New anti-housing bubble political party starts

Via News:

THE founder of a new political party dedicated to taking the heat out of Australia’s overblown and hideously expensive housing market has said politicians need to be given a “kick up the bum” on the issue.

Sydneysider Andrew Potts, who registered the Affordable Housing Party (AHP) with the Australian Electoral Commission earlier this month, said he knew he had to do something when he was chasing rats out of his own decrepit rental accommodation.

Talking exclusively to news.com.au, Mr Potts, the party’s national convener and lead Senate candidate, said housing affordability was a national issue.

“Australians are spending too much of their income on housing and we’re putting too many eggs in one basket with property investment.”

An economic researcher agrees, saying “crap policies” were pricing people out but warned reducing house prices in a country so propped up by property could lead to dire consequences and job losses.

The newly formed Affordable Housing Party sees cracking down on foreign ownership of Australians homes as a top priority.Source:Supplied

The party’s policies include:

• Phasing out negative gearing and capital gains discount on investment property sales

• Stopping overseas buyers from buying Australian properties

• Taxing properties left empty by investors

• Cutting down immigration to 70,000 annually

• Banning full time Airbnb properties

• Ending “no fault” evictions for rental properties

The former journalist denied they were radical solutions to soaring house prices pointing to census data that showed in some parts of Sydney one-in-10 properties are “ghost homes” left empty by investors.

“I don’t think it’s a radical idea that housing in Australia should benefit people in Australia and not people who don’t live here and don’t need to own property here.

“There could be up to 300,000 empty properties out there, that’s enough to house every homeless person and person in public housing,” he said.

Just join Sustainable Australia, dude.

I really can’t fathom how badly organised Aussie youth is.

Comments

  1. The problem with Sustainable Australia is that when it comes to voting time, the average punter won’t have heard of them or know what they stand for – the affordable housing party will instantly strike a chord with many average voters.


    • The problem with Sustainable Australia is that when it comes to voting time, the average punter won’t have heard of them

      Probably 80% of the reason this Potts bloke is starting a new party – he doesn’t realise Sustainable Australia even exists.

    • They’ve been around for nearly ten years and are only getting a few hundred votes per seat. The two parties can give each other preferences anyway.

    • Gen Y Home Buyer

      I stood at a polling booth last federal election with a Sustainable Australia t-shirt and handing out how-to-vote cards.
      Anyone who even commented was either brainwashed lefty (“you hate refugees”, “racist”) or brainwashed righty (“we need economic growth”).

      I think the fact that reducing immigration is the signature policy of Sustainable Australia is it’s achilles heel.
      Leading with that gets too many people offside and fails to cut through.

      Whereas even people who have never heard of Sustainable Australia will recognise “Affordable Housing Party” on the ballot paper.

      I think they are better off being a bit more flexible with policy, an instead having a clear end goal with a remit to negotiate the least worst options once in the Senate. Otherwise they are painting themselves into a corner on policy.

      • “I stood at a polling booth last federal election with a Sustainable Australia t-shirt and handing out how-to-vote cards.
        Anyone who even commented was either brainwashed lefty (“you hate refugees”, “racist”) or brainwashed righty (“we need economic growth”).”

        Yep, this is the exact default response you get and it’s a big problem.

        I actually like this, ‘Affordable housing party’. It’s non-offensive, and the majority could support it and give it a vote.

        They’re probably going to get my preference if their policies remain good.

      • That’s right it’s an insurmountable problem, given decades of brainwashing by the neo liberal right, and neo liberal latte left.

      • What about instead of Sustainable Australia – better not bigger, make it Sustainable Australia – make housing affordable.

      • Terror Australis

        You nailed it.
        MicroParties need to choose a name carefully because that’s the only branding tool that most of them have.

        I notice that Fiona Patten recently de-registered the “Sex” party and started a new party with a vanilla sounding handle.
        Whilst I understand that she probably wanted something more “serious” I predict that it will be a fatal error.

