Australian Politics

Mark Bouris slams outrageous real estate rules preventing young Australians from making their first step into the property market

There's no stupidity like government stupidity

Two infuriating rules are preventing young Aussies from gaining a foothold on the property ladder, according to finance guru Mark Bouris.

The Wizard Home Loans founder has identified two 'unfair' rules preventing young people from buying their first home.

The first relates to the First Home Owner Grant (FHOG), a scheme that offers $10,000 to eligible people buying their first property valued at $600,000 or less.

'Did you know that the First Home Owner Grant only applies to apartments with a floor area greater than 50 square metres?,' Bouris wrote in an article for Yahoo Finance.

'So young people who are looking to buy a one-bedroom or studio apartment won't be eligible for the FHOG.'

The businessman also pointed out that it was far harder to secure a loan for a property smaller than 50 square metres.

'Why should someone looking to buy a mansion have a better shot at getting a loan than someone who wants to buy a studio apartment?,' he asked.

'It’s not fair.'

Bouris then took aim at the 'absurdity' of charging people $300 to view a property's strata report to check for any defects or nasty surprises.

'It's like going to buy a car and the car dealership charging you $300 just to see the car's service history. You'd tell the dealer he’s dreaming,' Bouris wrote.

The founder of Yellow Brick Road mortgage brokers pointed out that if you were to view and properly assess 20 different apartments it would cost you $6,000 just to access their strata reports.

'This is the absurdity of the property market in this country. It's why so many young people are giving up,' he wrote.

'And it's why we need change. So let's stop charging first-home buyers to see a strata report. Let's allow the First Home Owners Grant to apply to properties with a floor area of under 50 square metres.

'It's common sense. It can be done with a flick of a pen.'

It comes at a time when Australian house prices are set to hit record highs as a combined mix of population growth, construction blockages and borrowing power heat up the market.

Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane are expected to lead the pack on house prices in the 2025 financial year, setting fresh records alongside Queensland's Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast, real estate portal Domain says.

By the end of the 2025 financial year, median house prices would exceed $850,000 in Perth and $1.7million in Sydney, and hit $984,000 in Adelaide and $999,000 in Brisbane, the property marketplace predicts.

Domain research and economics chief Nicola Powell said population growth, construction challenges and borrowing power would be to blame for the expected price growth in Australia's market.

'We have seen an increase in single-person households and a decrease in household size in general, both amplifying housing demand, further compounded by migration,' Dr Powell said.

'Home building has also struggled to keep up with population growth due to the scarcity of land, weak building approvals, and high construction costs, exacerbating the existing structural undersupply.'

Stage three tax cuts on July 1 would mean more money hitting Australian households, lifting borrowing capacity across the country, Dr Powell said.

For some, that would mean upping their budgets, while for others, it could mean more borrowing capacity and a push into the market, she said.

'All three factors will play a role in further driving up Australia's home prices,' Dr Powell added.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13545035/Mark-bouris-real-estate-rules-home-owner-grant-strata-reports-young-Australians-buying-home.html

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

Fury at Sydney University’s ‘capitulation’ to protesters

The University of Sydney’s concessions to some anti-Israel protesters for closing their campus encampment peacefully have been met with fury from Jewish groups and the federal opposition.

Australia’s oldest university on Friday night announced it had struck an agreement with the last of the Gaza war encampment protesters, the Sydney University Muslim Students Association.

The agreement would see the students end their near-two months-long protest in return for a suite of measures, including a seat at a working group to review the university’s defence and security investments.

The Muslim Students Association earlier on Friday said their defiance of university orders to vacate had “worked in our favour across many fronts, most particularly being the catalyst for the negotiations with the uni”.

The social media post was made in conjunction with stand4palestineaus, which was recently implicated with extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir in a report in the Nine newspapers.

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies president David Ossip lashed the management of the university and accused it of “thoroughly deceptive and misleading” engagement with the Jewish community.

“This is nothing short of a scandal. [Vice-chancellor] Mark Scott, his offsider Darren Goodsir, Chancellor Belinda Hutchinson and the University of Sydney have hideously capitulated and done a deal with a group dominated by Hizb ut-Tahrir – an organisation proscribed as a terrorist organisation in much of the world including the UK,” Mr Ossip told The Australian.

“In a sign of how futile this appeasement is, Hizb ut-Tahrir have already announced that they are planning future activities to put pressure on the university and have not ruled out a further encampment,” he said.

Sydney University’s administration has responded that “our campuses must be welcoming and safe for all our community, including our Jewish and Muslim students … our focus from the beginning has been to de-escalate tensions – not fuel them”

“The university’s engagement with the Jewish community has been thoroughly deceptive and insulting,” Mr Ossip said.

“Despite assurances to the Jewish community that any offer to the encampment was off the table and that the university would be pursuing alternate options to clear the encampment, the university instead reopened negotiations with a group dominated by Hizb ut-Tahrir.

“When we found out about these negotiations on Wednesday and formally requested immediate crisis talks, Mark Scott ignored this request and has still not picked up the phone to us.

“Instead the university negotiated with only one side, reached an agreement with a group dominated by Hizb ut-Tahrir, sought to bury the story on a Friday night (the Jewish Shabbat) and allowed the radical protesters to first announce the deal.

“No amount of mealy mouthed, pro-forma spin from the university should be allowed to distract from the utter shame of the university’s behaviour or the pathetic terms they have agreed to.

“This deal is not just about ‘transparency’ as the university claims. It goes beyond the terms agreed by any other institution and effectively gives Hizb ut-Tahrir influence over the university’s research and investment activities.

“Be in no doubt – whilst the university may be enjoying its new collaboration with Hizb ut-Tahrir, the university’s relationship with the Jewish community is in absolute tatters.”

Opposition Liberal education spokeswoman Sarah Henderson said the “capitulation to activists, including people linked to the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, is untenable”.

“The government must step in and overturn all such agreements, particularly those struck with groups which are listed terrorist organisations in some other countries,” Ms Henderson said.

“How can students and staff be safe on a university campus when vice-chancellors are bargaining with extremists?”

Liberal federal member for Berowra and prominent Jewish MP Julian Leeser accused Professor Scott of having “ceded control to radical extremist groups” and he repeated calls for a judicial inquiry into campus anti-Semitism.

“Why, when there is clear evidence that extremist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir are infiltrating our universities, has the Albanese government refused to take action,” Mr Leeser said.

“Instead of demonstrating leadership and providing a safe and cohesive learning environment, the University of Sydney’s vice-chancellor Mark Scott has ceded control to radical extremist groups.

“Sydney University’s actions are setting a terrible example for the next generation that Jewish students and staff don’t count and that if you intimidate people enough you can get whatever you want.

“The Albanese government proves every day how weak they are in combating anti-Semitism.

“It is time Labor took campus anti-Semitism seriously and supported my bill for a judicial inquiry into anti-Semitism in Australian universities.”

Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO Alex Ryvchin lashed the agreement with the “anti-Israel fanatics”.

“This dismal decision by the university shows that unlawful conduct, intimidation and extremism are effective tactics against weak leadership,” he told The Australian.

“Today, there will be celebrations among those who have turned one of our finest institutions into an eyesore and created no-go areas on the campus.

“Meanwhile, Jewish students and staff will feel that once again their basic rights and equality mean less than the outrageous demands of anti-Israel fanatics,” Mr Ryvchin said.

The deal, announced by the Muslim Students Association and confirmed by the university on Friday evening, would see the university disclosing details of defence and security-related research and investments.

The University of Sydney will also double its expenditure over the next three years to support academics under its scholars-at-risk program, with a particular focus on Palestinians, the SUMSA president said.

Most significantly, the university committed to set up a working group to review its defence investments and research disclosures, and granted protesters a seat at the table.

The deal is similar to the offer the university made weeks ago that sparked backlash from Jewish leaders and calls for vice-chancellor Mark Scott to resign.

When contacted for comment, a University of Sydney spokeswoman said: “Nothing is more important to us than the safety of our community. Our campuses must be welcoming and safe for all our community, including our Jewish and Muslim students.”

“We understand there is deep trauma on both sides of this conflict and a wide range of views exist. Our focus from the beginning has been to de-escalate tensions – not fuel them. It is worth acknowledging we have not seen the violence that we have seen on other campuses during these challenging times.

“Our priority has always been a peaceful resolution and we are pleased our proposal has been accepted,” the University spokeswoman said.

“Our position aligns with similar offers made at leading universities from around the world including Harvard University and the University of Melbourne.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/fury-at-sydney-universitys-capitulation-to-protesters/news-story/4113cd26653d89a3c0aa7c9f9b84c4ed

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

Congratulations to Dutton on climate change retreat

Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, deserves an elephant stamp for calling out the impossibility of Australia reaching its 2030 emissions target set by the Labor government. The Coalition has now effectively disowned the target.

Recall here that the Coalition had been shooting for an emissions-reduction cut of between 26 and 28 per cent by 2030 from a base of 2005. The then prime minister, Scott Morrison, declared that this would be achieved in a canter. He wasn’t wrong on that score, because by the end of 2023, a cut of 29 per cent had been achieved.

But as they say, the last mile is always the hardest and so the 43 per cent emissions reduction set by the Albanese government is looking like a tough climb to the top of Everest in unfavourable weather conditions.

But this fact never deterred Albo and the hapless B1, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, from racing the new higher target into legislation and formally advising the UN climate bureaucrats in charge of the Paris Agreement racket of this more ambitious goal.

Mind you, the fact that the target is legislated doesn’t really make much difference nor does our refreshed statement of intent made to the UN – let’s not forget here that the Paris climate agreement is not legally binding.

Most signatories to Paris haven’t bothered to legislate their targets and have no intention of doing so. The UK, much to its shame, is different in that regard. Theresa May, a true climate believer if there ever was, insisted on this as well as committing the Tories to net zero.

She even conferred ridiculous powers on the Climate Change Committee, appointing extremist chairs who bully the Poms to change their evil climate ways – don’t eat meat, install expensive and ineffective heat pumps, use ‘active transport’ (walk, cycle or scooter) rather than drive the car, don’t even think about getting on a plane, etc, etc. Is it really any surprise that the Tories are about to get a drubbing, Boris and Rishi having never walked away from this rubbish?

But I digress. Let me get back to Australia. Dutts’ decision to decline the 43 per cent target is a mixture of informed realism and courageous politics. Needless to say, the progressive press is aghast, claiming that the announcement puts paid to the Liberals’ chances of winning back the Teal seats, although we shall see.

The rent-seeking business community with interests in green things is complaining bitterly. Evidently, they need certainty which is simply code for more subsidies. A lower target or no target at all will undermine their case for even more moolah from taxpayers and long-suffering consumers.

One of the advantages that Dutts has over Albo is that Dutts can count. Albo’s strong suit is wishful thinking and dreaming up rhyming cliches. The fact is that a 43 per cent target requires losing around 100 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent in six years in the context of a rapidly rising population. It boils down to the maths: where will those tonnes come from?

Sadly – OK, not that sadly – for B1, the renewable energy experiment has not been going entirely to plan, like Japan’s second world war effort. Of course, if you throw subsidies at something, you will get more of it. But there have been some significant impediments to renewable energy (RE)investment in recent times – escalating costs, worker shortages, local resistance to RE developments (God bless our country cousins) and inadequate transmission.

As a consequence, the amount of RE added to the grid has been a fraction of what is required to meet another B1 target – 82 per cent RE in the grid by 2030. It’s only around 40 per cent now. There is a long way to go.

Going by the polls, voter opinion is on the side of the Coalition on this issue. A rising majority think that affordable and reliable electricity is the most important consideration with a small and declining proportion taking the view that hitting the emissions target should prevail. Even those on board with the green energy idea either don’t want to pay anything extra or $100 more per year at most. It looks as though peak climate has been reached and we are now on the sunlit downhill.

Albo and B1 could easily be tempted to look beyond the electricity grid to achieve the unachievable target. Laughably, there was a view at some stage that 90 per cent of all car sales by 2030 would be EVs. Given recent developments in the EV market here and overseas, it would seem extremely optimistic to predict that half of all car sales in Australia will be EVs by the end of the decade.

Let’s face it, the wheels are really falling off the EV market in the US – pardon the pun. General Motors, which was given great licks of taxpayer money to convert to EV production and ditch its highly profitable and popular lines of internal combustion vehicles, is walking back at an incredible pace. The company built an EV truck expecting to sell 150,000 in the first year; it sold 27,000.

There are so many hairs on EVs as convenient family or work vehicles, including the incredibly high cost of insurance and the absence of a second-hand market. Add in the difficulty of accessing fast charging and range anxiety, and the real surprise is that so many EVs have been sold.

But note here that most EVs are sold to companies attracted by the substantial tax concessions, not to private buyers. The only ones surprised by these developments are the true-believing green activists – and B1.

The Albanese government might have a crack at pushing for the closure of some of the big emitters – aluminium smelters, alumina refineries, steel works – but the politics of this are not great. Attacking the farming community also has its downsides – just take a look at what has been happening in Europe with farmers revolting.

The bottom line is that Australia’s current emissions target already looks like a bust and most people who follow these things know this.

As Speccie readers appreciate, a political leader who stands for nothing is never well-placed to roll an incumbent government. Claims of superior managerial competence simply do not cut it if the proposed platforms are essentially the same as the government’s. (Take note, David Crisafulli, hapless opposition leader of the LNP in Queensland. It was a Bill Shorten moment – ‘I don’t know what’s in Labor’s budget but we will support it.’)

