Yet another government report - this time the "State of the Housing System 2024"

SBS News, 6 May 2024:

The median rent across the nation is $627 a week, ranging from $547 in Hobart to $770 in Sydney, according to property data provider CoreLogic.

The regional median was $540, driven by rises in house rents in regional Queensland and Tasmania.

Rents are going up faster in areas between 30 and 40km from city centres, CoreLogic head of research Eliza Owen reported.

"Part of the reason for the re-acceleration in rents nationally could be due to renters being forced into more affordable, peripheral housing markets as they become priced out of more desirable and central metropolitan locations," she said.

But supply and demand pressures remain high across the nation and migration levels implied there were at least 200,000 new households in Australia, while only 173,000 new dwellings were completed to September last year, Owen said....

Median rents were more than $1,000 in nine areas, with adjoining Cottesloe-Claremont suburbs in beachside Perth the only area outside Sydney to command four figures.

Rents in Pittwater, almost 25km from the CBD on Sydney's northern beaches, were the highest at $1,335 per week, coming down half a percentage point since a peak in March.

Rents were still up 8.4 per cent annually in Pittwater, in line with the 8.5 per cent national increase.

The data comes after the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council launched its inaugural report on Friday, painting a dire portrait of Australia's housing system.....

National Housing Suppply and Affordibility Council, State of the Housing System 2024, 3 May 2024:

Forward

There is no denying the housing crisis we are in. It is a longstanding crisis, fundamentally driven by the failure to deliver enough housing of all types – from social housing through to market home ownership. At its heart, this crisis is about insufficient supply, but many contributing factors are making it more acute – the resumption of migration at pace, rising interest rates, skills shortages, elevated construction company insolvencies, weak consumer confidence and cost inflation to name just a few. These all combine to create an environment in which prices and rents are growing faster than wages, rental vacancies are near all-time lows, 169,000 households are on public housing waiting lists, 122,000 people are experiencing homelessness and projected housing supply is very low.

Australia’s housing market is far from healthy. An unhealthy market has periods of rampant price growth, is unable to produce enough supply to meet demand, is overly reliant on an unsupported private market to address most of Australia’s shelter needs, creates scarcity and cannot match the rich expanse of demand with a breadth of housing choice.....

Executive Summary

Housing affordability worsened in 2023, from

already challenging levels

Housing affordability worsened in 2023. The worsening was widespread, occurring across states and territories, cities and regions, income levels, age groups and tenure types.

Housing affordability deteriorated significantly for mortgage holders. Mortgage interest rates rose by an average of 125 basis points in 2023, and the average mortgage for owner-occupiers reached $624,000. Since the first increase in the Reserve Bank of Australia cash rate in May 2022, minimum scheduled repayments for borrowers have increased by as much as 60 per cent.

Aspiring homeowners experienced a decline in their ability to purchase a home. It takes the average prospective homeowner around 10 years to save a 20 per cent deposit for an average dwelling. Even with a deposit, only 13 per cent of the homes sold in 2022–23 were affordable for a median income household.

Renters in the private market experienced a sharp rise in rents. Advertised rents increased by 8 per cent in 2023 and have increased by around 35 per cent since the start of the decade. Finding a rental property is increasingly difficult. Nationally, the rental vacancy rate is 1.6 per cent – around its lowest level on record and well below the rate considered to reflect a balanced rental market of around 3–4 per cent. In some parts of the country, including some capital cities, it is as low as 0.5 per cent.

Worsening affordability placed additional pressure on demand for non-market housing. The number of ‘greatest needs’ households on public housing waiting lists rose by 2.4 per cent in the 2022–23 financial year. Waiting lists for First Nations housing rose by 10 per cent. Service providers reported a rise in demand for homelessness services and crisis accommodation.

Many households have made difficult trade-offs in the face of rising housing costs, including reducing spending on other essential household items; living further away from places of employment, education, and social and family networks; or living in overcrowded dwellings or in housing with inadequate or expensive heating or cooling options.

