Housing policy built on dodgy foundations: Government hasn’t got a clue about the economics of renting

It is an unfortunate reality that modern Australian government has become an enterprise in search of instant political self-gratification; in delivering reams of announcements and volumes of spending while producing very little in the way of sustainable positive outcomes.

The bleak state of housing, where too many Australians are experiencing a genuine rental and accommodation crisis, is borne not of a lack of government action, but rather consistently wrong action and of decades of bad policy across all tiers of government. This is a situation that cannot be quickly remedied, especially through yet another cash-splash.

Following the recent agreement between the Albanese government and the Australian Greens to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) legislation, Greens leader Adam Bandt said that ‘the Greens are the party of renters’. Bandt is more correct than he realises because this policy and the concessions extracted, will lead to ever more Australians being locked out of home ownership and trapped into perpetual renting.

Eminent US economist Thomas Sowell frequently counselled that there are no solutions and only trade-offs. This is advice Australian governments consistently refuse to heed, regularly announcing new policies with accompanying billions in spending, all while failing to properly account for the associated costs and consequences. This latest housing announcement, coupled with Prime Minister Albanese’s earlier New Homes Bonus (NHB) announcement just demonstrates that our political leaders are prepared do anything to address Australia’s housing and rental crisis – anything except undertaking the necessary reforms to address underlying causes.

A significant driver of Australia’s housing problems is a policy-driven supply squeeze caused by a toxic cocktail of bad planning, tax, energy and industrial relations policies. It should not surprise that a political and bureaucratic ecosystem driven by ‘announceables’ and not results has increased the cost of housing for Australians. The effects of this toxic policy cocktail is further exacerbated by the Commonwealth’s large immigration intake.

Australians experiencing housing price stress should genuinely question whether they will be better off following all the recent announcements.

As a case in point, the most recent $3billion committed by the government to mollify the Greens to pass the HAFF legislation and the earlier $3bn for the NHB to provide ‘performance-based funding for states and territories’ will need to be funded from somewhere. And that somewhere will be from taxes imposed, directly and indirectly, on those these policies claim to benefit. All these claimed supply enhancement announcements are however more reflective of an episode of Yes, Minister with the government proposing to increase housing supply by destroying housing supply. Invariably, the principal beneficiaries of these new schemes will be the public servants hired to administer them.

The most recent Commonwealth budget papers that showed that over the past thirty years, inflation-adjusted per capita Commonwealth spending has nearly doubled, and taxing has more than doubled. Our governments have taken ever more from Australians, including by borrowing from the future, and given it back less a ‘handling’ fee, all while asking to be thanked.

Not satisfied with the economic damage caused by the current policy mix, the Greens have indicated that they will continue to fight for ‘a freeze and cap on rent increases’. This is the bedrock of the Greens housing policy and they even produced analysis suggesting that, were a rental freeze implemented last year, two million renting households could have saved $3.1bn in 2022-23 and $4.9bn in 2023-24.

Such a rent freeze would just result in a temporary transfer of economic pain from one group to another. According to Treasury’s most recent Tax Expenditures and Insights Statement, almost half the 2.6m taxpayers who claimed rental deductions in 2022 experienced rental tax losses. These losses summed to $10.2bn and provided $3.6bn of negative gearing offsets. These losses were before interest rates started rising and before inflation driven increases on council rates, insurance and property maintenance set in. A rental freeze would just further increase the pain on landlords and the Commonwealth budget, a pain that will ultimately be transferred back to renters including via higher taxes for longer.

Landlords would also likely respond by either selling, withdrawing rental stock, or reducing maintenance, and the Commonwealth would just need to collect more taxes from other sectors of the economy. The net effect would be further harm to renters and the broader economy.

The Greens even equated their rental cap proposal to the gas price cap agreed to by National cabinet. However, gas industry expert Saul Kavonic noted that the price cap is already being unwound and that, ‘It will go down as one of the most anti-market, poorly planned and economically damaging policies Australia has seen in recent memory, with no discernible benefit to show for it.’ Kavonic added that, ‘The goal of the (gas price cap) policy, to lower prices for end users, has not been achieved. Unfortunately, even with the policy now being walked back, the economic harm may prove lasting.’

To address Australia’s housing and rental issues requires not a cash splash but rather a comprehensive productivity and supply side reform program including through reduced government spending, taxing, and regulation.

Some 150 years ago, Leo Tolstoy wrote describing the Russian government of his day. This description could aptly describe contemporary Australian government: ‘I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means – except by getting off his back.’

