Housing Policy

The Commonwealth&rsquo;s expansionary budget is the right approach for the times.

The Commonwealth has led the way with support for new home buyers through its &ldquo;First Home-owners Deposit Scheme&rdquo; which effectively under-writes housing loans for first home buyers with only a 5% deposit. &nbsp;However, this, along with record low interest rates and the relaxation of APRA controls has seen a spike in housing demand

The Budget expands this scheme and creates a new category of beneficiaries with the new Family Home Guarantee which will provide single custodial parents with a step up towards home ownership. There&rsquo;s also more flexibility for older Australians (over 60) who sell their house (generally to down-size after children have moved out) allowing them to deposit up to $300,000 per person into Superannuation.

The Budget also includes the expansion of the &ldquo;First Home Super Saver Scheme&rdquo; which increases the funds that can be withdrawn from Super accounts from $30,000 to $50,000. &nbsp;This, on top of HomeBuilder grants all adds to demand for new homes. But without a big boost in housing supply, borrowing from Super just pumps up the price further.

So Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has a conundrum. &nbsp;Stimulate the economy &ndash; but risk new home prices going up and a backlash from those locked out of the housing market. &nbsp;All of the worthy Commonwealth measures announced in the Budget face particular problem in NSW.&nbsp;

The NSW Planning System dropped the ball and slowed housing approvals down to a crawl just before COVID &ndash; then they failed to use COVID-19 as a chance to catch up. &nbsp;Now there is a massive shortage in supply of land sub-divisions and re-zonings for new homes across Greater Sydney. There is a plan for reform of planning in NSW &ndash; but it won&rsquo;t deliver for years to come. The same bold approach which has driven the Commonwealth is urgently needed in NSW.

What that means is all the extra funding for home buyers just pumps up the price of the existing stock of housing, ironically making home ownership less affordable.&nbsp;

<h2>The real issue for NSW is the supply of new housing.</h2>

The Department of Planning&rsquo;s own forecasts predict 150,000 new homes over the next 4 years in Greater Sydney &ndash; but even this bold prediction, unlikely to be achieved given the Government&rsquo;s refusal to take on NIMBY Councils, falls short of meeting the NSW Government&rsquo;s own Housing Strategy &ldquo;Housing 2041&rdquo; targets which call for 50,000 new dwellings (on average) each year from now till 2041.

The big problem for first home buyers and for the Commonwealth Budget is the NSW planning system.

The Commonwealth needs to get tough with NSW and drive planning reform to increase housing supply. &nbsp;While ever we wait for reform in NSW you can expect that new home prices will continue to rise.

The Commonwealth&rsquo;s increased investment public health, the vaccine roll out, mental health and women&rsquo;s support services is all very welcome indeed.

The Commonwealth investment in in city Infrastructure is also supported &ndash; though one short-coming was the absence of funding to support local infrastructure surrounding the new Western Sydney Airport because the success of this precinct will drive the economy of the nation. With a massive levy of 6.5% (on top of all the other fees and charges) to be applied to the development of employment centres around the airport, the feasibility of development of employment land is called into question and NSW risks missing out on the predicted jobs boom without some support from the Commonwealth.

All up, this is a budget for all Australians. It is very welcome and is strongly supported by the Urban Taskforce.

However, all of the worthy Commonwealth measures announced in the Budget face particular problem in NSW

The Commonwealth’s expansionary budget is the right approach for the times: Tom Forrest

There was one surprise for the housing sector in tonight's federal budget, and three foreshadowed housing measures were made official.

The federal treasurer Josh Frydenberg advised the parliament in his budget speech that new house starts were now at the highest level in 20 years. 

"New loans to first home buyers reached their highest level in nearly 12 years.

"HomeBuilder has been a huge success and our $2 billion investment in affordable housing is bringing on more supply," he said.

"Our housing measures go even further," he added.

"Helping another 10,000 first home buyers build a new home with a 5 per cent deposit.

"Supporting 10,000 single parents to purchase a home with a 2 per cent deposit. 

"Increasing the amount that can be released under the First Home Super Saver Scheme from $30,000 to $50,000.

"Under the Coalition, home ownership will always be supported," he noted.

The budget effectively continued the First Home Low Deposit Scheme for new homes and off the plan acquistions, and tweaked the First Home Super Saver Scheme, and introduced a new scheme for single parents.

The 10,000 Family Home Guarantees will be made available for single parents over the next four financial years.

The Family Home Guarantee will be available regardless of whether that single parent is a first home buyer or previous owner-occupier. 

Applicants have an annual taxable income of no more than $125,000. 

A fact sheet with further information on eligibility criteria will be available on the NHFIC’s website next week.

The surprise announcement was the government will lower the minimum age for the downsizer super contribution from 65 to 60.

“This will allow Australians nearing retirement to make a one-off post-tax contribution of up to $300,000 per person (or $600,000 per couple) when they sell their family home,” the budget documents advised.

“This improves the flexibility for Australians to contribute to their superannuation savings, and may encourage people to downsize sooner and increase the supply of family homes.”

The budgetary measure will be argued as positive for first home buyers and next home buyers by freeing up established housing stock for younger property buyers.

There was a warning after the budget announcement from the Property Council on the long-term economic consequences of idling population growth.
 
"Budget assumptions anticipate that Australia’s population growth will be limited to only 0.2 per cent over in the next financial year. Net overseas migration is forecast at -77,000 in 2021/22, with a return to normal levels of migration not expected until 2024/25," the PCA noted.
 
“The Budget has revealed that our restricted border is the biggest constraint on our economy.
 
“Our lack of growth is going to catch up with us with economic and employment growth expectations slowing over the forward estimates.
 
“Population growth is not an optional extra for Australia’s economy," the PCA said.

The budget also made $15 billion in additional infrastructure commitments including for:

a) the North‑South Corridor in South Australia
b) the Great Western Highway and Newcastle airport in New South Wales
c) the new Melbourne Intermodal Terminal in Victoria 
d) the Bruce Highway in Queensland
e) METRONET in Western Australia
f) highway upgrades in the Northern Territory
g) Light Rail Stage 2A in the Australian Capital Territory and
h) Midland Highway upgrades in Tasmania.

Josh Frydenberg noted that "when construction work began to dry up, HomeBuilder came to the rescue."



jchancellor

Federal Budget formalises three mooted housing measures

<html><body>
Expert Observer


Economists like to talk about “optimal policy instruments” — essentially, policies that achieve their objectives more effectively or efficiently than the alternatives, and have minimal unintended consequences.