      • Why doesn’t Sustainable and Affordable merge? Both have the same aim, and if they could get Dick Smith as the front man, they would get serious votes.

        I also agree with other commenters here that Affordable sounds less offensive. I don’t think the average Joe equates less immigration with cheaper housing without thinking first of racism.

      • Good post Gen Y Home Buyer.

        No sense in trying to change the rusted on left or right.

        MSM is tied to the 2 major parties so they will not help in spreading the good news.

        Suggest; That all the MB posters in favour of SA party to email, facebook, twitter etc. their family and friends as to why a vote for SA is important.

        This debate needs to be at every BBQ instead of the ‘equity mate’ back slapping.

        We must act, because talking about this issue amongst ourselves ( the converted ) will not educate the great unwashed.

        Vote for Women !…oops…wrong century, wrong issue.

        Vote for Sustainable Australia.!!

      • How about the “Money for Nothing Party”
        1. Lower taxes
        2. More services
        3. Higher House Prices for owners and investors
        4. More First home buyers grant ( to help with 3. )
        5. More First Home investors Grant ( to help with 3 )
        6. Higher wages for everyone
        7 Govt grants to companies that pay higher wages
        8 new versions of official CPI – a high one and a lower one – you can choose the one you want use
        9 A new National Offended Persons Fund – for anybody who has been offended by anyone anywhere can make a claim
        10. Jobs Guarantee Program. Everyone has a right to a good job. so Govt will employ anyone who wants a job.

    • Personal opinion prior to exposure here is it sounded like more communist version of the greens. Obviously public education is key. If Dick smith could fund a campaign for the next election instead of pissing it away at ON it could work. However I’d argue the ON vote could drive a bigger stake through the heart of the major parties more than a rationalised policy platform from SAP.

      • Doesn’t sound like a communist version of the Greens if it opposes high immigration. They want to limit immigration to 70,000. Seems to me that Potts has links with Sustainable Australia anyway. I preferred it when Sustainable Australia led with population in its name, but admit that Australians are so confused by poor education, identity politics and growthist propaganda, that many have simply no idea of what our population numbers are or should be. I find it amazing here in Melbourne that Premier Andrews can come out and say that we have to fit 10m people into Victoria by 2050 and most seem not to realise that that is about half Australia’s total population. Many people actually have no idea what the population of Australia is, or the world and cannot judge if immigration is high or low. And no-one knows doubling times. Victoria is actually growing at 2.4% according to ABS, which would double our population within less than 30 years. And the other states are advertising for immigration on their websites and trying to grow faster and faster as well. But you know this.

      • Totally agree. To clarify I was just stating my initial reaction and judgement to the title ‘Sustainable Australia Party’ in absence of all other information.

        Most people are not going to read into policy. The naming is the first thing the judge. Hence Affordable Housing party will probably get a lot of ‘free kick’ votes – sort of like what happened with Ricky Muir and the car enthusiasts.

      • Gen Y Home Buyer

        Yeah I’ve met Andrew and seen him at a couple of Sustainable Australia events.
        Hopefully with some preference whispering we can get either/or/both/and parties elected to the Senate.

      • Just tell us how to vote and call it done. I feel that I regret giving Darren a seat at the senate.

      • Dick has nothing to do with PHON.
        He has only ever endorsed one political party and that is Sustainable Australia. He has however noted that of the parties in the parliament, only PHON has a population policy that makes any sense, and that is a fact. This doesn’t mean he is supporting PHON. Only a green troll, someone who is completely ignorant of what Dick Smith has said on the issue or someone who is deliberately trying to muddy the waters would think or say that Dick is in any way supporting PHON.

      • Haha not sure who exactly you are calling a green troll. But it would not a be a stretch to see how the media has portrayed it and even amongst MB readers it wouldn’t be a stretch to make the connection.

