Counting the Cost- Saving the Census

You may have read that the Federal Government, at the request of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and in response to funding pressures, is considering possible changes to the ABS Census. The next Census is due in August 2016.  Check out the back story in these two articles.

Presently there is a Census every five years. There is talk about conducting the Census every ten years and, between Censuses, to collect information from samples only. We believe that a threat to timely and accurate census data is a threat to fact-based debate and data-driven policy making.

Why? Because surveys that rely upon sampling techniques do not provide useful information at the small area level which allow results to be interpreted with reasonable confidence.

This also will have a negative impact on the provision of community services across Australia, especially for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. Just one example. The NSW Tenants Advice and Advocacy Program applies a formula for allocating funds to local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services that draws upon Census data. A 10-year Census will not provide an accurate picture of the demography of small towns and local government areas between Censuses.

So, in early March of this year, the Tenants’ Union of NSW wrote to the Hon Joe Hockey expressing our concern. We are awaiting his reply.

Read more about why we need to keep the 5-year Census. There is also a ‘Save the Census’ letter you can send to Canberra.

Congratulations new Ministers, MPs

The Tenants' Union congratulates the NSW Coalition parties on their re-election to State Government.

Congratulations to Brad Hazzard, who has been appointed Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister for Social Housing.

Having a Minister for Social Housing is a new development: in the Coalition Government's previous term, social housing was rolled into the Family and Community Services portfolio without distinction. Before that, social housing was the responsibility of a Minister for Housing, an office which went back to the 1940s, but which had for a long time been focused on social housing, rather than the wider housing system.

We're optimistic that the elevation of social housing to its own ministry will mean that the social housing sector will be elevated in the priorities of the State Government... but we'd still prefer to see Minister Hazzard (or another of his colleagues) as Minister for Housing, with a broad brief to develop policies for greater affordability, security and decency of housing across the tenures.

We should also note that Minister Hazzard, as Attorney-General in the previous term of the Government, deserves credit for his role in convincing the Federal Government to restore funding to community legal centres and Legal Aid which had previously been cut. We look forward to working with him on social housing.

Congratulations too to Victor Dominello, who has been appointed Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation, and whose responsibilities include tenancy law.

The 'Innovation and Better Regulation' ministry is a new development too, replacing the ministry of 'Fair Trading', which itself replaced 'Consumer Affairs' some time ago. We're a little concerned that the change in ministerial title may reflect an intention to shift away from consumer protection as the primary responsibility of the portfolio.

On the other hand, we know Minister Dominello from his early work on boarding house sector reform, so we look forward to working with him on tenancy reform.

And congratulations to all new and re-elected Members of Parliament, especially those who declared their support for More Bang for Your Bond:

Tim Crakanthorp (Labor, Newcastle)

Trish Doyle (Labor, Blue Mountains) 

Alex Greenwich (Independent, Sydney)

David Harris (Labor, Wyong)

Jo Haylen (Labor, Summer Hill)

Sonia Hornery MP (Labor, Wallsend)

Geoff Lee (Liberal, Parramatta)

Jenny Leong (Greens, Newtown)

Adam Marshall (Nationals, Northern Tablelands)

Bruce Notley-Smith (Liberal, Coogee)

Jamie Parker (Greens, Balmain)

John Robertson (Labor, Blacktown)

 and possibly more to come as counting continues! 

Affordable Housing Reform Agenda launched

Last week our colleagues at ACOSS, National Shelter, Homelessness Australia, the Community Housing Federation of Australia and the National Association of Tenant Organisations launched 'An Affordable Housing Reform Agenda' at Parliament House in Canberra.

The agenda addresses Federal and State tax reform for improved affordability, subsidies for affordable rental housing, funding for homeless services, urban planning, Rent Assistance and tenancy reform.

Download a summary or the full paper for the Affordable Housing Reform Agenda.

NSW micro parties on housing

As well as the Labor Party, the Liberal-National Coalition and The Greens, there are numerous so-called 'micro parties' contesting the NSW State Election, particularly for seats in the Legislative Council (the State's upper house). A couple of these parties have agendas that relate to housing, so we'll wrap up our pre-election analysis by taking a look at them.

First: the Future Party.

The Future Party isn't standing any candidates for the lower house, and you won't find the party's name on the upper house ballot sheet either, but they are there as 'Group M'.

Housing policy is prominent in the Future Party's platform. They propose to increase the supply of housing by giving development a powerful spur: a broad-based land tax, accompanied by the abolition of stamp duty; and would push for reform of the tax treatment of housing at the Federal level too.

They also propose that this development should be achieved through higher densities and mixed land uses, with reduced planning controls in urban renewal sites, and the laying-on of mass transit and other infrastructure in greenfield sites. And they propose that some of this greenfield development take a very specific form: a new city. They've already got a name for it, too: Turing.