Judged by those criteria, the New Zealand government’s recently announced package of <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/300259522/housing-policy-what-the-changes-mean-for-homeowners-investors-firsthome-buyers-renters-and-bach-owners">housing policy instruments</a> is a long way from optimal. You might even call it a shambles.

How so? To the uninformed, the package’s main elements may seem to address the housing affordability crisis by doing several things:

<ul>
<li>
	removing tax deductibility of interest on loans for residential property investments
	</li>
	<li>
	extending the <a href="https://www.ird.govt.nz/property/buying-and-selling-residential-property/the-brightline-property-rule">bright-line test</a> — the period after which the property sale attracts a capital gains tax (CGT) liability — from five to ten years
	</li>
	<li>
	favouring new builds in these tax changes
	</li>
	<li>
	introducing a “changes of use” rule that effectively makes family homes liable to CGT if sold within ten years and rented out for more than one year
	</li>
	<li>
	and raising income and house price caps for the government’s <a href="https://kaingaora.govt.nz/home-ownership/first-home-grant/">First Home Grant</a> scheme.
	</li>
</ul>
If we examine the package in light of the three optimal policy requirements, however, we can see the problems.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson at press conference" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=400&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394390/original/file-20210411-23-15frx4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=503&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w"><figcaption>Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Finance Minister Grant Robertson announce the Labour government’s housing policy changes. GettyImages</figcaption></figure><h2>Achieving the policy’s objective</h2>

Economists have a policy “rule” that to achieve various policy objectives, you need at least as many policy instruments. The housing package is a hodgepodge of inter-related measures, but it has several explicit objectives:

<ul>
<li>
	stabilising house prices
	</li>
	<li>
	facilitating home ownership
	</li>
	<li>
	discouraging (ill-defined) speculative investment
	</li>
	<li>
	increasing the housing stock with mainly (undefined) “affordable homes”
	</li>
	<li>
	closing what the government claims is a housing “tax loophole”.
	</li>
</ul>
To these, add implicit objectives of tackling perceived income and wealth inequalities between tenants, landlords and homeowners.

Overall, this is quite a task, and it would be remarkable if any set of housing policies could achieve such wide-ranging objectives.

Arguably, the primary target of this policy package is stopping the <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/124692627/national-house-price-up-by-more-than-100000-since-early-2020">inexorable upward march</a> of (mainly Auckland) house prices. Failing to achieve that would simply put it among a long line of attempts by previous governments (National and Labour) over the past 20 years at least.

In all cases, the biggest problem has been insufficient political commitment to boosting housing supply.

<h2>Unintended consequences</h2>

All taxes cause “distortions”, mostly unintended, which need to be mitigated. Furthermore, policies that have conflicting objectives are “incoherent” and typically among the most distorting. This applies to the housing package’s removal of interest deductibility.

Previously, in New Zealand and almost every other country, interest on business loans is treated as a legitimate expense and therefore tax deductible, regardless of the nature of that business.

With that coherent principle now not applying to housing, then, what about other types of business loans the government thinks it should favour or disfavour? No doubt arguments could be made for such policies, but the result is an ad hoc tax system that generates multiple undesirable distortions and perverse incentives.

It could be argued the “new build” aspect of the housing package gets some incentives right by directing rental housing investment toward increasing the housing stock.

But with already existing constraints on new house building — such as planning regulations and availability of suitable land — the policy is likely to have little impact. It will simply shift housing investors from competing with first-time buyers for existing properties to competing with them for new properties.

Over time the rental housing stock becomes a patchwork of homes that do or don’t qualify for tax exemptions. Exploiting these new loopholes and assorted distortions to property prices will likely provide plenty of employment for tax accountants.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
'Free money' for landlords: Rent controls needed to protect vulnerable people from rent increases, say advocates <a href="https://t.co/lJ4XvaAjBH">https://t.co/lJ4XvaAjBH</a> <a href="https://t.co/UTQVOWegpW">pic.twitter.com/UTQVOWegpW</a>
— Stuff (@NZStuff) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/NZStuff/status/1379480197972430848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 6, 2021</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><h2>A back door capital gains tax</h2>

It would be rare to find a liability based on transactions and timing among the principles of a good tax policy. But the bright-line test manages both — it incentivises delaying property sales to avoid the tax even when selling would otherwise be in the taxpayer’s best interest.

It was originally introduced in 2010 with a two year threshold, without supporting evidence, supposedly to stop so-called speculators from flipping properties for quick profits. A ten year threshold cannot be branded an anti-speculation policy, it is simply a back-door CGT.

As with most back-door policies, this CGT is inevitably less transparent and coherent than a policy designed to tackle the problem head-on would be.

Consider the hypothetical case of an Auckland homeowner relocating to Sydney to work for two years. It wouldn’t be sensible to sell the Auckland house due to high transaction costs and the risk of slipping on the property ladder when trying to buy back later. Much better to rent in Sydney while also renting out the Auckland home.

But this would now generate a potentially substantial tax bill on the family home. Indeed, <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300260832/how-the-government-is-changing-rules-for-renting-out-your-main-home-and-the-brightline-test?rm=a">one calculation</a> showed just such a plausible scenario could generate a CGT liability of almost a year’s salary — simply to move to a similarly priced house.

<h2>Alternative policy instruments</h2>

If there are better alternatives, they do not lie in even more ad hoc fiddling with a coherent tax regime.

Instead, like the famous real estate mantra of “location, location, location”, the mantra for New Zealand housing policy should be “supply, supply, supply”. Specifically, supply in Auckland.

Successive governments have aimed policies nationwide when rapid house price inflation is almost exclusively urban and essentially an Auckland phenomenon.

Without policies that reform construction sector regulations and open up more land for urban housing, there is little prospect of Auckland house prices stabilising while current demand-driven trends persist. To make matters worse, the government’s first-home buyer schemes will merely raise demand without incentivising supply.

With too many objectives and the probability of numerous unintended consequences, the government’s housing policies risk being seriously incoherent.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/158768/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important" width="1">

 

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/new-zealands-new-housing-policy-is-really-just-a-new-tax-package-and-its-a-shambles-158768">original article</a>.