        Take this one for example. https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/12/dick-smith-advise-hanson-immigration/

        Sure, I am sure his motivations are much more sensible than a lot of the gibberish from ON at times but not quite ‘nothing to do with ON’ is it?

        Easy tiger.

    • Richard CampbellMEMBER

      The problem with Sustainable Australia is that it organised around William Bourke who seems to be like being a one man show.
      He’s a good speaker and entirely sensible but seems to have no idea about the basics of politics such as simple introducing himself to groups, bringing groups together or following up on meetings or replying to correspondence. Its weird. A virtual party with nothing happening locally.

    • Sustainable Australia would seem like an off shot of the Greens to a lot of voters – a bunch of tree hugging hippies to the alt right.

      The Affordable Housing Party is clear and conscise in its agenda. There’s no ambiguity in the name and it will get a lot more traction with voters for whom housing is a hot issue.

      I think they will pick up more votes because of the name.

  2. reusachtigeMEMBER

    There best thing to improve housing for people is to encourage further property investing, via better tax breaks and lower interest rates for investors, so that there are more houses to rent to those that have lucked out. It’s quite simple.

    • Uninspiring.
      shake those reusachtige tities and see the future in flipping the properties:
      Sell’em high now and expand 100fold your portfolio when the prices bottom out…

    • Doesn’t help the wildlife that lose their habitat, doesn’t help the cost of water and power which are also inflated by population growth. Those costs are costs to business and business has to pay salaries so people can afford power and water. Our inflation that is not counted in the CPI is costing ordinary people the ability to engage economically in our society.

    • To reusa, maybe this needs to be spelled out simply, if housing were affordable a lot of renters would buy, so we wouldn’t need heaps more investment properties. What a terrible thought for investors, the rabble actually having the freedom of choice.

      As usual I expect no humane answer to be forthcoming.

    • …you can do better Reusa, stretch your sparkling wit for something truly reprehensible.


  3. • Cutting down immigration to 70,000 annually

    • Banning full time Airbnb properties

    • Ending “no fault” evictions for rental properties

    Given the first is the same for both SAP and AHP, AHP having the latter two policies makes me prefer to vote for AHP.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      Don’t know about the current people running it, but the previous batch of people running it was a complete joke, and the party was ‘owned’ by a former LNP politician based overseas.

    • What is AHP policy on the environment, education, foreign aid, defense etc?
      If AHP can work ‘the system’ to get a SAP candidate up all the better.

  4. reusachtigeMEMBER

    I prefer if people vote for The Coalition or Labor so as to maintain our great boom times ahead!

  5. HadronCollision

    Re: MB’s comments. SAP has a bevy of marketability issues, as stated by those here.

    AHP is eminently more marketable.

    Time will tell how they go getting votes.

    Pretty clear proposition though.

    Not sure “I can’t fathom how badly organised” is really related to this. Good on him for organising this.

    • Mr SquiggleMEMBER

      Perhaps they can join forces and call themselves ‘Sustainable Housing Party”. 🙂

      I’ll continue to support Sustainable Australia because immigration is an everything issue. It covers trains, traffic, childcare, hospitals, energy supply, etc, the list is endless.

      Why limit your support to just one issue – ie house prices?

      • Immigration includes the tsunami of males coming over to work for $9/hour. Thus denying Aussies a job.

  6. Why are non-property owners even allowed to vote? They don’t have a stake in the future success of our great country.

  7. “Phasing out negative gearing and capital gains discount on investment property sales”

    Reduced returns on investment will lead to less supply which will lead to higher rents.

    “Stopping overseas buyers from buying Australian properties”

    Foreigners buying new built properties off-the-plan adds to housing supply hence the surge in apartment construction which is lowering the cost of housing for people prepared to live in an apartment.

    “Taxing properties left empty by investors”

    This reduces liberty for individuals. What if I want a holiday home in a coastal town? Isn’t that my prerogative? What will happen to all the tourist towns along the coast?

