Beware of federal-state meetings agreeing to increase housing supply. It tends to lead to… not much.
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) — as it was called then — was big on housing supply back in the Rudd-Gillard years. COAG set up a National Housing Supply Council in 2008 and tasked it with examining ways to improve supply and affordability. In 2010 it was asked to identify barriers to additional supply. The issue was then handed to the treasurers’ equivalent of COAG, which committed states and territories to overhauling planning processes and working with local councils to speed up land supply.
Sound familiar? The result was… nothing.
Tony Abbott then abolished the National Housing Supply Council as part of his war on reality-based policymaking, and the issue was left idle until housing affordability again became politically hot under Malcolm Turnbull. Then-treasurer Scott Morrison announced — with no-one except Crikey noticing — that he was going to do exactly the same thing as had happened when Wayne Swan was treasurer.
The result? Again, nothing.
Credit where it’s due: this time around, Anthony Albanese has worked out that the states won’t do anything inexpedient without the incentive of a bucket of money, which is what he is offering if they release enough land and facilitate enough development to hit the “stretch” goal of 1.2 million new dwellings. The bucket will be $3 billion big and it won’t be divvied up by population; it will be first-in, best-dressed, based on how many dwellings they achieve beyond their share of the original 1 million dwellings promised under the National Housing Accord.
To sweeten the deal still further, there’ll be another half-billion in grants available for state and territory governments and local councils “to kick-start housing supply in well-located areas through targeted activation payments for things like connecting essential services, amenities to support new housing development, or building planning capability”.
So, $3.5 billion to beat NIMBYism. Will it be enough? Only time will tell, but it’s better than first ministers announcing they’ll be doing something on housing supply and nothing ever happening, which is the history of the past 15 years.
The real winners will, naturally, be developers. This is not about governments building extra housing themselves. There will, however, be tension between state and territory governments and developers. The former will want the incentive payments, so will want developers to build and sell as quickly as possible. Developers, however, aren’t necessarily interested in building and selling as quickly as possible — they will build and sell when it makes the most money for them. Many will prefer to buy newly released land, and even obtain development approval for projects, but will then sit on the land and wait until housing prices rise even further.
Contrary to all the commentators who are insisting developers would solve our housing shortage if only we got out of the way, developers have zero interest in solving that shortage. They make vast amounts of money from perpetuating it, and that won’t change unless state and territory governments decide to regulate land release to force development and sale.
Alas, there’s nothing about that in the “National Planning Reform Blueprint”, also agreed yesterday, which is aimed at the familiar tropes of “planning, zoning, land release and other reforms, such as increasing density … streamlining approval pathways … and prioritising planning amendments to support diverse housing across a range of areas” — all the stuff we’ve been hearing from first ministers for 15 years.
Short of compelling developers to supply housing — outrageous communism! — the only guaranteed way to increase housing supply is for governments to develop new housing stock themselves, especially social and affordable housing. There was only passing mention of that yesterday. Albanese is already offering the states and territories — the only ones who can build social housing — $2 billion to accelerate its construction.
The Greens and the Coalition, however, are blocking the unnecessarily complicated Housing Australia Future Fund that will provide ongoing additional funding for social housing. It’s in the interests of neither the Greens nor the Coalition to see the government seriously address housing supply — as a protest party, the Greens don’t prosper if issues like housing and rental affordability are actually being addressed, and their affluent inner-city voters don’t want social or high-density housing near them anyway.
The $3.5 billion anti-NIMBY funding would thus be better directed at more social and affordable housing — conditional on the states not cutting their own housing spending. The solution to housing supply lies in the hands of governments, not developers.
Bring back the Housing Commissions.
Great idea, but you would still need someone to build and that would end up being the building/developer companies.
No one is allowed to make money. Yet another impossible standard to continue a war on the poor for no reason or purpose.
There’s making money, and then there’s being greedy bastards.
Great argument (amongst others) for increased immigration
I negated the d/v, presumably from someone with a sarcasm by-pass.