 

Related Projects:

[smartcode_project:default project_id=7275]

[smartcode_project:default project_id=95292]
</body></html>

Without making housing supply the priority, the government's tax-based policies create more objectives than they can reasonably achieve

max.kwok_55688

New Zealand’s new housing policy is really just a new tax package — and it’s a shambles

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/82579/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Various government policies have fuelled the demand for housing over time, expanding the wealth of older home owners and pushing it further and further beyond the reach of young would-be home buyers. 
A new study highlights this divide between millennials and their boomer parents.
The study is part of a Committee of Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) report called Housing Australia. It compares trends in property ownership across age groups over a period of three decades. 
Between 1982 and 2013, the share of home owners among 25-34 year olds shrunk the most, by more than 20%. On the other hand, the share of home owners among those aged 65+ years has risen slightly. 
The rate of renting has spiralled among young people. By 2013, renting had outstripped home ownership among 25-34 year olds.
<h2>Same policies, different impacts on generations</h2>
There is undoubtedly a growing intergenerational divide in access to the housing market. The timing of policy reforms has been a major driver of this widening housing wealth gap. 
Negative gearing has long advantaged property investors, potentially crowding out aspiring first home buyers. While negative gearing was briefly quarantined in 1985, this was repealed after just two years. 
The appeal of negative gearing grew as financial deregulation spread rapidly during the 70s and 80s. This deregulation widened access to mortgage finance, but also pushed real property prices to ever higher levels. 
In 1999, the Ralph review paved the way for the reform of capital gains tax on investment properties. Instead of taxing real capital gains at investors’ marginal income tax rates, only 50% of capital gains were taxed from 1999 onwards, albeit at nominal values. 
The move, designed to promote investment activity, actually aggravated housing market volatility. The confluence of negative gearing benefits and the capital gains tax discount encouraged investors to go into more debt to finance buying property, taxed at discounted rates. The First Home Owners Grant, introduced in 2000, was another lever that increased demand. In the face of land supply constraints, these sorts of subsidies were likely to result in rising house prices.
Other policy reforms, while not directly housing related, have also affected young people’s opportunities to accumulate wealth. 
The Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) was introduced in 1989, at a time when many Gen X’s were entering tertiary education. This ended access to the free education that their boomer parents enjoyed. 
HECS parameters were tightened over time. And in 1997, HECS contribution rates rose for new students and repayment thresholds were reduced.
Of course, the 1992 introduction of the superannuation guarantee would have boosted Gen X’s retirement savings relative to boomers. However, these savings are not accessible till the compulsory preservation age, so can’t be used now to buy a house. 
All these policies have clearly had varying generational impacts, adversely affecting home purchase opportunities for younger generations while delivering significant wealth expansion to older home owners. 
<h2>An intergenerational housing policy lens</h2>
A new housing landscape has emerged in recent years. It is marked by precarious home ownership and long-term renting for young people. 
It’s also dominated by a growing wealth chasm – not just between the young and old – but also between young people who have access to wealth transfers from affluent parents and those who do not.
The majority of housing related policies do not consider issues of equity across generations. There are currently very few examples of potential housing reforms that can benefit multiple generations. 
However, there is one policy that could - the abolition of stamp duties. It would remove a significant barrier to downsizing by seniors.
The equity released from downsizing would boost retirement incomes for seniors, while freeing up more housing space for young growing families. Negative impacts on revenue flowing to government could be mitigated by a simultaneous implementation of a broad based land tax. This would in turn push down house prices. 
As life expectancies increase, the need for governments to take into account policy impact on different generations is critical. On the other hand, policies that take a short-term view will only worsen intergenerational tensions and entrench property ownership as a marker of distinction between the “haves” and “have nots” in Australia.
Rachel Ong is deputy director of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachel-ong-113482" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

How governments have widened the gap between generations in home ownership

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Under pressure to tackle deepening housing affordability problems, Treasurer Scott Morrison has included various housing policy measures in his budget, some relating to Australia’s small sector of social and affordable housing.
One headline-grabber is the creation of a new entity, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC). This will source private funds for on-lending to affordable housing providers to finance rental housing development. However, the bigger issue for the sector remains federal and state funding.
This public funding is the money that, along with tenants’ rents, co-funds state and territory housing and homelessness services. Here too Morrison is proposing reform, particularly to the primary federal-state funding arrangement for social and affordable housing, the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA).
A couple of months ago we suggested the NAHA needed a reboot. Recognising the seriously run-down state of the system, we argued for an increase in funding from its present starvation level. Morrison now proposes a new federal-state funding agreement, the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA).
The level of federal funding will be the same as under the old NAHA. But the Commonwealth will press states and territories for action in defined “priority areas”. In effect, this looks like a return to a Canberra-led reform agenda for social and affordable housing unseen since the early Rudd government.
Setting aggregate supply targets
In what appears a significant passage, the budget papers reveal the government’s “priority areas” for the NHHA. We’ll consider these in turn, and then the recurring issue of inadequate funding.
Lack of transparency on the costs incurred by state and territory housing authorities in operating their social housing portfolios has been a particular problem under the NAHA. This is an area where federal engagement is welcome.
All levels of government should be pressed to quantify the level and type of need for housing in the community. And they should be made to set clear “new supply” targets for meeting that need.
That said, the federal government should stop pretending to be shocked at the lack of new social housing delivered by those authorities under the NAHA. The shortfall in NAHA funding has been obvious for years. It simply is too low to bridge the gap between the rents low-income public housing tenants can afford to pay and the costs of properly maintaining the system, let alone growing it to keep pace with rising need.
Residential land development
The stress laid on this issue within the budget policy statement reflects the federal government’s stated concern about “the supply side” of the housing affordability problem. It has framed state government planning controls as an impediment to new housing development.
However, merely loosening requirements and offering existing land owners the prospect of greater development does not ensure it will actually happen.
To ensure land owners don’t just sit on development opportunities speculatively, the federal government should use its NHHA leverage. This could include pushing the states and territories to make greater use of land tax, which would spur development and bring under-utilised land and housing to market.
Inclusionary zoning
Inclusionary zoning is a specific type of planning mechanism. It requires housing developments (above a certain size) to include some proportion of dedicated affordable housing. Ideally, this should be rental housing preserved as “affordable” in perpetuity.
Inclusionary zoning is long established in other countries and has long been demanded by housing advocates in Australia. It is now the subject of increasing interest from planning authorities – for example, the Greater Sydney Commission.
The co-financing arrangements for the NHFIC could incorporate active use of land-use planning powers for inclusionary zoning. Development sites – or developer levy proceeds – could be part of state and territory contributions to funding affordable housing development.
A commitment to build into the NHHA incentives for stepped-up use of inclusionary zoning by state governments is, therefore, very welcome.
However, the budget papers indicate that state compliance with this NHHA expectation might involve not only housing dedicated to affordable rental housing, but also “dedicated first home buyer stock”. This seems to raise the prospect of developers meeting inclusionary zoning requirements simply by reserving some newly built units for first home buyers rather than investors.
The best way to enhance first home buyer prospects vis a vis investor landlords would be to level the playing field by winding back investor negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, not through this kind of tinkering. And to cast such “FHB reservation” initiatives as in any way equivalent to inclusionary zoning for affordable rental housing would be a highly retrograde step.
Renewing affordable housing stock
An interesting inclusion in the proposed terms of the NHHA is a clause about renewing affordable housing stock.
First, it appears positive in acknowledging the need for a public housing overhaul and indicating a new level of federal government interest in making this happen.
At a minimum, states and territories should be required to undertake a comprehensive audit of their existing portfolios. The level of outstanding disrepair has to be costed. They also should identify where renewal can best take place, balancing need for expanded and upgraded housing with sensitive treatment of existing communities.
Second, it indicates federal backing for further transfers of public housing as a growth path for the affordable housing industry. However, as our recent research for AHURI shows, this is feasible only if the operating cost gap is funded.
Past community housing growth through transfers, particularly following the 2009 housing ministers’ commitment to expand community housing to 35% of all social housing, involved an understanding that Commonwealth Rent Assistance, paid through Centrelink to transferred tenants, would help cover that gap.
Without additional funding in the NHHA, a new phase of growth through transfers requires a recommitment by governments to use rent assistance as an effective operational subsidy to community housing providers. A new target and timeframe to replace the 35 percent benchmark also need to be considered.
Homelessness services
Previously the subject of a separate funding agreement (the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness), homelessness services have struggled for years in the face of that agreement’s pending expiry and short-term extensions.
The NHHA will fund homelessness services on an ongoing basis, which the sector has welcomed.
Funding shortfall remains
As we’ve indicated throughout, the objectives of the NHHA – and of the social and affordable housing system generally – will continue to run up against the reality that decent housing of this kind costs more than low-income households can afford to pay.
This applies especially to people living on the miserable level of benefits such as Newstart. A subsidy is required, both to build up the stock and to keep it in good order.
Clearer targets, more transparent cost accounting, and innovations like NHFIC finance won’t bridge the gap. On the contrary, to successfully use those initiatives to build more stock, both state and territory housing authorities and non-government affordable housing providers need a larger subsidy than present funding provides.
The budget has indexed NHHA funding to wages. It would be nice to think that land and housing prices will increase only in line with wages.
In reality, properly funding the growth and maintenance of our social and affordable housing stock will require more than what the federal government is offering.
Chris Martin is research fellow, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chris-martin-203935" target="_blank">here</a>.
Hal Pawson is associate director - City Futures - Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hal-pawson-147969" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Budget 2017 charts new social and affordable housing agenda