    “Cutting down immigration to 70,000 annually”

    The issue is not immigration, the issue is infrastructure. If the net present value of future tax revenues from the immigrant is greater than the cost of providing infrastructure then we should allow immigration. If Sydney really is full, then perhaps introduce an auctioned quota system, directing new immigrants outside of Melbourne and Sydney, while still allowing some flexibility for high value migrants to be able to migrate to our business centres.

    “Banning full time Airbnb properties”

    Again reduces personal liberty. It also makes us less competitive as a tourist destination and makes us poorer as a consequence. I heard rent in North Korea and Venezuela is pretty low by Australian standards at the moment. Should we adopt their policies?

    “Ending “no fault” evictions for rental properties”

    The more difficult is to evict someone the more difficult it will be to get a rental accommodation to begin with as landlords will become even stricter in their criteria.

    • @Ashley, you’re wrong on every front, but there’s one I particularly want to address:

      “What will happen to all the tourist towns along the coast?”

      As someone who has lived in a “tourist town” for an extended period of time. You people with your “holiday hosues” are the absolute worst.

      The towns don’t want people owning premier houses pushing up local real estate prices who only visit them once a year. You bring nothing to the local economy and are a net drain rather than benefit.

      Perhaps with the loss of these ‘holiday houses’ the towns will be able to naturally grow with long term residents, rather than once a year visitors.

      Natural growth of the town would be far preferable than the ridiculous holiday economy they currently run on, where most businesses run at a loss 90% of the year only to be saved at xmas time due to the influx of visitors. It’s a tenuous way of living.

      • Rustyshacks: I am originally from a tourist town myself. A very low average income town with endless space beyond the first two rows of housing by the beach. High national minimum wages coupled with low incomes in the town results in very high levels of unemployment. Airbnb combined with outsider owned apartments overlooking the beach makes these places more attractive to visit and boosts the local economy. The locals can always have a cheap 1/2 acre block 300m-1km back from the beach that outsiders do not want to own. These places often have two key economic drivers – agriculture and tourism. Apartments by the coast boost tourism, do not impact on agriculture and do not affect house prices inland from the beach.

    • Liberty. Lol. The only place you’ll get that is in Alabama or some place like that. For now.

      These policies would halve house prices overnight, probably reduce them by 2/3s to 3/4s in Sydney, and you know it, providing huge amounts more liberty to Australians. Instead of them being slaves to greedy bovine trash.

      • Owen, in general liberty is good as it allows for the diversity of people in different situations with different needs, many of which you and I haven’t even considered or could fathom. We are not all square pegs to be nailed into square holes.

      • I don’t think we have enough liberty Ashley. But I hardly think giving preferences to people that actually live in towns when it comes to property is much of a violation of it. The state needs to step in sometimes, as it does with drivers licenses. You can always rent if you want to go on holiday, and it would be cheaper in the long run, and actually provide you with more liberty. As you wouldn’t be burdened with maintenance costs and the big lump sum it requires to buy the property in the first place.

      • Drink driving laws, seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, not being able to own a gun all reduces liberty, but where is the outrage over those issues? Oh… that’s right Australian’s love laws that make them safe. So I’d say most Australian’s would support laws that give them the safety and permanency of shelter too..

        I don’t think a vacancy tax should apply in areas where holiday homes are (post codes) but if you’re not using the home for 90% of the year why not rent it out? My mum owns a house down in Philip Island and rents it on Stayz/AirBnb etc.. that’s a positive for the local community as it brings tourists in and the place is used and she gets an income. That’s fine. But buying up housing stock in local CBDs where majority of productive workers are so that tourists can stay for 2 weeks and sod off again while locals have to move further out at higher costs not only screws the economy by making it less efficient but also screws the workers. You know it’s dumb policy.

      • Halving house prices overnight doesn’t mean the ends justifies the means.

        I could vote for a law that all workers have one arm tied behind their backs. It would halve wages overnight, since every worker produces only half as much.

