Ritualised forms – Jason Falinski and home affordability

Jason Falinski MHR put a piece into our mainstream media this week – about housing affordability. Sometimes we need to think about our political representatives.  And whenever they put something into our mainstream media we should ask about the process which has got it there.

Policy priests should tell young Australians the truth about homeownership and supply

Jason Falinski
Liberal Party MP
September 30, 2021 — 5.00am

I have a confession to make. This month, when the House of Representatives Committee on Tax and Revenue convened to hear from Treasury, the Department of Social Services, and the Reserve Bank on housing affordability, their evidence did not have my full attention.

You see that day I was homeschooling, and my daughter was conducting a Food Tech experiment in the kitchen. As the hearing got under way, disaster was unfolding next to me.

Yes, Ladies and gentlemen.  Your taxes are currently paying somewhere north of $211250, plus another $32000 in Electorate allowances for a Member of the House of Representatives, plus another $20000 for someone who gets to be on a committee, plus another $20000 in lieu of a private plated car, plus travel allowance, plus the nations finest superannuation scheme, plus phone expenses and home power and internet, and lord only knows how many meals on electoral duties……….for a fellow who:-

  1. Doesn’t pay attention during the committees he is on
  2. Doesn’t pay attention during the committees he is on and writes about it in the media
  3. Doesn’t pay attention during the committees he is on, and writes about it in the media, and chairs the committee he writes about not paying attention to.
  4. Doesn’t pay attention during the committees he is on, and writes about it in the media, and chairs the committee he writes about not paying attention to, and then pontificates in the media about the subject matter of the committee he is chairing but not paying attention to.
  5. Doesn’t pay attention during the committees he is on, and writes about it in the media, and chairs the committee he writes about not paying attention to, and then pontificates in the media about the subject matter of the committee he is chairing but not paying attention to, and utilizes an experience which almost all Australians with children have experienced in the last year or so to expiate that.
  6. Doesn’t pay attention during the committees he is on, and writes about it in the media, and chairs the committee he writes about not paying attention to, and then pontificates in the media about the subject matter of the committee he is chairing but not paying attention to, and utilizes an experience which almost all Australians with children have experienced in the last year or so to expiate that, while commenting on the subject of the committee he chairs.
  7. Doesn’t pay attention during the committees he is on, and writes about it in the media, and chairs the committee he writes about not paying attention to, and then pontificates in the media about the subject matter of the committee he is chairing but not paying attention to, and utilizes an experience which almost all Australians with children have experienced in the last year or so to expiate that, while commenting on the subject of the committee he chairs, and ignoring almost every last submission made to that committee.
  8. Doesn’t pay attention during the committees he is on, and writes about it in the media, and chairs the committee he writes about not paying attention to, and then pontificates in the media about the subject matter of the committee he is chairing but not paying attention to, and utilizes an experience which almost all Australians with children have experienced in the last year or so to expiate that, while commenting on the subject of the committee he chairs, and ignoring almost every last submission made to that committee, and is doing all of this from home.
  9. Doesn’t pay attention during the committees he is on, and writes about it in the media, and chairs the committee he writes about not paying attention to, and then pontificates in the media about the subject matter of the committee he is chairing but not paying attention to, and utilizes an experience which almost all Australians with children have experienced in the last year or so to expiate that, while commenting on the subject of the committee he chairs, and ignoring almost every last submission made to that committee, and is doing all of this from home – writing about the expense of home ownership.
  10. All of the above.

Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia………

For the next 30 minutes, I tried to juggle my dual obligations. I quickly came to realise they were the aligned. In both places I was trying to understand what had gone wrong, and how we could get it right for our children.

The way things stand, there is little chance that my daughter or her friends will be able to afford their own home. Low homeownership correlates with increased wealth inequality, worse mental health, greater democratic instability, domestic violence and less economic productivity. So, it is a concern that, despite generous government assistance, homeownership for people under 40 is now lower than it was in 1947.

We can imagine Jason’s moment of epiphany……

His little girl in his white marble kitchen with spotless polished stainless steel benchtops on the centre console over white terrazzo and ebony tiles imported from Spain, within a cocoon of frosted glass shelving from Bohemia …..doesnt get the top right on the Moulinex when blending some strawberries for a brûlée topping.