If Australian policymakers want to ease the economic pain of Australians, whether in housing or general cost of living, they should first get off our backs.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/10/housing-policy-built-on-dodgy-foundations/

*********************************************

Academic hits out at own university over its pro-Voice branding but they say if you don't like it you can 'unfollow' them

An outspoken academic has slammed her university for using its social media accounts and job listings to 'virtue signal' in support of a Yes vote - but the institution says people can like it or lump it.

Sydney's University of New South Wales (UNSW) has placed a yellow graphic on its social media and LinkedIn profiles that features the words 'UNSW says Yes' in a yellow circle around a red love heart with Indigenous motifs.

UNSW Economics Professor Gigi Foster says the blatant advocacy is inappropriate for a publicly funded body that should be keeping out of political activism.

However, the university defended the branding, which was designed by UNSW Fine Arts student and Wiradjuri woman Lua Pellegrini, as being 'aligned with [its] values' and even suggested those who don't like it should unfollow them.

The artwork is displayed on the university's Facebook page alongside a boast that UNSW 'proudly supports the First Nations Voice to Parliament'.

The image 'depicts the coming together to discuss the Voice and highlights the vibrancy and diversity of community and perspective', the page states.

The UNSW spokesperson said the decision to brand social media and other messaging 'was taken after significant consultation, which included the University’s Indigenous leadership'.

It pointed out that UNSW has previously 'co-opted' its social media profile image for causes such as NAIDOC Week and Sydney Mardi Gras.

'The profile pictures are temporary and will revert back after the referendum,' the spokesperson said.

'Followers and LinkedIn users who feel strongly about any temporary change are welcome to temporarily unfollow or unlink the UNSW page from their profile.'

However, Professor Foster told Daily Mail Australia she didn't 'think it is the place of any publicly funded institutions to take positions on political matters'.

'The university has an obligation to promote an environment so that people are not feeling ideologically compelled because of the association of the university with a particular political position,' she said.

'Universities are supposed to be the places, if there are any places left, in civil society where one can explore freely different potential positions, philosophical positions, policy positions.

'When there is advocacy for one particular political position, or political party for that matter, that undermines the provision of that kind of environment for staff and students and even alumni.'

Professor Foster said by branding job ads with a pro-Voice message the university stance might deter potential applicants.

'It is concerning that this advocacy is appearing in the recruitment messages of the university because if I were an applicant I would see that and think, "Gee, I guess you can only have certain beliefs to work at UNSW,"' she said.

'It's a cold shower to people who are seeking an open and critical and inquisitive environment to implicitly communicate to them, even before they start work, that a particular belief that they might hold is not welcome.

'I really would hope that's not true for any university.'

The UNSW spokesperson denied pushing the Yes vote would alienate staff and students of a different view.

'UNSW is wholeheartedly committed to free speech and our position on this issue does not compel any member of our community to vote one way or the other,' the spokesperson said.

Professor Foster accused universities of indulging in 'virtue signalling' by backing the Yes campaign.

She pointed to the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation last month to 98-year-old former Ukrainian solider Yaroslav Hunka as an example of how this might backfire.

Canadian MPs were left red-faced when it emerged Hunka had served in the Waffen-SS, an elite Nazi force that committed numerous WWII atrocities.

'That kind of huge gaffe is emblematic of the consequences when we start signaling virtue without acting virtuously,' Professor Foster said.

'To vote yes on the Voice is being promoted as the thing to do if you care about Aboriginal people and if you care about giving voice to people and all these sorts of positive, kind of unarguable objectives,' she said.

'But that’s just a surface-level association, which is accepted by some people who might not think very deeply about what is being proposed but it's certainly not the only way to view a Yes vote on the Voice refere

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12587715/Academic-hits-university-pro-Voice-branding-say-dont-like-unfollow-them.html

************************************************

How one simple word ruined the career of a children's gymnastics coach and turned his life upside down

A gymnastic coach's reputation is in ruins after he was accused of sexually objectifying teenage girls in an email because he used the word 'beautiful'.

Lindsay Nylund, 65, was sacked from his role as a coach at the City of Canada Bay Council's Five Dock Leisure Centre, in Sydney 's inner west, in May.

The renowned Aussie gymnast, who competed in the 1980 Summer Olympics and won medals at the 1978 Commonwealth Games, had worked at the centre for about two-and-half-years.

But Mr Nylund landed in hot water when he sent an email about his gymnastics team following a competition win.

'Hi all, Our beautiful FDLC Level 8 Women's Artistic Gymnasts,' he wrote in the email dated February 19.

'All achieved a top six apparatus placing in their respective divisions at the first state trial competition of the year.'

The director of community, culture & leisure, Russell Wolfe, said in a follow-up email: 'Thanks for the update Lindsay - congratulations to everyone involved.'

But that same email resulted in Mr Nylund's termination as he was being accused of sexually objectifying his team because he used the word 'beautiful'.