        Banning AirBNB and productive uses of real estate is stupidity.

        You want to lower housing prices in a non-distortionary way, raise interest rates, end of story.

    • “Reduced returns on investment will lead to less supply which will lead to higher rents.” Lol

      Don’t take this the wrong way but you need a lesson in proper economics — you are repeating a favourite line of the property-boosting lobby, ScoMo and various other halfwits. Why would returns be reduced because these incentives had been removed? All that would happen is that the prices of housing would fall to a level where returns were attractive again. House prices do not have FLOOR under them (despite a conga line of mongs in this country believing otherwise). In a proper, functioning economy prices adjust to levels where supply and demand meet. It really is that simple.

      The incentives of which you speak don’t exist anywhere else in the world (exc NZ) and property markets function just fine. Look at London: no incentives beyond raw demand and developers have been building there like crazy for years.

      • You took the scenic route to expose the flaw in the argument.

        My response is: Then why are all the investment dollars overwhelmingly going towards existing assets?

      • I understand economics perfectly well Dominic – I have studied economics to advanced levels and have worked as a professional economist for many years and very profitably by reputable international firms.

        Let’s say I am making a choice between purchasing a new build apartment to own and rent out vs buying shares. If you increase the tax on housing, I will direct more of my investment from housing to alternative investments. That is basic economics.

        If I am a property developer I would fully expect that there will be less buyers for my product if housing is taxed punitively relative to other assets.

        I have lived in Singapore for many years and have just returned to Australia. Interestingly, I will pay more rent in Brisbane than I did in Singapore for a similar product (a 3 bedroom apartment with 2 car spaces, with facilities, near a shopping centre and with good public transport connectivity).

        Stylised facts of Singapore:
        – Very high population density
        – Very rapid population growth over the past 10-15 years (much higher than Syd, Melbourne, Brisbane)
        – No capital gains tax
        – You can deduct interest expenses from an investment property from your taxable income
        – Much higher after-tax income levels compared to Brisbane

        Brisbane:
        – Low population density
        – Lower income levels
        – Struggling economy post mining boom
        – Supposed over supply of apartments
        – Capital gains tax
        – Lower population growth

        Despite all of the above, a 3 bedroom apartment with 2 car spaces, tennis courts, swimming pool, near a shopping centre, with good public transport rents for less in Singapore than Brisbane.

        In Brisbane the above will rent for $700-900 per week. In Singapore I was paying $600 per week for a 3 bedroom apartment, with tennis courts, swimming pool, club house with newspapers, wifi etc, well stocked gym over the road from a shopping centre with food courts and a major supermarket.

        So explain that one for me. Australia’s problem is of poor urban planning. That is where our focus should lie.

      • Ashley,
        Isn’t it the case that 80% of Singaporeans live in government owned apartments? Are you sure that doesn’t have more to do with the price of rental accommodation than tax policies? Also you should be aware of the array of taxes and other policies restricting foreign ownership and domestic speculation on housing? Its not exactly a free market even to the extent ours is.

        https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21724856-subsidies-are-irresistiblebut-come-social-controls-why-80-singaporeans-live
        Why 80% of Singaporeans live in government-built flats

        The subsidies are irresistible—but come with social controls

      • @Ashley,
        Singapore restrictions on foreign ownership are very strict. Non citizens are not allowed to buy vacant land, land zoned residential, freestanding houses, entire blocks. Foreigners pay an additional 15% stamp duty.

        http://www.scmp.com/property/international/article/1189254/singapore-property-taxes-aim-deter-foreign-speculators
        http://www.my-property-report.com/articles/singapore-and-hong-kong-are-most-expensive-for-foreign-property-investors

        “‘The strong price growth in a number of these markets has led to numerous rounds of interventions by policy makers as they look to address the issues of affordability and household debt, with tax being one of the key tools at their disposal,’ said Oliver Holt, head of Asia Pacific research at Knight Frank.

