It's the state and territory governments more than the federal government which are going to decide renters ability to attain & retain housing in the near future

 

In Australia there is evidence to suggest that by 2022 there were est. 640,000 Australian households whose housing needs were not being met. 

These households are either experiencing homelessness, in overcrowded homes or spending over 30% of their income on rent.

This unmet housing need is projected to increase to 940,000 households in 2041.

In a November 2022 the Community Housing Industry Association released a report noting the unmet need in states/territories/regions by number and percentage of all households. 

CHIA, Nov 2022, “Quantifying Australia’s unmet housing need: A national snapshot”, p.2

On 29 June 2022 The Guardian reported:

The public housing waiting list across all jurisdictions rose by more than 8,000 households last year, from 155,141 to 163,508. Most of the increase was among households considered “in greatest need”. While for the last nine years social housing stock remained static at est. 4.2% of all housing stock.

The National Cabinet meeting last Friday, 28 April 2023, ended with these joint announcements by the Prime Minister and state & territories leaders, according to ABC News:

• National cabinet has endorsed $2.2b in measures to strengthen Medicare

• The announcements include expanding the nursing workforce to improve access to primary care and incentives for doctors to stay open for longer hours

• Housing ministers will develop a proposal outlining ways to strengthen renters rights, which will be dealt with by national cabinet later in the year

• Work will be undertaken to improve the migration system through increased visa processing capacity and expanding pathways to permanent residency for skilled workers. [my yellow highlighting]

What is clear is that although there may be the intention that a guiding statement on renters rights will eventually be produced by the National Cabinet, it will be left to individual states and territories to decide how and to what degree renters rights will be strengthened.

As for the built-to-rent component of any national plan to increase housing stock, Master Builders Australia sent out a media release immediately after this National Cabinet meeting welcoming a national approach to reforms to address the housing crisis which stated in part:

Master Builders Australia CEO Denita Wawn said the decision to tackle infrastructure investment, planning reforms to increase housing supply and affordability alongside sustainable growth across states and territories is an important signal for the industry.

“Industry will work closely with the Planning Ministers and National Cabinet to ensure all options are on the table and there are no unintended consequences of other reforms that may dampen this effort,” said Ms Wawn.

The Commonwealth Government also announced a series of other measures to boost investment for increasing housing supply including: increasing the depreciation rate [from 2% to 4%] for eligible new build-to-rent projects, and reducing the withholding tax rate for eligible fund payments for managed investment trusts to foreign residents on income from newly constructed residential build-to-rent properties.

However, Master Builders Australia went on to make an ambit claim for further reform:

“More needs to be done to speed up the delivery of new housing in the medium and high-density part of the market over the short term. Government efforts to expand the stock of build-to-rent will provide welcome support.

“The challenge will be to make sure that we put downward pressure on building and construction costs to increase output.

“Builders continue to face regulatory burdens and prolonged delays in approvals for building applications, occupation certificates and land titles. Additionally, land shortages in the wrong places, high developer charges and inflexible planning laws are restricting opportunities to meet demand, speed up project timelines, and minimise costs to both builders and their clients,” Ms Wawn said.

Master Builders’ Delivering the housing needs for all Australians recommends policies around housing supply, workforce, supply chain risk and cost pressures, simplifying regulatory settings that support investment in housing and business productivity.

The Property Council of Australia is also in favour of what it classes on its website News & Research page as the emerging build-to-rent sector.

It sees this sector as having the potential to deliver 150,000 new build-to-rent homes into the rental market in the next 10 years (by 2043) and says of a report it commissioned from Ernst Young and published on 4 April 2023:

.. estimates that the current size of the build-to-rent sector in Australia is $16.87 billion (this equates to roughly 0.2 per cent of the total value of the residential housing sector), with the expectation that this value will continue to grow in the coming years. If it reached just 3 per cent of the residential market, it could be worth $290 billion.

In comparison, the build-to-rent sector comprises of 5.4 per cent of the total value of the residential sector in the UK and 12 per cent in the US.

The Housing Industry Association also issued a media release on 28 April 2023 welcoming the National Cabinet’s agreement today to support a range of reforms to address housing supply, stating:

HIA’s Deputy Managing Director – Industry and Policy, Jocelyn Martin said the decision to tackle planning reforms to increase housing supply and affordability ultimately leads to more affordable rental accommodation and provides the capacity to deliver social housing without impacting housing supply more broadly.

