Minister

<html><body>
The change in leadership of the Commonwealth Government has brought new ministers to the portfolios that are connected with important housing, homelessness, cities and urban issues.
The Hon Scott Morrison MP (Liberal Party), the Prime Minister, has engaged closely with housing issues in his previous roles as Treasurer and Minister for Social Services.
Prime Minister Morrison also has a strong background in housing issues having been National Manager, Policy and Research, of the Property Council of Australia between 1989 and 1995.
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP (Liberal Party) is Treasurer, a role that has a large impact on the work of those in Australia’s housing and homelessness sector.
The Treasury oversees the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation and the Bills relating to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which enables the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance to the states for housing, homelessness and housing affordability matters. 
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie (The Nationals) is the Minister for Regional Services, Local Government and Decentralisation. As part of this Ministry, Senator McKenzie sees ‘getting people out of our congested cities and into our regions' as a core priority. 
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP (Liberal Party) is the Minister for Families and Social Services. Minister Fletcher has a background in the law, economics and the communications sector. Prior to his most recent Ministerial appointment, he was Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities. The Department of Social Services delivers services such as Commonwealth Rent Assistance, the on-going National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH).
The Hon Alan Tudge MP (Liberal Party) is the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population, the ministry that oversees the Smart Cities and City Deals programs which aim to bring all levels of government together to improve the productivity and liveability of Australian cities.
Minister Tudge’s background is in business, including several years with the Boston Consulting Group in Australia, Malaysia and New York, and running his own advisory business.
Senator the Hon Zed Seselja (Liberal Party), Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance, studied Arts and Law at the Australian National University before joining the Commonwealth Public Service as a Lawyer. Previously, Senator Seselja was elected to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly in 2004 before resigning to stand for the Senate for the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Seseljia will support the Treasurer in a portfolio that has responsibility for the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, amongst other programs.
The Hon Sarah Henderson MP (Liberal Party), the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services, has an extensive background as a journalist and lawyer, and won a Walkley award for her coverage of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
The inclusion of Housing in the Minister’s portfolio is a welcome addition to the Government’s frontbench, AHURI advised.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Who are the new Federal Government ministers who will look after housing and cities?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
When Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister last September and announced there was to be a minister for cities and the built environment, many were pleasantly surprised. 
The Coalition’s 2013 election platform made the briefest mention of cities and proposed only a program of investment in urban roads and national highways to ease congestion. It seemed then that the traditional antipathy towards urban policy from the conservative side of politics was set to remain.
So, Turnbull’s innovation agenda, which included this new focus on cities, was welcomed in many quarters. Perhaps now we would see concerted policy attention given to the places where most of us live, work, study and play.
Over the next few months, the new cities minister, Jamie Briggs, undertook extensive consultation and discussion around Australia. But this process had not produced a clear statement of government policy by the time he was obliged to offer his resignation, just after Christmas.
One of Briggs’ last major speeches was to the State of Australian Cities conference in December. He described his ambition for greater co-ordination among federal agencies and between levels of government and greater collaboration between government, the private sector and urban researchers.
However, apart from Briggs’ passing references to trying to capture some of the value uplift associated with public investment in infrastructure, we were none the wiser about the substance of an embryonic national urban policy.
A new broom?
Briggs’ successor is Angus Taylor, who enjoys the slightly different title of assistant minister for cities and digital transformation, sitting within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet rather than in Greg Hunt’s Environment Department.
With Taylor having been in the job for less than a month, we have not yet heard much detail of his views on cities and urban policy. But he has said:
I’m the assistant minister for cities, not the assistant minister for inner cities, or even capital cities …
And to fulfil his “deep belief that consultation and proper public debate gets to wise outcomes”, what advice might we offer to the new assistant minister? Here are some suggestions to be going on with.
Dear assistant minister,
Congratulations on your appointment. Many who recognise the importance of cities to how well we live are pleased that the prime minister continues to show a commitment to building policy in this field. We trust that you will be able to lead this process and overcome the policy neglect that has been evident for some time.
You have rightly pointed out that Australian cities are many and varied and although we do not have a clear definition of what constitutes a city, we should not be preoccupied with what happens within the inner areas of some of our capital cities.
No doubt you will be aware that previous federal urban policy initiatives have tended to focus on what happens within our cities and this is important. But too often it has been at the expense of any serious attention to the overall pattern of settlements across the country and to relations between cities.
Now would be a good time to rectify this and develop a truly national policy on settlements and cities.
We expect that Australia’s population will double by 2075 if current assumptions about fertility, life expectancy and migration hold. While the validity of these assumptions will always provoke public debate, it is unlikely that the population will not continue to grow.
It is incumbent on the federal government to think about where this growing (and ageing) population will live and work; you have a critical role in stimulating this thinking.
You might take the view that the market is best placed to anticipate where people want to live and provide accordingly. But those decisions have consequences, especially for the provision of infrastructure such as roads, public transport, schools and hospitals.
And you have already indicated that the distribution of economic activity – and especially access to local jobs – is one of the biggest challenges facing Australia’s cities, large and small.
A national spatial plan is needed
Local councils and state and territory governments already prepare spatial plans for their areas. These aim to anticipate where growth might occur and what its wider impacts might be. These plans and strategies enjoy varied success, but few would argue that we should abandon spatial planning.
There are no obvious reasons, therefore, why the federal government should not also develop a spatially-aware national policy for settlements. This does not mean that you, minister, should be responsible for approving state or local government plans, or for signing off on development approvals – unless they were of national significance. But it might mean that you are able to build a national perspective within government on where growth should be encouraged or discouraged and where government investment in critical infrastructure might be targeted.
The government already has a plan for northern Australia. You have the opportunity to help it develop a settlement and investment plan for all of Australia.
This will not be an easy task. Many believe the federal government has no role to play in the planning and governance of our cities. This overlooks the fact that your colleagues in government make decisions every day that have spatial implications and urban impacts.
The new policy commitment to cities that you embody provides an important opportunity to make these processes more explicit and to plan accordingly. I wish you all the very best in this difficult task.
 