Little blobs of sugared strawberry end up all over the exterior doors of the Meneghini Arredamenti Refrigerator, the aforementioned frosted shelving, the floor, and somehow make it as far as the Venus Century Espresso Machine……a full eleven unendurable hours before the home help is next rostered on.

Oh, the cruel slings and arrows of outrageous fortune……doesn’t anyone know where the Chux are?

Notwithstanding the possibility that his daughters friends might include some of the most pampered children in Australia, attending some of the most expensive schools known to man and have a concern about housing affordability in a completely different dimension to that known by many or even most other Australians, Jason wonders about their scope for buying a home at some point in their lives………

Their options include

  1. Ask dad, seeing he is slaughtering $250k clean per annum courtesy of the Australian taxpayer
  2. Get fresh with someone whose dad, or mum, or maybe both, is also slaughtering $250k clean courtesy of the Australian taxpayer – probably living in circumstances just like them and knowing Sweet FA about housing affordability.
  3. Get fresh with someone whose dad, or mum, or maybe both, is also slaughtering $250k clean by any means whatsoever – which in Australia means milking government regulation one way or another, milking government contracts one way or another, or fluffing the population Ponzi one way or another – probably living in circumstances just like them and knowing Sweet FA about housing affordability.
  4. Getting a pad in Paris, the West End or Manhattan.
  5. Finding a life partner to go downmarket with (who may know something about housing affordability) and buying a fibro shack in Hoxton Park.
  6. Taking out a mortgage for 15-30 times their income and paying off an abode on years worth of short term contracts, and learning about housing affordability from a debt serfs perspective.

Beyond that moment, Jason has some good points.  Low home ownership is directly correlated with a lot of social and health problems, and for sure home ownership rates are taking an absolute kicking.  It is also worth noting that the numbers of Australians with a significant mortgage in their retirement is also rising.  It all points to people taking on more debt than they can actually service in their working lives to buy a house.  This is directly attributable to them experiencing a range of problems, and translates almost directly into a diminished marginal propensity for people to get together and have families.

Jason hasn’t actually said that, but that is where he is heading.  Let’s see where he goes next.

There are many stories in the media of houses selling $1 million above market. This is not a well-functioning market; it is a sign that buyers are desperate.

Why has the Australian housing market gone as wrong as the food tech assignment?

Here is a summary of the usual suspects: property speculators (however, the proportion of property investors has been at record lows), net migration (for the last 18 months net migration has been zero), interest rates and the tax system turning housing into a speculative asset.

Some of these are only a problem if you stop people from building more houses.

If we set aside the second sentence of that as another attempt to relate his family experience to that of a large numbers of housing stressed Australians who have major issues getting meat and three vegetables on the table for themselves and their kids each day, and write it off as political representative faux ingratiation of the ‘he’s a great bloke’ kind, we have the start of Jason the public intellect commenting on an issue of national importance.

At this point one finds oneself taking a moment to consider Jason

A man with a Bachelor of Agricultural Economics from Sydney, an MBA from AGSM.  A solidly built middle aged dude with a couple of chins who likes a laugh, whom the Liberal party still flaunt as a 23 year old (can’t they be honest about anything?).  A background as a Managing Director for a company assembling and distributing health related bedroom furniture employing maybe 30 odd people. A period with IAG in strategy and M&A when most of the strategy and M&A would have been overtly political as NRMA Insurance became IAG. A spell in corporate affairs with Credit Union Service Corporation, an organisation which basically provides payment services for the Credit Unions. Lots of Liberal Party apparatchik work.  There is nothing much there pointing to any great social or economic intellect development or experience.  But the Liberals still have him down as a ‘Self described economics nerd’ who ‘refuses to duck the big issues’ highlighted by his appointment to the chair of a committee from which he writes about not paying attention.

He scouts a few themes, speculators migrants, interest rates and tax – but is seemingly of the view that if they don’t change dynamics straight away (speculators declining and no migrants for 18 months) they can be discounted. One wonders about the comprehensiveness of that ‘self described economics nerd’.  You would think and AGSM would leave just a touch more intellectual rigour in their graduates.