We say: well done to the Future Party, particularly on their excellent tax reform proposals. We tend to be dubious about proposals for increased density as an affordability measure, but are less so when they are accompanied by proposals for urban decentralisation, as the Future Party is also proposing. As for Turing: there is a long and honorable tradition of proposals for cities of tomorrow in housing policy, and a shortage of visionary politics in New South Wales, so good on the Future Party for putting it out there, even if Turing City appears likely to remain a hypothetical device.

The other micro party with a housing agenda is, of course, No Land Tax.

We've had lots to say about No Land Tax over the past few months here, so we'll keep it brief now.

No Land Tax's agenda is to make it easier for property owners to hoard property, to let speculation rip, and affordability can go to blazes.

It would be a terrible irony if this election, in which housing affordability has figured prominently – however imperfectly the major parties may have proposed to deal with the problem – were to have the result, because of the donkey vote and people being paid bonuses for votes, of delivering a seat in Parliament, or even a share in the balance of power in the upper house, to a party whose sole purpose is to make housing affordability worse.

Here's an idea for the future of NSW State Elections: get rid of how-to-votes, and bring on the Robson rotation!

NSW Coalition on housing and tenancy

Continuing our look at the housing policies of parties in the NSW State election, let's look now at the Coalition. The Coalition is, of course, two parties, but the National Party is not really putting forward a separate housing policy; it's the Liberals who are making commitments on housing for the Coalition.

These commitments include a fund for 'up to $1 billion' in new social housing and affordable housing, which the Coalition has made contingent on its proposed privatisation of State electricity assets. This fund is the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government, the NSW Council of Social Service, and Infrastructure Partnerships Australia.

We very briefly discussed this proposed fund when it was announced, and we welcomed its implicit acknowledgement that social housing and affordable housing needs more than the starvation ration it currently gets. (We also noted that there are ways other than asset sales to finance State Government programs). Since then, NCOSS has provided us with a copy of the MoU, and the Australian Services Union has distributed it widely too, so we can consider some more of the details.

The MoU refers specifically to 'a new dedicated fund to facilitate up to $1 billion in new social and affordable housing stock'. It also says that 'private finance will be involved to increase the scale and impact of the fund.'

We understand from NCOSS that the intention is to make possible some innovation in the development of social and affordable housing, so the sort of assistance to be provided by the fund is left a bit open in the MoU. For example, XYZ Housing Ltd might approach the fund with a development proposal that puts together land owned by XYZ and some finance from ABC Bank, and that needs a further loan from the fund to make it all happen. And another housing provider might pitch a proposal that needs money in the form of a grant, and another might have a projected that just needs a guarantee to get it going.

Being open to innovation and different ways of assisting is worthwhile, but there remains a question as to the size of the government's commitment. As a number of commenters have pointed out, it does say 'up to', implying the possibility of less.... Moreover, there's also the question of whether the 'up to $1 billion' refers to what the government will contribute, or the total of what all the parties to proposals will contribute (eg XYZ's land plus ABC's loan plus the loan from the fund). NCOSS says the government's own contribution should be 'up to $1 billion', such that the total value of housing produced would be rather more.

The MoU does get more specific in some respects: the fund is specifically for the provision of new stock, not the refurbishment of existing stock; and it is for 'social and affordable housing outcomes... not to improve commercial advantage.'

Separately, the Coalition has also promised $20 million for 'social housing community improvement', which will make grants of up to $50 000 for local projects. A bit of money can make great things happen on estates, so we like this commitment.

The Coalition is also proposing a public housing crime 'crackdown', through legislative and policy changes for 'one strike' evictions where serious offences have taken place, 'three strikes' for other breaches, the giving of confidential evidence in Tribunal proceedings, and probationary periods for long-term public housing tenancy agreements.

These proposals are a real worry. As we've discussed previously, the 'one strike' evictions would be achieved by removing the Tribunal's discretion in these proceedings, which is to remove an important safeguard against injustice. 'Three strikes' will only encourage neighbours and housing officers to frame interpersonal disputes as tenancy disputes, and rack the three strikes necessary for termination proceedings, with persons with mental illness and disability, and Aboriginal persons, the most vulnerable to badly motivated complaints. And the idea of 'confidential' evidence is anathema to the basic principle of justice that a person gets to know and test the case against them.

There's nothing to recommend the Coalition's 'crackdown' proposals. On the other hand, its proposal for social housing community improvement grants is welcome, and so is its acknowledgement of the need for substantial additional funds for new social and affordable housing stock.

NSW Labor on housing

We continue our look at parties' housing policies; this time, we're looking at NSW Labor's just-released '10 point plan to address the housing affordability crisis'.

Amongst other things, Labor has committed to boost social housing by making available $100 million in nil-interest loans to community housing providers. It has also proposed to elevate housing policy-making, by having a designated Minister for Housing, a Premier's Council for Affordable Housing, and 'comprehensive 10-year plan for affordable housing across New South Wales'.

