Scott Morrison

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/72861/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVERS 
Federal government ministers have cast a cloud over funding for social housing and homelessness services, leading to speculation that the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) may not survive the 2017 budget.
Treasurer Scott Morrison and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar point to the recent Report on Government Services, which shows the number of public housing properties has fallen, as evidence of the NAHA’s “abject failure”. Sukkar said:
"We believe it’s crucial that every dollar of spending on affordable housing programs increases the number and availability of public and social housing stock. Clearly, this objective has not been met."
It should be no surprise that Australia’s social housing has been largely static for 20 years. Everything we know about the system tells us it is not funded to even cover the costs of its ongoing operation, let alone growth to meet the needs of an expanding population. Aside from a one-off boost under the 2009 federal economic stimulus plan, social housing has been on a starvation ration for decades.
The whole system system is effectively being run at a loss. So, from the perspective of state governments, building a new public housing dwelling is just one more way of losing money.
The federal government has also long lamented the lack of transparency about how states and territories spend their NAHA funds – about AS$1.5 billion a year. And there are glaring gaps in the evidence about the operations and performance of public housing authorities.
In failing to act on a 2009 commitment to modernise and enhance the Report on Government Services metrics, the states and territories have placed themselves in a weak position to rebut claims of ineffective financial management.
That said, everyone who has any contact with the public housing system knows it to be grossly underfunded. One-off studies occasionally illuminate the scale of the issue. For example, a 2013 New South Wales Audit Office report found a $600 million annual operating deficit for that state’s public housing. But no-one can easily quantify the extent of the problem using routinely published data.
A snapshot of social housing in Australia
Around 320,000 of Australia’s approximately 428,000 social housing dwellings remain under public housing authority control. This stock was amassed through a long series of funding agreements between federal and state and territory governments. These were known as the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements until their 2009 NAHA rebranding.
From the first Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in 1945, the basic arrangement was that the federal government would lend funds to state housing authorities to build houses. The states would cover the ongoing costs from the rents paid by working-class tenants.
And, at least to begin with, the housing authorities did build. They made a significant contribution to housing supply, amounting to roughly one in six houses built between 1945 and 1965.
From the early 1970s, the housing authorities were directed, justifiably, to provide more housing to low-income households unable to pay full “market” rents. However, their capital funding also went into a long decline. With the exception of a brief period in the mid-1980s, housing authorities never again built at their earlier rate.
A number of interlocking problems set in. Social housing’s declining share of the housing stock became more tightly rationed to the lowest-income households. This eroded the system’s rent base. At the same time, its ageing buildings and households with greater support needs increased its costs.
Two landmark studies by Jon Hall and Mike Berry charted the implications of these developments for the finances. At the end of the 1980s, all but one of the housing authorities ran an operating surplus. By 2004, all but one ran an operating deficit.
Various attempts to improve the situation have been made. The 1989 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement switched federal funding from loans to grants; the 1996 agreement allowed federal funds to be spent on recurrent expenses. In the early 2000s, rebates on social housing rents were reduced, slightly increasing revenue.
Modest amounts of public housing have also been transferred into the hands of not-for-profit community housing providers. Partly, this is to take advantage of the eligibility of community housing tenants for Commonwealth Rent Assistance. But although this often enables these providers to run a small operational surplus, it isn’t enough to fund stock replacement or any significant expansion.
Meanwhile, the overall stock has been eaten away, through market sales of public housing, and run down, through skimping on repairs and maintenance. Both are unsustainable strategies.
Running a system without good data
If the broad outlines of the problem are clear, there are major deficiencies in the data as to the details. The Hall and Berry analysis is now dated. There is no current evidence base that shows transparently and consistently what the social housing system in each state and territory costs, and how these costs are met.
For example, the Report on Government Services purports to show the “net recurrent cost per dwelling” for each state and territory. But this does not differentiate between distinct expenditure components such as management and maintenance.
Our 2015 research found that this metric was a “black box”, subject to implausibly large variations across jurisdictions. These reflected the vagaries of departmental restructures, rather than a sound accounting of social housing operations.
There is little doubt that all public housing authorities are now in deficit. However, the Report on Government Services provides no data on the relative scale of these funding shortfalls. Nor do governments routinely reveal the scale of system costs still met by tenants’ rents, nor through stock sales.
What should a rebooted NAHA do?
Although the NAHA does it inadequately, an enduring program of federal funding for operational expenses is essential to sustain the social housing system. Such funding cannot be “replaced”, as Morrison has suggested, by a government-backed aggregated bond financing model.
The bond aggregator model depends on social housing providers having a durable subsidy from government that pays the difference between their ongoing costs and the revenue from rent that low-income tenants can afford.
Instead, NAHA should be rebooted to deliver three things:
capital funding for new social housing stock, distributed according to an assessment of current and projected needs in each state and territory;
recurrent funding, distributed according to the number of social housing dwellings in each state and territory and an assessment of reasonable net recurrent costs; and
clear accounting by social housing providers for costs of provision and the contributions of tenants, government funding and other sources of income towards meeting these costs.
Many in the social housing world would agree the NAHA framework is far from transparent and that there is no certainty that NAHA money is optimally spent. But a ministerial focus on these issues while ignoring the system’s chronic underfunding smacks of re-arranging deckchairs.
Rather than scrapping the NAHA, the system should be rebooted, to properly fund both the growth and ongoing operations of social housing. This must be done on the basis of clear targets for the level of need to be met and the reasonable costs of providing the service.
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<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hal-pawson-147969"> </a>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>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Australia needs to reboot affordable housing funding, not scrap it

You don’t address housing affordability by crashing the housing market: Scott Morrison

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67796/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Scott Morrison is a “once bitten, never shy” sort of guy. Having had a bad experience in the high profile debate over whether to change the GST, which ultimately came to nothing, the Treasurer this week launched into the hot topic of housing affordability.
The question is, can he and the government manage the issue or will it, too, turn on them?
With tax, the then-new Turnbull government put “everything on the table”, only to produce a package limited in scope and reform. Even the centrepiece of that - a company tax reduction over a decade – will have to be pared back to pass the Senate.
The opposite approach is being brought to housing affordability. Morrison wants to confine what’s put on the table to the supply side. Attacking demand would crash the market, he says. So in his Monday speech to the Urban Development Institute of Australia he focused on the need to cut planning regulations to free up land.
But the pressure is strong for a broader discussion.
Morrison’s address had plenty of statistics illustrating the problem. Over the past 20 years the proportion of Australian households owning or paying off their home has fallen from 71% to 67%; the proportion of home owners over 45 with a mortgage has risen significantly.
As Morrison said, “the real pinch point” is breaking into the market. “Across the country, a 20% deposit on the nationwide median home loan is more than 100% of annual household disposable income … well above the 60% levels that were the norm prior to 2000.” The proportion of home loans to first home buyers was 13.4% in August, the lowest since February 2004; this compared with the long term average of 19.4%.
Morrison noted that the housing issue had implications for retirement incomes. If it takes longer to pay off your mortgage, you can save less for later, or perhaps eventually need to use some of your superannuation to clear your house loan. He didn’t observe, but it is also true, that many younger people facing the challenge of getting together a deposit will also have the burden of starting to pay back student debt.
Malcolm Turnbull is said to be very anxious the government search for solutions to the affordability challenge. Expert opinion and common sense indicate this search should be as broad as possible, looking at the demand as well as the supply side.
The government knows this. Before the last election it considered imposing some restraint on negative gearing. But, wanting to sharpen the contrast with Labor, which proposed bold changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, it did not go ahead.
Thus its attempt to put the affordability issue into the straightjacket labelled supply - with emphasis on regulations that are state and local rather than federal government responsibilities - is very political, when what’s needed is an open-minded quest for the best evidence-based policy.
Already the containment is being resisted.
Last term the government had a parliamentary inquiry underway by the House of Representatives economics committee into home ownership, chaired by Sydney Liberal John Alexander. Alexander was moved to another committee; by the time of the election the inquiry had not reported. Post-election Turnbull, hosing down another problem, had the economics committee divert onto quizzing bank CEOs.
Now Alexander wants the housing inquiry reconstituted under his House committee on infrastructure, transport and cities. That would make a lot of sense - much work was done and shouldn’t be wasted. Alexander wrote to Morrison in September seeking the reference, but hasn’t heard back yet.
This is a nice dilemma for Morrison. Alexander is widely on the record arguing the demand side is important and, what’s more, that investors are making it hard for young first home buyers. The evidence indicated “investors were trampling on the opportunity for people wanting to buy a first home”, he says.
Alexander believes there is a case for tweaking negative gearing - though he does not support Labor’s policy which would have been “catastrophic” - and for looking at capital gains tax provisions. He describes negative gearing as an “incredibly dynamic tool” and likens it to a high-powered car that needs to operate within a speed limit.
He says the policy objective should be a gradual transition “to maximum home ownership” and a reduction in “speculation and opportunism” in the market.
Not only does the government have to decide about the parliamentary inquiry but Morrison has said he will take up the issue of freeing up planning regulations with state treasurers when they meet in December.
This can be seen as pushing the issue onto the states. The perennial debate has also re-opened about how a shake up of state taxes could help.
Morrison faces the risk of perceived failure if the federal government raises expectations then little happens. Even if the states pledged to regulation reform, results would come in the medium term.
The other danger for Morrison and the government is that opening up the housing affordability issue is moving the play onto Labor’s ground. The opposition’s position on negative gearing doesn’t seem to have cost it votes on July 2. It gets the opportunity to run it again, arguing that it has a ready-made policy to respond to the problem the Treasurer has put right at the centre of the political agenda.
Michelle Grattan<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-grattan-20316" rel="author"></a> is professorial fellow, University of Canberra and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-grattan-20316" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Morrison opens housing affordability debate but can he control it?