And his thought is ‘build more’.  OK.  What narrative does he bring to the issue of housing affordability?…..

“Think of it this way: government programs help 100 people to buy a bus ticket, but there are only 50 seats on the bus. At this point we have a choice, we can either get another bus, so everyone can get on, or we can tell half the people waiting to rack off because they don’t deserve a seat. Currently, councils and our planning system does just that.”

The old bus queue mindset……Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to when Jason last caught a bus?

Demand is a given in Jason’s fable.  Those 100 people are handed down from on high and cannot be questioned or analysed in any way.  We just need to double the supply, or we are telling some of them to ‘rack off’.  Interestingly he doesn’t go anywhere near the idea, beloved of transport analysts, that making transport easy and cheap – a’la railways and freeways – simply attracts more people to them, and leads to them becoming clogged anyway.  But that isn’t an issue for now.  Let us go back to Jason.

Five years ago, Sydney was undersupplied by 100,000 houses. The NSW government says 42,000 new homes a year are required to stop the problem getting worse. In 2020, only 29,500 homes were built. This year building approvals fell another 10 per cent. The RBA says that 68 per cent of the cost of a Sydney apartment is due to planning laws.

Only one of 35 local government areas in Sydney is on track to achieve their housing targets. In Brisbane, at the end of December just 5,905 approved lots remained, way below the government’s mandate; and in Melbourne, a $1 million apartment includes $220,000 in taxes.

Jason starts off on an observable tack.  Sydney needs 100 thousand houses, or at least 42 thousand per year (again no mention of demand) and is only building 29 thousand s down 10%.  All perfectly plausible.  Then he throws in a non sequitur…..’The RBA says that 68 per cent of the cost of a Sydney apartment is due to planning laws.’ Complete with link to the RBA paper.  So it doesn’t matter if it makes no sense to the rest of the paragraph, right?  The RBA said it, so it must be true……

Well Jason, this is what is written in the RBA piece – in the abstract right at the start (which some may suspect is about as far as you got into it).

We estimate that home buyers will pay an average of $873,000 for a new apartment in Sydney though it only costs $519,000 to supply, a gap of $355,000 (68 per cent of costs).

At this point, Jason, the casual reader may well find themselves questioning your comprehension abilities about things you write about.  They may even find themselves wondering if the Bachelor of Agricultural Economics, the MBA, and self references to being an ‘economics nerd’ are, like the kotekas worn by highlanders in Papua New Guinea, largely ceremonial or traditional, and serve no functional or intellectual purpose whatsoever.

The next paragraph tees off with another throwaway link to some incomprehensible data to suggest Sydney local governments aren’t meeting ‘housing targets’ as though these are also handed down in stone tablet form from a deity.  Then out of nowhere, comes a reference backed by nothing whatsoever, about Brisbane having ‘just’ 5095 lots remaining, which is in some way below a government mandate, and then a Melbourne million dollar apartment – is this about ‘affordable housing’ Jason? Is a million dollar apartment somehow within your framework of affordable?  – which includes 220 thousand in taxes.

He may be right, he may be wrong, but how the hell can anyone make any sense of what he is on about or why?  Did any editorial value touch this piece?  Has the once mighty Fairfax finally made it to becoming a version of ‘New Idea’ or ‘Australasian Post’ which just accepts diatribes without looking at them before publishing?

Some would argue this is not an issue, in my view it is nothing short of intergenerational theft. Funnily enough that is exactly what the NSW government’s Intergenerational Report says.

As someone who co-authored a submission to the Affordable Housing Inquiry Jason chairs submitted on behalf of ‘Australians for Intergenerational Equity’ (Number 60 here) I find myself in complete agreement with Jason right on this paragraph.  Australian house prices punish the young and the less well off of all ages, to increase the ‘wealth of the mainly older and mainly better off.

Unfortunately it is a passing ships kind of agreement because Jason is next off into the realm of utter myth.

This is driven by insiders who refuse to countenance the role of supply. All they talk about is reducing demand, by increasing taxes, increasing interest rates, and cutting the HomeBuilder stimulus scheme that offers $25,000 grants for new homes. Oh, and stop eating smashed avocadoes.