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Exactly a decade ago in 2008, the Australian government committed to an ambitious strategy to halve national homelessness by 2020. Through stepped-up early intervention, better homelessness services and an expanded supply of affordable housing, the problem would be tackled with conviction. Instead, as succeeding governments regrettably abandoned the 2008 strategy, homelessness in Australia has been on the rise.
Last week’s federal budget offered no response to this concern. And the problem is fast getting worse, as highlighted in our new Australian Homelessness Monitor, prepared for independent community organisation Launch Housing. Emulating a respected UK annual monitoring project, this report is a comprehensive national analysis of the state of homelessness in Australia together with the potential policy, economic and social drivers of the trends across the country.
Recently published 2016 Census statistics showed a 14% increase in overall homelessness in Australia since 2011. That’s well ahead of the nation’s population growth rate.
Our major cities have seen much larger rises in homelessness. Recent increases have been especially big in Sydney (up 48% since 2011), Darwin (up 36%) and Brisbane (up 32%).
Concerningly, the numbers of people sleeping rough have been growing particularly fast. This, the most visible and extreme form of homelessness, grew nationally by 20% over the 2011-2016 period.
Although offset by periodic rehousing initiatives for long-term street homeless, five-year increases in the municipalities of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide have exceeded the national trend. This was especially true in Melbourne. The 2016 City of Melbourne count showed numbers jumped by more than 200% over this period.
Why are the numbers soaring?
As our report this year highlights, many policies, or policy failures, are implicated in these trends. These include:
<ul>
<li>
social security system changes, such as shifting welfare benefit recipients onto lower payments with more conditions of eligibility, and increased “sanctioning” of claimants
</li>
<li>
incremental long-term impacts of inadequate welfare indexation, which have increasingly eroded the ability of lower-income Australians to afford decent housing
</li>
<li>
criminal justice policies that are increasing the prison population, which leads to a rising rate of prison discharge – a moment when the risk of homelessness is high.
</li>
</ul>
Such developments are critical in a housing market where, by international standards, subsidised social housing provision is minimal. This means the vast majority of Australia’s lower-income population must depend on an increasingly stressed private rental sector in which the stock of low-cost homes is dwindling.
Partly as a result, ABS statistics cited in our report show the proportion of low-income tenants in rental stress has risen from 35% to 44% over the past decade nationally. In New South Wales, it has risen from 43% to 51%. In Victoria, the figure rose from 32% to 47% over the decade.
The geographical pattern of recent homeless changes shows the housing market is driving these changes. Our report finds increases in homelessness have generally been much more rapid in capital cities. Non-metropolitan areas have recorded much lower growth rates, or even reductions.
In another pointer to housing market impacts, increases in homelessness have tended to be higher in the large eastern states. These are the states where economies and property markets have been relatively strong over the past few years. In South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, where these factors have been less evident, the rate of homeless growth has been lower.
So, overall numbers were up by 53% in inner Sydney (2011-2016), but rose by a more modest 21% in Hobart. In contrast, homeless numbers fell by over 30% in remote South Australia and Western Australia.
Governments have let this happen
Despite these stark trends, recent Australian governments, while footing the bill for homelessness services rising well ahead of inflation, have presided over cuts in social and affordable housing.
In its 2014 budget, the Abbott government cancelled the National Rental Affordability Scheme. This was Australia’s last national affordable housing construction program.
An increasingly underfunded social and affordable housing system leads to a burgeoning homelessness support system. The cost of emergency services for those lacking homes has risen by 29% in real terms over the past four years. On its current path, the cost is set to exceed A$1 billion by 2020.
Meanwhile, in the face of deteriorating public housing stock and intensifying shortage, social housing investment by state and territory governments has actually fallen by 7% since 2012-13.
Five years ago, prior to the 2013 federal election, then opposition spokeswoman on housing Marise Payne said “the Coalition’s homelessness plan” was “to abolish the carbon tax, pay down Labor’s debt, generate one million jobs in the next five years and increase our collective wealth so all of us – individuals and charities – have the capacity to help the homeless and those most in need in areas where government is not always the answer”.
While placing faith in philanthropy, such sentiment is underpinned by a stubborn belief that we can rely on market forces to provide suitable and affordable housing for disadvantaged Australians – just as much as for all other citizens. It is clear from the latest statistics that the official approach moulded by this thinking has failed.
What needs to be done?
Looking to the future, the ongoing restructuring of private rental markets seems likely to keep pushing up the numbers of people subject to housing insecurity. The availability of affordable low-rent housing continues to contract.
For any realistic chance of progress, the Australian government needs to reconfirm recognition of homelessness as a social ill that must not be ignored. It needs to re-engage with the problem, starting with a coherent strategic vision to reduce the scale of homelessness by a measurable amount within a defined period. And it needs to recommit to a level of government support that ensures enough social and affordable housing is provided to keep pace with growing need, at the very least.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95376/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Disappointingly, the federal budget provided no indication that such developments are in prospect. Yet squarely tackling Australia’s growing homelessness problem demands recognition that excluding people from safe, secure and affordable housing is effectively a denial of citizenship.
Hal Pawson, Associate Director - City Futures - Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW
Cameron Parsell, Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/homelessness-australias-shameful-story-of-policy-complacency-and-failure-continues-95376" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Homelessness: Australia's shameful story of policy complacency and failure continues