<html><body>
There are few real estate activities more depressing than observing a media debate about housing affordability.
It’s a downer because it’s clear from the rhetoric that this nation is unlikely to ever achieve any kind of resolution of the issue.
There are four reasons: (1) the politicians don’t understand it and/or are unwilling to do what’s needed; (2) industry people who do understand it champion their vested interests rather than the national interest; (3) everyone else has their heads full of misinformation, political agendas and unhelpful emotion; and (4) most discussions focus on Sydney prices and ignore the realities in other parts of Australia.
The outcome is mishmash of misconceptions, myths and outright lies. Nothing useful is ever achieved.
A recent discussion of ABS TV program The Drum was representative of how bad it gets. None of the people at the discussion table had any knowledge on the issue and simply indulged their prejudices and personal agendas. One spectacular twit claimed no one can get into the housing market any more because you need a $200,000 deposit to buy a typical house. Not even in Sydney is that remotely close to the truth.
The so-called affordability crisis is never far from the headlines and it stepped up in prominence this week with Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison declaring he was serious about fixing the problem. But of course he wasn’t serious at all. He essentially dumped the problem at the feet of state governments, with a generalised assertion that taking steps to increase dwelling supply will make everything better.
That’s one of the subject’s biggest furphies – a simplistic policy of lifting supply won’t force down prices unless the idea is to deliberately generate a major oversupply. One thing Morrison got right was his statement that you won’t fix the problem by crashing the market.
As a general observation, we don’t need more dwellings in Australia. We’re already building far too many apartments, which will result in falling values, but only in specific areas such as the inner-city unit markets of Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, as well as surfside Gold Coast. This runs contrary to the statement by Malcolm Turnbull this week that “we simply haven’t been building enough dwellings” – which shows how little he understands about the situation.
Federal Labor responded with its standard party line that restricting tax benefits for investors will make housing affordable again – despite the assertion by leader Bill Shorten that his policy won’t cause house values to decline (so therefore how will it make housing more affordable?). And that, sadly, is the extent of his understanding of the issue.
There followed lots of finger-pointing, with each level of government blaming another level of government for the perceived problems, and each side of politics scapegoating their opponents.
Industry lobby groups leapt at the opportunity to advance their pet causes. Master Builders Australia agreed, naturally, that a big lift in new home construction would be the solution, but argued that politicians needed to make changes to make it really attractive for developers and builders. The Urban Taskforce declared that developers would be happy to build lots of affordable homes, just so long as government handed them plenty of financial incentives. 
As I’ve often commented, the biggest noise in real estate is always the voice of vested interest.
Even in Perth, where there is vast oversupply and high vacancies right across the metropolitan area, the Urban Development Institute of Australia urged the WA State Government to take steps to increase housing supply. 
To paraphrase Shakespeare, they were all tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The problem is that none of solutions put forward will make the required difference. They’re all targeting the wrong villains.
Everyone has a theory on who’s to blame for rising prices: some say foreign investors, others claim Australian investors, a few proclaim it’s first-home buyers pumped up by government incentives and still others, including former federal minister Bob Carr, reckon it’s the high level of overseas migration into Australia.
Who’s right? Well, none of them. The real culprits are never mentioned.
The biggest single force in driving house prices comprises the market sector known as next-time buyers –i.e. home-buyers other than first-home buyers. Numerically they’re the biggest chunk of the market and they’re aspirational. They have the financial capacity and ambition to pay top dollar to secure the property they’re obsessing over.
Investors, generally, don’t do that and first-timers can’t afford to.
But there’s an even bigger villain, one the politicians never mention while they’re busy pointing their fingers in various other directions - because the biggest problems are caused by the politicians themselves.
The value of homes in Australia is under-pinned by their replacement cost – i.e. the high cost of creating new house-and-land packages, the biggest chunk of which comprises taxes, fees and charges from all three levels of government.
As long as local, state and federal governments treat the housing industry as a beloved cash cow, housing will remain pricey in this country. Most of the state budgets handed down this year made the problem worse by adding to housing costs. 
You can build as many new houses as you like, but developers can’t sell them for $250,000 if they cost $400,000 to create.
Federal politicians recently conducted an inquiry into the affordability issue, which took a lot of time, cost of lot of money and achieved absolutely nothing. The Federal Government made a show of clamping down on foreigners illegally buying mansions, but that has changed nothing for first-home buyers 
Last year another inquiry was initiated by the House of Representatives economics committee but, according to reports this week, that has lapsed through lack of energy.
So where are we after all that “sound and fury”? Exactly the same place we were before Scott Morrison stepped up to the microphone – nowhere closer to any solutions.
Terry Ryder is the founder of <a href="https://www.hotspotting.com.au/" target="_blank">hotspotting.com.au</a>. You can <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email him</a> or follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter.</a>
</body></html>

