Showing posts with label government policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government policy. Show all posts

Tuesday 12 March 2024

NSW Minister for Finance Courtney Houssos has written to 128 councils urging those who use ticketless parking fines to address shortcoming in their approach. Requests councils to provide an on the spot, written notification to drivers

 

9 News, 11 March 2024






ECHO, 11 March 2024:


The days of receiving ticketless council parking fines in NSW are to end thanks to new directions from the Labor state government.


Half of all fines processed by Revenue NSW are reportedly council parking fines, with 48 councils issuing ticketless fines including the Tweed, Ballina and Lismore local government areas (LGAs).


Some councils have abandoned the use of on-the-spot paper fines altogether.


The former coalition state government introduced the ticketless scheme as a trial in May 2020 before expanding it to more councils in December 2020.


Local governments included in the scheme can lodge parking infringements directly with Revenue NSW, along with photographic evidence, rather than by leaving a ticket on the offending car.


Drivers are in most cases unaware they’ve received a fine until it arrives by mail or the Service NSW app.


NSW Minister for Finance Courtney Houssos says the scheme has eroded trust in the state’s parking fine system.


Minister pushes for photographic evidence in parking fines


The minister on Sunday issued a media release saying she’d written to all 128 councils across the state asking them to return to the practice of issuing on-the-spot written notifications, such as small pre-printed cards left on the windscreen.


While leaving a note isn’t mandatory under state regulations, the minister says drivers who know they’ve been booked may want to collect evidence such as photos and details of where they parked in case they want to seek a review.


This note does not necessarily need to form part of the infringement notice but at a minimum it should inform the driver they will soon receive an infringement notice via post or the Service NSW app,’ Ms Houssos wrote in her letter, included in Sunday’s media release.


The minister also requested councils using ticketless fines to review processes to make sure photographic evidence is captured and sent to Revenue NSW.


Lismore council issues nearly $130K in ticketless parking fines


Concerns were also raised about the timeliness of notifications to drivers, with some people said to have received multiple ticketless fines before being told.


The scheme is further accused of having a reduced impact in terms of immediate parking offence deterrence and driver behaviour influence.


On the Northern Rivers, the Lismore City Council is recorded as issuing the most ticketless parking fines in 2023 at 898, followed by the Ballina Shire Council at 473 and the Tweed Shire Council at two.


Ticketless fines in the Lismore LGA were valued at more than $127,000.


The local figures paled in comparison to some metropolitan councils, where fines in the tens of thousands were recorded.


The North Sydney Council issued 52,251 ticketless fines, for example.


The Byron Shire Council wasn’t included in the list.....



NSW Government, Minister for Finance, 10 March 2024 media release at:

https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/ticketless-parking-fines-must-meet-community-expectations



Friday 16 February 2024

Less than a year into its first term in office is the NSW Minns Labor Government shaping up to be just another environmental vandal?


In late December 2023 two matters were obvious. Firstly, even a cursory look at Forestry Corporation of NSW's collection of penalty notices, warnings and secondly adverse judgments indicated the list was growing longer [see Background] and secondly, its corporate business losses remained a drain on the NSW state treasury with annual financial statement showing est. $15 million loss on native hardwood timber operations in 2022-23, following est. $9 million loss in 2021-22 and est. &19.1 million loss in 2020-21 [based on Forestry NSW annual reports].


Something had to give and the NSW Government has obviously decided it wasn't going to be the logging practices of Forestry NSW.


I rather suspect (bearing in mind Coastal IFOA conditions can only be amended jointly by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Agriculture) that both the Premier and the timber industry may have decided that the current Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional NSW and Minister for Western NSW was the politician to target - 2023 being her first time in any ministerial position and her previous five shadow portfolios since May 2019 having nothing to do with either agriculture or forestry and little to do with regional NSW.


In the second half of 2023 this minister was directly involved in nine meeting concerning "forestry matters".


