Grattan Institute sings from property developers’ hymn sheet

Advertisement

By Leith van Onselen

The Grattan Institute has penned another gaslighting piece in The Conversation calling for the middle suburbs in our major cities to be bulldozed into high density in order to squeeze in millions of extra migrants:

Home ownership rates are declining across Australia, especially among the young and the poor. An increasing proportion of low-income earners are in rental stress…

Australia’s population is growing rapidly. Our cities have not kept up, so there is less housing per person. The primary obstacle appears to be planning rules that delay or prevent development.

All states except Tasmania have less housing per person than a decade ago

…today’s record level of housing construction is the bare minimum needed to match rapid population growth largely driven by immigration.

Record housing construction will need to be maintained to meet city plan housing targets

And yet authorities in NSW and Queensland are responding to NIMBY pressures by making it harder to increase density…

What should governments do?

Resisting higher-density development is the wrong response. To enable more homes to be built in inner and middle-ring suburbs of our largest cities, state governments should:

  1. Introduce a new small redevelopment housing code. It would protect neighbours, reduce planning uncertainty and improve the quality of new developments. The code would include the things that worry neighbours the most, such as privacy, height and overshadowing.
  2. Allow taller developments of four to eight storeys “as of right” on major transport corridors and around train stations.
  3. Set housing targets for each local council. The targets should be linked to plans for the growth of the city as a whole. Where councils fail to meet planning targets, independent planning panels should step in.

The best evidence is that building an extra 50,000 homes a year for a decade could leave Australian house prices 5-20% lower than what they would have been otherwise, stem rising public anxiety about housing affordability, and increase economic growth…

Australians need to face up to a harsh truth: either people accept greater density in their suburb, or their children will not be able to buy a home.

The policies espoused by Grattan sound just like those that the Property Council, Housing Industry Association and Master Builders Australia would support under the guise of “planning reform”. These ideas are not only pandering to the ‘Big Australia’ agenda, they are undemocratic as they sideline due process and community input and appeal rights.

Nowhere in this article did Grattan propose dealing with the problem at the source: by lower immigration back to historical levels and preventing the housing and infrastructure shortages from developing in the first place:

Advertisement

The fact of the matter is that the mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ policy that Grattan supports has locked residents in our major cities into falling standards of living.

We know this because the empirical evidence of 15-years of hyper immigration-fuelled population growth has seen economic and social infrastructure become crush-loaded, as well as forced residents into living in smaller and more expensive housing.

Advertisement

Moreover, Infrastructure Australia’s projections for Sydney and Melbourne show that traffic congestion will soar and access to jobs, schools, hospitals and open space will all decline by 2046, irrespective of how these cities build-out to cope with populations of 7.4 million and 7.3 million people respectively:

Advertisement

What Grattan does not seem to comprehend is that increasing density in established suburbs will inevitably result in greater demand for land in these privileged locations. Increased demand equals increased cost as the amount of land is fixed. This will inevitably result in smaller and more expensive housing, less public open space, a greater concentration of people in taller and more concentrated buildings, leading to increased temperatures (the ‘heat island effect’), greater traffic congestion, overcrowded schools and hospitals, etc. Again, these impacts are projected by Infrastructure Australia above.

Moreover, with Melbourne’s and Sydney’s populations increasing by around 200,000 people (combined) a year, no amount of increased spending on infrastructure will ever be enough. In these built-out metropolises, where land prices are already insanely high, the cost of widening existing transport corridors or tunnelling to handle increased traffic flows are simply prohibitive. It’s playing catch up to something that just gets further out of reach every year, as the past 15 years has clearly demonstrated.

Dr Cameron Murray has also expertly rubbished Grattan’s magical solution of boosting dwelling construction by 50,000 a year as a pipedream and a waste of Australia’s economic resources for minimal gain:

Advertisement

The greatest housing policy fraud is what I will call The Supply-side Distraction. A recent presentation by Grattan Institute’s Brendan Coates was called: “Supply sceptics beware: without more housing, it won’t be affordable.”

Sounds ominous. But here is the conclusion: “Building an extra 50,000 homes a year for a decade could see house prices 10-20% lower.”

Really? That’s less exciting than John Alexander’s preferred outcome of prices rising 5% per year instead of 10% per year!..

A frank approach would see that in the three months to June 2015 Sydney home prices increased 9%. This is the scale of the ambition– reverse a few months price growth with an insanely large decade-long construction program.

And the economic cost of that low ambition? That would be a 25% increase on the already high number of homes being built of over 200,000 per year, enough to accommodate half a million people.

We are currently building a new Newcastle-worth of homes a year, and we would need to add to that a new Ballarat, Toowoomba, or Darwin’s worth, every year, for 10 years, to reduce prices by just the amount they grew in the second quarter of 2015 in Sydney, or the past 10 months in Hobart. Some suburbs of Sydney have seen prices fall by more than that in the past year from tightening of credit. It is a colossal investment task for a minute reduction in housing costs.

Currently, a record 9.5% of the labour force is in construction, which was just 7.5% prior to the financial crisis. To meet this supply ambition over ten years, to reverse a few month’s price growth, would take an extra 2.5% of the workforce to stop what they are doing, stop producing what they are producing, and shift into housing construction. That’s an extra 330,000 people, or about the labour force of the Gold Coast, and even higher than the labour force of Canberra.

The real resources required for this 10% price effect make me wonder how serious followers of this view can be. Even worse, The Supply-side Distraction does not involve actually building any new homes at all but hoping that minor tweaks to planning rules will stimulate the greatest construction boom in the history of the nation where property developers left, right, and centre, will be building thousands of new homes even though it reduces their profits by doing so because it reduces prices!

That’s the truly bizarre part of the story. Not only do the economics show that supply’s effect on price is tiny, making it a strange target for an affordable housing policy, but the way that supply-siders plan to get there is, essentially, to hope the market works like it does in their clearly flawed model!

I have many times asked that if you really believe this story, why not create a public agency tasked with building and selling 50,000 new homes a year, regardless of their own profitability. No. That’s getting too close to being an effective way trimming 10% off the price of housing. We wouldn’t want that!

As I noted on Wednesday, the answer to Grattan’s willful ignorance about immigration may well relate to its donor list:

Endowment Supporters
($1 million plus over Grattan Institute’s life)
The Myer Foundation
National Australia Bank
Susan McKinnon Foundation
Affiliate Partners
($100,000 plus annually)
Medibank Private
Susan McKinnon Foundation
Senior Affiliates
($50,000 plus annually)
Google
Maddocks
PwC
McKinsey & Company
The Scanlon Foundation
Wesfarmers
Westpac
Affiliates
($25,000 plus annually)
Ashurst
Corrs
GE ANZ
Jemena
Urbis
Woodside

Advertisement

Grattan is little more than another ‘Big Australia’ lobby group and a mouthpiece for the property development industry.

[email protected]

About the author
Leith van Onselen is Chief Economist at the MB Fund and MB Super. He is also a co-founder of MacroBusiness. Leith has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs.