Public Policy

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Chinese investment in Australia fell 36% in 2018, to A$8.2 billion (US$6.2 billion) from A$13 billion (US$10 billion) in 2017, according to research by KPMG and the University of Sydney Business School.
This is despite Chinese investors still generally regarding Australia as safer and more attractive than most other countries. So 2018 need not be a turning point. But it is cause for reflection.
Discussion about Chinese investment in recent years has been dominated by political and security concerns. These concerns need to be balanced by the national interest in economic prosperity. Chinese investment creates jobs, increases export opportunities and deepens relations with our most significant trade partner.
Arguably the pendulum has to swing back to thinking about the economic benefits. We need a more balanced national conversation.
Many losers, one winner
Our data covers direct investments through mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and new projects. We do not include portfolio investments, such as buying stocks and bonds, which do not result in foreign management, ownership or legal control. Nor do we include residential property sales.
In the mining, agribusiness and services sectors investment fell by more than 90%. In renewable energy it fell by 48%, and in commercial real estate by 31%.
The only sector where investment did not fall was health care, where investment more than doubled to A$3.4 billion. This made health care the biggest investment sector, attracting 41.7% of all Chinese money, relegating commercial real estate (36.7%) to second place.
The declines were driven by state-owned enterprises pulling back on foreign investment. In 2018 13% of Chinese money came from state-owned enterprises, with 87% from private companies.
This reflects the Chinese government’s greater control of capital outflows and pressure to reduce debt levels, as well as the Australian government’s security concerns about Chinese influence.
It also reflects global dynamics. Chinese investment in Australia is no longer isolated from scrutiny of Chinese investment in North America and Europe. Excluding Chinese technology from telecommunications infrastructure is a notable example.
In the United States, Chinese investment fell 83% to US$4.8 billion from US$29 billion in 2017. In Canada, it fell 47% to US$3.4 billion from US$6.2 billion in 2017.
Balancing competing concerns
Australian governments, corporations and professional advisers need to consider what types of Chinese investments and investors are desired and actively welcome in Australia.
Our report points to areas where Chinese investment is in Australia’s national interest and benefits the global integration and competitiveness of Australian industries.
Health care is a key example.
Chinese investment in health care companies has both provided capital for innovation and facilitated entry into the Chinese market.
Take the Chinese private equity firm <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/sirtex-medical-goodbyes-varian-backs-1-9b-chinese-offer-from-cdh-20180614-p4zlk1" target="_blank">CDH buying Sirtex Medical Ltd</a> for A$1.9 billion. Sirtex is an Australian medical device company with a treatment for liver cancer. Its acquisition enables expansion into China, which accounts for more half of the global incidence of liver cancer.
In mining, lithium provides an example of Chinese investment adding value. <a href="https://www.tianqilithium.com.au/site/About-Us/company-overview" target="_blank">Tianqi Lithium</a> has invested A$700 million in a <a href="https://www.tianqilithium.com.au/site/About-Us/tianqi-lithium-global" target="_blank">processing plant</a> in Perth. The plant will provide about 200 jobs and produce 48,000 tonnes of battery-grade lithium hydroxide for export.
Even in food and agriculture, which has generated much controversy over land acquisitions, we see room for advantageous investment processing and value-adding facilities, such as regional abattoirs.
Signalling Australia’s economic interests in Chinese and foreign investment is crucial to Australia’s prosperity.
At a time of global uncertainty, Australian politicians, bureaucrats, business leaders, educational organisations and others must work quietly and respectfully with their Chinese counterparts to allay community concerns and consolidate Australia’s reputation as a welcoming and proactive partner.
Hans Hendrischke, Professor of Chinese Business and Management, University of Sydney
The authors contributed to the Demystifying Chinese Investment in Australia Report.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114984/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
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/chinese-investment-in-australia-is-down-36-its-time-for-a-more-balanced-debate-about-the-national-interest-114984" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Chinese investment in down 36% - it’s time for a more balanced debate about the national interest

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Meeting the cost of buying a home or renting privately is difficult for many in Australia, and sadly impossible for some. Governments are concerned about the housing affordability “crisis” to varying extents, but it’s probably fair to say that we have not seen many effective solutions so far. That’s a result of the complexity of both understanding and solving the problem.
Anglicare’s Rental Affordability Snapshot has, for nearly a decade, painted a worrying picture of almost all of our major cities. Again this year only a tiny proportion of rental properties on the market are affordable for people receiving government support.
But analyses by economists, geographers, the building industry, think tanks, housing researchers and governments themselves define the problem of affordability differently. (And they disagree on the solutions, often relying on flawed assumptions.)
What do we mean by unaffordable?
We aim to contribute to the conversation by challenging how we think about and what we mean by “unaffordable housing”.
The way you measure housing (un)affordability matters – a lot. It affects how big the problem is estimated to be, who is identified as affected, where they live, what interventions might help, and how much these will cost.
In addition, it is tricky to generate simple, usable statistics. This is because Australian households have such varied housing experiences (and costs). Sometimes we forget renters. Sometimes we don’t distinguish between unaffordable housing costs for low-income and high-income households. And, importantly, sometimes we confuse the risk of housing affordability problems with the experience of them.
Here is an example. The most commonly used measure of housing affordability in both policy and research settings is the relatively simple measure of “housing affordability stress”. We classify people as having housing stress if they are in the bottom 40% for household incomes and paying more than 30% of their income in housing costs.