Worsening affordability is particularly problematic for vulnerable groups, including low-income households, single parents, young people, single pensioners, those fleeing domestic or family violence, people with disability, and First Nations Australians. Declining rental affordability correlates with an increase in homelessness.

Worsening affordability is contributing to poorer housing outcomes for First Nations Australians. First Nations households are half as likely to own their home, 6-times more likely to live in social housing, 3-times more likely to live in overcrowded dwellings and almost 9-times more likely to experience homelessness compared to non-Indigenous Australians. These poor housing outcomes impact on health and wellbeing, access to education and employment, and connection to community. Without targeted measures, undertaken in partnership with First Nations people, housing outcomes under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap are unlikely to be met.

This report tells us that:

More than 30 per cent of Australians rent their home. The number of renters is increasing, and those who are renting are doing so for longer. Renting is the only viable tenure option for an increasing share of the population. Australia’s rental system provides only limited tenure security and other rights to renters. Australia needs regulatory frameworks that support tenants’ rights and address the need for better tenure security. More institutional investment in rental housing could provide tenants with more rental options and add to the dwelling supply.....

The evidence base indicates that Australia’s tax framework influences the housing system in ways that have implications for supply and affordability. Tax arrangements could potentially be better calibrated to support housing supply and affordability outcomes. Australia’s tax system also favours home ownership over other forms of housing tenure, which can widen inequality between those who can and cannot access homeownership. A gradual transition to a more consistent taxation system across tenure types may contribute to a more equitable housing system.

Non-market housing, such as social housing and affordable housing, is essential infrastructure. It reduces homelessness and the incidence of poverty, supports economic productivity and labour market participation, and fosters more cohesive and sustainable communities. In some remote areas of Australia, social housing is the main form of available rental accommodation. There are federal, state and territory policies that will support the delivery of more non-market housing over the National Housing Accord period. However, levels of non-market housing are forecast to remain low relative to history and in comparison to other advanced economies, and lower than demand....

Supply of social housing

Australia’s social housing supply has fallen short of demand (Van den Nouwelant, et al., 2022). From the 1940s to the 1980s, government housing agencies built large volumes of new public housing (Chart 2.12). Instead of focusing mainly on the direct provision of non-market housing, governments have shifted towards a model of providing rent assistance payments to enable more households to rent in the private market. The provision of social housing is now primarily focused on supporting people in greatest need.

The number of non-market dwellings has stagnated as a result. This has contributed to a one-third decline in social housing as a share of the housing stock, from a peak of 5.6 per cent in 1991 to 3.8 per cent in 2021 (Chart 2.13). This indicates a reduction in the availability of adequate housing for lower-income and disadvantaged households. However, recent policy measures, such as the Housing Australia Future Fund and new public housing commitments by state and territory governments, mean that a rise in the current levels of investment in non-market housing is expected in coming years....

The report also draws attention to the following:

Box 2.1: Climate-related disasters

The housing system is inflexible when responding to natural disasters. The increased frequency and severity of natural disasters are adding to the demand for new houses to be built and for repairs on existing housing, often in higher-cost locations such as regional and remote areas. Rental markets are also affected when homeowners are forced to rent accommodation while their homes are repaired. Regional New South Wales was severely affected by its worst recorded flood in February 2022. In Lismore, 89 per cent of housing stock was severely impacted and 3 per cent was destroyed (Lismore City Council, 2022). Over the quarter to March 2022, house rents in Lismore increased 22 per cent to $550 a week. This almost matched the level of Sydney house rents, which were $600 in the same quarter (Domain, 2022). The supply response following natural disasters is slow due to the time taken to process insurance claims and increases in demand for labour and materials, leaving many residents without appropriate housing, sometimes for years after the event. The rebuilding following the Kimberley floods in Western Australia was significantly delayed due to its remote location and the pre-existing statewide shortage of tradespeople, which left people living in temporary shelters months after the floods (ABC News, 2023b). The impact of natural disasters has a lasting effect on housing in affected areas; for example, in the form of lower house prices due to a heightened risk of a natural disaster re-occurring. After 2017 floods in Lismore, property values normalised in 6 months. However, by March 2023, a year after the floods in the Northern Rivers, house prices in the most affected suburbs had fallen by 22–30 per cent – more than the regional average of 19 per cent (CoreLogic, 2023). The increasing severity and frequency of natural disasters could produce larger and longer-lasting effects on the housing system. [my yellow highlighting]

At Page 151 of this report is this section: 8.1 The Council has identified 10 areas of focus for improving housing system outcomes.