From my reading of UK, Irish & Continental press (in German & French) and advice from friends in 4 other Euroland countries there is an outright refusal of the media in general and especially the press to address the widespread reluctance in those countries to continue the relentless immigration from disparate nations with incompatible social mores.
Take Brexit – it was a resounding vote (the highest turnout and majority in a century) to curtail immigration in general, not just from the EU.
Since Bozo “done got Brexit done” over 1 million permanent immigrants from non EU countries have been settled, in utter defiance of the wishes of the voters.
What are the chances of our next (s)election have immigration as an issue?
Buckley could win a motza buying a lottery ticket on that.
The d/v, presumably from someone lacking the sarcasm gene, had a plus from me.
But 4 attempts at a longer reply have been withheld.
Perhaps ‘immigration‘ is now a madBot trigger?
Yay for free expression!
No, not ‘immigration‘ – perhaps it is complexity of thought?
Never a forte here.
From my reading of UK, Irish & Continental press (in German & French) and advice from friends in 4 other Euroland countries there is an outright refusal of the media in general and especially the press to address the widespread reluctance in those countries to continue the relentless immigration from disparate nations with incompatible social mores.
Take Brexit – it was a resounding vote (the highest turnout and majority in a century) to curtail immigration in general, not just from the EU.
Since Bozo “done got Brexit done” over 1 million permanent immigrants from non EU countries have been settled, in utter defiance of the wishes of the voters.
What are the chances of our next (s)election have immigration as an issue?
Buckley could win a motza buying a lottery ticket on that.
No, that’s simply the standard imported US agitprop used by and for RW nativist media, and same sources across much of Europe, catering to ageing populations, and above median age voters, another protected species targeted by the right?
I disagree, immigration should be mainly refugees, increasing congestion, pollution and housing pressure does not make sense to me.
I think planning for large numbers of climate change refugees is good planning that requires universities, government and business that doesn’t have a short term profit motive is the go.
Housing, food supply ,water use, transport all need an ability to move with very little environmental impact.
Our lack of professionals is a direct result of lack of government and business investment in education, getting people from overseas only papers over a few decades of neocon policy.
That’s opinions, beliefs, old tropes and sentiments not supported by any credible analysis vs. evidence based analysis and policy making, that is not predicated on catering to older voters’ biases and prejudices.
That’s just opinion.
Is it wrong to be “…catering to ageing populations, and above median age voters…”?
Why is that?
Do tell.
Not at all on practical issues e.g. policies supporting budgets for more services to more oldies; but the latter are easily swayed by conservative and nativist sentiments, against their own and future generations’ interests.
Research has shown people tend to become more conservative as they age, but that has not been happening in recent years, as a direct reaction towards increasingly conservative policies.
they do not have to own it all; nor do we have to relinquish our public powers and assets to the consultant class – we must desist giving parasites a leg up on our public purse – a farce of government
Not necessarily, guess in the past and saw in a regional town ’70s (Vic) Lib State govt., Board of Works, Housing Commission and local councils cooperated, but much of the building where possible were local subcontractors and/or from other places; the houses were modern and modest (vs. today’s demand/need for bigger houses, for smaller household, but higher margins).
it would be great if a Labor Government abandoned any connection with the past LNP policies seemed to benefit anybody and everybody except those who cannot get or pay for housing on the open market.
Back in the days when governments tried to solve problems and actually did things there was a Commonwealth State Housing Agreement which underpinned state housing commissions. This time around we have a proposal to play the stock market and only spend any investment income on affordable housing. Hopefully Albanese will move away from this absurd model and actually make money immediately available to the states. I would not object if they even left property developers out of the equation.
Albanese is sending money directly to the states. The HAFF is only one measure out of multiple.
The HAFF is a deeply flawed mechanism that only provides perhaps 5% to housing of the money put aside for it. That was the point of my comment.