Well our first takeaway there is the word ‘insiders’.  No mention of who they are, or where they are, or what they do?  Do they make decisions as governments Jason? Do they advise governments who do make decisions Jason?  Are they Federal Insiders or State insiders? Are they a cabal? No mention of the fact that his party has been in government for 20 of the last 26 years.  But a bit like Stalin warning about ‘counter revolutionaries’ or authoritarians everywhere concerned about ‘Fifth Columnists’ Jason has hit upon a vein of traitors deforming Australian housing to punish younger and less wealthy Australians.

Anyone for an auto-da-fé, or a purge?  What about some show trials?

Then Jason strolls off into the realms of pure bullshido.  Having cast demand as a given which cannot be questioned, he links these ‘insiders’ with the apostasy of wanting to reduce demand.

He suggests they want to increase taxes. Has anyone anywhere suggested raising taxes on housing supply? Even the ALP, when considering removing the negative gearing tax concession, was planning to retain it for investment in new housing. It was just the concession would be removed for housing which had been previously constructed – and would therefore tone down the speculative impulse. Jason does more than 90% of all negative gearing relate to previously constructed housing?

Indeed the RBA, whom Jason likes to refer to, have also laid out a pretty comprehensive position on the removal of negative gearing haven’t they – That’s the second paragraph under the heading ‘Conclusion’ on page 35 for you Jason.

Our model shows that, in equilibrium, repealing negative gearing decreases house prices, increases rents thereby improves a home affordability of Australian households. As a result, the average homeownership rate increases. The responses to the policy reform are different along the dimension of household age and earnings. The rise in homeownership rate after the policy reform is larger for young households who were relatively poor. Elimination of negative gearing helps poor households as lower house prices allow them to consume the bigger amount of housing services. The model also shows that eliminating negative gearing takes young landlords who were rich enough to meet a downpayment requirement for investment properties away from the market.

And if you aren’t comfortable accepting that RBA working paper from 2017 then we could also note you were told precisely the effect of Negative Gearing on the housing market by Luci Ellis just a fortnight ago.

“The bank has always held the view that the combination of negative gearing and concessional capital gains tax and the way we tax or don’t tax older Australians combine to encourage, essentially, speculative investment in property. There are positives and negatives to that. It probably means that, at the margin, rents are lower for some households who rent, but it does add a speculative dynamic to the market that is something that we’re quite concerned about given our financial stability mandate. Certainly there have been not only their statements in speeches and testimony but also many submissions where we’ve made that point. It’s not just the negative gearing or just the capital gains tax; it’s the combination of them. We believe that the tax system is worthy of review, but not one feature in isolation. It requires a holistic review in order to get the right combination of parameters so that the treatment of income-producing assets in the tax system doesn’t have deleterious effects on other elements of the public interest.”

But let’s go back to that paragraph because there are some more juicy morsels of incredulity in it worthy of perusal. Jason accuses these ‘insiders’ of wanting higher interest rates, and of wanting to cut new housing grants.

Well Jason, if you were paying any attention to Luci Ellis when she spoke to your committee she noted that lower interest rates stemming from the RBA overnight rate being dropped to sustain demand in the face of the global Covid related downturn is effectively trumping all the new supply.  That amounts to people with access to money find it so easy to get the money, and so nonsensical not to get it, that they get it and just invest in whatever they feel like and they feel like housing speculation because of Negative Gearing and CGT concessions.  She then noted in this environment the construction grants do little but add to the profitability of the developers……which the cynical would say is probably the point Jason.

Let’s go back for the last few stanzas of this tripe

It means, and could they just be honest about it, that millions of Australians under 40 should just put up with never owning a home. It is a cruel and dishonest argument made by vested interests. It amounts to victim blaming. Besides providing homes for the next generation, building new homes creates a lot of new jobs.

So these unknowable and unidentifiable ‘insiders’  – who are almost as mysterious as the demand side of the equation for Jason, and who have overpowered a government Jason has been either in or closely connected to for the last thirty years (when he was an advisor to John Hewson) which has been in power for 20 of the last 26 years – are to blame. They are cruel, dishonest, victim blaming, and costing jobs.