On the part of federal and state governments there appears to be an aversion to their having direct ownership of any project building social housing and, on the part of finance and construction industries – along with property developers and investors – there appears to be a similar aversion to such a direct supply of social housing by the first two tiers of government.

Perhaps the smell of desperation in the air – with 243 construction businesses put into insolvency by the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) in March 2023 alone, joining an unspecified number of other construction, registered property investment and/or property development corporations within the January to March 1,879 businesses-strong insolvency list – has the National Cabinet seeking to resuscitate more than one bird with its housing funding commitments. 

Note: Searchable ASIC list can be found at

https://publishednotices.asic.gov.au/browsesearch-notices/

All these government and non-government actors appear to be suggesting that: after relaxing planning laws; increasing investment opportunities along with potential profits for all classes of investors; and the possibility for individuals, partnerships & corporations to access grants & other benefits in the proposed $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund; then market forces will inevitably push rental costs down once housing supply increases even though the most optimistic rendition of proposed supply is unlikely to fully meet the nation's unmet secure residential housing need.

My admittedly jaded personal response to the idea that residential rents will significantly reduce over the next 10 years……

via GIPHY

I'm hoping that time will prove me wrong.

And as Australia enters the first month of 2023.......

It is perhaps well to remember that whilst the cronyism, venality and often industrial scale corruption of national governments is well known in history, here in Australia we appear to hold the quaint notion that as a democracy we will not be led by the likes of a Pahlavi, Marcos or Putin. Men who sought not only authoritarian power but also to enrich themselves from the public purse and their nation’s resources.

But does the example of the former Morrison Government and what is happening in the U.S. right now not make one wonder if we here in Australia need to clearly define limits to the powers held by a prime minister and, perhaps also require all members of any federal Cabinet or outer ministry to present their tax returns to the Parliament for formal audit every year they are in government?

For that matter, perhaps it is well past time that members of a federal government are denied access to taxpayer funds to defray court ordered financial penalties & legal costs in relation to defamation or sexual harassment proceedings.

Both Morrison & Trump ignored democratic principles and processes whenever they chose, with Trump’s action being perhaps the more egregious. However, one has to wonder if profiteering from public office was something both national governments did – if not to the same scale at least with the same frequency.

In Australia we will never know because we have such weak mechanisms to monitor or prevent such things. The Parliament often being reluctant to police members' specific pecuniary interests, the Constitution not shutting the door firmly enough on profiting from the Crown and the Register of Members’ Interests being nothing more than a risible fig leaf covering suspected dodgy trusts and self-managed super funds.

Consider former U.S. president Donald Trump’s financial affairs and ask yourselves: Could some of the prime ministers and/or ministers in office between September 2013 and May 2022 have conducted their own financial affairs in a similar manner?

To call the business structure that Donald John Trump built – carried with him into the White House and back out again - ‘Byzantine’ is being kind.

It appears to be a maze of est. 500 inter-related companies, subsidiaries, partnerships, trusts, overseas bank accounts and possibly shells, potentially designed to literally push financial bullshite uphill until a business income loss or tax credit could be established on paper for personal benefit.

During his first presidential election campaign in 2016 Trump self-reported net wealth of almost US$10 billion with debts of at least US$265 million – thought at the time to be achieved by an exaggeration of property and brand values and that his net wealth would be closer to est. US$4.1 billion. There were calls to show his tax return. He promised to reveal his tax returns but didn’t.

As president he continued to falsely complained that his tax affairs were under almost continuous Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit so it was impossible for him to release them.

Once the nation voted him out of office Trump went to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to stop the release of his tax returns for the years 2015 through to 2020. A legal battle he lost in TRUMP, DONALD J., ET AL. V. COMM. ON WAYS AND MEANS, ET AL on 22 November 2022.

He was so successful in his resistance up until then that only one incomplete mandatory IRS audit occurred during his presidency - being ordered in September 2019 for the tax year 2016, but never completed and appears to have been quietly abandoned. Trump appointee as IRS Commissioner, Charles P. Rettig, reportedly excused the then president from the mandatory auditing process sometime during his tenure as commissioner.