Read it for the record but don't raise your hopes.

 

This comprehensive and at times overly optimistic report can be found at:

https://nhsac.gov.au/sites/nhsac.gov.au/files/2024-05/state-of-the-housing-system-2024.pdf

NSW Public School Education: a brief perspective from the outside looking in

 

When one considers education access and equity in New South Wales one tends to think of the divide between private and public primary & high schools.

After all the top private schools such as Knox Grammar (Wahroonga), Sydney Grammar (Darlinghurst), Barker (Hornsby), Scots (Bellevue Hill) and Pymble Ladies (Pymble) have been known to bank more money in fees, federal & state funding and donations from wealthy donors than the Gross Domestic Product of some small island states.

Knox Grammar alone brought in $536,440,456 across five years up to 2021.

However, there is another level of inequality and that is the divide between public schools based on the socio-economic status of the geographical catchment from which students are drawn and/or whether those schools are classed as selective.

While public schools do not have the same ability to set fees as private schools and do not attract the same level of government funding, they do generate levels of ‘donations’

which indicate some level of advantage vs disadvantage.

NSW public school voluntary general contributions totalled $27,908,197.31 in 2022.

The top 12 public school general contributions were received by:

Sydney Boys High School — $1,038,474.50*

Balgowlah Heights Public School — $489,314.15

Carlingford High School — $437,230.57

North Sydney Boys High School — $368,278.94*

Chatswood High School — $356,701.39

Ryde Secondary College — $355,300.36

James Ruse Agricultural High School — $330,273.608*

Cherrybrook Technology High School — $306,667.75

Killarney Heights High School — $297,845.28

Sydney Girls High School — $295,009.83*

Baulkham Hills High School — $230,761.50*

Epping Boys High School — $227,940.62

NOTE:  * denotes fully selective state school

For highest and lowest an estimated breakdown of donation share per student would $1,713.65 for Sydney Boys High School and $175.33 per student for Epping Boys High School.

Not up to private school annual budgetary standards but there is a little more towards the school curriculum and extra-curricula activities.

It’s another story elsewhere in the state…..

Based on voluntary general donations raised by parents and carers in 12 schools in the NSW Northern Rivers region:

• Grafton High School — $18,201.20

• South Grafton High School — $7,611.25

• Grafton Public School — $5,435.00

• South Grafton Public School — $465.00

• Lismore Heights Public School — $1,740.00

• Lismore Public School — $105.00

• Lismore South Public School — $30.00

• Tweed River High School — $9,203.65

• Tweed Heads Public School — $457.00

• Tweed Heads South Public School — $52.00

• Ballina Coast High School — $12,134.00

• Murwillumbah East Public School — $5,430.00

For highest and lowest on the Northern Rivers list Grafton High School parental & carer ‘donations’ would equal around $22 dollars per student and for Lismore South Public School it is 0.12 cents a student in 2022.

It should come as no surprise, given the poor state funding model and the refusal of successive federal governments to contribute meaningfully to public school funding, that none of the four Northern Rivers public high schools listed in this post had students in the Top 6 (higher score) rankings for 2022 Higher School Certificate scores. While only two of the twelve public high schools in relatively affluent geographic catchments had students within the Top 6 rankings.

Of the five rich private schools identified in the second paragraph of this post only one of those high schools had students within Top 6 rankings for 2022 Higher School Certificate scores.

Across all NSW high schools the Top 10 with the highest success rate in the Higher School Certificate appear to have all been state selective or private schools.

It seems that affluent post codes or access to fully selective government schools may still have an inordinate influence when it comes to student outcomes in the final years of schooling.

 

"Eat The Rich" is an amusing conversational tag. But for how long?