MEETING NUMBER ONE 20.07.23: Minister Moriaty & Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, University of Melbourne Business School, Australian Workers’ Union, CFMEU Manufacturing Division, Treasurer Mookhey, [Environment] Minister Sharpe re "Forestry matters".


After that in no particular occurrence order, meeting parties were:

Minister Moriaty & CFMEU;

Minister Moriaty & ForestWorks;

Minister Moriaty & Australian Forest Products Association;

Minister Moriaty & M&M Timbers, Greensill Bros, Mark Banasiak MLC [Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party];

Minister Moriaty & Australian Forest Products Association, The Pentarch Group;

Minister Moriaty & E Fitzpatrick & T Lions, Fitzpatrick and Co, Client – Timber NSW;

Minister Moriaty & Pentarch Group, Dr Michael Holland MP [ALP]

Minister Moriaty & South Coast Timbers, Dr Michael Holland MP [ALP].


Whereas the Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for Environment and Minister for Heritage's meeting schedule for the same period shows a more limited interest in forestry issues and one suspects that she may have passed the buck after that 20 July 2023 meeting.


  • MEETING NUMBER ONE 20.07.2023: Joint meeting Minister Sharpe & Moriarty, Mookhey with Australian Climate & Biodiversity Foundation, Uni Melb Business School, AWU, CFMEU re "Forestry industry reform".
  • Minister Sharpe & North East Forest Alliance re Forestry & GKNP;
  • Minister Sharpe & Hurford Group - re Private Forestry.


This ministerial sharing arrangement appears to indicate the city-centric Minns Labor Government is holding fast to the fallacies surrounding its native timber industry as Forestry Corporation NSW losses mount and the timber industry lobby groups become a persistent earworm.


It is noted that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of the NSW Government Planning and Environment Cluster sitting in the portfolio of the Minister for Environment and Heritage, did not have a seat at the table during any of these meetings and yet it appears to have been the vehicle used to introduce further reductions in levels of protection for native wildlife in state forests.


Sadly, the following media releases demonstrate why and how, what native hardwood forests remain within state forests are about to become the government-endorsed playground of an out-of-control Forestry Corporation NSW.


NSW EPA, media release, 2 February 2024:


New protections for endangered southern greater gliders

02 February 2024


Endangered Southern Greater Gliders across the east coast of NSW will be better protected under NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) amendments to forestry rules that will protect more hollow-bearing trees in operations where gliders are present.


From 9 February, changes to the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval (CIFOA) protocols will come into effect, requiring Forestry Corporation of NSW (FCNSW) to meet new protection requirements for southern greater gliders.


EPA Chief Executive Officer, Tony Chappel said the change was a significant step-forward in the long-term protection of gliders as well as other native animals reliant on hollow-bearing trees such as possums, owls and parrots.


This change means that instead of depending on unreliable point in time surveys to find the habitat of the gliders, we will assume the species is present and conserve their habitat,” Mr Chappel said.


“This ensures the critical habitats of some of our most endangered and much-loved native animals are protected.


We have reviewed extensive research, sought expert views and believe this change strikes the right balance, resulting in significant ecological and regulatory improvement to the current arrangements.


We have also consulted FCNSW to ensure any potential timber supply impacts are known and managed.


If non-compliances with these new conditions are found, the EPA will not hesitate to take appropriate regulatory action to ensure greater gliders are being protected in forestry operations.”


The changes can be found on the EPA website here


The new CIFOA requirements include:


  • A 50-metre exclusion zone around known recorded locations of greater glider dens.


  • Protection of extra greater glider trees in addition to existing hollow bearing and giant tree requirements:


*Six trees per hectare greater than 80cm in diameter in high greater glider density areas, in addition to the eight hollow bearing trees currently required to be protected.


*Four trees per hectare greater than 50cm in diameter in lower density areas, in addition to the eight hollow bearing trees currently required to be protected.


*The retention of additional hollows and future hollow-bearing trees in areas where greater gliders are less likely to occur.


  • Greater glider trees must prioritise hollows (especially ones with evidence of use) where they exist.