On 16 June 2021 the U.S. Congress House Committee of Ways and Means wrote to the Treasury Secretary seeking details of the required annual mandatory audits of Trump’s personal tax returns during his presidency, unaware of the true state of affairs.

This letter requested all audit materials from 2015 to 2020 with particular reference to:

whether an IRS examination of the returns took place and the present status of the audits, the applicable statutes of limitations, and the issues considered:

1. The Federal income tax returns of Donald J. Trump (Form 1040),

2. The Federal income tax returns of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust,

3. The Federal income tax returns of DJT Holdings LLC (Form 1065),

4. The Federal income tax returns of DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC (Form 1120-S),

5. The Federal income tax returns of DTTM Operations LLC (Form 1065),

6. The Federal income tax returns of DTTM Operations Managing Member Corp (Form 1120-S),

7. The Federal income tax returns of LFB Acquisitions Corp (Form 1120-S),

8. The Federal income tax returns of LFB Acquisition LLC (Form 1065), and

9. The Federal income tax returns of Lamington Farm Club, LLC d/b/a Trump National Golf Club-Bedminster (Form 1120-S).

Trump’s personal tax returns were joint filings with his wife Melania and listed one son as a dependent. He stated his main source of income was derived from “Management Services”, “Aviation”, “Speaking Engagements”, “Real Estate”, “Golf”, “Ice Skating Rink”, and “Restaurant”.

For a man who repeatedly bragged about his business acumen and wealth in the billions, his 2015 personal and business tax returns indicated that he carried forward business loses of US$105.15 million and he and his wife declared a 2015 calendar year joint negative income of $31.7 million leaving a nominal tax bill of $0.

So by 2015 either he was fast approaching the need for yet another strategic corporate bankruptcy or he had applied the most ‘creative’ accountancy when dealing with the U.S. IRS for that year and the following five years.

Either way, once in the Oval Office Trump appears to have continued to follow his own unique tax return template so that by 2020 he was still paying low tax or no tax – apparently due in part to sizeable business income losses at two of the nine entities whose tax returns were requested by the House Committee on Ways and Means – DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC and DTTM Operations LLC. It is interesting to note that 2020 was also a year devoid of charitable donations by Mr. & Ms. Trump and, it seems that there is some suspicion that previous charitable donation figures may be largely unsupported by appropriate documentation.

Page 2 of the House Committee on Ways and Means Final Report spells out some specific accounting concerns:

• Charitable contributions—whether the 2015 conservation easement deduction of $21 million and other large donations reported on the Schedule A were supported by required substantiation.

• Verification of Net Operating Loss Carryover Schedule—whether the amount of net operating loss carryover in 2015 of $105,157,825 and future years was proper.

• Unreimbursed partnership/S corporation expenses—whether the terms of the partnership agreements supported unreimbursed expense deductions totaling $27 million over six years.

• Related party loans—whether loans made to the former President’s children are loans or disguised gifts that could trigger gift tax.

• Cost of goods sold deductions by DJT Holdings—whether these deductions of about $126.5 million over five years is appropriate when it is not clear what DJT Holdings is selling from the face of the return.

• LFB Acquisition LLC—whether there is any support for changes in the management fees and general and administrative expenses of LFB Acquisition that were significantly higher in 2017 ($1.9 million and $2.8 million, respectively) than 2016 ($750,000 and $549,000, respectively) and 2018 ($707,000 and $570,000, respectively).

In fact when it comes to actually paying personal income tax Donald and Melania Trump paid US$641,951 tax in 2015, $US$750 in 2016, $US$750 in 2017, US$999,466 in 2018, US$133,445 in 2019 and US$0 in 2020, claiming a refund of US$5,468,593.

Then there is the matter of the two shell companies set up by Trump’s then personal attorney Michael Cohen in 2016, Resolution Consultants LLC and Essential Consultants LLC. The former allegedly created for the US$120,000 purchase and then suppression of a story by former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal about her involvement with Trump and the latter created to pay US$130,000 to former adult-film star Stephanie Clifford, professionally known as Stormy Daniels.

A Delaware state judge ordered the dissolution of Essential Consultants LLC and Resolution Consultants LLC in October 2020.

