Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Can the Australian Government run out of money?

The Federal Treasurer, Joe Hockey, is worried that the Australian Government is 'running out of money'.


From the perspective of Modern Monetary Theory, the Treasurer's worries are misplaced (he'll still have worries, just not this one). The Australian Government is centrally involved in the creation of Australian money, and cannot run out of it.

For all practical purposes, the money we use in Australia is Australian dollars. Anything that's for sale here can be paid for in Australian dollars, and just about all financial liabilities incurred here are accounted for in Australian dollars.

Australian dollars don't stand for anything else: not gold, for example, and not some other currency, such as the American dollar. (You can buy these things with Australian dollars, but you don't have the right to insist on your Australian dollars being converted into gold or $US, and there's no fixed price for either – it is up to you to find a willing seller and strike a bargain.) At the end of the day, one Australian dollar will always get you... one Australian dollar.

This means there's no necessary limit on the number of Australian dollars in existence. A relative few exist physically in the form of polymer notes and copper alloy coins; very many more exist merely as electronic entries in the accounts of the institutions – the banks, and the Reserve Bank of Australia – that make up our financial system. 

And this is where our money comes from. Money is created when banks advance it to someone; it is, so to speak, loaned into existence by clerks stroking keys on the banks' computers. Apply to a bank and, if you're creditworthy, the bank will keystroke up for you an agreed-upon number of electronic dollars (in return, the bank gets from you a promise: that you will pay, over time, that number of dollars, plus interest, to the bank). These dollars, so created, sit in an account to your credit at the bank, to be transferred to other persons' accounts, in payment for whatever you're buying.

Transfers between accounts at the same bank can be settled by the bank itself. To settle transfers between accounts at different banks, banks participate in the payments system operated by the Reserve Bank. This is effected by banks maintaining reserve accounts ('exchange settlement accounts') at the Reserve Bank. These reserves ensure that payments between banks can be cleared and settled. They, too, comprise electronic dollars – keystroked into existence by the RBA, to the credit of each bank.

If, at the end of the day, a bank needs more money in its reserve account, it can borrow from another bank (in return, the first bank promises to repay the money with interest). Banks with surplus reserves not lent to other banks earn interest on them from the Reserve Bank; these interest payments get keystroked into existence by the Reserve Bank. Alternatively, the bank can borrow reserves from the Reserve Bank's liquidity facilities, which will keystroke up for the bank the necessary dollars (in return for the bank's promise of repayment or transfer of assets).

Alternatively again, it may be that a bank cannot get those reserves, because it cannot make convincing promises of repayment (because its assets are lacking: eg a bunch of loan contracts with people who are a dubious prospect). If things are so bad that not even the Reserve Bank will lend to them, it's game over for this bank. People who have deposits with the bank will be in trouble too – but they may get their money back under the Government Financial Claims Scheme, under which the Australian Government will direct the Reserve Bank to keystroke up for the claimant the appropriate number of dollars in the reserve account of their (new) bank.  

The Australian Government makes and receives payments through the same payments system, using its bank accounts – the Official Public Accounts Group – at the Reserve Bank. To make a payment to someone, the Bank keystrokes a debit against the Government's account and keystrokes a corresponding credit to the reserves of the recipient's bank. The Government receives payments into these accounts too, but it does not need prior receipts for the bank to keystroke up a payment from the accounts. (Note that the OPAG has an overdraft facility – 'strictly limited' by the Reserve Bank, but really that's a limit on government by itself).

There's the polymer notes and the copper alloy coins that the Reserve Bank issues to banks for the purposes of cash withdrawals. When a bank asks for some of these forms of money, the Reserve Bank keystrokes the appropriate debit against the bank's reserve account; and when a bank returns notes and coins to the Reserve Bank, the latter keystrokes a credit to the bank's reserve account.

Ultimately, it is only Government payments that effect a net increase in reserves in the system. Individually, banks may need more reserves (because they've increased their lending and advanced more money to people) or have reserves to spare (because they've reduced the amount they've advanced), and can make transfers amongst themselves with no net increase in reserves; but when the system overall has advanced more money, the additional reserves can only come from the Government keystroking them into existence.

As you can see, the Australian Government creates money – Australian dollars – through its spending, its lending and crediting of reserves to banks, and its issuing of notes and coins, and there's no necessary limit to how much it can create. The Australian Government cannot run out of Australian money. It issues the currency.

You'll also notice that this account has not referred to the Government's ability to impose taxes or issue bonds – and in particular, we've not referred to either taxes or bonds as the source of the Government's money (because they're not). We'll return in future posts to taxes and bonds, and just what it is they really do in an economy such as Australia's.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

New Ministers

Congratulations to Gabrielle Upton, the NSW State Coalition Government's new Minister for Family and Community Services.





Minister Upton is responsible for social housing, but we still don't have a 'Minister for Housing' in the wider sense, so along with Minister Upton we'll regard the new Premier, Mike Baird, the new Treasurer, Andrew Constance, and the new Planning Minister, Pru Goward, as de facto Housing Ministers. Congratulations to them all.

Stuart Ayres, whom we congratulated not so long ago on his appointment as Minister for Fair Trading, remains in that role.

Congratulations too to Jai Rowell, formerly a tenants advocate at Western Sydney Tenants Service, now Minister for Mental Health and Assistant Minister for Health.

For ministers and ministerial officers looking to get on top of housing policy issues in New South Wales, we recommend Shelter NSW's conference next week on the 'possibilities and realities' of private rental housing, and the TU's own submission to the Legislative Council Inquiry into Social, Public and Affordable Housing. And keep reading the Brown Couch, of course. 

Thursday, April 17, 2014

More news on the current HNSW amnesty

Some important news on the current HNSW amnesty on undisclosed income, financial assets and property ownership: it does not apply to changes of income because of an undeclared additional occupant.


To be fair, HNSW does mention this in their fact sheet about the amnesty... sort of.

It says:
"Only reports of undisclosed income and financial assets are protected by this amnesty. No other fraudulent activity is covered and will be investigated in the usual way."
We've heard that a number of tenants have contacted HNSW to tell them about new additions to the household, thinking that the amnesty will apply. This is not surprising, given that HNSW conducted an amnesty on undisclosed additional occupants only about a year ago.

But this is not that amnesty.

Tenants who wish to get their house in order by disclosing additional occupants will be subject to the usual investigation.

Because of the way HNSW's rent setting policy works, it is always a good idea to disclose additional occupants. Having extra people living with you means your household's assessable income will go up, and your rent will go up with it.

But beware: when you do disclose your additional occupant, you'll also have to answer questions about how long they've been living with you, and how much income they bring to the household (whether or not they actually pay you anything.) If they've been living with you for awhile, you might find your rent subsidy is not only altered, but altered as of the date they moved in. By backdating a rent subsidy alteration, large debts can be created on top of the increase in your rent.

In some cases, investigations into 'rent subsidy fraud' can also lead to prosecution.

The current amnesty doesn't apply to such situations. If you're planning to tell HNSW's about an undisclosed additional occupant, at the very least you'll need to think about how you'll manage any resulting debt, as well as the higher rent.

As with all things - if you're not sure, speak to a Tenants' Advocate about your circumstances before calling in to the HNSW amnesty on undisclosed income, financial assets and property ownership.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Important limitation to public housing amnesty

The TU is advised by Housing NSW of a limitation to its current amnesty on undisclosed income and assets.

Housing NSW says the amnesty does not apply if you have already received from Housing NSW a letter indicating that Housing NSW believes you have not properly disclosed your income and assets (Housing NSW calls this a 'natural justice letter').

In these circumstances, any disclosures you make will not be protected by the amnesty, and all the usual things may happen: Housing NSW may vary or cancel for rent rebate retrospectively; it may take proceedings to terminate your tenancy; and it may prosecute you for offences under the Housing Act.


If you think you may have received this sort of letter from Housing NSW, please seek advise from your local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service before disclosing information under the amnesty.

If you've already disclosed under the amnesty and think you may have self-incriminated, seek advise from a TAAS.

If you've any questions about the amnesty at all – seek advise from a TAAS.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Inconsistent rules about public housing tenants' assets

When it announced the amnesty for public housing tenants' undisclosed incomes and assets, Housing NSW also changed its policy about tenants who own an interest in real property. Now, tenants who own or part own (or whose spouses own or part own) a property 'that they could live in or sell' will be asked to vacate their public housing dwelling. (Some amnesty!)

This change makes more inconsistent the already inconsistent treatment of different assets in Housing NSW's rules. The inconsistency can be illustrated with the hypothetical case of three public housing tenants who each receive a bequest from the estate of their rich Uncle Pennybags.


To the first tenant, Ms Thimble, goes Uncle Pennybags' pride and joy: a Picasso painting ('Weeping Tenant'). It's valued at a cool $5 million. What effect does this asset (now hanging above Ms Thimble's mantlepiece) have on her housing? Under Housing NSW's 'Charging Rent Policy' and 'Tenancy Charges and Account Management Policy Supplement', paintings are a personal asset, and are not assessable for rent rebate purposes. So Ms Thimble remains eligible for a rent rebate, and the amount of her rebated rent is unchanged, as is her eligibility to remain in public housing.

The second tenant, Ms Barrow, receives $300 000, which she puts in a savings account at the bank. For Housing NSW's purposes, this is a financial asset. This means the first $5 000 is exempt from assessment, and the remaining $295 000 is subject to deeming rates (currently 2 per cent on the first $46 600, and 3.5 per cent on the remaining $248 400), which results in an additional $178.12 of assessable income per week. Assuming Ms Barrow's regular income is not high, she'll remain eligible for a rent rebate, but the amount she pays will increase by $44.50 per week. She also remains eligible to stay in public housing.

The third tenant, Ms Shoe, is given title to a vacant one-bedroom flat in an old strata scheme (an agent reckons it's worth $100 000). This asset is real property, which means Ms Shoe is ineligible for a rent rebate (it does not matter that the asset is not actually generating any income). Ms Shoe will have to pay market rent now – but not for long, because Housing NSW will ask her to vacate her public housing tenancy too.