This allows us to identify low-income households that are paying high housing costs. (It’s generally assumed that people with higher incomes can meet their basic housing needs.) Using this measure, it is estimated that roughly 11% of Australian households have unaffordable housing costs.
But housing costs are just one part of a household’s weekly spending. In recent work, we were interested to see if we could identify who is actually experiencing financial hardship because of high housing costs by looking at their capacity to meet other essential non-housing costs. A substantial meal at least once a day, medical and dental treatment when needed, and warm clothes when it’s cold – these are things that most Australians regard as essential. When people cannot afford these things, we describe them as being materially deprived (you can read more about deprivation here).
Within the 11% of the households classified as having unaffordable housing costs, only a small proportion (just under 3% of households) are also materially deprived. When we take a closer look at who is in this smaller group, they are distinct in that they have lower incomes, poorer health, are more financially strained, live in the rental sector, and move house more often.
Some households may be able to cope with high housing costs by “shuffling” other parts of their life. They may, for example, take on more hours at work, draw on savings, or reduce discretionary spending.
Expensive housing becomes a problem when households are unable to make these adjustments. This might be because of illness, for example, or a relationship breakdown, or long-term precarious employment.
At risk or in trouble: an important distinction
This simple analysis suggests that there is a probably a big difference between who is classified as having unaffordable housing costs and who is likely to be most affected by them. It also raises the question of whether trickle-down housing supply solutions will ever reach the people who are genuinely affected by housing affordability problems.
As a starting point, maybe we should give priority to those households that are facing high housing costs and multiple deprivations. This approach encourages a significant shift in where we perceive our housing affordability crisis to be – with less focus on broader market conditions and more on people’s lived experience.
Finally, reflecting on the Anglicare report, perhaps it points to another important conclusion. The fact that so few people on government support can afford decent housing suggests that the problem might not be a housing one, but a welfare one.
Lyrian Daniel, University Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Adelaide
Emma Baker, Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Adelaide
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/housing-affordability-stress-affects-one-in-nine-households-but-which-ones-are-really-struggling-96103" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Housing affordability stress affects one in nine households, but which ones are really struggling?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Funding for Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is expected to support 28,000 people, 6% of all NDIS participants. However, the NDIS has provided limited information about the demand for this specialist housing. Now a newly published study has found the existing supply of SDA needs to grow by 60% to house the 28,000 people the NDIS expects to fund.
The report identified another 33,200 people with very high support needs who “may require SDA on top of the 17,500 already in this form of housing. Of these 33,200 people, 6,200 people are under 64 residing in aged care.”
These are among the insights revealed in the government-funded report by the Summer Foundation, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and SGS Economics &amp; Planning.
It is important to understand the nature and scale of demand, given that SDA is expected to account for NDIS spending of A$700 million a year when the scheme is fully implemented. The transformation from grants-based funding to a market-based system in which people with disabilities control their own funding is predicted to create a A$5 billion disability housing market over the next five years.
What is SDA?
Specialist Disability Accommodation ensures the housing requirements of people with extreme functional impairment or very high support needs are delivered.
SDA payments cover a wide range of housing options, depending on the individual’s needs. By including the payment in the individual’s support plan, the person with disability should have choice and control over where they live and who they live with.
Of course, this depends on a fully functioning, mature and competitive market in which providers compete to provide housing to NDIS participants. SDA payment rates have been set to cover the cost of capital and to incentivise a new market.
What are the key findings?
Comparing existing SDA places with the NDIS’s current projected demand across the country, the study found the supply of such housing needs to grow by 60%. The largest required rate of increase, 120%, is in the ACT. New South Wales requires the most new SDA places (3,290).
The study found the greatest demand in locations with the highest population growth. As an illustration, in southwestern Sydney, the NDIS is expected to increase the current 137 SDA places to 492. That’s 360% growth in disability housing in the area.
The results highlight the differences in people living in current SDA (mainly government-funded group homes) and the population representing the potential demand for SDA.
People in the potential demand group have a far younger age profile. More than two-thirds are under 45 years and half of them are under 34. People now living in SDA have a median age of 42.
The potential demand group also has a very different disability profile. Those living in SDA are predominantly people with intellectual disability. The potential demand group still has a significant proportion of people with intellectual disability, but physical and neurological disabilities become more prevalent. This profile suggests the future SDA cohort will need much more highly accessible housing.
The qualitative component of the study highlights that people who are eligible for SDA have aspirations for housing that is very different from where they live now. Their housing preferences are unlikely to be met by the dominant group home model – most want to live on their own or with friends in a share-house arrangement.
This highlights the need for apartment-style living where people can live independently in their own home with easy access to on-site support.
NDIS pricing encourages these developments. It will provide more than A$107,000 a year for a two-bedroom apartment in addition to the NDIS participant’s rent contribution.
What do the findings mean for policy?
This study provides much-needed insights into the SDA market, which will help potential providers better understand future demand.
However, the study’s predictions of the amount of new SDA housing to be constructed are likely to be underestimates. The study’s underlying assumption is that the current stock will continue to provide housing. In practice, much of the existing SDA stock will need to be redeveloped or replaced to be competitive in a market-based system.
The decommissioning of old stock will also help Australia to meet its obligations under Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons. This states: 
"Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement."
Group home living arrangements are inconsistent with this because they force people with disabilities to live with others who, in most cases, they have not chosen.
Recent government inquiries have also shown that group homes are rife with abuse and neglect. Last year over 100 academics wrote an open letter to the prime minister in support of a royal commission into the abuse, with some calling for group homes to be phased out.