It has been reported that Trump had claimed the second personal expense of $130,000 as a business expense though whether he did that in his 2016 tax returns or later I have been unable to ascertain.

It is noted that, in the three years from 2017 to 2019 Trump donated the annual US$400 million presidential salary “solely for public purposes” in order to get a back a combined total of US$1,200 million as a deduction on his tax bills, according to The Washington Post.

As for an overview of Trump’s business practices…..

To quote Page 5 of the House Committee on Ways and Means’ 20 December 2022 Final Report:

Numerous investigative reports have revealed that the former President, through the complex arrangements of his personal and business finances, has engaged in aggressive tax strategies and decades-long tax avoidance schemes, including taking a questionable $916 million deduction, using a grantor trust to control assets, manipulating tax code provisions pertaining to real estate taxes, and extensively using pass-through entities. Media reports have also revealed that he benefited from massive conservation easements, and that certain of his golf courses failed to properly account for wages paid to employees, raising questions about compliance with payroll and Social Security tax laws. As President, he took pride in “brilliantly” maneuvering the tax laws to his personal benefit. Even as he was championing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the former President referred to the tax code as “riddled with loopholes” for “special interests—including myself.”

BACKGROUND

The House Committee on Ways and Means “REPORT ON THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE'S MANDATORY AUDIT PROGRAM UNDER THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION (2017-2020” Final Report of 20 December 2022 can be found at:

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/2022.12.20%20Final%20Report%20House%20Ways%20and%20Means.pdf

On 30 December 2022 the House Committee on Ways and Means released a zip file containing all Donald John Trump’s personal & business tax returns via Attachment E. Links to the full range of documents the Committee has released can be found at the bottom of this document at:

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ways-and-means-committee-votes-release-investigation-irs-s-mandatory

Welcome to the global pandemic that does what big pandemics do, just go on and on and on....

 

CSSE: Global COVID-19 Infections in the 28 days ending 2:20am

on 24 July 2021 

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

 

When thinking of global pandemics there are two historical events which spring to mind, spaced a little over five centuries apart – the Bubonic Plague which included an infection wave known as “The Black Death” and the Influenza Global Pandemic known at the time as “The Spanish Flu”.

When the Bubonic Plague first manifested itself across the Northern Hemisphere it lasted approximately three years in the mid-14th Century and became an unwelcome infectious presence during another four episodes of closely spaced, similar time periods before that century ended. By which time it was thought to have caused the deaths of at least 75 million men, women and children, around one third of the Northern Hemisphere population.

Bubonic Plague never went away as a highly infectious disease capable of reaching epidemic proportions and killing tens of thousands of people during outbreaks, however a better understanding of plagues and modern medicine has kept it relatively contained in recent centuries.

The Influenza Global Pandemic of 1918-1920 caused by the 1918 Influenza H1N1 virus was of shorter duration than the plague but appears to have come in three waves across the one event. It is estimated that about 500 million of the world’s population became infected with this virus resulting in est. 50 million deaths. There are similar Influenza A(H1N1) viruses in existence today.

Right now in 2022 the world is halfway through the third year of the COVID-19 Global Pandemic and, due to four significant and increasingly infectious variants of SARS-CoV-2 developing and spreading around the world, there appears no end in sight to its pandemic status in the near future.

According to the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore USA, as of 4:20pm on Sunday 24 July 2022 there were 25,973,159 new COVID-19 cases recorded world-wide in the last 28 days with 55,140 deaths caused by the virus in the same period. That brings the total global cumulative infection count to est. 569,644,897 men, women and children including 6,383,484 deaths.

Again, according to CSSE, Australia recorded 1,103,009 new COVID-19 cases in the 28 days up to 4:20pm on Sunday 24 July 2022 with 1,490 deaths caused by this viral disease in the same period. That brings Australia’s cumulative infection number since 25 January 2020 to est. 9,103,321 men, women and children including 11,172 deaths.

When it comes to New South Wales, in the 28 days up to 4pm Friday 22 July 2022 NSW Health had recorded 157,460 newly confirmed COVID-19 cases (a deliberate under reporting as it only includes diagnoses by PCR omitting reported RAT results) including est. 497 deaths caused by this viral disease. Bringing the total cumulative infection number since 25 January 2022 to 3,091,157 men, women and children across the state, including 3,996 deaths.