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
What began as a global health crisis in the form of COVID-19 is now also an economic crisis of <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/coronavirus-worst-year-since-great-depression-says-imf/news-story/0e9976bdbd46ebae16d19f8190241467">historic proportions</a>. Much of the housing policy focus during the pandemic has rightly centred on the plight of people who are <a href="https://theconversation.com/homelessness-and-overcrowding-expose-us-all-to-coronavirus-heres-what-we-can-do-to-stop-the-spread-134378">insecurely housed or homeless</a>. Another strand of commentary has focused on a likely <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-01/national-house-prices-march-coronavirus-property-corelogic/12109434">fall in property values</a>.
But what does the pandemic mean for housing market inequalities in Australia? And what are the policy implications?
The renter-owner gap will widen
Despite concerns about house prices plummeting, the spread of COVID-19 is exposing a widening gap in housing markets between those who own zero housing wealth (renters) and those with substantial housing wealth (owners).
Australians with little to no housing wealth were already experiencing at least three key types of vulnerabilities before the pandemic in the form of work insecurity, financial stress and ill-health.
The charts below show the comparisons between renters and home owners in these three categories of vulnerability, using data from the <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda">HILDA Survey</a>. Owners are ranked in quintiles by housing equity, from the bottom 20% (Q1) to the top 20% (Q5).
Renters were much more likely to be unemployed or in casual jobs than people with high housing wealth.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328282/original/file-20200416-140719-139mm6a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328282/original/file-20200416-140719-139mm6a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Note: Sample includes all persons aged 25+ no longer living in their parents’ homes. Housing equity is defined as family home value minus mortgage debt. Population weights have been applied. Author's calculations from 2017 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Survey data, Author provided
Both renters and owners with low housing equity were more likely to have difficulty paying their rent, mortgage and utility bills on time. They were less likely to be able to raise emergency funds when needed.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328285/original/file-20200416-140706-q8u8wo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328285/original/file-20200416-140706-q8u8wo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Note: Sample includes all persons aged 25+ who are no longer living in their parents’ homes. Housing equity is defined as family home value minus mortgage debt. Population weights have been applied. Author's calculations from 2017 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Survey data, Author provided
Renters were also more likely to report poorer physical and mental health.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328286/original/file-20200416-140697-1nqojfc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328286/original/file-20200416-140697-1nqojfc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Note: Sample includes all persons aged 25+ who are no longer living in their parents’ homes. Housing equity is defined as family home value minus mortgage debt. Population weights have been applied. Author's calculations from 2017 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Survey data, Author provided
The spread of coronavirus has added to these existing vulnerabilities. Casual workers have been <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-26/coronavirus-centrelink-unemployment-canberra-jobseeker-casuals/12089532">particularly vulnerable to job loss</a>.
The <a href="https://www.who.int/social_determinants/thecommission/finalreport/key_concepts/en/">social gradient in health</a> is well-known. People on the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder tend to be in poorer health. They are then more likely to develop serious <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/coronavirus-is-exposing-whats-broken-in-australia/12081812">health problems from the coronavirus</a>.
Post-pandemic markets will add to inequalities
COVID-19 is making existing economic inequalities worse. And even in a post-pandemic world it can be expected to slow down wealth accumulation among renters.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2014/sep/2">Hysteresis</a> is a term used to describe an economic event that persists into the future, after the factors that led to the event have disappeared. In labour markets, the long-term unemployed also suffer long-term damage to their job prospects as their skills deteriorate and they are regarded as less employable.
This hysteresis effect will likely spill over into housing markets. Any crisis-driven falls in house prices may be short-term as <a href="https://www.domain.com.au/advice/is-property-still-safe-as-houses-947518/?utm_campaign=strap-masthead&amp;utm_source=the-age&amp;utm_medium=link&amp;utm_content=pos5&amp;ref=pos1">housing values remain relatively insulated</a> by record low interest rates. People who are exposed to job loss, insecure work or ill-health during the crisis will face a greater struggle to regain their economic footing after the pandemic than those from more affluent backgrounds.
This means the wealth-accumulating capacity of people with little to no housing equity is further compromised during and after the pandemic. In short, renters could fall further behind in their ability to buy a home. The gap between the haves and have-nots will grow.
3 principles for post-pandemic policy
An even more unequal housing future for Australia is undesirable. The post-crisis housing debate will need to be conducted with three key elements in mind: equity, solidarity and security.
Equity in access to housing opportunities must not slide off policymakers’ radar. It is not a debatable fact that governments have long provided <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-10/budget-2018-housing-affordability-first-home-owners-millennials/9745672">generous concessions</a> for property buyers. These measures include <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-politicians-hate-the-idea-of-taxing-the-homes-of-the-rich-52973">capital gains tax discounts</a>, family home exemptions from <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-land-value-tax-could-fix-australasias-housing-crisis-49997">land tax</a> and <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/topics/assets/30621">income support means tests</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-game-of-homes-how-the-vested-interests-lie-about-negative-gearing-112222">negative gearing for investors</a>.
These preferential tax treatments have <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-bibliography/other-publications/pre2010/Wood_Stewart_and_Ong_Housing_Taxation.pdf">far exceeded government spending on renters</a>. Notwithstanding the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14036090120617">benefits commonly associated with home ownership</a>, restoring some balance in the distribution of subsidies between owners and renters is essential to narrow the widening chasm between them.
Solidarity between generations will be more crucial than ever before to preserve Australia’s social and economic fabric. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-scott-morrison-is-steering-in-the-right-direction-but-were-going-to-need-a-bigger-boat-135209">surge in national debt</a> created in response to the crisis will likely be a multi-generational burden.
Some might be tempted to return to pitting the young against the old in housing debates. Policy thinking that encourages solidarity, rather than stoking tensions between generations, will be increasingly important. For instance, <a href="https://www.ceda.com.au/CEDA/media/General/Publication/PDFs/HousingAustraliaFinal_Flipsnack.pdf">abolishing stamp duty together with levying land tax on all land</a> will remove a key financial barrier to home purchases for both young first-time buyers and older downsizers.
The formation of the national cabinet to oversee the response to COVID-19 also provides a post-pandemic forum to forge federal-state cooperation on the required reforms. Federal support will be needed to help cover state revenue shortfalls in a <a href="https://www.taxinstitute.com.au/australian-tax-forum/stamp-duties-land-tax-and-housing-affordability-the-case-for-reform">gradual transition to land tax</a>. On the other hand, the release of housing equity by older downsizers should ease <a href="https://theconversation.com/fall-in-ageing-australians-home-ownership-rates-looms-as-seismic-shock-for-housing-policy-120651">pressures on the federal retirement incomes system</a>.
Finally, it is time to reprioritise <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/fs21_rev_1_housing_en.pdf">housing security as a foundation for fostering good health and economic participation</a>. Critical public health measures to avoid the spread of disease, such as social distancing and staying at home, are inherently shelter-related. These measures are rarely achievable for <a href="https://theconversation.com/homelessness-and-overcrowding-expose-us-all-to-coronavirus-heres-what-we-can-do-to-stop-the-spread-134378">people who are homeless or in overcrowded housing</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135808/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachel-ong-viforj-113482">Rachel Ong ViforJ</a>, Professor of Economics, School of Economics, Finance and Property, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-873">Curtin University</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/as-coronavirus-widens-the-renter-owner-divide-housing-policies-will-have-to-change-135808">original article</a>.
</body></html>