Yeah
A very bizarre and unnecessary attack on the greens, who are the only party promoting what Keane seems to be advocating for at scale, that Government’s build social and affordable housing. Seems like an unhelpful and tired partisan talking point. Why take the swipe when you already acknowledge that the status quo is more pro-developer policies that won’t actually address the main issues around housing, boosting supply in a timely manner and developing housing that is genuinely affordable. Pro developer policies that have been backed in by Labor governments across every state and territory on the mainland.
Yesterday’s announcement doesn’t even do anything significant for renters. So those in opposition to labor’s do nothing approach for renters should just accept that labor will do nothing and leave renters in their squalor? Challenging that reality is nothing more than posturing? Poor take by Keane and a grim read on Australia’s democracy. You don’t even think the HAFF is good policy. What are the Greens or independent housing voices meant to do?
The Greens are THE reason there is an extra $2billion on the table as part of the social housing accelerator. Which is still a drop in the ocean of what is actually required. Weird attack that added nothing to your overall argument that yesterday’s announcement is largely a fizzer and will develop developers.
Agree.
Yes. To put into context how criminally pathetic Albanese’s plans are, it’s worth stating that across Australia there is something like a 750,000 shortfall of affordable housing – entirely unsurprising since no government has been funding public housing since Howard. Where would Albanese and his mum be living now? Certainly not in public housing.
Yes. To put into context how pathetic Albanese’s plans are, it’s worth stating that across Australia there is something like a 750,000 shortfall of affordable housing – entirely unsurprising since no government has been funding public housing since Howard. Where would Albanese and his mum be living now? Certainly not in public housing.
Apparently, the Crikey Madbot has been told to flag ‘c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-l-y’ as a no-no, as in ‘c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-l-y pathetic’. It’s not just Albanese who is pathetic.
well labor have lost my vote – they are better than the opposition neo libs but ill vote Green, Progressive independant next time
The best thing Labor can do is to pass legislation to prevent another robodebt occuring under the next government, as they don’t deserve to be in government after this term.
It definitely did seem like an unnecessary attack out of nowhere. Almost to appear unbiased.
In South Australia the current and former Labor government’s have had a love affair with the Property development sector going back years. Problem is whenever land is released to developers they slowly drip feed the market to maintain prices while sitting on land which inevitably rises in price. Sadly, it’s hardly a secret as governments continue to happily allow developers to manipulate the housing market in plain view of all.
Do you really believe that the thousands of developers, big and small, local and national, in a market economy, are colluding to set the price of Australian houses? And they sit on developments that are profitable to build but they are just holding on because they are part of a secret powerful cabal that is deliberately manipulating the nations housing supply? And our Government bureaucrats are in on the scam?
Yes to all 3 questions.
In their quest of making profit .. of course!
Why has there been no impetus through this housing crisis to revisit the public/social housing divide?
It’s one area where deeply neoliberal ideas have become hegemonic, and largely without evidence.
If non-market housing is the good,, then it’s a natural manopoly. So it’s just as inefficient to be paying the private sector to administer a semi-privatised system in housing as it is in eg public transport.
If we’re serious about making an immediate change on the supply side, well there are actually plenty of overseas examples of medium-high density public housing done well. Government could put shovels in the ground for a mega PUBLIC housing build tomorrow – but in Victoria we’re running round selling off the very public housing land where we should be doing this for lower density, higher-value private developments.
You do really wonder with housing how long we are going to collectively stand around waiting for the demonstrative market failures to be self-repaired by the self-same market.
“It’s one area where deeply neoliberal ideas have become hegemonic, and largely without evidence.”
What does this even mean? The government is spending money to fund housing, and helping people buy their own home, so you must have a pretty broad definition of “neoliberal”.
The builders, building material suppliers and the biggest jackals of all developers, all increase their costs, or should I say profit margins, whenever public money enters the mix. The simple reality is, there are no cost savings when new build Government Subsidies are provided, it’s a complete sham. Neo-liberalism is also about Governments protecting their wealthy influential donors at the expense of the general public by eliminating government regulation through privatisation that leads to very poor social policy outcomes of which public housing is but another example of this. Overall, when poverty is left to the free market to manage this will inevitably lead to much more poverty and that is largely poverty that is entrenched – generational.