One sort of finds oneself wondering at what point any government member acknowledges responsibility for anything

We have the least densely populated continent in the world with plenty of land to build on, and some of the highest wages in the world. It is hardly that difficult for us to create an affordable housing market. Sydney has the third most unaffordable houses in the world, Melbourne sixth, Adelaide 13th and Brisbane 18th.

We can accept that Jason has most of that right.  The economist koteka in him hasn’t gone anywhere near suggesting that ‘high wages’ is both a plus and a negative when it comes to housing supply, or gone near the idea that ‘high wages’ might be desirable more broadly to help that housing demand, or even that when it comes to ‘high wages’ Australian politicians do quite nicely thank you very much.

But the cherry on the top of his little girl’s brûlée comes at the denouement…..

I ask you: should we accept the unfair deficit of seats on the housing bus or stand up to the outrageous misuse of power by the high priests of policy who lie to all of us to protect their privileged position?

…so that bus fable is real for Jason and we are on a ‘housing bus’ – and we still have no idea about demand and are not allowed to think about it.  But those ‘insiders’ we were told about just a paragraph or two ago, have now become ‘high priests of policy’ and now it appears they ‘lie to us all’ and have a ‘privileged position’ – We need loyalty oaths and a purge, maybe even a confession to be read out in public so the people most affected by Housing unaffordability can sit in their shared rented loungerooms and boo and hiss.

….and this is a member of parliament, and a chair of a committee to look into affordable housing and supply (but no mention of demand), with an economics degree and an MBA, in one of Australia’s once respected mainstream news media pillars.

This incomprehensible drivel lays a fair basis for a

  • Royal Commission into Australian Housing Affordability
  • Royal Commission into Australian University Education
  • Royal Commission into Australia’s Media

And at least a parliamentary inquiry (with a chair who is on the ball) into the mental faculties of Australian political representatives.

….and could we also ask that the Liberal Party use only photographs taken within the last ten years on the pages of their Members in Parliament

Comments

  1. boomengineeringMEMBER

    Having agent around next week because of astronomical prices paid lately but when looking into it, it rhymes with investors rantings of doubling every seven years. Looking at the history of sales matches perfectly . That said, still believe in the bcnich crash beginning only a month or so away.
    The main problem is where to go thus taking a huge risk. Can’t even find a place to rent , ie farmer to temporarily put my tons of machines and tools. If I did find a place to buy Mid North Coast it would be st a premium as prices has recently gone up faster than here. The old adage could apply once you leave you can’t afford to return

  2. Even StevenMEMBER

    Jason is right about building a lot of housing.
    He’s wrong on disavowing responsibility for this mess. Are these insiders and high priests of policy he refers to, the developer lobby which donates to the Liberal party?
    The lack of discussion on what has been feeding demand (=immigration) is shameful.

    • For the best part of a decade, Mr Falinski’s emotionally egalitarian Coalition Government has done everything in its power to maintain housing affordability in Sydney.

      And look how well they’ve done! Yes, there are 2 cities on the planet with less affordable housing. But, if you believe Jase, it could have been 4-5, but for wicked councils deliberately hoarding land and undermining altruistic property developers.

      Once Mr Falinski’s Government boosts net migration to new record levels, 235,000 per annum is the plan, I have no doubt that will incentivise councils to catch up with the developers’ quite reasonable demands. Shame on them!

  3. Display NameMEMBER

    But as the Banking RC has shown, RC’s Are a waste of time if
    a) The findings are ignored
    b) The terms of reference mean they fail before they start.

    I am sceptical that with current governments that either of these two items can be satisfied for any RC.

  4. This man in no way represents me.

    The problem is that voters have been voting like morons and thoughtlessly voting for rubbish like him.

    My powerful mind can easily understand the housing situation, but even I struggle to understand the average voter.
    Are they just voting for their daddy’s party?
    Are the Labor voters hoping for another Gough?
    Are the Liberal voters hoping for another Bob or Malcolm?

    Is it that each person is so unwilling to admit a past mistake (eg voting Liberal) that they continue to repeat the same behaviour as a way of avoiding pain and regret?

    eg “I have voted Liberal all my life. I am not responsible for the housing disaster. I am not to blame. I voted Liberal so that cannot be to blame. I have always been right so I must vote Liberal again and again and again regardless of who is put up as a Liberal and regardless of what they say and do”.