I say hats off to Dutts: he has taken a stand on the 2030 target. Next stop: ditch the folly of net zero by 2050.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/hats-off-to-dutton/

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

Who are the "moderates"

I refer to those who self-describe themselves as ‘moderates’.

The word no doubt is emotively attractive to users and delivers a frisson of approval and virtue-signalling self-worth, maybe even a tingle down the spine. But it is essentially an empty concept. You need to fill it with specific content before deciding if you approve or disapprove of the political positions of the person or political faction spouting it. So take former prime minister Morrison. His faction grouping notwithstanding, the man as PM purported to govern as a ‘moderate’.

But what did that look like when it came to specific content?

Well, Team Morrison & co. signed us up to the impoverishing net zero without signalling it before the election; they oversaw the biggest inroads on our civil liberties in the country’s history, all while never once finding it in themselves to criticise Dan Andrew’s outright thuggish and brutally heavy-handed response in Victoria (and if the honours system wasn’t broken beforehand it sure is after giving a gong to Chairman Andrews); they blew out the budget with massive spending and high taxes that created huge asset inflation and transferred big time wealth from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich and in a way that would make an ardent left-winger proud; they made appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission, e-safety Commissioner post, the High Court, cultural bodies, and more, that Labor and on occasion the Greens could have made, with barely a single conservative amongst them; they oversaw a ballooning in the size of government and a surging in government spending as a percentage of GDP; they made huge payments to an activist Barrier Reef group over lunch while not lifting a finger to help Peter Ridd (who was correct down the line, just to be clear); and Mr Morrison made various disparaging but in fact vacuous and uninformed comments about the value of free speech while it was Liberal governments that gave us the first iterations of a number of woeful free-speech restricting Bills, including the absolutely outrageous Acma Bill.

That is what ‘moderate’ delivers as far as the Morrison and indeed Turnbull governments were concerned. (And cards on the table, I have slowly come to believe that in the ‘worst Liberal PM ever’ stakes, Mr Morrison certainly ties Mr Turnbull for top spot and may in fact take the gold medal in his own right.)

Yet incredibly, astoundingly even, the state Liberal parties, who all crawl over broken glass barefooted to describe themselves as ‘moderates’, are worse than their federal counterparts. The best of a woeful lot is Mr Crisafulli in Queensland. Yet he signed up to the recent Labor budget-spending orgy; he commits to not a single conservative fighting position bar some tough talk on youth crime; he won’t repeal the state bill of rights that Labor brought in without running on an election to bring it in; he won’t cut the grossly bloated public service; at best it’s a Tony Blair social democrat offering on the now tired refrain ‘well, at least we’re not Labor’.

The other state Liberal party iterations are worse. John Pesutto in Victoria in my view disgraced himself with his treatment of Moira Deeming and the rest of the party’s offerings are to the left of what Tony Blair would offer. WA? Do I need to say anything about the dynamic duo there? New South Wales is worse than Queensland. In all of these states the Liberal offerings are devoid of any actual classical liberal or conservative content.

Hence the general point that I am reiterating, that labels on their own can be empty, and void of content. Ignore all attempts by politicians to cloak themselves under the banner of ‘we are moderates’ and look at the actual offerings. The reverse of this applies as well, of course. The labels ‘far right’ and ‘hard right’ are now widely used by the mainstream media and even by some Liberal MPs at times to describe a set of policies that includes:

1) the entire Tony Abbott agenda,

2) believing that biological sex is real and imposes a mind-independent reality on the world that trumps subjective druthers and preferences,

3) being against the lockdowns and vaccine mandates (being against now proven to be the right position as it happens),

4) having grave doubts about virtue-signalling net-zero policies that will impoverish Australia while China and India build new coal-fired power stations weekly and we make zero difference to global temperatures (because, you know, we aren’t a moral beacon that other countries will copy as we travel back to the Stone Age),

5) wanting to control immigration and insisting GDP is largely irrelevant as it is GDP per person that matters

The list goes on. Voicing any and all of those can get you labelled ‘far right’ and ‘hard right’ by the legacy media. Voicing some of them has earned the ire of the Liberal-appointed eSafety Commissioner and increased her desire to censor such views. And all the five such positions, without an exception, would have been endorsed by John F. Kennedy. That is the specific content of what today gets one labelled ‘far right’.

Such labels are empty and without content. Ignore the trendy lefties who deal in such platitudes and, in a smug, self-satisfied, self-righteous way, shun debate in favour of cancellation.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/silly-labels-and-meaningless-monikers/