Paul Burton is professor of Urban Management and Planning &amp; Director, Urban Research Program, Griffith University and author for The Conversation.
He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-burton-5155" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Memo to the cities minister: what needs to be done

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The resignation of Australia’s first minister for cities and the built environment after just 99 days is a setback for federal leadership in these areas. Yet enough momentum and goodwill have been generated to keep the flag flying. The greatest hope is that an urban consciousness in national public policy will be lodged permanently.
Even before state planning ministers assemble within months to hammer out the ground rules for federal engagement, the mutual understanding will be that the states are Australia’s primary urban governments.
In August 1945, a conference of Commonwealth and state ministers in Canberra confirmed that arrangement. The states rejected a generous proposal for a central planning bureau to provide advice, training and information resources plus cover half the costs of employing technical experts to assist local authorities.
Prime Minister Ben Chifley’s summation sealed the fate of the bold reconstruction initiative hatched by Nugget Coombs: the matter ought to be left to the states.
<h2>How cities became ‘orphans of public policy’</h2>
Regardless, the federal government has retained a periodic interest in cities, with mixed outcomes. Historically, most initiatives have been linked to Labor.
Gough Whitlam’s Department of Urban and Regional Development (DURD, 1972-75) injected valuable locational and equity perspectives into policy. However, a big-spending command, control and co-ordinate mission proved problematic.
Bob Hawke delivered AMCORD and Green Street as best-practice guidelines for residential development. This helped change the culture of the development industry. But the Hawke government’s main legacy, driven by Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe, was Building Better Cities, centred on strategic housing, environmental and infrastructure projects.
Paul Keating gave us the Urban Design Task Force (1994) and the Australian Urban and Regional Development Review (1995) of federal programs for infrastructure, planning and transport.
By the time of the Rudd-Gillard governments, an actual National Urban Policy emerged to guide public intervention and private investment. Its quartet of themes remain widely accepted: productivity, sustainability, liveability and governance.
The Coalition’s contributions have been more muted.
The enduring love affair was between Robert Menzies and Canberra. The capital received extraordinary largesse to become an exemplar of modernist architecture, design and planning. Most everywhere else was ignored.
Late in his term, William McMahon instituted a National Urban and Regional Development Authority, which lingered as a commission for new cities alongside DURD.
The Fraser government wound down Labor’s perceived excesses but still found a rationale for inquiries into the Commonwealth and the urban environment (1978) and a pioneering study on urban environmental indicators (1983). John Howard offered various charters and best practice initiatives, notably the Development Assessment Forum (1998).
Cities have been called “orphans of public policy”, so the decisive and acclaimed entry of the Turnbull government into the fray is remarkable. Malcolm Turnbull has the credibility, nous and drive to supplant Tony Abbott as the first infrastructure prime minister. In a sense, Abbott ignored cities – except to champion motorways – at his peril.
<h2>Turnbull invigorates urban agenda</h2>
Turnbull’s transformative move has been to declare officially what has been long known: cities are “crucibles” of innovation and enterprise.
Productive cities are smart, innovative, prosperous and great places to live. Less productive cities are accordingly less liveable, sustainable and connected.
While a new cities minister will lay claim to one ear of Turnbull, wife Lucy will command the other. A former lord mayor and “city expert” adviser to the COAG Reform Council, she chairs both the Committee for Sydney and the NSW government’s new Greater Sydney Commission.
The problems of Australian cities are well documented: density (the drawbacks of low joined by the challenges of high), transport (needing greater mass transit connectivity and walkability while reducing dependence on cars), housing (affordability and variety), inequality (divided by income, health and mobility), the spatial mismatch between jobs and homes, fractured metropolitan governance, open space, environment, heritage, design.
Australia’s “broken cities”, to quote the Grattan Institute report City Limits, are "caught between the three tiers of Australian government, hardly registering on the agenda of many politicians".
<h2>What to do next?</h2>