    • WhatcouldgowrongMEMBER

      According to surveys punters by and large don’t actually care about policies, they care about values. If you can stand up in front and look vaguely credible and aligned to whatever values the constituency hold, (cough family values, cough) then you’re winning.

      • working class hamMEMBER

        Bingo.
        Everyone knows that the LNP give more money to the aspirational and their corporate cohorts.
        ALP give marginally more to underprivileged and lower income earners.

        The reason LNP have been so successful, is that the aspirational ranks have surged in the last 20 years due to property price increases (property spec, wealth effect), doubling of SME’s from 1.25m to 2.5m.
        Everyone wants a piece of the juicy tax concessions and grants that are handed out to companies, many just employing family members for tax advantages.

    • Almost everyone unwittingly votes for a son of Mary. They don’t necessarily know this. Sons of Mary ultimately sing from same song sheet hence endless house prices to moon & unfettered support:

  5. So the fact that we have been building an excess of housing for the past 6 years to the extent that we now have an oversupply nationally and there is still a shortage in Sydney suggests that the problem lay in the mugs doing the building. I guess there is a correlation between the intellect of the builders and their representatives from what the Member for MacKellar has written.

    • excess of housing

      The onus is on you to explain that outrageous claim. During abundance price will be cost of [efficient] production. During an excess price will be below cost of production. I don’t see many houses selling for below cost of production.

      In Sydney a vacant lot sells for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Excess! Are you mad?

      In Sydney a granny flat rents for most of a granny’s pension. You say there is an excess of housing.

      • I refer you to the speech by Shane Oliver last Wednesday for the Global Macro series wherein he puts up a screen shot of completions, approvals and demand since 2010. It clearly shows that we have been building an excess of houses over demand since 2015, and at the end of last year we had a surplus of housing. The mania is such, though, that even as he put that screen shot up, he was talking about the shortage of housing. It beggars belief that people are not aware of how much housing is being built and the massive crunch that is coming.

          • The ABS a few years ago released research that said there were then 1.2 million houses vacant in Australia. Those are second homes, estates, holiday homes and HODLERS expecting to profit from inflation. I would expect the situation to be bigger in the most recent census when the figures come out.

          • Prosper Australia says there are 80000 residences vacant in Melbourne looking at the water consumption records.

        • Hill Billy 55,

          It is nice to be able to display a graph. Unfortunately in a complex system like housing it is not possible to calculate a simple number to describe “demand”.

          In the period from 1970 to present the housing shortage has worsened while the following has occurred:
          * Smaller families. Parents generally have 1 or 2 children whereas 3 or 4 was normal.
          * More divorces
          * Living longer. Far more singles in their 80’s now require housing
          * Huge number of single young immigrants arriving
          * Young locals cannot afford to live where they grew up and move elsewhere
          * Many houses converted to quasi-motels under AirBnB type schemes.

          Are you seriously trying to tell me all these factors can be described by a single moving line on a chart?

          Instead of all that graphing nonsense, I look around and ask “Is the housing market successfully providing quality housing for all the people who require it, at affordable and reasonable prices?”. The answer to that question is no. The quality is too low and the price too high.

          The solution for me is to create more quality housing and provide it to those who require it at a fair and reasonable (ie lower) price. What is your solution?

          • Whilst your suppositions point to a lot of maybes, the reality is that the average Australian household has slightly over 2.5 people and, I agree, this is considerably down on the period 50 years ago when it was over 3.5 people per household. Even with the excessive migration that has occurred over the last 10 years, the population has grown by not much more than 400,000 per annum at its height, and considerably less in the recent 18 months. So building up to 240K new houses per annum has put paid to the theory of a housing shortage. Even pundits like Martin North say that there are enough houses, they are just in the wrong place.

            This is confounded when you consider that in the last financial year 180K houses were built for a demand of only 80K. You seriously don’t consider that the builders built these extra 100K houses in the wrong place????

            We have just moved out of a unit rental in Brisbane. The owner’s agent says that the Brisbane market has been oversupplied with units since 2013, and yet another unit in the block recently sold for the highest price ever for the block. They are obviously cashing in on the mania!