“For most Australians, income is the most important resource they have to meet their living costs. However, reserves of wealth can be drawn upon to maintain living standards in periods of reduced income or substantial unexpected expenses. Considering income and wealth together helps to better understand the economic wellbeing or vulnerability of households.”

[Australian Bureau Of Statistics, Household Income and Wealth, Australia, Reference period: 2019-20]

Given the grumbling coming from the opera boxes and dress circle seats in the Australian economy if it is suggested that those on low to middle incomes shouldn’t be solely responsible for fighting inflation by way of wage suppression, ever rising cost of living & below poverty line unemployment benefits, perhaps it’s time to remember some of the cream within the Top 1% and how richly they live in an Australian population of est. 26,510,186 men, women and children spread out across this country. [ABS, Population Clock, 4 June 2023 at 8:15am]

Forbes, Australia’s 50 Richest 2023, 15 February 2023:

NAME          NET WORTH          INDUSTRY

1. Gina Rinehart   $30.6 B         Metals & Mining

2. Andrew Forrest   $21.7 B      Metals & Mining

3. Harry Triguboff     $15.5 B    Real Estate

4. Bianca Rinehart & siblings   $12.5 B   Metals & Mining

5. Anthony Pratt   $11.6 B        Manufacturing

6. Mike Cannon-Brookes  $10.8 B Technology

7. Scott Farquhar   $10.6 B      Technology

8. Cliff Obrecht & Melanie Perkins   $7.2 B Technology

9. Frank Lowy   $6 B                 Finance & Investments

10. Richard White   $5.4 B        Technology

11. John, Alan & Bruce Wilson   $5.1 B Fashion & Retail

12. Kerry Stokes   $4.2 B          Diversified

13. John Gandel   $3.5 B          Real Estate

14. Lindsay Fox   $3.4 B           Logistics

15. Jack Cowin   $3.35 B          Food & Beverage

16. Michael Hintze   $3.2 B       Finance & Investments

17. James Packer   $2.8 B        Finance & Investments

18. Lang Walker   $2.7 B           Real Estate

19. Fiona Geminder   $2.6 B     Manufacturing

20. Brett Blundy   $2.45 B         Fashion & Retail

21. Solomon Lew   $2.3 B         Fashion & Retail

22. Bob Ell   $2.25 B                  Real Estate

23. Len Ainsworth & family   $2.2 B Gambling & Casinos

24. Heloise Pratt   $2.15 B        Manufacturing

25. Clive Palmer   $2.1 B           Metals & Mining

26. Gerry Harvey   $2.05 B        Fashion & Retail

27. Kie Chie Wong   $2 B          Metals & Mining

28. Hains family   $1.95 B         Finance & Investments

29. Cameron Adams   $1.8 B    Technology

30. Chris Wallin   $1.75 B         Energy

31. Terry Snow   $1.61 B           Real Estate

32. Bruce Mathieson   $1.6 B   Real Estate

33. Chris Ellison   $1.59 B        Metals & Mining

34. Angela Bennett   $1.55 B    Metals & Mining

35. Gretel Packer   $1.54 B       Finance & Investments

36. David Teoh   $1.53 B           Telecom

37. Nigel Austin   $1.5 B           Fashion & Retail

38. Tony & Ron Perich   $1.42 B   Real Estate

39. John Van Lieshout   $1.41 B   Real Estate

40. Anthony Hall   $1.4 B          Technology

41. Jack Gance & family   $1.35 B   Fashion & Retail

42. Mario Verrocchi & family   $1.34 B   Fashion & Retail

43. Sam Hupert $  1.3 B           Technology

44. Sam Tarascio   $1.25 B       Real Estate

45. Sam Kennard & siblings   $1.2 B  Real Estate

46. Michael Heine   $1.19 B      Finance & Investments

47. Manny Stul   $1.18 B           Manufacturing

48. Mark Creasy    $1.02 B        Metals & Mining

49. Alan Rydge    $1 B              Media & Entertainment

50. Kerr Neilson    $960 M        Finance & Investments

Globally only Monaco and Switzerland have higher individual net wealth than Australia. In this country in 2022 the Top 1% had individual wealth beginning at $5.5 million to >$30 billion, yet before it was driven from office the Morrison Coalition Government locked in an overly generous permanent tax cut for the wealthy in our society. Along with a negative gearing regime for property investment which is concentrating residential property ownership in the hands of richer individuals and families.