As coronavirus widens the renter-owner divide, housing policies will have to change

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Transforming Housing research network recently held a workshop on how the Victorian government can maximise the social benefits of its Public Housing Renewal Program. The workshop attracted more than 100 participants – local government, non-profit housing providers, public housing residents and researchers. Despite being invited, the state government was notable for its absence.
This apparent reluctance to engage with stakeholders adds to a serious concern over government secrecy about social housing projects involving private developers. There are many basic pieces of information interested members of the public might want to find out but cannot.
The number of private units versus new public units, and the size of the units, is just one example. Another example involves the government target of an increase of “at least 10%” in social housing units on former public housing land sold to developers. There has been no discussion of the rationale behind that figure.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204132/original/file-20180131-38190-1byb13k.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The development potential of sites such as the old Northcote housing estate is clear, but the public has no way of knowing if the deals are good value. Victorian government
Similarly, what prices will be charged for land currently occupied by public housing? The government forecasts Melbourne’s population will grow to 8 million by mid-century. This means any underutilised land in the inner city will become much more valuable.
By selling off public housing land in well-located inner suburbs, the government is forfeiting the future benefits of that land, including the opportunity to add to desperately needed public housing stock in these areas. How is the public supposed to evaluate the trade-offs between costs and benefits if critical information like the repair cost versus the costs of demolition and sale is kept secret?
More social housing is badly needed
What we do know is that the need for social housing is acute. The percentage of Australian families living in government and non-profit-owned housing (collectively called “social” housing) has declined from over 7% in 1991 to a little over 4.2% in 2016. This is the lowest proportion in 35 years. Victoria would require almost 70,000 more social housing homes over the next 20 years to meet the needs of lower-income households now facing severe housing stress in the private rental market.
As public housing represents such a small proportion of total housing stock, only the most vulnerable households that are least able to pay rent are eligible to live in this housing. At the same time, federal government subsidy shortfalls have created a maintenance backlog for an ageing public housing stock.
Successive reports by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office in 2010, 2012 and 2017 have identified the absence of a sound and sustainable mechanism for maintaining, let alone expanding, non-profit housing stock. A year ago, the independent state government advisory body Infrastructure Victoria recommended as one of three infrastructure priorities that the government repair existing stock and create new social housing.
Many questions about public housing renewal
In the context of low government funding and high repair bills, it is understandable that the Victorian government is seeking partners to renew estates. New South Wales is taking a similar approach with its Communities Plus program and it’s central to the US Choice Neighbourhoods program.
What is less understandable is why the state government is selling public housing land in nine central Melbourne estates to private developers in return for very low increases in social housing. The requirement of “at least” 10% of 1,110 units – the quantum being “renewed” – amounts to just 110 units.
That’s a drop in the ocean of need in exchange for selling off irreplaceable, well-located land. Moreover, there is a push towards demolishing four-bedroom homes and replacing them with one- and two-bedroom units. The result could be fewer beds for those in most need.
Our comparative research, covering Australia and overseas, shows that renewal with much higher social housing returns is possible in partnership with non-profit housing providers. 
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204138/original/file-20180131-38216-12hwmrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
The secure private garden on the redeveloped Carlton estate. Kate Shaw
Evaluations of previous public housing renewal in Kensington, Carlton and Prahran estates also suggest the government undervalued the land and was not able to increase the amount of public housing as promised. The private developers created effectively “gated” private community features that did not benefit public housing residents.
Many submissions to a parliamentary inquiry by residents and neighbours of the nine affected estates express frustration and fear over the government’s secretive approach. One frustrated neighbour noted that he had to dig through the appendices of a traffic analysis to find out how many new market-rate units would be built near his home. As housing academics, we share residents’ frustrations at the unnecessary level of secrecy.
Concerns over the absence of a transparent cost-benefit approach to infrastructure planning are evident as well in the debates over the West Gate Tunnel and the recent re-emergence of the East-West Link in the appendix of a budget report. The current government spent A$1 billion to bury the latter project three years ago. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office also expressed concerns about misreporting costs, benefits and risks under the previous state government.
Other countries show the way on transparency
In many American states, such as California, housing developers receiving government funds have their development cost details published before subsidies are awarded. Details include the cost of the land, numbers of subsidised and market units, and the costs of development. The evaluation of Choice Neighbourhoods is thorough and transparent.
Over the border in Canada, the funding and planning behind the large-scale Regent Park Public Housing renewal in Toronto is publicly available.
Developers and other providers interested in lucrative government contracts complain that transparency jeopardises their hard-earned trade secrets, and thus their businesses. We disagree. The transparency we see elsewhere isn’t stopping developers from doing business.
More importantly, should private firms that keep information about public benefit “commercial in confidence” be in the business of serving taxpayers at all? Shouldn’t those whose “business” is assured by the tax-levying powers of the state be able to be held publicly to account?
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90847/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Government officials assure us these deals go through complex layers of intergovernmental review to safeguard the public interest. We doubt that any amount of bureaucratic review can replace the accountability of simply revealing these deals to the public, and we suspect the public agrees with us.
Matthew Palm, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Transforming Housing Research Network, University of Melbourne.
Carolyn Whitzman, Professor of Urban Planning, University of Melbourne.
Katrina Raynor, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Transforming Housing Project, University of Melbourne.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/governments-have-no-excuse-for-keeping-public-in-the-dark-on-public-housing-deals-90847" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Governments have no excuse for keeping public in the dark on public housing deals