        ‘Some of these taxes have had a significant influence on the ways markets respond and perform. The imposition of a 15% additional stamp duty for foreign buyers in Hong Kong and Singapore, along with seller’s stamp duties, is the most obvious example of how fiscal measures, together with other macro-prudential measures, have engineered a market slowdown,’ he explained.”

      • @Ashley
        I must confess straight up that I firmly believe that anyone who has majored in Economics at a mainstream University in the past 30yrs has probably been sold a lemon, given the low credibility of the Keynesian-Friedmanite hybrid theories taught at most establishments. But I digress …

        … as that has little to do with your curious views on property supply in (Brisbane) Australia. The evidence you produce to back your claims amounts to a tenuous comparison of Singapore with Brisbane. How about using some of this “advanced” economic knowledge you’ve acquired in order to build a sound theoretical case instead? A unique approach, I know, but give it a crack 🙂

        You produce this gem: “Let’s say I am making a choice between purchasing a new build apartment to own and rent out vs buying shares. If you increase the tax on housing, I will direct more of my investment from housing to alternative investments. That is basic economics.”

        Lol. You are assuming in your (very) basic example some very unreasonable assumptions, one of which is that property and shares produce similar returns (before taking account of tax). This is total nonsense, of course, because the prices of the assets would again simply adjust to the new tax regime. What you are saying (again) is that property returns would remain unattractive because of the tax disadvantage, but what I am trying to emphasise is that if property returns turned poor (for whatever reason you can dream up) prices would simply fall until such point as they were attractive enough to draw in investors. Unless, of course, you live in world where government decrees what prices and returns should be ;). I say again, if demand is there from any source, be it owner-occupiers, investors, renters, whatever, housing will be built. Tax incentives distort markets/prices, they don’t determine whether homes are built or not.

        Your arguments are specious, Ashley. Sorry, but that’s the truth. I don’t know where you received your economics education but I would ask for my money back.

    • “Phasing out negative gearing and capital gains discount on investment property sales”
      Reduced returns on investment will lead to less supply which will lead to higher rents.
      [Nope. You’re assuming the price of land won’t fall. Lower costs, probably higher returns AND lower rents.]
      “Stopping overseas buyers from buying Australian properties”
      Foreigners buying new built properties off-the-plan adds to housing supply hence the surge in apartment construction which is lowering the cost of housing for people prepared to live in an apartment.
      [Nope. It is bringing external money into the market, driving up the price of land and turning would be buyers into tenants of foreign landlords.]
      “Taxing properties left empty by investors”
      This reduces liberty for individuals. What if I want a holiday home in a coastal town? Isn’t that my prerogative? What will happen to all the tourist towns along the coast?
      [Again, the price of the holiday house will drop to reflect the new (lower) value. How is that a problem?]
      “Cutting down immigration to 70,000 annually”
      The issue is not immigration, the issue is infrastructure. If the net present value of future tax revenues from the immigrant is greater than the cost of providing infrastructure then we should allow immigration. If Sydney really is full, then perhaps introduce an auctioned quota system, directing new immigrants outside of Melbourne and Sydney, while still allowing some flexibility for high value migrants to be able to migrate to our business centres.
      [Delay, deny, delay, deny. You are correct, but let’s see infrastructure that matches present day requirements actually delivered and then adjust immigration to fit, not the other way around. Should take about 50 years at the current rate. I’m assuming your quota system is a joke.]
      “Banning full time Airbnb properties”
      Again reduces personal liberty. It also makes us less competitive as a tourist destination and makes us poorer as a consequence. I heard rent in North Korea and Venezuela is pretty low by Australian standards at the moment. Should we adopt their policies?
      [There are plenty of reductions of personal liberty in all civilised countries. It needs to be weighed against the common good. Every law reduces personal liberty. Nice straw men in NK and Venezuela.]
      “Ending “no fault” evictions for rental properties”
      The more difficult is to evict someone the more difficult it will be to get a rental accommodation to begin with as landlords will become even stricter in their criteria.
      [This gave me a good laugh. Where will landlords find their tenants? I would have thought you’d be the full bottle on the concept of meeting the market?]

