a crash that would devastate homeowners and investors alike – with dire implications for the Australian economy.” 
Well, actually, no. Media has been writing about alleged bubbles in our property markets – constantly - for the past 15 years but there has been no property crash - which suggests those bubble claims were false. What we have seen throughout history is that boom markets eventually stop growing and prices level out. But we have never seen a crash, not in the history of this nation.
Finally we have this statement: “It’s high time we saw Government leadership to make housing more affordable for all Australians.” But eliminating negative gearing simply won’t achieve it. The tax benefits of a small number of people are not the problem, if indeed there is one.
GetUp has been an interesting experiment in ordinary people using modern media resources to lobby for worthy causes. But they’ve crossed the line with this dishonest and misguided anti-investor campaign and I wonder how many people, like me, will withdraw their support.
TERRY RYDER is the founder of <a href="https://www.hotspotting.com.au/" target="_blank">hotspotting.com.au</a>. You can <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email him</a> or follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter.</a> 
Terry is presenting a free webinar with Property Observer editor at large Jonathan Chancellor on Tuesday June 16 at 12.30pm titled on why research is the key to successful property investing in 2015. Sign up <a href="component/content/article?id=42796" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Government

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Government

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News