terryryder-YECXbqmri2

We don’t need more dwellings in Australia

<html><body>
GUEST Observation
Our governments are <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-just-started-well-need-war-bonds-and-stimulus-on-a-scale-not-seen-in-our-lifetimes-137155" target="_blank">committing taxpayers to further debt</a> as part of a planned recovery from the economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Infrastructure spending is great for economic stimulus, but it has to be the right kind of infrastructure.
These are some of our largest public investments, so we want this public money to work a lot harder to create multiple rather than just singular benefits. As well as quickly providing jobs and the economic benefits of solving the problems of transport or energy supply, stimulus projects need to deliver broad, long-term community value, <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-coronavirus-widens-the-renter-owner-divide-housing-policies-will-have-to-change-135808" target="_blank">reduce inequality</a> and help <a href="https://theconversation.com/sorry-to-disappoint-climate-deniers-but-coronavirus-makes-the-low-carbon-transition-more-urgent-135419" target="_blank">counter climate change</a>.
The focus of <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-flags-company-tax-cuts-ir-reform-as-key-to-covid-19-economic-recovery-20200417-p54kvq" target="_blank">fast-tracked infrastructure spending</a> in the pandemic recovery should be many smaller-scale projects that provide these broader benefits. Hence these projects will provide greater value than the <a href="https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/" target="_blank">transport mega-projects</a> that had already been <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-inject-economic-stimulus-by-accelerating-infrastructure-spend-127358" target="_blank">proposed for economic stimulus</a>.
For example, the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-backs-economic-game-changer-high-speed-rail-as-part-of-pandemic-recovery-20200418-p54l24" target="_blank">high-speed rail project</a> Labor has proposed will help decarbonise travel, but it won’t provide enough jobs in the short or medium term. Major road projects will cut commuting time for some drivers, but won’t provide widespread benefits or longer-term employment. New roads also increase emissions and often damage neighbourhoods.
<h2>Good infrastructure delivers broad benefits</h2>
Infrastructure projects are such significant economic engines they can incorporate community improvement without compromising their other outcomes.
The ways in which projects get planned and implemented hold the key. For example, projects should involve local businesses, give hiring preference to long-term unemployed people and use sustainable materials.
Infrastructure planning can integrate multiple functions. For example, water-management infrastructure (for drainage or flooding) can be designed to include open space, tree cover, recreation and cycleways. Streets can be designed as beautiful public spaces that include pedestrians, cyclists and cars, as well as tree canopy and water storage.
Good infrastructure used for employment creation and economic recovery looks like <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Deal" target="_blank">Roosevelt’s New Deal</a> of the 1930s. These programs created a legacy of high-quality public infrastructure across the United States.
A “Green New Deal” approach in Australia could focus on smaller-scale projects, including:
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/physical-distancing-is-here-for-a-while-over-100-experts-call-for-more-safe-walking-and-cycling-space-137374" target="_blank">infrastructure to promote walking and cycling</a>
</li>
<li>
tree planting to <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-solution-to-cut-extreme-heat-by-up-to-6-degrees-is-in-our-own-backyards-133082" target="_blank">reduce heat and store carbon</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/drought-fire-and-flood-how-outer-urban-areas-can-manage-the-emergency-while-reducing-future-risks-131560" target="_blank">land-management strategies to reduce fire and flood risks</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-the-economy-we-need-green-stimulus-not-fossil-fuel-bailouts-133492" target="_blank">renewable energy infrastructure</a> of all kinds
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-dont-know-what-weve-got-till-its-gone-we-must-reclaim-public-space-lost-to-the-coronavirus-crisis-135817" target="_blank">improvements to public open spaces</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-focus-of-stimulus-plans-has-to-be-construction-that-puts-social-housing-first-136519" target="_blank">retrofitting and enhancing schools</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.greenway.org.au/" target="_blank">multipurpose greenways</a>.