When the NDIS is fully rolled out and participants have the freedom to move out of outdated and segregated group homes, they will be seeking a very different type of housing arrangement than they were forced to endure before the NDIS.
This report shows that developers have a significant opportunity to capitalise on the unmet demand. They can achieve sizeable returns while also having a positive impact on the lives of people with disabilities.
How was the study conducted?
In the absence of official NDIS data, the Summer Foundation study analysed data from state-funded disability service systems. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) compiled this data in the Disability Services National Minimum Data Set. The analysis used data from before the transition of most areas to the NDIS, providing a comprehensive snapshot of people using state-funded disability services.
Likely shortfalls in SDA supply were modelled by distributing the expected supply of 28,000 NDIS-funded accommodation places and comparing that to current populations. In addition to identifying areas with major shortfalls, the analysis modelled potential demand from existing service users with very high support needs who were living in other settings, mainly the family home with ageing parents. This included young people living in nursing homes.
George Taleporos, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Living with Disability Research Centre, La Trobe University
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93479/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of Robin Zakharov, senior policy adviser at the Summer Foundation.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ndis-needs-the-market-to-help-make-up-at-least-60-shortfall-in-specialist-disability-housing-93479" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

NDIS needs the market to help make up at least 60% shortfall in specialist disability housing: George Taleporos

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Ten years ago the Australian government launched a National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH). It injected A$800 million into homelessness services and A$300 million to build 600 new homes for people experiencing homelessness. It was later announced that another A$400 million would be available under the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) to build new housing and supported accommodation for the homeless. Total recurrent expenditure (at 2016-17 prices) on homelessness services has increased by 28.8%, from A$634.2 million in 2012-13 to A$817.4 million in 2016-17.
But despite this, the number of people experiencing homelessness and the rate of homelessness have both increased. Our research points to problems in the public housing system as one of the more important causes of these increases.
According to census figures released on Wednesday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the number of homeless people in Australia has risen by 14% to 116,427. The rate of homelessness has increased from 47.6 people per 10,000 of the population in 2011, to 49.8 per 10,000 now. (The ABS defines homelessness here.)
There is some good news: the numbers of Indigenous homeless and homeless children and youth (aged 12-18) have declined by 26%, 11% and 7% respectively since 2011. But on the downside, increases are particularly pronounced in New South Wales (where the homelessness rate rose by 27% and among people aged over 65 (by just over 30%) and overseas-born migrants (by 40%).
Why are we still going backwards?
Changes in Australian housing and welfare systems and wider social and economic developments appear to have more than offset any benefits from the NPAH and NAHA. Our research sheds some light on the role played by Australia’s housing system. Using the internationally recognised and unique Journeys Home longitudinal survey, we find that public housing is the most important factor in preventing homelessness among vulnerable people.
Public housing is particularly effective because it is affordable. It has also traditionally offered a long-term refuge for precariously housed people. This is because public housing leases provide the benefits of security of tenure commonly associated with home ownership.
It is perhaps no accident that NSW was one of the first states to introduce fixed-term tenancies in public housing. This eroded one of the major attributes of tenure, in a state that has seen relatively large increases in homelessness numbers.
The empirical evidence also suggests that community housing fails to provide the same protection for people at risk of homelessness. While community housing is affordable, the security of tenure is weaker, which may explain these findings.
Despite such evidence, the stock of public housing continued to decline between the 2011 and 2016 censuses. State government-initiated transfers of stock to the community housing sector accelerated this trend. In 2013 Australia had a public housing stock of 325,226 dwellings. This declined by 3.2% to 314,864 usable dwellings in 2017.
Where are the additional homeless coming from?
One of the more alarming changes is a sharp increase in the number of homeless people over 65. This partly reflects Australia’s ageing population. However, the increase is such that the elderly’s share of the total homelessness count has also risen.
Furthermore, our research suggests that this trend could become protracted. This is because the homeless elderly have much less chance of escaping into formal housing than younger people experiencing homelessness. We have little understanding of the reasons for this, but gaps in service provision to the aged could be partly responsible.
The other group who feature prominently among the homeless are overseas migrants. They now make up 46% of the homeless, despite representing just 28% of the Australian population. The number of homeless overseas-born migrants has soared by 40% since the 2011 Census, from 38,085 to 53,606 people.
It turns out that homeless overseas-born migrants are concentrated among those living in severely overcrowded dwellings – a little over half of those living in these conditions were born overseas. We know little about these homeless people. Discrimination could be a factor, though some characterise this group as students living in group households who should not be considered homeless. But this is speculation and further study is certainly required.
In view of the latest census results, it is clear to us that governments need to reassess their approach to what is turning into an intractable social problem.
We do not deny that situational factors, such as drug abuse, domestic violence and so forth, are important here. But equally, there is strong evidence that structural problems in our housing market are a significant cause of growth in the numbers of homeless people.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93417/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Until these problems are resolved, service provision and support will remain a band-aid masking deeper social and housing system issues.
Gavin Wood, Emeritus Professor of Housing and Housing Studies, RMIT University
Guy Johnson, Professor, Urban Housing and Homelessness, RMIT University
Juliet Watson, Lecturer, Urban Housing and Homelessness, RMIT University
Rosanna Scutella, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Applied Social Research, RMIT University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/homeless-numbers-will-keep-rising-until-governments-change-course-on-housing-93417" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Homeless numbers will keep rising until governments change course on housing

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
"Ooh, a storm is threatening my very life today / If I don’t get some shelter / Oh yeah, I’m gonna fade away…"
Mick Jagger won’t ever need to be concerned about having somewhere to live, but older people have worried about where they will spend their final years since long before the Rolling Stones sang to a generation’s insecurities in 1969. Many wish to stay in their homes, but current policy doesn’t support age-friendly housing. It also makes it difficult for ageing people to manage their finances.