    • Gen Y Home Buyer

      “If you don’t care about housing affordability for young Australians, then don’t vote for us”.

      Moral high ground. zing.

  8. TailorTrashMEMBER

    I’d suggest there would enough votes in that list to get him a senate seat ……..good luck to him ….even if he has such nonvibrant ideas as
    “housing in Australia should benefit people in Australia and not people who don’t live here and don’t need to own property here.”
    ………no doubt he will be labeled racist in due course ………and a wrecker of our economy …..

  9. “Just join Sustainable Australia, dude.”

    He does not want to be a follower or supporter. He wants to be in charge and get into the senate because its a easy gig for 6 years and he is using this platform for it.

    • I’m a member of Affordable Housing Party and support Sustainable Australia Party and will put a preference vote in for Labor and sadly “Green’s” although down the list, all based on their housing policies. I hope the Youth offer a nice wedge to housing policies in this country at the next election.

      I also plan to give preference votes to minor parties like those willing to tax religion haha. 😀

  10. I would ban foreigners from owning Aussie land. And I do not mean foreigners who live abroad, but anyone that does not have an Aussie passport. Tough.

    Would allow them to lease land for 30 years.

      • “Foreigners can buy property in Gaborone, Phakalane, Lobatse, F/town and some other areas outside Tribal Territories.

        Foreigners can also buy any freehold land or property.”

        Um, it looks like foreign passports can buy land in Botswana?

      • Botswana, those racist bastards! They should take a leaf out of Lagos’ book and build up, Up, UP! Also they could put in a few more Infinity Pools for Simone/Ashley/3d

  11. I’d favour SA over AHP, as SA has a track record of talking sense. I can see how Affordable Housing Party would cut through from a marketing perspective, but it’s a single issue, whereas SA has a whole platform/manifesto. Public awareness can arrive suddenly and unexpectedly, due to unanticipated catalysts. Basing your party name on a marketing slogan is short-term… sustainable is a long-term strategy. Not saying SA is the best name, but it’s a good name, and they are still the party I would vote for.

    • Sounds like a nightmare. Living near places that are used like hotel rooms. I think it’s a good idea.

    • Jono, there is a little more to this story.

      Google AirBnB problems in Barcelona, where an estimated 1 million beds are now available via Air BnB. Many are not registered so pay no tax and they do not employ anyone unlike a hotel. Then there is the noise issue for residents living in the same complex as well as removing another long term rental property from the market.

      The government wants a share of the Air BnB cake…..read Tax !

      As for me, Air BnB competition has greatly reduced hotel rates so much that I can get a better deal in a 4 star hotel with breakfast and the usual hotel trimmings. It just takes a little research.

    • No, just places that are in reality hotels but avoid hotel regulation by selling through AirBnB. You’d still be able to airBnB your place if you go on holidays for a month.

  12. It’s a democracy. Two minor parties with good policies on housing is better than none!

    It’s has been good to see Andrew Potts posting on Sustainable Australia’s Facebook page over the years, come to our recent housing meeting, and now adopt a range of our policies.

    When Sustainable Australia (nee Sustainable Population Party) started talking about immigration, it was taboo. Now everyone from Leith @ MB to Dick Smith to AHP has spoken up on population AND specifically adopted our 70,000 figure.

    Like MB, we influence many people and often don’t get the credit. That’s life.

    The bottom line is we need outcomes on issues like secure jobs, affordable housing, better planning and a sustainable environment – and Sustainable Australia is playing a key role in changing public opinion from outside of Parliament.