</li>
</ul>
This greenway traverses Sydney’s Inner West municipality.
These types of projects are fast to get going and labour-intensive. They can be implemented in both cities and regional areas. These projects can also build longer-term employment capacity and help with the transition of workers out of fossil fuel industry jobs.
<h2>Bigger isn’t necessarily better</h2>
The largest infrastructure projects, like those being proposed, are the riskiest in terms of <a href="https://theconversation.com/spectacular-cost-blowouts-show-need-to-keep-governments-honest-on-transport-66394" target="_blank">cost blowouts</a> and often deliver limited social and environmental value. In many instances their <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.jstor.org/stable/23607068?seq=1" target="_blank">claimed economic value is also doubtful</a>, as their costs are modelled inaccurately and their benefits and use are often vastly exaggerated.
One cause of cost blowouts is that governments are often reluctant to commit to spending in the early stages of major projects. This means commitments are often <a href="https://theconversation.com/missing-evidence-base-for-big-calls-on-infrastructure-costs-us-all-99080" target="_blank">made before projects are well enough understood</a>. Early spending to explore alternatives, understand impacts and consult widely can often <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2009.00606.x" target="_blank">realise projects more quickly and with more predictable outcomes</a> that better serve the public interest.
The Morrison government is promoting the myth of fast-tracking through the cutting of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-25/coronavirus-eeconomy-reforms-usual-suspects/12182786" target="_blank">red tape</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/23/coalition-is-aiming-to-change-australias-environment-laws-before-review-is-finished" target="_blank">green tape</a>. This is not the key to faster project delivery. We have a decent system of development regulation, which attempts to balance the business interests of developers against the public good. The current crisis has illustrated very clearly the importance of the public values of <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-reminds-us-how-liveable-neighbourhoods-matter-for-our-well-being-135806" target="_blank">liveability</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-major-scorecard-gives-the-health-of-australias-environment-less-than-1-out-of-10-133444" target="_blank">preserving natural resources</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/physical-distancing-is-here-for-a-while-over-100-experts-call-for-more-safe-walking-and-cycling-space-137374" target="_blank">easy access to open space and local centres</a>.
We must hold all our infrastructure projects to higher standards. Robust planning and <a href="https://theconversation.com/cutting-green-tape-may-be-good-politicking-but-its-bad-policy-here-are-5-examples-of-regulation-failure-137164" target="_blank">environmental regulation are crucial</a> to maximise the public benefit of projects. Effective <a href="https://theconversation.com/sidelining-citizens-when-deciding-on-transport-projects-is-asking-for-trouble-92840" target="_blank">community engagement ultimately leads to smoother implementation</a> and better outcomes. Projects that work within planning regulations <a href="https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/urbanism/planning/fast-tracking-development-in-nsw-genuine-reform-or-rent-seeker-give-away/?ct=t%2821+april+2020%29" target="_blank">move more swiftly into implementation</a> than projects that try to bypass them.
In this pandemic crisis we have seen governments move fast and effectively to change policy and implement large-scale programs to benefit the community. The economic rebuilding forced on us by the pandemic is an opportunity to show the same agility to rethink our approach to infrastructure as an engine to uplift our communities and improve life for all citizens.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136838/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/elizabeth-mossop-1040691" target="_blank">Elizabeth Mossop</a>, Dean of Design, Architecture and Building, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936" target="_blank">University of Technology Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pm-wants-to-fast-track-mega-projects-for-pandemic-recovery-heres-why-thats-a-bad-idea-136838" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