The population of people aged 65 and over in Australia is projected to grow from 3.7 million to 8.7 million by 2056. Cities, towns and housing need to be designed to help people stay at home as they age. Financial policy should be updated to enable them to better manage their assets.
Gwen’s story
Five years before her death, Gwen (not her real name) and her family faced a dilemma. Like many Australians, Gwen had juggled a succession of jobs, eventually owning her modest home. Following a fall, hospitalisation and rehab, her prognosis was not good.
Gwen wanted to die at home, or with her family. Should members of the family move into her house? Should she move into one of her adult children’s houses? What about their children?
Should they rent out the family properties, so Gwen and volunteering family members could cohabit in a more suitable rented property? Could they afford a house with the flexibility to handle two adults, one elderly person, possibly kids and pets?
For families like Gwen’s, there are few viable, let alone affordable, housing options. Gwen’s housing shuffle proved stressful for everyone. She was ultimately placed, against her wishes, in a nursing home. Aged 82, deprived of any sovereignty in her decision-making, Gwen passed away, but the family arguments and blame continued.
What is stopping people ‘ageing in place’?
Gwen’s deck of dominoes could not be reconfigured because of the housing, tax and financial barriers imposed by the same governments that are trying to implement “ageing in place”.
Ageing in place isn’t just about ageing at home. It’s about keeping older people connected to their neighbourhood and community as part of a broader framework of “active ageing”, with the aim of improving their quality of life and giving them more control over their circumstances.
Since the World Health Organization (WHO) released its Active Ageing policy framework in 2002, federal governments have endorsed this approach. The 2013 Living Longer Living Better reforms and last year’s Legislated Review of Aged Care promote emotional and mental preparation for old age, which is important for active ageing.
However, many aspects of policy in Australia undermine successful ageing in place.
A lack of suitable housing
First, ageing Australians have a limited choice of suitable housing, as the Productivity Commission has highlighted.
Livable Housing Australia’s guidelines recommend installing nonslip floors and grab rails and retrofitting rooms to help keep them at a comfortable temperature. This improves home liveability and reduces risks of harm for occupants. Incremental measures like these also have beneficial ripple effects by making housing suitable for all ages. However, such guidelines are not yet widely implemented.
The ability to influence what is built, and where, can greatly enhance or inhibit well-being. Denmark and Canada are already running with the 8 80 Cities concept, which aims to transform cities so they meet the needs of people of all ages. It’s a good example for Australian planners.
Local governments need to embrace redevelopment models that provide better ageing-in-place options for communities. The Greater Sydney Commission recently took a step in the right direction with its plans to increase housing supply and affordability. Its investigation into improving transport options and amenities could also enhance liveability.
The City of Melbourne’s Places for People strategy and the Age-Friendly Victoria initiative commit to housing that meets the WHO’s essential age-friendly city features. These programs recognise that placemaking is strongly linked with successful ageing in place.
Financial penalties for moving
Most Australians lack the financial means to customise their homes as they age. Safety concerns will eventually collide with their desire for independent living, forcing a devil’s choice. The decision to enter aged care can be very difficult for people and their families. Taxation and pension rules that prevent them managing their assets without losses worsen the situation.
If governments want to promote active ageing, then older people must be given more flexibility in managing their assets. This means allowing them to sell the family home, take the tax-free asset value, downsize to a suitable smaller property, and put the leftover money into their super without penalties in the form of stamp duty, tax or loss of benefits.
Many people don’t want to give up home ownership, especially as a family home doubles as a tax shelter. Ideally, a compact property would be preferable, designed to accommodate any generation, and with better access to the amenities and services needed later in life. Then, should they eventually need high-level care, the home could be rented out, providing an income stream to help cover medical and care expenses.
Future-proofed properties like this mostly do not exist in Australia. They don’t exist because, thanks to current policy, the elderly are reluctant to monetise their tax-free asset (the family home) to buy such properties and thus generate a demand to be met by developers.
Where do you want to die?
Baby boomers are living longer and are more mindful of their health and lifestyle. However, a recent survey found that only a small percentage were planning their financial future so they could live independently for as long as possible. And a growing number of seniors lack the income to cover the unforeseen costs that arise later in life.
Governments need to step up public information campaigns to encourage people to prepare for their old age. Without it, the confronting question “Where do you want to die?” cannot be feasibly answered.
Governments and the private sector can also take action to:
<ul>
<li>acknowledge the tax shelter status of private homes alongside the tax shelter status of superannuation</li>
<li>reduce transaction costs such as stamp duty that discourage moving before it becomes essential, as it often does for the over-80s</li>
<li>remove disincentives to releasing equity in the family home (for example, the pension means tests on proceeds in interaction with the pension and superannuation systems)</li>
<li>with the growth of the tiny house movement, ensure a wider variety of housing stock, styles and locations to support ageing in place</li>
<li>encourage emerging home ownership models, such as home equity release, reverse mortgages, fractional property investment and co-operative housing – to name a few.</li>
</ul>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91488/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">These initiatives would allow people to find and create homes that offer shelter from the ageing “perfect storm” already under way in Australia.