  • Undertaking of a monitoring program to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of these new rules for greater gliders.


A new map that shows where these different greater glider areas occur.


World Wildlife Fund Australia, news release, 2 February 2024:


Conservation groups outraged; scientists not consulted


The NSW Environment Protection Authority will no longer require Forestry Corp to search for and identify the den trees of endangered greater gliders before logging operations.


Instead Forestry Corp will be required to protect just six extra trees per hectare, greater than 80cm, in addition to the existing requirement to protect eight hollow-bearing trees.


I’m shocked, this is a huge step backwards. Decisions like this will hurtle this species much more rapidly towards extinction. The EPA executive is abdicating its responsibility to protect threatened species,” said Dr Kita Ashman, Threatened Species & Climate Adaptation Ecologist, WWF Australia.


The issue of greater glider den trees came to a head when Forestry Corp bulldozed thousands of trees in Tallaganda State Forest, one of the last greater glider strongholds.


Last August the EPA launched an investigation saying it had no confidence Forestry Corp had properly searched for den trees and protected them with 50 metre exclusion zones, as the government-owned corporation was required to do.


Now the EPA has removed the requirement that Forestry Corp search for den trees.


Eminent greater glider scientists were not consulted about these changes. We need a fundamental shift in how forests are managed if greater gliders are to survive. The EPA needs to take leadership and improve forestry rules to better protect greater gliders and all threatened species,” said Wilderness Australia Operations Manager Andrew Wong.


Known greater glider den trees will still be protected with exclusion zones. But who’s going to identify them if there’s no requirement for Forestry Corp to do it. That job will be left to citizen scientists but it’s unclear whether they’ll be legally able to access logging areas before they’re bulldozed. This is a complete mess,” said South East Forest Rescue Coordinator Scott Daines.

[my yellow highlighting]


NSW EPA, media release, 9 February 2024:

Forestry protocol

09 February 2024


The commencement of the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval (CIFOA) protocol and the site-specific biodiversity condition for greater gliders will be postponed by a week.


Last week, we announced changes to the protocol which will have an important role in protecting hollow bearing trees.


We have been consulting with stakeholders and considering their feedback to ensure we find the most appropriate way to address concerns while achieving long-term protections for this endangered species.


Existing requirements remain in force during this period and we will not hesitate to take regulatory action, including stop work orders, where we think there will be non-compliance.


Until the protocol and site-specific biodiversity conditions are finalised, we will treat all glider habitat forests as high risk.


We want to thank all stakeholders for working with us as we refine these changes.



BACKGROUND


A brief look at the history of Forestry NSW warnings, penalties.........


NSW Environmental Protection Agency (NSWEPA), media release, 22 December 2023:


Forestry Corporation ordered to pay $104,000

22 December 2023


Forestry Corporation of NSW (FCNSW) is required to pay more than $100,000 after illegally felling hollow bearing trees in Mogo State Forest on the South Coast in March 2020.


The sentence was handed down after FCNSW challenged one of three $15,000 penalty infringement notices issued by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), for breaching site-specific operating conditions following the damaging 2019/20 black summer bushfires.


Under these conditions, FCNSW was required to permanently retain all hollow-bearing trees to prevent the loss of habitat for hollow-dependent species.


Following the challenge, FCNSW was found guilty of the offence under the Forestry Act 2012 in Bega Local Court in November 2023. The Magistrate was satisfied all four trees had visible hollows before they were cut down.


The sentence was delivered in Batemans Bay Local Court yesterday, convicting FCNSW and ordering them to pay a fine of $20,000 and $84,340 to the EPA as legal costs.


EPA Executive Director of Regulatory Operations Jason Gordon welcomed the sentence and said the court’s decision supports the EPA’s position that the visibility of tree hollows must be assessed broadly, and requires scrutiny from several different angles.


All hollow-bearing trees, living or dead, are important because they provide vital habitat for endangered and native species,” Mr Gordon said.


They can take decades to naturally form and provide a necessary refuge for animals from the weather and predators, as well as safe sites for roosting and breeding.