The PM wants to fast-track mega-projects for pandemic recovery. Here's why that’s a bad idea

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The Morrison government <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-04/pitt-committs-no-more-buybacks-creates-new-water-compliance-body/12627758" target="_blank">today</a> declared it will axe buybacks of water entitlements from irrigators, placating farmers who say the system has <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/murray-darling-water-woes-strip-another-100-jobs-from-drought-hit-rice-towns-20191126-p53e9k" target="_blank">damaged</a> their livelihood and communities.
Instead, Water Minister Keith Pitt says the government will scale up efforts to save water by upgrading infrastructure for farming irrigators in the Murray Darling Basin.
The move will anger environmentalists, who say water buybacks are vital to restoring flows to Australia’s most important river system. It also contradicts <a href="https://theconversation.com/recovering-water-for-the-environment-in-the-murray-darling-farm-upgrades-increase-water-prices-more-than-buybacks-145289" target="_blank">findings</a> from the government’s own experts this week who said farm upgrades increase water prices more than buyback water recovery.
The government has chosen a route not backed by evidence, and which will deliver a bad deal to taxpayers and the environment.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356465/original/file-20200904-20-s3srfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="A farmer stands in the dry river bed of the Darling River"> The government will no longer buy water from farmers for the environment. Dean Lewins/AAP
<h2>A brief history of water buybacks</h2>
Farmers along the Murray Darling are entitled to a certain amount of river water which they can use or sell. In 2008, the federal Labor government began buying some of these entitlements in an open-tender process known as “buybacks”. The purchased water was returned to the parched river system to boost the environment.
In 2012, the Murray Darling Basin Plan was struck. It stipulated that 2,750 billion litres of water would be bought back from irrigators and delivered to the environment every year. The buyback system was <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-02/windsor-report-slams-murray-darling-authority/2742822" target="_blank">not universally supported</a> – critics claim buybacks increase water prices, and hurt farmers by reducing the water available for irrigation.
The Coalition government came to office in 2013 and adopted a “strategic” approach to water buybacks. These purchases were made behind closed doors with chosen irrigators.
In <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/procurement-strategic-water-entitlements" target="_blank">a review</a> of these buybacks released last month, the Australian National Audit Office found many of these taxpayer-funded deals were not good value for money.
The federal government ordered the review after <a href="https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/P959%20A%20little%20more%20valuation%20%255bWeb%255d.pdf" target="_blank">controversy</a> involving the 2017 purchase of water from two Queensland properties owned by Eastern Australia Agriculture.
The government paid A$80 million for the entitlements – an amount <a href="https://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/6898970/government-paid-almost-double-for-watergate-buyback/?cs=14480" target="_blank">critics said</a> was well over market value. The deal was also contentious because government frontbencher Angus Taylor was, before the purchase, a non-financial director of the company. The company also had links to the Cayman Islands tax haven.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356468/original/file-20200904-20-1b3l01g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="Keith Pitt speaks in Parliament as Prime Minister Scott Morrison watches on"> Water Minister Keith Pitt, pictured during Question Time, is the minister responsible for the new approach. Mick Tsikas/AAP
<h2>Infrastructure subsidies: a flawed approach</h2>
The Coalition government is taking a different approach to recover water for the environment: subsidising water infrastructure on farms and elsewhere. This infrastructure <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/cash-splash/11289412" target="_blank">includes</a> lining ponds and possibly levees to trap and store water.
The subsidies have cost many billions of dollars yet recover water at a very much higher cost than <a href="https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/stop-wasteful-water-infrastructure-subsidies-for-mdb-%E2%80%93-study" target="_blank">reverse tenders</a>. This approach also reduces the water that returns to streams and groundwater.
 