Juliette Brodsky, Researcher, College of Business, RMIT University 
Francis Grey, Economist and Sessional Academic, RMIT University
Sarah Sinclair, Lecturer in Economics, RMIT University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-australians-to-have-the-choice-of-growing-old-at-home-here-is-what-needs-to-change-91488" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

For Australians to have the choice of growing old at home, here is what needs to change

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Two decades of reforms, reviews and inquiries appear to have better served the financial sector than the interests of super fund members.
At first glance Australia’s 214 major superannuation funds are performing well, giving a healthy 9.2% return on the A$1.4 trillion we have deposited with them. But there are issues with our publicly mandated but privately controlled superannuation system.
Admittedly, our current system provides a range of benefits - increasing retirement incomes, giving us plenty of choice between funds (in theory if not in practice), and investing in the Australian economy.
But the operating expenses for Australian funds consistently and significantly outstrip those in other OECD countries. Fees are high and there is little evidence that higher fees lead to better services.
In 2009 the Inquiry into Financial Products and Services in Australia recommended there be an annual check on the quality of advice. The only superannuation-related survey that has been undertaken to date found that 39% of advice was poor and only 3% was good quality. No further surveys have been conducted.
Australians are forced to contribute to superannuation funds, without the right of exit, but they aren’t protected from high fees or bad investment strategies. A nationalised superannuation system, or one that combines private and public super funds, could simplify the system and reduce costs.
<h2>Baked in problems</h2>
Australia’s system wasn’t originally intended to be entirely privately-run, which has left us without many necessary protections (such as appropriate disclosure of fees and charges).
Australia was almost alone among OECD countries in reaching the 1980s with no national employment-related retirement income scheme. There had been at least ten attempts to set one up between the 1890s to the 1970s. All failed to win support from employers, existing superannuation funds, life offices and state governments.
An additional attempt was made in the last Parliament of the Liberal government in 1972. The incoming Whitlam Labor government also tried to introduce a national superannuation scheme in 1973, establishing the Hancock inquiry.
Consistent with its recommendations, the Hawke/Keating Labor government intended to move forward with a national scheme. However, against the backdrop of past nationalisation failures, recession, high inflation, a wage freeze, strikes, declining union membership, and the increasing discontinuation of superannuation products, the government instead privatised it.
Thus, the Hawke/Keating Labor government was a major winner of a privatised scheme gaining electoral support from a coalition of private interests.
Absent from this coalition were the fund members. There is no evidence of any consultation process with either the fund members themselves and/or any consumer representative groups prior to the development of our present, privatised regime.
The Superannuation Guarantee scheme introduced a minimum employer contribution to superannuation for most employees. This scheme was a windfall for the financial sector, as they received a guaranteed, trillion-dollar stream of superannuation contributions to look after with no exit rights for members.
The union movement would also appear to be a winner from privatisation. The privatised system allowed the unions to expand the number of their existing industry funds to earn more administration and investment-based fees. The 41 industry funds currently hold A$545.2 billion, compared to the A$587.8 billion held by the 128 for-profit retail funds.
It could be argued that the losers in this mandatory regime are the fund members who were marginalised from the outset. As it was originally intended to be a government-run system, many of the administrative processes necessary for an efficient and effective privatised system were originally absent.
For example, there were no codified accounting, reporting and disclosure requirements. No mandatory requirements for the disclosure of fees and charges. No codified audit report requirements. And, for nearly a decade, the regulator did not have appropriate constitutional powers to enforce civil and criminal penalties against non-complying trustees.
Two-decades of reforms have remedied the constitutional, auditing and accounting issues. But significant issues remain, including limitations in the disclosure of fees and charges and the related issue of conflicted payments.
<h2>Alternative super systems</h2>
In theory, there are alternative superannuation models for Australia to consider. For example, there are nationalised schemes such as the government-run Canadian Pension Plan.
All of the funds from the Canadian Pension Plan are invested by Canada’s Pension Plan Investment Board, which operates with a clear mandate to maximise returns, without undue risk of loss.
Nationalising the superannuation industry in this way appears to have benefits - members would receive the same return for equal contributions, employers and employees would only have to deal with one fund, and the amount spent on running the fund (for example on administration, marketing) would be reduced.
There is also the option of adopting a combined system, as in Norway, which features both national and privately-run superannuation funds.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86067/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">In reality however, given the coalition of vested interests that have forged Australia’s existing, publicly mandated, privatised system, only the voice of the members themselves can force an honest and open debate on this important issue.
Suzanne Taylor, Lecturer/Co-Ordinator, Queensland University of Technology.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-we-nationalise-the-superannuation-system-even-if-we-wanted-to-86067" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Could we nationalise the superannuation system even if we wanted to?: Suzanne Taylor

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
An innovative project designed to house people at risk of homelessness will soon deliver 57 transportable homes across nine sites in Melbourne’s inner west. Victorian Planning Minister Richard Wynne approved the social housing project on Ballarat Road last week. The proponent is Launch Housing, a Victoria-based community organisation that provides housing and homelessness support services.
The addition of 57 dwellings for vulnerable Melburnians is valuable in its own right, particularly given the rapid increase in the numbers of people sleeping rough in Melbourne. However, it is the potential for expanding the concept that makes the project so exciting.
I started researching this project and interviewing the key stakeholders earlier this year. Several elements embedded in the Ballarat Road project represent both innovative and scalable responses to Australia’s urgent social and affordable housing needs.
Elements of an innovative solution
Innovation rarely results in an entirely unprecedented idea, product or service. More often it recombines existing elements in novel ways to create a new solution.