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Federal and state elections in coming weeks provide a timely moment for Australians to reflect on the increasingly obvious failure of governments to manage the triple crises of inflated property prices, lack of <a href="https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/providers/housing/affordable/about/chapters/what-is-affordable-housing" target="_blank">affordable housing</a> for people on low to moderate incomes, and property market volatility. The likely <a href="http://blogs.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/blog/2018/12/shorten-places-housing-at-the-centre-of-the-2019-election/" target="_blank">prominence of housing in the federal poll</a> at least, if not in New South Wales, perhaps signals welcome political recognition that decades of complacency and inaction are to blame for housing system under-performance. And it’s <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/strengthening-economic-cases-housing-productivity-gains-better-housing-outcomes/" target="_blank">costing the country dearly</a>.
There’s a growing sense that core aspects of the governmental mindset that have underpinned housing policy since the 1980s are long overdue for a rethink. And not just in Australia. Our recent <a href="https://shapingfutures.gla.ac.uk/" target="_blank">knowledge exchange project</a>, involving academics, policymakers and professionals in Australia, Britain and Canada (the “ABC countries”), <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/shaping-futures-changing-housing-story/" target="_blank">tapped into these debates</a>.
A misplaced faith in markets
Our <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/shaping-futures-changing-housing-story/" target="_blank">Shaping Futures report</a> identifies important common housing features across the ABC countries. These include their overarching “liberal market” approach (for example, relatively light regulation of private rental housing) and the challenges of managing population-driven growth in cities.
In all three countries, a similar set of foundational beliefs has dominated housing policy for decades. One is an increasingly misplaced faith that housing markets are well-functioning systems. Another is that issues of poor housing and high housing costs are seen purely in terms of redistributive welfare. The impacts on growth and productivity are largely ignored.
Governments of the ABC countries have increasingly delegated responsibilities for coping with national and global pressures on housing. At the same time, they have provided little more autonomy and limited resources for cities and regions to respond to these pressures.
All three nations have seen falling home ownership rates for young adults and long-term declines in home ownership affordability – <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-8462.12174" target="_blank">among the most severe in the OECD</a>. Household debt rates are <a href="https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm" target="_blank">close to the highest in the OECD</a>.
Inflated demand is increasing stress in private rental markets. It’s coming from growing numbers of frustrated middle-income aspirant homebuyers and from low-income tenants denied access to social housing by a proportionately smaller supply.
<a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/strengthening-economic-cases-housing-productivity-gains-better-housing-outcomes/" target="_blank">In Sydney in 2017</a>, moderate-earning and low-earning tenants paid, on average, more than A$6,000 a year in rent over and above 30% of their incomes. And that still didn’t spare them the growing costs and lost productivity of commutes commonly exceeding 90 minutes.
Research in <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">Sydney</a>, <a href="https://council.vancouver.ca/20171128/documents/rr1.pdf" target="_blank">Vancouver</a> and <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/housing-london" target="_blank">London</a> demonstrates that to quantify the real burdens of city housing shortages we need integrated analysis of housing and transport outcomes.
Housing failures have broader consequences
Housing outcomes, including quality, price and location, have significant impacts on the “big goals” of governments.
Regressive subsidies (such as tax concessions for property owners) have worsened rather than offset the effects of rising rents and house prices on income inequality and wealth distribution. In all three countries inequality indices have increased over the last two decades. And in the UK, at least, <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/social-reform/social-mobility/" target="_blank">social mobility is lower than in other developed countries</a>. Housing systems have been at the heart of these changes.
We should aim to boost economic productivity by enhancing human capital – that is, maximising people’s opportunities and capabilities. Instead, there is an emerging sense that growth dividends have been sunk into raising housing and land prices, through investor speculation. This rentier-driven, rather than entrepreneur-led, economic growth has reduced the housing market’s resilience to cyclical instability.
Piecemeal policies aren’t enough
At least until very recently, longstanding systemic housing problems have generally failed to evoke major policy responses. When interventions have been considered necessary, these have tended to be restricted to homelessness and to helping marginal homebuyers. This has often been done in ways that have proved counterproductive by pumping up demand.
With the possible exception of the UK devolved nations, government housing policymaking capacity has been largely emasculated across all three ABC countries over the past 10-20 years. Housing ministries and agencies have been abolished or “integrated” into human services departments.
Likewise, Shaping Futures stakeholders were unimpressed with recycled policy proposals. One example is suggestions that <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/human-services/reforms/report" target="_blank">income allowances for individuals should replace direct supports for housing supply</a>. Another is that planning is the prime cause of supply-side “stickiness” that holds up the delivery of new housing.
One response would be to join some of our academic colleagues in attributing such shortcomings to a misguided faith in managed markets. We might even echo calls to restore pre-1980s housing policy instruments such as big public housing, deep rent controls, tied subsidies and the like.
However, the reality is that markets are likely to remain a preferred basis for our housing systems. The above diagnoses and prescriptions also overlook the possibility that some post-1980s innovations have produced significant policy progress. The emergence – particularly in the UK – of regulated not-for-profit organisational models is an important case in point.
Nevertheless, minor tinkering will resolve none of the major housing system problems that have become all too apparent in the ABC countries since the turn of the century, and especially since the GFC.
Key features of a solution
As well as a commitment to housing as a higher priority for government spending, a new understanding of how housing systems operate and what housing outcomes achieve is urgently needed. In particular:
<ul>
<li>
The housing sector needs to make <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/strengthening-economic-cases-housing-productivity-gains-better-housing-outcomes/" target="_blank">stronger economic cases for support</a>, while treasury and finance ministries must improve their comprehension of housing markets. Advocates need to voice the productivity case for housing; policymakers need to take it seriously.
</li>
<li>
As failed economic thinking for housing policies has generated unstable and expensive housing outcomes, the conventional wisdom finds easy scapegoats in the regulatory planning system. Yes, unduly tight regulation will hinder supply, but no more so than failure to invest adequately in infrastructure and, indeed, shortages of construction labour and materials. Again, the challenge for treasuries is to resist the simplistic “economics 101” analysis that fails to recognise <a href="https://www.marsdens.net.au/assets/pdf/Peter-Phibbs-LE-2018.pdf" target="_blank">the special qualities of housing and land markets</a>.
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Far from further downgrading its influence, planning needs to be cast in a more central role to extract infrastructure-and-planning-induced gains. Critical here is the recognition that “<a href="https://theconversation.com/england-expects-40-of-new-housing-developments-will-be-affordable-why-cant-australia-94581" target="_blank">inclusionary zoning</a>” essentially taxes “scarcity rents”. And – unlike tax-funded housing expenditure – it creates no drag on growth and productivity.
</li>
<li>
Governments in Australia and Canada need to fully recognise <a href="http://blogs.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/blog/2017/04/ready-for-growth-has-australias-affordable-housing-industry-got-what-it-takes/" target="_blank">the potential of non-profits</a> to deliver not just low-income housing but mixes of renting, owning and shared ownership. This creates opportunities for younger households as well as better neighbourhoods.
</li>
<li>
Governments must reshape young adult routes into home ownership. At the same time, they must avoid over-reliance on crudely designed central bank policies on deposit limits and lending ratios uniformly applied across diverse local housing markets.
</li>
</ul>
Reforms to ensure better housing outcomes in the ABC countries are possible. Significant modernisation of private rental regulation in <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-open-letter-on-rental-housing-reform-103825" target="_blank">Scotland, Victoria</a> and <a href="https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/381/2018/12/RHTF-Recommendations-and-WWH-Report_Dec2018_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">British Columbia</a> provides recent cases in point.
Most such steps will depend, however, on governments providing additional or redirected resources. Even more, they require housing systems to be administered at regional and local level with evidence-based understanding and commitment.
Many of the housing problems that distress urban communities across the ABC countries stem from “a veil of ignorance”. There’s an official disregard for evidence and mistaken adherence to simplistic narratives that play down significant market failures.
Households, communities and cities deserve better futures. <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/shaping-futures-changing-housing-story/" target="_blank">Shaping them is feasible</a>.
A convincing pitch to do so could well prove critical in swinging young voters’ allegiance and, as a result, the results of Australia’s imminent elections.
Duncan Maclennan, Professorial Research Fellow in Urban Economics, UNSW; Professor of Strategic Urban Management and Finance, University of St Andrews; Professor in Public Policy, University of Glasgow
Hal Pawson, Associate Director - City Futures - Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/housing-policy-reset-is-overdue-and-not-only-in-australia-112835" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Housing policy reset is overdue, and not only in Australia