The justification for water infrastructure subsidies is that they are supposedly less damaging to irrigation communities. But the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) concluded in <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications/insights/economic-effects-of-water-recovery-in-murray-darling-basin" target="_blank">a report</a> published this week that on-farm water infrastructure subsidies, while beneficial for their participants, “push water prices higher, placing pressure on the wider irrigation sector”. This is the very sector the subsidies purport to help.
So why would the government expand the use of water infrastructure when it costs more and isn’t good value for money? The answer may lie in this finding from the ABARES report:
<blockquote>
Irrigators who hold large volumes of entitlement relative to their water use (and are frequently net sellers of water allocations) may benefit from higher water prices, as this increases the value of their entitlements.
Farmers with limited entitlement holdings however may be adversely affected, as higher water prices increase their costs and lowers their profitability.
</blockquote>
In other words, the “big end of town” benefits – at taxpayers’ expense – while the small-scale irrigators lose out.
<h2>Missing water</h2>
Adding insult to injury, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists released a <a href="https://wentworthgroup.org/2020/09/mdb-flows-2020/2020/" target="_blank">detailed report</a> this week showing the basin plan is failing to deliver the water expected, even after accounting for dry weather. Some two trillion litres of water is not in the rivers and streams of the basin and appears to have been consumed – a volume that could be more than <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/the-mystery-of-the-murray-darlings-vanishing-flows/12612166?nw=0" target="_blank">four times</a> the water in Sydney Harbour.
The Wentworth Group says stream flows may be less than expected because environmental water recovery has been undermined by “water-saving” infrastructure, which reduces the amount of water that would otherwise return to rivers and groundwater.
This infrastructure, on which taxpayers have spent over A$4 billion, has not had the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092134492030077X" target="_blank">desired effect</a>. Research has found those who receive infrastructure subsidies increased water extractions by more than those who did not receive subsidies. That’s because farmers who were using water more efficiently often planted thirstier crops.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356467/original/file-20200904-24-1orkxk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="Dusk at Menindee Lakes in the Murray Darling Basin"> The government took a strategic approach to water buybacks in the Murray Darling Basin. Shutterstock
<h2>We deserve better</h2>
It’s clear taxpayer dollars are much better spent buying back water entitlements, through open tenders, rather than subsidising water infrastructure. We can, and must, do <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-8489.12288" target="_blank">much better</a> with water policy.
Today, the federal government has doubled down on wasteful spending at taxpayer expense – in a time of a COVID-induced recession.
So what is on offer from the Morrison government? Continuing to ignore its own experts’ advice and delivering yet more ineffective subsidies for water infrastructure. Our rivers, our communities, and all Australians deserve much better.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/quentin-grafton-1941" target="_blank">Quentin Grafton</a>, Director of the Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292" target="_blank">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-plan-to-scrap-water-buybacks-will-hurt-taxpayers-and-the-environment-145613" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Morrison government plan to scrap water buybacks will hurt taxpayers and the environment