            If you track the RealEstate.com.au weekly sales they list a maximum of 1500 to 1600 per week, yet QLD sales in the last financial year topped out at 148K. There is a significant discrepancy between their statistics and reality.

            I could go on, but you either get the picture or don’t. Its really up to you!

    • if we have a shortage of housing, where are all these people who need housing currently living

      We have a severe shortage of decent housing and most likely a serious shortage of any housing in Sydney.

      If 10 families canoe over to an island with 7 tents, then there is a shortage of 3 tents and at least 3 families will miss-out on independent tenting. You could have 4 families with their own tent and 6 families sharing 3 tents.

      If 2 of the tents are not decent tents (eg have holes or are too small or are mouldy) then there is a shortage of 5 tents.

      where are all these people who need housing currently living
      Many are living in substandard housing or in overcrowded share housing. The shortage is the number of decent houses needed to get all families into decent housing. Shortage-deniers deny that inferior housing matters and they deny that overcrowded housing matters.

      Many families have left Sydney due to the price manifestation of the shortage. They could not afford to rent or buy decent housing, so they moved away to a cheaper city or town. Shortage-deniers will deny that these people matter.

      • Many families have left Sydney due to the price manifestation of the shortage. They could not afford to rent or buy decent housing, so they moved away to a cheaper city or town.

        Presumably they are being paid less at the cheaper city or town which then means those properties aren’t necessarily more affordable.

        As for the people currently crowding into smaller houses, won’t they just be increasing demand if the supply increases resulting no significant net impact on price?

        • It also depends on how much the bank will lend you, no? And as long as they lend you 10-12-15-bazillion times your income, what did you think it would happen to the prices out in the regions?

          I keep saying, if you’re income dependent out there in the regions, if you’re pulling in 50k a year, you’re doing well! You’re one of the rich ones! And now, you have city blowflies crowding out the povertariat in the regions… how do you think that’s going to turn out?

        • Presumably they are being paid less at the cheaper city or town which then means those properties aren’t necessarily more affordable.

          No. Many people are leaving for more affordable housing. Unless they are crazy liars or seriously mistaken, the housing they are moving from Sydney to obtain is more affordable.

          As for the people currently crowding into smaller houses, won’t they just be increasing demand if the supply increases resulting no significant net impact on price?

          No they won’t. Their need remains the same. Their buying power remains the same. They can only leave the overcrowded place IF price is lower. They cannot afford the current price of independent housing.

          Are you an arts student?

          • Even StevenMEMBER

            Direct your exasperation at the politicians, Claw, that continue to support excessive immigration. And at the NIMBYism that prevents/slows the provision of medium/high density housing.

            There are so many snouts in the trough I sometimes despair that anything will change. Most of my colleagues are oblivious to this despite being intelligent individuals. Most make the connection to low interest rates leading to high house prices, but the deeper issue of physical housing shortage is more difficult for them to detect when they are compulsively lied to by politicians and all forms of media that there is plenty of housing construction going on.

            Unless they are an economist or have a keen interest in this area, it’s just not something they turn their mind to.

      • What if two families own the 7 tents. Say 4 and 3. Each of them decide to leave a tent empty, because, well they can’t be bothered renting it out and the hassle of it. They’re well off, have used equity built up over time within their camp to buy the next and not had to stump up a deposit. Rates just seem to be going lower, life’s great for them, they just remortgage. Any taxes don’t really bother them. There are even favourable treatments for investment tents on the island. Also they’re very well off, they run companies, had a cracker of a year especially last, jobkeeper was fantastic. Lots in the bank.

        Do they still need to erect tents on the island or address the root cause?

        BTW, the two families are thinking of adding to their camp if anything new comes up. Apparently there are more families arriving.

        • It’s not just tents, it’s shade trees, palm fronds, and any flat land upon which a person might comfortably rest. They let you aspire to buy the tent but you’re still forced to rent a muddy puddle.

          • These guys can’t be trusted, the wheels are sure to fall off on the journey whilst they’re getting around in hot air balloons.

          • No shit today I saw a tiny house being towed on Barwon Heads Rd just past Waralilly shopping centre. PEOPLE ACTUALLY BUY THESE THINGS!?