The solutions are wickedly challenging. In December, the then-minister, Jamie Briggs, distilled the state of play in his keynote address to the State of Australian Cities conference. The Commonwealth was not set to take over from the states, create new bureaucracies or become a “planning approver”. Rather, there would be better co-ordination between federal agencies and across all tiers of government.
Briggs flagged collaboration with the private sector, researchers, and the wider community. He spoke of the need to secure “better outcomes” and “measure our performance”. The gaze was on the long run and locking in agreed planning and co-ordination of projects.
Smarter, more flexible and adaptable financial arrangements will come into play. The buzzwords “value uplift” and “value capture” pinpointed the need to extend federal intervention beyond cash handouts. This is code for differential tax increment financing to tap into revenues generated by rising property prices from infrastructure improvements.
Labor’s National Urban Policy framework will need to be revisited. The way forward is through intergovernmental agreements that link specified outcomes to robust and streamlined planning systems. These will need to connect up issues of housing, employment, environment and infrastructure.
This agenda has been taking shape for some time. Bellwethers include:
<ul>
<li>Productivity Commission inquiries into planning, zoning and development assessments (2011) and public infrastructure (2014), and the Harper review of competition policy (2015), all highlighting the need to reform land-use planning;</li>
<li>Tomorrow’s Cities Today (2014) by Consult Australia;</li>
<li>the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) report, Investing in Cities (2015), aimed at “maximising the benefits created by the world’s most urbanised nation”; and</li>
<li>COAG’s review of metropolitan planning strategies to ensure matching and orderly infrastructure provision (2011).</li>
</ul>
Several seers lit the ideological torches for the new infrastructural urbanism. Ed Glaeser’s Triumph of the City is a paean to proximity, density and light-handed regulation. In The Rise of the Creative Class, Richard Florida broadcast the competitive advantage of attracting human capital. Enrico Moretti’s The New Geography of Jobs (2012) demonstrated the multiplier effects of urban “brain hubs”.
In the UK, the Cameron government’s City Deals policy highlights an attractive model of bespoke multi-target programs for competing cities. It is aimed squarely at economic growth underpinned by enhanced tax revenue from development.
While the cities component of the new portfolio is crystallising publicly, what of the built environment? In exploring a model that works for the Coalition another exemplar is the UK’s Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (1999-2011). Although emasculated in a purge of quangos, it was widely respected as an adviser and advocate for quality design and valuation of the public realm.
Run leanly and through a similar mix of design reviews, publications, research forums and an adviser network, an Australian adaptation could assume a timely leadership position. It would be a vehicle for many voices to be heard, not just the property and development sector. Turnbull tacitly recognised the value of this when he announced that his summer reading included Marcus Westbury’s primer for DIY urbanism, Creating Cities.
Quite a few federal activities might be connected under this umbrella. These include State of Australian Cities reporting; the National Australian Built Environment Ratings System (NABERS); various environmental policies including management of national and Commonwealth heritage lists; leased federal airports, which have become development hotspots; the National Capital Authority; the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN).
Given the importance of evidence-driven policy, it is unfortunate that urban-related research is under-supported by the Australian Research Council. It barely registers in its research priorities.
Urban policy is complex because it potentially links up and intrudes into many arenas of government. The cities ministry and the new interdepartmental taskforce sit within the Environment Department overseen by Greg Hunt. As shadow minister for cities, Anthony Albanese has warned of “convoluted administrative arrangements”, with five ministers sharing responsibilities for cities and infrastructure policy.
Former professor of public administration Martin Painter identified the “impossibility of urban policy” because of insoluble administrative problems flowing from taking too comprehensive a position. His advice was “the simpler the better”.
Briggs' successor will likely continue down the same path with a discussion paper, a national forum with the prime minister speaking, and that meeting of planning ministers to talk through approaches and decisions. There are now huge expectations that a new urban age has dawned in Australia.
 
Robert Freestone is professor of planning, Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/robert-freestone-168551" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Minister

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Minister

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News