Currently health authorities around Australia are warning that another wave of COVID-19 infections underway which is driven by the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants and, mainstream media is reporting that almost half a million people who had been infected with COVID-19 recently will possibly develop a post COVID-19 condition aka “Long Covid” in the coming months.

So when will this particular global pandemic end? When WHO identified the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant B.1.1.529 in November 2021 the world seemed to feel quite confident that  we might see an end to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023.

However, not only did Omicron spread swiftly it began to produce subvariants, including BA.1, BA.2, BA.3, BA.4, BA.5 and descendent lineages. The Omicron variant group also includes BA.1/BA.2 circulating recombinant forms such as XE. WHO emphasizes that these descendant lineages should be monitored as distinct lineages by public health authorities and comparative assessments of their virus characteristics should be undertaken. 

Given Australian federal and state governments appear to have lost the will to keep in place all public health measures which actively resist the spread of Omicron & its subvariants which now dominate the infection pool, it is difficult to be optimistic about any timeline for an end to the pandemic within Australian borders.

In the 28 days up to 4pm on 23 July 2022 a total of 2,721 people living across the 7 local government areas within the Northern NSW Local Health District (NNSWLHD) have been diagnosed with COVID-19. This is a significant under reporting as it only includes diagnoses by PCR omitting reported RAT results.

This aforementioned figure includes positive diagnoses by PCR testing in:

Tweed Shire – 1,104 cases

Ballina Shire – 613 cases

Lismore City – 347 cases

Clarence Valley – 293 cases

Byron Shire – 177 cases

Richmond Valley – 120 cases

Kyogle Shire – 35 cases

Tenterfield – incidence where there is a shared postcode which includes some Tenterfield residents within NNSWLHD not reported in relevant NSW Health statistical table for this period.

Students Win Landmark Climate Case. In Global First, Judge Determines That Federal Environment Minister Has Duty Of Care To Protect Young People From Climate Change

 

The group of teenagers took the federal government to court on behalf of "young Australians everywhere".

(ABC News Brendan Esposito)

Final Media Release

STUDENTS WIN LANDMARK CLIMATE CASE. IN GLOBAL FIRST, MINISTER HAS DUTY OF CARE TO PROTECT YOUNG PEOPLE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE

SYDNEY MAY 27, 2021: Eight high school students have welcomed today’s landmark judgment in the Federal Court of Australia that found the Federal Environment Minister has a duty of care not to cause them harm from climate change.

The students brought the class action against Minister Sussan Ley in September 2020, asking the court to recognise the Minister has a duty to protect young people around Australia from foreseeable future climate change harms.

The students alleged that approving a major extension to the Vickery coal mine in northern New South Wales would breach the Minister’s duty. An injunction was not ordered but there will be further submissions on what the duty means for the Minister’s decision and the mine.

“I am thrilled by today’s judgement,” says Ava Princi, 17, one of the students.

“I’m thrilled because this is a global first. We understand it is the first time a Court of law,anywhere in the world, has ordered a government to specifically protect young people from the catastrophic harms of climate change.

“My future - and the future of all young people - depends on Australia joining the world in taking decisive climate action.”

“But this case is not over. While the Court stopped short of preventing the Minister from approving the Vickery mine extension today, it has ordered parties to come together to find a way forward. We are still optimistic that the climate harms from this mine will not happen.”

In Sharma and others v Minister for the Environment the Court accepted evidence brought by independent experts that carbon emissions released from mining and burning fossil fuels will contribute to wide-ranging harms to young people.

The judgment means the Environment Minister should not make decisions that harm young people, however the judge stopped short of preventing the Minister from approving the Vickery Extension Project.

The judge called upon the parties to confer on orders over the future of the proposed project.

“I feel elated by this decision,” says Laura Kirwan, 17, another student behind the class action.

“This is a victory for young people everywhere. The case was about young people stepping up and demanding more from the adults whose actions are determining our future wellbeing. Our voices are powerful and I hope this case inspires more young people to push for stronger, fasterand deeper cuts to carbon emissions.

“Our futures depend on it.”

ENDS

Avi Prince, 17 years of age,  media statement here.