    The last part of that will change if we get registered in NSW. I’d encourage people to join our well-rounded party – there’s now a free membership category in NSW:
    http://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/nsw

    Cheers!
    William Bourke
    Sustainable Australia

  13. Dan, I can’t seem to reply directly to your comment so I will just place this here in the hope that you read it.

    First of all I am very happy that you are digging into the details of Singaporean policy and comparing to Australia. Too often, international comparisons for Australia’s economy are directed at bloated Europe. Even if you end up disagreeing with me, I think Singapore should be included in these discussions as often as NZ is for example. Singapore has been very successful and challenges many assumption that Australians often have (including myself).

    “Isn’t it the case that 80% of Singaporeans live in government owned apartments?”

    Well, the public housing is built by the government or companies contracted by the government and then sold under a 99-year lease arrangement to families with household incomes below a certain level (I think around $8k per month).

    “Are you sure that doesn’t have more to do with the price of rental accommodation than tax policies?”

    Well the government takes political responsibility for sufficient housing for the population to prevent them getting upset and overthrowing the ruling party.

    Basically Singapore is socialism for the poor and capitalism for the rich. They intrude into personal decisions for low income people and make sure that their living environment is affordable and harmonious.

    Most importantly, there is no hang up about high rise housing in Singapore. A city in the modern era is defined by commute times to the city centre. It just so happens that Singapore is only 40km by 40km, which is about the maximum distance you would like to commute anyway. So even though Australia has a vast continent, our cities are still defined by the realities of commute times. That means, we still need to pack in higher density living.

    “Also you should be aware of the array of taxes and other policies restricting foreign ownership and domestic speculation on housing?”

    Yes, I am. Even though I was a permanent resident I was not allowed to buy landed property as that is restricted to the elite of Singapore.

    The sellers stamp duty etc were aimed at stopping hot money from China. I have mixed feelings about it. I still think Singapore’s relatively affordable rent (for those happy to live in an apartment and compared with other large cities) is a supply issue rather than demand issue – i.e. willingness to expand urban infrastructure (trains etc) and allow countless apartments to be put up.

    Willingness to use cheap labour from Bangladesh etc also helps and helps to offset Singapore’s lack of natural resources (cement, sand etc gets shipped in).

    • I lived in Singapore for 8 years and ended up buying a 4 bedroom condo there 10 minutes walk to Orchard MRT. I got in just before the property cooling measures started to be implemented to prevent property flipping and the rampant speculation that was going on. Sure my condo would be worth alot more if these measures were not introduced (Sellers stamp duty, buyers stamp duty, total debt servicing ratio, etc) but I see it as good policy as they certainly did cool the market as intended and stopped the rate of price growth. However if prices were to fall in the future the government there is switched on enough to relax some of these measures and prevent large falls making it a more stable market where people now only tend to invest for the longer term which is not a bad thing. In any event I have never had any problem renting the place out to good tenants and I bought it when the AUD was 1.30 something against the SGD and now it’s 1.08 so I have made plenty on just the currency alone. There is no reason why the Australian government could not implement similar measures to make property more affordable and accessable to Australian citizens.

  14. “…I really can’t fathom how badly organised Aussie youth is…”

    The worst thing is there is nothing on their proposed policy list about ending the racket in urban land run by central planners.

    The best thing Aussie youth could be doing is covertly organising a mass “informal housing development” on legally bought farmland (likely $20,000 per acre or less) outside planning boundaries. You can do heaps of stuff off-grid these days.

    The Poms, who have been running this planning racket for decades already, are fully geared up to deal in most draconian fashion, with any manifestations of “squatting”. They take years to permit legal housing development, but squat on the Green Belt in tents and caravans and there will be stormtroopers there with batons, tear gas, handcuffs and paddy wagons within 24 hours, and everyone involved swiftly put through court for a stiff sentence. This really is borderline “fascistic capitalism”.

    But in Australia, the authorities could still be taken by surprise by a well-organised informal housing development – but it seems both the yoof and the politicians are equally ignorant about the underlying issues.