While the bottom wealth percentiles - including the homeless, unemployed, working age poor & elderly without assets or savings - recognising the taxation rate/negative gearing sleight-of-hand involved are left wondering how long they can manage to put a roof over their heads and food on the table now and into the foreseeable future.

IMAGE: Twitter via @MaggieDaWitch
4 June 2023

Quote of the Week

 

“A new paper from the Australia Institute shows 93% of the benefits of economic growth between 2009 and 2019 went to the top 10%, while the bottom 90% received just 7%. The paper shows the share of economic growth going to the top 10% over that period was far higher in Australia than in other developed countries, including the US and Canada.”

[Political reporter Amy Remeikis, writing in The Guardian, 11 April 2023]

NSW State of Play 2023: governments being 'city-centric' has consequences that follow remote & outer regional populations to their graves

 

The Australia Institute, media release, 14 February 2023:

New analysis reveals residents born in Far West NSW are suffering substantially worse health outcomes than residents in Sydney.

People in Far West NSW are dying earlier than they should, from avoidable causes, and while suicide rates have steadied in Sydney, they are on the rise in the most remote parts of the state.

The report warns of serious and growing inequality in health outcomes between city and country residents and recommends immediate investment in the sector.

Key points:

• Life expectancy: People born in the Far West have a life expectancy 5.7 years less than those in Sydney, with the divide worsening

• Premature death: Residents in Far Western NSW are 2x more likely to die prematurely than those in Sydney

• Avoidable death: ‘Potentially avoidable deaths’ are 2.5x more likely in the Far West than in Sydney

• Suicide: Residents in the NSW Far West are 2x as likely to commit suicide than those in Sydney, with a clear upwards trend in suicide rates

“Far West NSW is in serious need of medical attention. Where you live shouldn’t dictate how long you’ll live, but unfortunately in NSW it does” said Kate McBride, Researcher at The Australia Institute.

“Those in the Far West have significantly poorer health outcomes, inferior access to health services and face substantial financial challenges to access services.

“Life expectancy, premature deaths, and ‘potentially avoidable’ deaths are key statistical indicators of whether our health system is working. It is clear from the analysis in this report, sirens should be sounding from the Far West of the state.

“There’s a compelling case for significant investment across the continuum of care, from disease prevention to rehabilitation and ongoing care, in regional NSW.

“The first release in a series, this report reflects a wider national trend: That the health system is failing those living in regional and remote Australia” said Kate McBride.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RELATED RESEARCH

Kate McBride, The Unlucky Country: Life expectancy and health in regional and remote Australia. Part 1: NSW, February 2023.

FULL REPORT

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpts from the McBride report:

“Australia has the world’s third highest life expectancy at 84.3 years. However, this national average masks the fact that the ‘lucky country’ has some rather less lucky residents. In every state and territory, those in regional and remote areas have life expectancies several years lower than in the city.

New South Wales (NSW) is a stark example of this divide. Life expectancy in Far West NSW is 79.1 years compared to 84.5 years in Sydney. This more than five-year gap has grown from relative parity at the turn of the millennium to the current gap. Today, a person in far west NSW is more than twice as likely to die prematurely (under 75) than someone in Sydney.

While there are many possible reasons for this discrepancy, overall, people die of the same causes in urban and remote parts of NSW; a comparison of the top causes of death in each area reveals that the top 10 are almost identical. However, regional and remote people are dying younger and from preventable causes at much higher rates than those in Sydney. Deaths considered ‘potentially avoidable’ are more than two and a half times as common in the far west than in the state’s capital.

It has been known for years that there is a suicide issue in regional Australia. Suicide rates in far west NSW—already more than twice as high than those in Sydney—are continuing to rise, while those in urban areas remain steady. But while suicide is a significant problem, it is only the tenth leading cause of death in the region. Suicide tends to take people at a younger age than other causes and as a result can disproportionally skew life expectancy, having said this there are other factors likely at play.