The work of the Premier's Council for Affordable Housing will include:

• examining the prospect of shared equity schemes, to be delivered by community housing providers and targeted to 'key workers', such as police, teachers and nurses; 
• establishing 'Future Home Partnerships' between the NSW Land and Housing Corporation, NSW Urban Growth, community housing and local governments, to better get urban renewal for new housing going; and
• looking at housing design, including 'reinventing and reintroducing the Sydney Terrace House and the California Bungalow' as part of a medium-density urban form. 

We say: aside from the substantial proposals it makes, they are some very welcome aspects to the way Labor has approached its housing policy: it recognises that decent housing is a fundamental right; it reclaims some pride in the historic record of Labor Governments that built a lot of affordable housing (as public housing, much of it later sold to tenants); it calls the crisis in housing affordability what it is – a crisis; and it acknowledges that stress is felt across the tenures, including private rental.

Labor proposes to address the crisis on a number of fronts, which is generally the right approach to multi-faceted problem like unaffordable housing, but we don't think it has always addressed the right fronts. In particular, none of the 10 points in the policy is directed at speculation in housing. Using our tax system to discourage speculation through a broad-based land tax – or even Vendor Duty, as The Greens propose – would do more good for affordability than designing smaller houses and blocks.

Labor's $100 million boost to community housing is smaller than that indicated by the Coalition ('up to $1 billion', contingent on electricity privatisation) and much smaller than that proposed by The Greens ($4.5 billion, financed by borrowing and increased tax revenue). Looking at the modelling commissioned by Shelter NSW as to what it will cost to get some growth in the social housing sector in New South Wales, most scenarios would require a greater subsidy than that proposed now by Labor.

It is also disappointing that Labor's 10-point plan does not include any commitments to tenancy law reform. Aside from the acknowledgement of affordability problems in the sector, private rental remains something of a blind spot in Labor's policy.

But even if it doesn't have all the answers we'd like to see, it is significant that Labor has put forward a housing policy framed around the crisis in affordability, and that's welcome.

NSW Greens on housing and tenancy

With the NSW State election just over a week away, let's look at the parties' policies for housing and tenancy. We'll start with The Greens.

The Greens propose investing $4.5 billion in new social housing and affordable housing, as part of a $20 billion program for investment in new infrastructure. This program would be financed by borrowing and additional tax revenue, including from the reintroduction of Vendor Duty.

In its previous incarnation (2004-2006), Vendor Duty was a tax payable on sale of a property (excluding principal place of residence, family farms and new dwellings not previously occupied) where the value had increased by 12 per cent or more since the previous purchase. Vendor duty was levied at 2.25 per cent of the value at sale, with discounts for properties close to the 12 per cent threshold.

We say: the social housing sector has been on starvation rations for two decades, and badly needs a boost in funding to grow again, so The Greens' proposal for a $4.5 billion investment in the sector is very welcome indeed.

The State Government has a strong capacity for repaying debt, so the proposal to borrow to fund investment is generally sound.

And we don't mind Vendor Duty. It is a bit like stamp duty, except it is not payable by owner-occupiers; this addresses one of the problems with stamp duty, which is that it effectively fines owner-occupiers for moving house. However, if you want a stable revenue stream, as well as improved affordability through the continuous discouragement of speculative property hoarding, encouragement of land being put to its most productive allowable use, a broad-based land tax is best.

The Greens have stated their commitment to a range of housing principles, including affordability and security of tenure, and have put forward in the election campaign some specific proposals for tenancy law reform. In particular, The Greens propose to:

•     Limit excessive rent increases by allowing no more than one rent increase a year
•     Cap rent increases at no more than CPI (which is on average 2-3% per annum) and
•     Increase security of tenure through an end to "no grounds" evictions.

We say: absolutely, put an end to 'no-grounds' terminations by landlords. 'No grounds' termination notices give cover to terminations for bad reasons, such as retaliation or discrimination, and make all tenants insecure. The law should prescribe instead a set of reasonable grounds for termination. This wouldn't present a problem for most landlords, and would give all tenants more peace of mind and security.

As for rent increases: yes, rent increases should be limited to once per year. Under current New South Wales law, there is no limit as to the frequency of rent increases, unlike most other Australian States and Territories, which have managed to provide for reasonable limits. A limit as to frequency would not actually be a big deal for the majority of landlords who don't increase rents more than once or twice a year, but it would help deal with retaliatory rent increases (eg you ask for a minor repair, then comes a rent increase notice as a not-so-subtle way of telling you not to ask again) and give all tenants more peace of mind.

We understand the appeal of limiting rent increases to CPI, but wouldn't go as far as calling for a hard cap: we propose instead that where a proposed increase is above CPI, the landlord should bear the onus of proving that it is not excessive.

Overall: well done to The Greens on a sound set of proposals for housing and tenancy policy.

(We might add: well done to them too for getting their policies and principles generally into the public domain through their website. Other parties take note.)