Well considering that the money announced is being paid by the federal government to state and local governments to deliver, it is indeed a novel definition to include the State as part of the free market. Sounds like “neoliberalism” is again just anything you don’t like.
The State is handing bags of money to private industry to do things that should be the State’s responsibility because of an ideological belief that free markets will do a better job.
Neoliberalism to a T.
The state paying private firms to deliver goods and services has been the case for centuries, if not several millenia, so where does the “neo” in your “neoliberalism” come from? Unless you are counting Crassus among the great neoliberalists of history?
a disgrace; against Whitlam’s great social legacy- wake up Albo
I’ll try again…
The state paying private firms to deliver goods and services has been the case for centuries, if not several millennia, so where does the “neo” in your “neoliberalism” come from? Unless you are counting [insert a certain ancient wealth Roman Senator who’s name now may be filtered out] among the great neoliberalists of history?
TIL the Public Service is actually private firms.
Not in formally marketised structures a la neoliberalism. it really hasn’t beeen doing that for “centuries”.
Perhaps an example. A first homeowner’s grant will automatically raise the price of a new property by the same amount as has been bequeathed to the recipient. That’s not just the first homebuyer, that’s for everyone buying a house, first time or not. Money handed out to the less wealthy immediately begins a journey to the more wealthy. Money handed out to the wealthy stays there, accompanied by mutterings of the ‘trickle-down effect’, a lie as egregious as the notion of the government charitably ‘helping’ people to by their first home.
So you are arguing that the government shouldn’t intervene in the housing market as it would cause inflation? That seems sensible.
No, that is not what I’m saying. You are taking the specific and applying it to the general. The government needs to step in and build. Build! Not give money to the private sector, unless it’s directly to build, and even then they should have immediate oversight of every project. No middle people, no election handouts, no private profiteers, no friggin’ lurks for existing homeowners, just, let’s say, a twentieth of what’s being spent on submarines being used to get people housed ASAP. Of course, existing properties may lose some of their value. Out of interest, how many do you own?
or applying the annual profit windfall of one super profiteer mining company – 27 billion – solved – the lack of focus and fair accounting ensures this unfair status quo continues to eat out our profit share in our stuff
So 1/20th of the total cost of the submarine purchase? About 20% of $368b is about $73b – between our federal education and health spending. I’d say very generously we’d need about another 500k to 1m construction workers to deliver that.
Or 1/20th of the annual submarine spend? So 20% of $3b is about $600m – so a smidge over what the HAFF is committing to (so job done then!).
Also just my own humble abode, unlike many LNP, Lab, Greens, one nation, Katter, Palmer, Teal, and pretty much the rest of them . I try not to get into a purity spiral about it, property investment is just something the general public seems to want.
Mathematics not your forte?
1/20th=5%, 20%=1/5.
I did have to laugh. Reading the above exchange I did wonder where Bizzybags is coming from. As pointed out, he doesn’t understand very basic maths. Hence his comments, his position. Hilarious!
The Government’s intervention into the housing market should be to build and own (and possibly onsell at cost price to longterm tenants) public housing.
It’s much more than that. A first homeowners grant will raise the price by the amount it can be leveraged into a mortgage – several times more at least.
You cannot be serious with “The government is spending money to fund housing, and helping people buy their own home..”!
No-one could believe that and still be capable of the intellectual demands of breathing, all that in-out, in-out would be too confusing.
It means “why are we jumping through all these hoops trying to get the not-for-profit sector (social housing) to solve a crisis on this scale, when government could pull levers far more directly by reinvesting in PUBLIC housing?”
Because actually solving the problem must involve a massive crash in real house prices. And nobody wants to be in power when that happens.
Everybody knows what the solutions are.