In 2022, a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into health outcomes and access to services in rural, regional, and remote NSW found that people outside urban areas had significantly poorer health outcomes, inferior access to health services, and faced substantial financial challenges to access services.

This divide between life expectancy in the cities and in the country is a problem that extends beyond far western NSW. The city/country divide exists across Australia, and it is growing. Inequity between Australians living in capitals and remote areas is a significant problem that demands government intervention, particularly concerning overwhelmed and under resourced health systems.”

NOTE: I draw to the attention of "North Coast Voices" readers, living in what is the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Coffs Harbour-Grafton Level 4 Statistical Area, the fact that the combined populations of Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour City have a projected life expectancy at birth which is 3.9 years lower than that of the population of the Greater Sydney metropolitan area. Only the projected life expectancy at birth for the Far West and Orana region has a worse comparative figure.

The only differences are dehydration and suicide (more below) in the Far West being replaced by heart failure and breast cancer in Greater Sydney. The similarity in causes of death suggests that the factors driving lower life expectancy in the far west are not due to different physical conditions or different lifestyles, but to how causes of death are prevented and managed. [my yellow highlighting]

Sadly, what the preceding paragraph is politely hinting at is that there is a culture within governments which tolerates and, perhaps even relies upon, inequality of access to health care along with an acceptance of delivery of poorer quality health care to those living in remote areas of New South Wales, as one of the tools which allows the provision of a much higher quality of health care to those living in metropolitan centres and inner regional areas on the fringes of major cities. 

That is where the bulk of the state's electorates and voter numbers are concentrated and, it will come as no surprise that ahead of the March 2023 state election little electoral growth was expected in the western half of New South Wales [Report of the Electoral Districts Redistribution Panel on the draft determination of the names and boundaries of electoral districts of New South Wales, 9 Nov 2020].

Quotes of the Week

 

“Lend Lease, Stocks and Holdings, Parkes Development and L.J. Hooker all bought land in the Gosford and Penrith areas soon after publication of the Outline Plan. (Sunday Australian 5 March 1972) The inability of local and state government services to keep pace with the rate of subdivision by these developers was contributing, according to the Sunday Australian (5 March 1972) to the escalating price of blocks. In 1970 the average price of vacant land in Sydney was $7,240 per acre, in 1971 $8,969, and by 1972 had risen to $11,802 an acre. (Financial Review 28 July 1972). The beneficiaries of rising land prices are clear enough. According to the present Federal Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr T. Uren, MHR) the poor in general and young couples in particular are the ones who suffer.”

[Leonie Sandercock, (1974) PROPERTY, POLITICS AND POWER : A HISTORY OF CITY PLANNING IN ADELAIDE, MELBOURNE AND SYDNEY SINCE 1900]

“To Juanita, there was an urgent need for answers to the problem of rehousing old and low-income people in their own neighbourhoods. This was already occurring in Darlinghurst and it was time it was also taken into account by planners in Kings Cross. Juanita’s reaction to Paul Strasser’s projected Parkes Developments’ proposal marked the beginning of the end of her ‘soft’ editorial policy. She was outraged when Parkes offered to buy her home for what was an extraordinary amount of money for a small terrace in 1973—$200 000. She refused, and she recounted later to the Sydney Morning Herald that she had come under ‘all sorts of unimaginable pressures’. ‘I began to realise that if I was getting into so much trouble—owning my own house and a newspaper—what hope would a pensioner have?’ But the experience was a catalyst for her to also embrace a more formal presence in the Victoria Street power plays. She formed the Victoria Street Ratepayers’ Association and became its secretary. Through this tactic she was able to stall Parkes’ twenty-eight-storey development, as well as gaining another lever against overdevelopment on the west side. With this delay, the Parkes’ plan would ultimately lapse.”

[Peter Rees, (2004) KILLING JUANITA, p.78]

“REASONS FOR DECISION

1 The appellant (“Hometown”) owns and operates a residential land lease community in Lennox Head, New South Wales (“Community”). The Community is governed by the Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act, 2013 (NSW) (“Act”).