In the Ballarat Road case, all the elements of the project already existed. It is the interaction between the involved partners, the design and construction techniques and the land leasing arrangements that make it so interesting.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193718/original/file-20171108-6758-puky3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The project uses vacant land on Ballarat Road that would otherwise remain unused for several years. Schored Architects
The construction
Schored Architects designed the homes to a six star green rating. The units, designed for singles or couples, will be built in a factory before being transported to the sites.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194071/original/file-20171109-13311-17xgpfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Temporary transportable units are not new. In Amsterdam, the Keetwonnen project was developed in 2005 to provide 1,000 affordable, transportable units for students.
However, prefabrication and modular design is still embryonic in Australia. It accounts for about 3-5% of all new construction and housing.
The size of the industry constrains innovation, competition and variety. It also presents challenges in terms of managing projects. As one participant I spoke to explained: 
"The pre-fab world and modular design world is very much in its infancy … to the point where the prefab – there are no standards around documentation when you purchase a pre-fab home. So what you are using is existing architectural builder’s contracts rather than using something specific …"
It has the complications of ‘How is it transported? How is it stored? Does it meet Australian Building Code standards?’ It opens up that myriad of questions which the pre-fab world hasn’t answered yet.
The partnership
The project is the product of a collaboration between a community organisation, a government transport department (VicRoads) and a philanthropic donor. The connection, born of a series of serendipitous meetings and events, pulls together different resources and skill sets.
This kind of partnership is increasingly common as social housing moves towards a multi-provider system. Instead of a focus on government funded public housing, there is a greater reliance on partnerships between government, philanthropy, the not-for-profit sector and private industry. This requires commercial know-how and networking on the part of housing providers - the capacity to be a “pivot point”. As one participant from Launch Housing explained:
"Once people have locked in and engaged with an idea, they bring their own ideas. You don’t need to know what to ask for … And then it is about being an agency that has some kind of position or authority being a kind of pivot point for these offers and allowing things to happen. We are that."
The project is also significant because it attracted substantial philanthropic support. The Harris family contributed A$4 million and continue to advise on and support the project. For them, the capacity for scaling up the project is a significant factor in supporting it.
The land leasing
This project is an interesting case study because it leases VicRoads land. It is financially viable because the land is being leased at a “peppercorn rate” – a nominal fee to meet legal requirements.
VicRoads is willing to do this because the units are transportable. This means they can be moved to a new site when the land is eventually required for road expansion.
As one of the largest landowners in the state, VicRoads owns thousands of properties and vacant land parcels that have been acquired for future road widening.
A scalable solution
The project is scalable if key elements are assembled effectively: constructed dwellings, funding mechanisms, planning permissions and land.
The capacity to bolster existing factories or create new factories to build pre-fabricated homes exists. Evidence of demand and the success of this pilot project could help support that goal.
Housing projects designed to be affordable for very low-income individuals or households are not financially viable without significant subsidy. To scale up this solution would require government funding, another tranche of philanthropic donation, or a hybrid commercial and not-for-profit structure.
This project has undergone a fraught planning process. Maribyrnong City councillors unanimously supported the plan. But many members of the local community opposed the project, which the planning minister eventually “called in” for assessment.
Ongoing implementation of projects like this one may be supported by either better community engagement or fast-tracked planning processes for underutilised government land and social housing, as highlighted in the state government strategy, Homes for Victorians.
Various government departments, religious groups, philanthropic organisations and individuals manage significant land resources. Land is held vacant in anticipation of future needs, often sitting unused for decades.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86753/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Temporary dwellings could be an interim solution to urgent housing need and can be removed when land is required for other uses. This approach goes a long way to removing the barriers to use and could challenge how we think about vacant land in Australia.
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/portable-units-and-temporary-leases-free-up-vacant-land-for-urgent-housing-needs-86753" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Portable units and temporary leases free up vacant land: Katrina Raynor

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The increasing thirst of Australia’s biggest cities routinely exceeds our capacity to rely on rainfall for drinking water. Australia is facing a fast-approaching “perfect storm” of growing urban populations and declining rainfall to supply storage reservoirs.
Despite these challenges, our capital cities’ rapid population growth is forecast to continue in coming decades. Sydney, for example, is expected to grow by 1.6 million people in 20 years, but is predicted to be overtaken by Melbourne as the nation’s largest city by then.
How is Australia going to ensure the swelling urban population has enough water? The last two decades provide some important clues.
The largest east coast centres (Melbourne, Canberra, Brisbane and Sydney) have all faced water supply challenges, but Perth and Adelaide have really been pushed to extreme levels. Current water storage levels in Australian capital cities range from 94.2% in Hobart and 69.7% in Melbourne through to 40.4% in Perth – the lowest of the capital cities. Only a year ago it was an alarming 28.5%.
Why are Perth’s water storages so low? Because of steep declines in rainfall and catchment runoff into the city’s dams.
The world is watching Perth and its water supply crisis. The long-term volume of water flowing into the Perth supply has plummeted from an annual average of 338 gigalitres (1911 to 1974) to less than 50 GL/year (2010-2016). During this 43-year “big dry”, the number of people served by the Perth water supply has increased steeply.
How has Perth managed to survive? Desalination and groundwater have come to the rescue. Perth relies less on catchment runoff and surface storages, and now has two giant desalination plants. It also has tapped into groundwater as a major source of domestic water.
Solutions have been costly
All water utilities across Australia struggle with increased population growth and extended periods of low rainfall. The Millennium Drought caused widespread problems for all Australian urban water supplies. The levels in major east coast storages shrivelled to the lowest levels in decades.