Mr Nylund is now unemployed and has struggled to come to terms with the accusation.

'It's traumatic because for a children's gymnastic coach, that's probably the worst thing someone could accuse you of doing,' he told A Current Affair.

The father-of-three believed at the time that it was a 'terrible mistake'.

When asked about his thoughts on those who might consider his comment inappropriate, Mr Nylund said it was 'political correctness gone a bit too far'.

'I mean, I think the word beautiful could be used in a wrong context, absolutely,' he said. 'But when you look at the context in the way it was used, no normal person would read that and think that's inappropriate.'

During an interview with broadcaster Ben Fordham on Sydney 2GB radio earlier this month, Mr Nylund said he was 'traumatised' when he was notified of the accusation via a letter.

'For a children's gymnastic coach, it's probably the kiss of death for your professional reputation and character,' he said.

The City of Canada Bay Council also accused My Nylund of showing a 'lack of respect towards centre management' when he allegedly permitted a one-week membership fee freeze when it was supposed to be two weeks.

He was also accused of having an 'unapproved dinner' with the parents of his gymnasts and transporting his team in a car without parent approval to a social event at a local club, which the council said broke Child Safe Practice guidelines.

Mr Nylund has rejected the allegations made by the council.

The council wouldn't comment specifically on the matter. 'The City of Canada Bay does not comment on staffing matters,' a spokesperson said in a statement.

'Additionally, as this matter is subject to legal proceedings the City of Canada Bay is unable to provide comment and will continue to treat all information as confidential.'

Mr Nylund has taken the case to the Industrial Relations Commission. A four-day hearing will be held in mid-November.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12618729/gymnastics-coach-beautiful.html

***********************************************

Soil carbon and its magic credits another offset industry fantasy

Australia’s carbon credit system has a new and rapidly growing source of flawed Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs). The “soil carbon” industry is small in scale, but it features the same problems as the increasingly discredited human-induced regeneration (HIR) industry which has produced tens of millions of carbon credits for carbon sequestration that there’s no evidence has taken place.

Soil carbon refers to increasing the storage of carbon in the soil, usually via increasing crop or pasture yields, and keeping the amount of carbon released from soil via decomposition to a minimum. Almost 480 soil carbon projects have been accredited under the government’s ACCU scheme, nearly two-thirds of which have commenced in the past two years, so the industry is in relative infancy, with only a few hundred thousand ACCUs issued.

But from later this decade, it will begin producing millions of ACCUs to be used as offset by heavy CO2 polluters continuing business-as-usual emissions.

A who’s who of Australian primary industries scientists recently outlined four critical failings of the current soil carbon methodology used by the Clean Energy Regulator.

Like HIR projects, changes in soil carbon levels are more likely to reflect external factors such as rainfall or drought than human interventions, which are the basis of crediting ACCUs. And when soil carbon levels fall due to drought or fire, for example, as with HIR projects, there is no requirement to hand back the generated ACCUs — unlike the emissions the ACCUs “offset”, which will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. The only recognition of soil carbon variability is a temporary 25% buffer that initially — but not permanently — reduces the number of ACCUs issued.
But in some ways, soil carbon is even riskier as a form of sequestration than HIR.

Independent measurement of soil carbon levels is far harder than assessing HIR, with project proponents able to pick the best samples from within projects to maximise results without detection, compared with satellite imagery that can identify tree regeneration for HIR projects. And assessment of soil carbon levels isn’t merely dependent on place but on time — projects commenced during drought will naturally record a significant increase in soil carbon levels after the end of drought and subsequent increases in rainfall.

As a long roster of scientists pointed out recently, some soil carbon projects have recorded increases in soil carbon far beyond those suggested as credible in scientific literature, including at unlikely soil depths. As the scientists note, the key problem is transparency, or its lack — just as with HIR.

“Scientists should be granted access to project data. Data could be used to improve models in order to distinguish between climate and management effects. This would ensure the method is fit for purpose,” they conclude.

As with HIR, however, there is minimal access to project data (the “voluntary” additional data provided by HIR proponents in response to criticism of those projects is nearly worthless) and efforts to provide rigorous independent verification meet with hostility from the Clean Energy Regulator and the industry.

The dismissal of strong evidence of the lack of integrity of HIR projects, and the lack of interest in identified and significant flaws in the soil carbon methodology suggests that the goal of the Clean Energy Regulator — acting under direction from successive governments — is less about the quality of ACCUs than the quantity, that the priority is producing a high volume of credits with a pretence of rigour that will be available to heavy emitters to continue polluting.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/soil-carbon-and-its-magic-credits-another-offset-industry-fantasy/ar-AA1hWG8z

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************