2 On or about 4 November 2020, Hometown acquired the home located at site 4 of the Community from a former home owner for a purchase price of $207,500. It refurbished the home and marketed it for sale.

3 On 5 March 2021, Ms Bullivant entered into a sale agreement to purchase the home at site 4 from Hometown for a purchase price of $260,000.

4 On 6 March 2021, Ms Bullivant entered into a site agreement (within the meaning of the Act) with Hometown in respect of the home at site 4 in which she agreed to pay $192 per week.

5 By application filed 28 July 2021, Ms Bullivant sought orders from the Tribunal pursuant to section 157(1) of the Act asserting, in summary, that Hometown, as operator comply with its obligation to set fees for the site at fair market value and compensation for the difference between fair market value and the site fees charged by Hometown under the site agreement since its inception.

The Decision of the Tribunal

6 In its decision of 21 December 2021, the Tribunal found, in summary, that Part 10 of the Act and, in particular, s 109 applied to the sale of the home at site 4 to Ms Bullivant and that the site fees charged by Hometown exceeded fair market value. The Tribunal held that fair market value of site fees for site 4 was $164.40 and ordered a reduction of the site fees under the site agreement to that amount (subject to the term of the site agreement providing for a 4% annual increase in site fees). The primary member found that section 109(6) applied to the site agreement entered into between Hometown and Ms Bullivant and made orders for the reduction of Ms Bullivant’s site fees”

[Civil and Administrative Tribunal, New South Wales, Hometown Australia Lennox Pty Limited v Debra Bullivant [2022] NSWCATAP 161 (17 May 2022)]

Top 10 Wealthy Federal Electorate and Bottom 10 Electorates - a very brief glimpse at the Australian experience of inequality

 

TOP 10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORATES RANKED BY ORDER OF WEALTH IN 2020*

Wentworth (NSW) – Liberal – Dave Sharna since 2019 (general election) – No 1 electorate

Warringah (NSW) – Independent – Zali Steggall since 2019 (general election) – No 2 electorate

Bradfield (NSW) – Liberal – Paul Fletcher since 2009 (by-election) – No 3 electorate

North Sydney (NSW) – Liberal – Trent Zimmerman since 2015 (by-election) – No 4 electorate

Mackellar (NSW) – Liberal – Jason Falinski since 2016 (general election) – No 5

Cook (NSW) – Liberal – Scott Morrison since 2007 (general election) – No 6

Goldstein (Vic) – Liberal – Tim Wilson since 2016 (general election) – No 7

Higgins (Vic) – Liberal – Katie Allen since 2019 (general election) – No 8

Curtin (WA) – Liberal – Celia Hammond since 2019 (general election) – No 9

Kooyong (Vic) – Liberal – Josh Frydenberg since 2019 (general election) – No 10.

Four Liberal electorates in this group contain sitting members in the office of Prime Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts and, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction.

Within this group of wealthy electorates only est. 6.48% of all households were living below the poverty line. 

It should come as no surprise that in 10 electorates with the lowest wealth rankings:

5 were Labor electorates – Spence (SA), Brand (WA), Burt (WA), Blair (Qld), Chifley (NSW); and

5 were LNP/Nationals electorates – Herbert (Qld), Flynn (Qld), Forde (Qld), Longman (Qld), Capricornia (Qld).

Across these five Labor electorates est.13.38% of all households were living below the poverty line**, while across the other five LNP/Nationals electorates est.12.18% of all households were living below the poverty line.

The two NSW Northern Rivers federal electorates ranked 25th (Richmond –  Labor since 2004) and 112th (Page – Nationals since 2013 general election) for average wealth per capita. With Richmond having 14% of all households living below the poverty line and Page having 16.4% of households.

NOTE: 

* Order of wealth is calculated by average per capita wealth in an electorate as set out in Roy Morgan Wealth Report, 1 May 2020.

** RMIT ABC Fact Check, "Federal electorates ranked by percentage of households below the poverty line", 24 October 2019.