Melbourne’s water storages fell to a perilous low of 26% in June 2009. A large part of Adelaide’s water supply has relied on declining flows in the Murray River. The drought combined with extractions by upstream water users reduced the Murray to a trickle in 2006-07.
All of the mainland states have built huge desalination plants, but these come with huge price tags. The Melbourne plant cost about A$4 billion.
Operational costs are enormous, even if the plants sit idle. The Sydney plant’s costs are more than A$500,000 a day, although it has not supplied any water since 2012 as the city’s stored water supply remains higher than 60% of capacity.
Desalination also uses enormous quantities of electricity to extract fresh water from salt water. During his time as NSW premier, Bob Carr referred to desalination as “bottled electricity”. This is important to consider given the power crisis facing eastern Australia.
Urban growth affects water quality
The growth of the urban populations and other human activities is linked to water quality issues in urban water supplies. Melbourne’s water catchments are mostly “closed” – minimal private landholdings and human activity are permitted. In contrast, Sydney and Brisbane have more “open” catchments, which include private lands.
Three Brisbane storages (Wivenhoe, North Pine and Somerset) have water quality issues linked to agriculture and other human activity in the catchments. Sydney’s massive Warragamba Dam has a huge catchment that includes more than 110,000 people. The settlements are served by nine sewage treatment plants, most of which discharge treated sewage into drinking water catchment rivers.
A recent audit of the Sydney catchments and storages reported that sewage treatment plant upgrades had improved water quality. The audit recommended that future upgrades improve sewage treatment for the growing urban population in the NSW Southern Highlands (Bowral, Mittagong and Moss Vale).
The case for water conservation and recycling
Perth and Adelaide are the two capitals under most water supply stress. They are an example for all Australian capitals to consider when planning future water supply challenges and solutions. Both Perth and Adelaide now heavily rely on recycled water and desalination.
Recycling waste water for use in urban water supplies is important for all urban centres, particularly Perth and Adelaide. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization points out that waste water has numerous public health risks, so risk management is essential for all recycled water schemes.
Perth and Adelaide are both using more groundwater than the other capital cities. Perth is extracting more groundwater from deep aquifers north of the city. Perth is also pumping treated waste water into shallower groundwater aquifers to replenish the supply.
No new large water supply dam has been built in Australia since the 1980s. The challenge of meeting future urban water demand is not likely to be solved by building new dams.
While desalination, groundwater and recycling are all growing in importance, our individual actions to conserve and use less water are key. For example, the consumption of water per person in Sydney has dropped from 500 litres a day in 1990 to less than 300 litres. Melbourne has a daily target of 155 litres per person.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86301/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">There is plenty of room for improvement. According to United Nations data, Australia still has the second-highest daily water consumption per person. The US has the world’s highest at 575 litres a day. The UK is already exceeding Melbourne’s target with 149 litres per day. Tragically, in Mozambique, water is in such short supply that people there use a paltry four litres per day.
Ian Wright, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-what-australias-growing-cities-need-to-do-to-avoid-running-dry-86301" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

This is what Australia's growing cities need to do to avoid running dry: Ian Wright

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Two current global trends are set to make life rather uncomfortable for cities: climate change and the unprecedented rate of urbanisation.
This combination of extreme weather – often involving sudden deluges of water – and high population density will test even the best sewage infrastructure we have today. In the face of such pressures, how adaptable are our sewage systems?
Colonial heritage in our sewage systems
Sewage systems worldwide commonly consist of flush toilets and pipes that rely on a steady supply of water to transport and deposit bodily waste, either to a wastewater treatment plant or, failing that, simply downstream in the nearest river or straight into the ocean.
Many urbanites around the globe are using sewage systems based on a colonial-era template. Initially implemented to cure London’s “Great Stink” of 1858, when a hot summer combined with the excrement-filled River Thames to create an unbearable stench, sewer systems were public health interventions designed to remove pathogens and “miasmatic” offences associated with bodily waste.
They were first transplanted off Britain’s shores in the reconstruction of Paris from 1850–70, and since then have become embedded culture-specific notions of hygiene and sanitation around the globe.
Such colonial infrastructure is now proving increasingly problematic in the face of human-driven global trends (broadly referred to as the Anthropocene).
Using water to flush waste
A paradox of climate change is that there seems to be both more and less water. In South Asia, for example, at least 1.6 billion people struggle to find drinking water despite an abundance of water generally.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177976/original/file-20170712-19681-1mjtidi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
A woman siphoning water from a leaky pipe into a bucket on the side of the road during summer. Author provided
For residents of Darjeeling, India, where I am currently conducting my PhD fieldwork, this paradox is very real. Monsoons in Darjeeling last from June through August, sometimes longer, and rain falls frequently throughout the rest of the year. On the face of it, Darjeeling should have plenty of water, but in fact it faces increasingly acute shortages during the summer months from April to June.
The town’s water and waste infrastructure was built by the British in the 1930s, for what was then a population of 10,000. Its population now hovers around the 150,000 mark, and surges to more than 200,000 during peak tourist season from March to May. Despite this, there has been little to no official maintenance or upgrade since Indian independence in 1947.