<html><body>
Housing affordability is not a new problem, and as the Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison pointed out, it has actually never been easy to buy a home, especially in our major metropolitan areas.
Housing affordability will be an important policy focus of the Turnbull Government. And to try to get it right, the Federal Treasurer gave a 4400 word speech last week to outline some of the issues.
"As we move forward it is important to properly diagnose the problems we are trying to solve," he said. 
He noted when combining both outright ownership and those paying off a mortgage, the proportion of Australian households that own their own home has fallen from 71 per cent to 67 per cent over the past two decades, so there is a certainly a trend there.
He did stress the increase in Australian house prices has largely been driven by fundamental determinants.  
"Australia's housing markets may be expensive, but in aggregate they are substantively sound, reflecting the natural tension between the forces of supply and demand," he said.
I took five nuggets from the speech which are concerning, but which highlight the complexity of it all.
1) Between June 2010 and June 2015, the time taken for a dual income couple to save for a 20 per cent deposit in Sydney increased from 5.8 years to 7.9 years. In Melbourne it increased from 5.3 years to 5.8 years. However, outside NSW and Victoria, the change in the number of years to save for a deposit actually fell, showing the impacts are not even across the country. 
2) Home ownership rates are falling across all age groups, not just young Australians. Between 2002 and 2014, Australian home ownership among 25-34 year olds declined from 38 per cent to 29 per cent while for 35 to 44 year olds it fell from 63 per cent to 52 per cent.
3) When we look at the change in home ownership by state, the largest falls over the last twenty years have been in Queensland and Victoria, rather than NSW.
4) The percentage of purchasing households aged under 44 that are dual income has risen from just over 50 per cent in 1981 to more than 80 per cent in 2011, while the proportion of single income households fell from around 50 per cent to less than 20 per cent over the same period.  
5) The proportion of home owners aged over 45 with a mortgage has increased significantly over the past 20 years. It's taking longer to be free of the mortgage with the trend having the potential to undermine retirement incomes.
Morrison noted the challenge of not being able to access secure housing has flow on effects to many other policy areas. It impacts health, work force participation, social cohesion, welfare dependency, family formation and household consumption to name a few.
Morrison concluded that of all the determinants of house prices in Australia, whether cyclical or structural, "the most important factor behind rising prices has been the long running impediments to the supply side of the market."
Some argue with that conclusion seeking him to look at the impact of overseas migration which was not addressed, although he did note between 2005 and 2010, Australia had the highest average rate of overall population growth in the OECD, except for Israel.  
As there is no single housing market in Australia, there will however never be a single solution.
This article was first published in the Saturday Daily Telegraph.
</body></html>

Five concerning housing affordability issues

<html><body>
Housing affordability is not a new problem, and as the Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison pointed out, he like anyone in Sydney has actual experience that it has actually never been easy to buy a home.
He rightly argues, dealing with housing affordability must involve a scalpel, not a chainsaw given the likely or unintended consequences of some policy.
He warns declining housing affordability can't be answered with lower economic growth.
It is likely the housing affordability will be an important policy focus of the Turnbull Government May budget.
And to try to shape the agenda, the Treasurer gave a 4600 word speech this month to outline some of the issues.
I took four nuggets from his speech to the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute which highlight the complexity of it all.
1) Some two million taxpayers in Australia have an interest in a residential investment property. Around 72 per cent own just one property and 90 per cent own no more than two. Less than one percent of investors have six or more investments. Around 1.3 million of these taxpayers negatively gear, including 58,000 teachers and one in five police officers. 
2) Mum and dad investors are putting a roof over the head of around a quarter of all renting households in the country. If mum and dad investors were not part of our private rental market, there would be fewer rental properties available, meaning higher rents. Morrison notes disrupting negative gearing would come at a cost, especially to renters. It would not be good news for the 30 per cent of Australian households who rent. 
3) Morrison said you can't help first homebuyers save for a deposit by implementing policies that increase their rent. Over 85 per cent of private renters move within five years and almost one third of moves are forced. Around 47 per cent of low-income rental households in our capital cities spend more than 30 per cent of their household income on housing costs. His concern for families with children who need housing stability to have beneficial access to schools and medical assistance suggests we need longer term leases. 
4) Australian residential property investment is more geared to capital gain than yield. Morrison sees the need to establish a new institutional investment class as is occurring overseas. Property needs to be a longer term fixed interest investment that can comfortably sit within institutional investment portfolios and Australian super funds. 
"Previous governments have avoided dealing with these issues for fear of raising and disappointing expectations," Morrison concluded, adding that failure to confront these issues in the past can be traced back to the problems we face today. I only hope he hasn't overly raised expectations.
Morrison's first property purchase cost $330,000 with his wife, bought in Bronte in 1995, where he grew up as a child, and then they upgraded to the Shire at $920,000 in 2009.
This article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph. 
</body></html>

Scott Morrison

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Scott Morrison

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News