This inconsistent treatment of assets produces unfair outcomes for tenants, particularly those who come into ownership of real property, which, as in our hypothetical, can happen accidentally.

A simpler and fairer approach would be to apply deeming rates on all assets – real property, financial assets, and others – above certain thresholds, with provision for certain assets to be excluded from assessment where that's reasonable (for example, where the flat is occupied by a family member with a disability).


Monday, April 7, 2014

Public housing amnesty: undisclosed income and assets

Minister Goward has declared an amnesty for public housing tenants who have not correctly disclosed their incomes and assets to Housing NSW.


 The amnesty factsheet states:
Tenants who declare undisclosed income or financial assets:
  • will not be charged back rent
  • will not be evicted due to information provided under the amnesty
  • will not be prosecuted.
If Housing NSW does not have the right information about your income or assets, we encourage you to consider updating your details with Housing NSW and getting the protection of the amnesty. Seek advice from your local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service if you've any concerns.

Note that the amnesty documents make special mention of real property assets. The factsheet states (emphasis added):
Head tenants and/or spouses who are found to own or part-own property which makes them ineligible for housing assistance under public housing policy:
  • will not be charged back rent
  • will be charged full market rent from date of declaration
  • will be required to surrender their tenancy at a time that is agreed.
This 'requirement' to surrender the tenancy is not consistent with current Housing NSW policy.

Under current policy, owning a property will, in most circumstances, make you ineligible to get into social housing – but if you're already in social housing, coming into property ownership does not mean you have to surrender your tenancy.

If you're a public housing tenant who has come into property ownership, you will in most circumstances be ineligible for a rental rebate (so you'll pay market rent).

Also, if you're under a two-, five- or 10-year fixed term public housing agreement and own property at the end-of-fixed-term review, you will in most circumstances be ineligible to continue in public housing and you can expect to get an ineligibility termination notice – at that time.
 
But if you're on a continuing public housing agreement (from before 1 July 2005), or are just part-way into a fixed term agreement, you cannot be given an ineligibility termination notice, and there's no provision in Housing NSW's policies about 'During a Tenancy' or 'Ending a Tenancy' for otherwise terminating your tenancy because of property ownership.

If you or your spouse own an interest in property and you live in public housing, seek advice from your local TAAS.

The amnesty runs 7 April to 31 May 2014.

UPDATE: Housing NSW has just this afternoon amended its 'Ending a Tenancy' policy to state that it may 'ask' a tenant to vacate their home where 'the tenant is on a continuous lease and they or their partner/spouse owns a property that they could live in or sell.' (Housing NSW has confirmed that the policy said something different this morning.) No further details are given. 

We'll consider this change to policy in a future post. It should go without saying that on-the-run changes to policies undermine the trust on which amnesties depend. 

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Millers Point and The Rocks: cold hard facts

Family and Community Services Minister Pru Goward has today presented her rebuttal to Anthony Albanese's personal reflection on the proposed sell off all social housing at Millers Point and The Rocks. Says the Minister, let's talk on the level of 'cold hard fact'.


It is a cold, hard fact that selling social housing assets to pay the recurrent costs of the social housing system is precisely the unsustainable approach that alarmed the Auditor-General.

The Minister has stated that the proceeds of sales will be 'reinvested in the social housing system'. She has not stated, however, where any new housing purchased will be, or how much of it there will be – indeed, she has not said that the proceeds will go to the purchase of new housing at all.

The Minister implies an expansion of the social housing stock when she says that for each Millers Point resident Housing NSW could 'help more than five tenants in places like Campbelltown.' We don't think she means to imply that Housing NSW is planning on putting 2045 additional social housing properties in Campbelltown, and in any event, the subsidy multiples the Minister refers to are based on accounting for market rents, which, as we discussed earlier, do not reflect the actual cost of providing housing and related services.

We don't know what Housing NSW is planning. The cold hard fact is that there is no plan.

There's no plan for the local impact of the sales – that is, the loss of affordable rental housing in the inner city. In its response to the social impact impact assessment, NSW Family and Community Services (cold hard FACS?) expressly disavowed any role in developing non-heritage sites for affordable rental in the area, stating that 'development of affordable and mixed tenure housing in Millers Point is a planning consideration for the City of Sydney.'

And there's no plan for the sustainability of the social housing system generally: no asset portfolio strategy, no estates strategy, despite their recommendation by the Auditor-General.

All we have is a decision to sell-off 293 high-value properties... within two years. The previous sales programs in Millers Point proposed to sell 36 properties in eight years. By contrast, what's happening now looks like a fire sale.

That's the strong impression it gives. Back to cold hard facts. Half of Millers Point residents are aged 60 or over. And about one-fifth have lived in their current tenancy for more than 20 years – more if successive tenancies were counted. The Minister refers to their mere 'short-term anguish' on the loss of their homes, neighbours and community. This is, with respect, wishful thinking on the part of the Minister.