<html><body>
Housing affordability supposedly ranks as a top-three Federal election issue, after the cost of living and healthcare and ageing, according to a survey by the Housing Industry Association.
Affordability ranked ahead of immigration and the environment, concluded the JWS Research survey of 1500 people.
"The importance of home ownership to Australians couldn't be clearer. Now more than ever, home ownership matters," the Housing Industry Association chief economist Tim Reardon noted.
It comes as first home buyers have been more active in the market with Sydney housing around 10% more affordable than this time last year.
A typical Sydney dwelling now costs $789,000, below the $884,000 it was early last year, according to CoreLogic. The biggest Sydney declines have been in the municipalities of Ryde and Canterbury-Bankstown.
Of course, it is not just those aspiring to first home ownership that worry about affordability, as separate polling research in Tony Abbott's seat of Warringah on Sydney's Northern beaches indicated.
The concerns of Warringah voters focused around infrastructure, especially roads and traffic congestion, population growth, environmental concerns, but also housing affordability for their children.
The focus groups, sponsored by the University of Canberra’s Democracy 2025 project and conducted by Landscape Research, suggested older Warringah voters were more engaged, more readily able to discuss issues in federal politics, while younger voters have largely tuned out, feeling powerless.
Reardon said the Australian dream of owning a home was "still embedded in the psyche of Australians". He adds with a federal election imminent, it was important to recognise that 71% of people believe governments have an important role in helping Australians achieve their dream.
Interestingly, the HIA research found that home ownership was viewed as especially important to achieving financial stability in retirement.
This comes as there's continuing debate about whether first home buyers should be allowed to access their superannuation.
It flared again recently after a key recommendation from Kenneth Hayne's Financial Services Inquiry.
Hayne says superannuation should be solely to look after Australians in retirement, not first home purchases.
Any incoming Federal Labor Government will accordingly phase out the Coalition government's First Home Super Saver Scheme that allows first timers to access their super accounts.
The scheme, which enables first time buyers to access extra savings put into their superannuation account, was introduced in the 2017 budget by then treasurer Scott Morrison. He argued it would help young people accelerate their savings to buy into markets.
Between the start of the program on July 1 last year and February this year, around 2400 people have made requests to access their super top-up.
That equated to around 4% of the first home buyers who'd secured a home loan over the period.
They have sought the release equating to a helpful $12,000 per person.
Labor voted against the scheme when it was created, but assures current users of the scheme they will not be affected by their policy. 
It is one of many housing schemes ditched by governments in recent times as they come and go.
We have seen off the National Rental Affordability Scheme and the First Home Saver Account schemes too.
I'd suggest one reason for the young voter feeling powerless was this constant changing tides with policy.
Navigating the housing market with confidence, for any age, requires policy consistency from our federal leaders.
This article first appeared in The Daily Telegraph. 
</body></html>

Housing Policy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Housing Policy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News