In town, signs that urbanisation has outpaced infrastructure capacity are everywhere. An impressive number of pipes move water to and from the population. Along with electricity wires, these pipes traverse the city along increasingly bizarre and precarious routes. Ad hoc retrofit attempts to meet rising demand appear to be band-aid solutions and, because the pipes leak, often exacerbate contamination.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178026/original/file-20170713-19681-1qpyt4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 A typical open sewer in Darjeeling. Note the pipes on either side are water pipes taking drinking water to homes. Author provided
Darjeeling is instructive because it is a landscape struggling with inadequate infrastructure amid a rapidly urbanising population. In such a landscape, fresh water can be contaminated by sewage outflows, largely because the system is completely dependent on water to function.
Such over-reliance underpins another paradox: modern sewerage systems require water to work and yet, if not context-sensitive nor managed appropriately, can dirty vital waterways.
Closer to home
Australia is not immune to such problems. Our changing climate means we too face more severe droughts along with heavier rainfall events. Under these conditions, our sewage systems are under increasing stress.
Earlier this year Melbourne experienced summer flash floods which strained the city’s sewage systems, contaminating three public beaches. In February a heavy downpour in Western Australia caused concern over sewage contamination in the Swan River.
Such experiences are not isolated, and are likely to increase in incidence across the world. They provide important lessons and act as a catalyst for rethinking our relationship to water and waste, particularly amid concerns over water scarcity and extreme weather conditions in southern Australia.
Alternative futures
Many social scientists are now researching alternative forms of infrastructure that are contextually relevant, embedded in community values, and adaptable to current environmental challenges.
These alternative forms include moves to re-examine our relationship with waste in farming, use dry composting toilets, and install public bio-toilets along India’s main railway corridors.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78095/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">As for my home town of Adelaide, the capital of the driest state on the driest inhabited continent on Earth, should we really continue to use water to flush bodily waste?
Matt Barlow works at University of Adelaide.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/finally-facing-our-water-loo-its-time-to-decolonise-sewerage-systems-78095" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Decolonising our sewerage systems: Matt Barlow

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
It’s pretty common nowadays to see the likes of the Reserve Bank of Australia or the Australian Bureau of Statistics issue warnings about the size of Australian household debt. The reason is that the consequences of poor financial decisions often reach far wider than an individual or family.
The global financial crisis showed us how rapidly financial contagion can spread - one person’s debt is another person’s asset, so when the debt is written off so is the asset. However, there has been little improvement in financial literacy in the wake of the financial crisis, the lack of which was one of the underlying causes.
For instance, surveys just prior to the global financial crisis revealed that many Americans taking out home loans either did not read their loan documents or did not understand them. This meant that, in many cases, they did not understand that they were signing teaser loans where the interest rate starts out very low but increases after a few years.
This lack of financial literacy combined with predatory lending caused the subprime loan crisis, the precursor to the full blown financial crisis.
What is financial literacy?
Financial literacy refers to the ability to make sound financial decisions based on knowledge, skills and attitudes, taking into account personal circumstances.
Low financial literacy is particularly concerning in home loans. In an alarming parallel to the United States before the financial crisis, roughly one third of interest-only mortgagees do not understand that their repayments make no inroads into their debt, and that their interest rates will jump considerably after the interest-only period of the loan has expired.
But it isn’t just that low financial literacy increases risk. It is also important for achieving a productive economy. Economic efficiency requires borrowers to not only have good information but to understand it. This allows them to weigh up the costs of borrowing with the benefits that they expect to receive.
If the information is distorted, either deliberately by lenders or through the misunderstanding of borrowers, they will miscalculate the benefits and capital in the economy will be misallocated. Economists call this market failure, a lot of which occurred in the housing market in the United States before the global financial crisis.
Financial literacy isn’t improving
Evidence suggests that financial literacy has not improved since the global financial crisis, and may have gotten worse.
A survey of adult financial literacy in Australia found that in 2014 the number of people who could actually recognise an investment was “too good to be true” - for example a financial asset promising to pay a return much higher than the going return on similar assets and for no greater risk - had actually declined, to 50% from 53% just three years earlier.
The survey also found that those who recognised that good investments (something with relatively low risk) may fluctuate in value fell to 67% from 74%.
But financial literacy education must also go hand in hand with general literacy and numeracy. The Productivity Commission found that 14% of the adult population had relatively low literacy skills in 2011-12. This is defined as being able to, at best, locate basic information from simple texts but being unable to evaluate truth claims or arguments.
The report also found 22% of the population had low numeracy skills, meaning that they can count, add and subtract and do other basic arithmetic. But they cannot understand statistical ideas, mathematical formula or analyse data.
In other words, a significant proportion of the Australian adult population are not equipped to understand the effect of an interest rate increase on their loan repayments, or understand a loan document that includes an interest rate increase after an initial period.
Fixing the problem of financial illiteracy cannot wait until people are in the throes of negotiating home loans and credit cards. And it should definitely take place before Australians resort to pay day loans.
This was the aim of the Australian Government’s National Financial Literacy Strategy, that ends this year. The strategy proposes a number of educational initiatives including embedding financial literacy in the school curriculum, a formal teacher training program, and development of educational resources and tools.
The strategy draws on similar steps that have been adopted by other countries and recommended by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The problem is that the curriculum is a crowded space. Financial literacy must compete with the latest fashions in school education as well as traditional curriculum content.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84695/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Fighting for curriculum space for financial literacy is a political exercise which governments must play hard. For example, by attaching serious funding to the achievement of financial literacy indicators at the school level, and training and certification for teachers. Increasing financial literacy isn’t just in the best interest of individuals, we all benefit from a more literate population.
Ross Guest is professor of economics and national senior teaching fellow at Griffith University.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/financial-literacy-is-a-public-policy-problem-84695" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Public Policy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Public Policy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News