  6. How did it get there? One look at the way in which Domain has completely taken over Nine newspapers and utterly decimated any degree of journalistic credibility Fairfax newspapers may have once had is the obvious reason that this kind of crap gets published! What an indictment of the total lack of editorial rigour or responsibility! Like so much of the MSM, it’s no longer even worthy of the term “click bait”.

  7. Hugh PavletichMEMBER

    New housing production: Is New Zealand, on a population adjusted basis, starting to build more new homes than any other country ? …

    The Economist estimates that China is currently producing about 15 million new residential units per year …

    Can China’s long property boom hold? … The Economist
    … behind paywall …

    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/01/25/can-chinas-long-property-boom-hold

    … extract …

    ‘ … Every year China starts building about 15m new homes, more than quintuple the amount in America and Europe combined. The property sector—both the direct impact of construction and its indirect effect on everything from concrete to curtains—makes up a quarter of China’s GDP. The financial implications are profound, too. …’

    The current population clock for China is 1,449,547,660. Therefore this suggests its overall dwelling start rate per 1000 population per annum is about 10.34.

    For the month of August 2021 Statistics New Zealand reported …

    Building consents issued: August 2021 … Statistics New Zealand

    https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/building-consents-issued-august-2021

    … extracts …

    • ‘ … In August 2021, the seasonally adjusted number of new dwellings consented rose 3.8 percent, after rising 2.2 percent in July 2021.
    • In the year ended August 2021, the actual number of new dwellings consented was 46,453, up 24 percent from the August 2020 year.
    • In the year ended August 2021, the number of new dwellings consented per 1,000 residents was 9.1, compared with 7.4 in the August 2020 year.
    • In August 2021, 4,490 new dwellings were consented …’

    Annualizing the August dwelling consent / approval volume of 4,490 is 53,880.

    New Zealand’s population clock is 5,147,535. Therefore the August consents figure annualized suggests 10.46 consents per 1000 population per annum … a whisker ahead of China’s current annual production of 10.34 starts (not consents or completions) per 1000 population per annum.

    China’s new dwelling construction is likely currently slipping, due to its estimated 60 plus million empty dwellings and rapidly slumping birthrate …

    China’s population could halve within the next 45 years, new study warns … Stephen Chan … South China Morning Post

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3150699/chinas-population-could-halve-within-next-45-years-new-study

    … and energy shortages … and to … hidden debt issues coming to light … to illustrate …

    Goldman Flags $8.2 Trillion Threat Worse Than China Evergrande … William Pesek … Forbes

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampesek/2021/09/30/goldman-flags-82-trillion-threat-worse-than-china-evergrande/?sh=7c35f4cc15cc

    It appears Australia’s approval / consenting rate per 1000 population per annum is currently about 8.4, Canada’s 7.2, Ireland 5.7, United States 4.9 and the United Kingdom about 1.9.

    On a population adjusted basis the United Kingdom appears to be producing less than 20% the new dwellings New Zealand is.

    It seems New Zealand is on track to becoming, on a population adjusted basis, the highest new dwelling producer in the world. Particularly with the foundation of 24% growth in dwelling consents / approvals over the past year.

  8. The reason it’s published is the same reason ScoMo recently announced carbon / emissions goals by 2030 for Australia. An election is coming and they need to make noise that they will do something the punters care a lot about. 1 the Environment. 2. housing affordability.

    We know it’s all song and dance before the election to try and convince the punters a vote for LNP is fine because they will address these concerns.

    The reality is once elected it will give them 4 more years to implement no real change to address climate change or arrest house prices.

    Just like when Gladys for elected in 2017 she said she was going to make affordable housing a priority. When asked what he plan was she said it would be coming soon. Of course history shows she did nothing. Which is precisely the point of content like this. To make it appear they care enough to get re-elected then proceed to do nothing.

  9. No wonder Jase’s not paying attention, he wouldn’t want to be too much of a hypocrite.

    From the Parliamentary Register of Interests;

    Collaroy family home
    Woolloomooloo investment
    North Sydney investment
    Call option on a Canberra property. WTF?
    Call option on another Canberra property

    That’s a few seats on the bus Jase. Biggest problem with those Food Tech classes is the propensity to add the extra mayo.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now