Any decrease in the availability and variety of tree hollows can lead to a significant loss of species diversity and abundance.


This outcome is a great result for the EPA and signifies the care needed when conducting forestry operations to comply with conditions and ensure homes for our wildlife are protected.”


In sentencing, the Magistrate said there’s no reason for a casual approach to environmental protection and the community views environmental offences as extremely serious.


The Magistrate required FCNSW to publicise the offence and the orders made against it in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Bay Post/ Moruya Examiner which would send a clear message of deterrence.


A partial list of Forestry Corporation NSW ( FCNSW) penalty notices and prosecutions July 2018 to June 2022:


Jun 2022 — EPA fines FCNSW — $15,000 for allegedly failing to comply with post-fire conditions South Brooman State Forest.

Jun 2022 — EPA prosecutes FCNSW for alleged breaches of post-fire conditions at Yambulla State Forest, near Eden after the 2019/20 bushfires.

Jun 2022 EPA prosecutes FCNSW $135,600 + 150,000 in legal costs fines and costs totalling $285,600 have been levelled against FCNSW after the Land and Environment Court found tree felling in exclusion zones had done “actual harm” to koala habitat Wild Cattle Creek State Forest on Dorrigo Plateau.

Apr 2022EPA penalty infrigement notice to FCNSW $45,000 felling hollow bearing trees across three areas — Mogo State Forest  

Feb 2021EPA penalty infrigement notice to FCNSW — $15,000 failed to mark a riparian exclusion zone boundary, contrary to the requirements of the Integrated Forestry Operations Approval held by FCNSW — Olney State Forest 

Feb 2021EPA issued two penalty notices and one official caution to FCNSW —  $30,000 —  inspections of the area following a harvesting operation identified 10 freshly cut mature trees within the hard and soft protection zones of a second order stream; a significant amount of debris pushed into a stream bed; and evidence of machine access, and earthworks caused by harvesting machinery within a protected zone — Ballengarra State Forest  

Mar 2021EPA two penalty notices three official cautions $33,000 — notices: for allegedly not including the critically endangered Swift Parrot records in planning for operations, and cautions: an alleged failure by FCNSW to mark-up eucalypt feed trees, an essential source of food for the birds, prior to harvesting  — Boyne, Bodalla and Mogo state forests  

Apr 2020EPA penalty notice —  $31,100 —  three alleged offences —  state forests Tantawangalo (not marking an adequate number of trees for retention and not marking the boundary of an environmentally sensitive area as an exclusion zone, required to protect the habitat of the Powerful Owl) and Bago (not marking an adequate number of habitat trees that needed to be retained).

Apr 2019 — $16,500 failed to implement the required protections for the rare threatened plant despite knowing of its location — Gibberagee State Forest

July 2018 — $30,000 breaching their environment protection licence and causing water pollution Gladstone State Forest



Thursday 11 January 2024

Federal Court of Australia dismisses historic logging case, January 2024

 

On 10 January 2024 the Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgement in North East Forest Alliance Inc v Commonwealth of Australia [2024] FCA 5.


In part the judgment read:


10 CONCLUSION


1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS


1 On 31 March 2000, the first respondent, the Commonwealth, and the second respondent, the State of New South Wales (NSW or the State), entered into an intergovernmental agreement being the Regional Forest Agreement for North East New South Wales (Upper North East and Lower North East) (the NE RFA). The purpose of the NE RFA included establishing “the framework for the management of the forests of the Upper North East and Lower North East regions”: recital 1A of the NE RFA. The NE RFA provided that it was to remain in force for 20 years from 31 March 2000, unless terminated earlier or extended in accordance with its provisions: clause 6 of the NE RFA. Subsequently, the Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 (Cth) (RFA Act). A primary purpose of the RFA Act is to reinforce the certainty which the NE RFA and other RFAs between the Commonwealth and States were intended to provide for regional forestry management by “giv[ing] effect to certain obligations of the Commonwealth under Regional Forest Agreements”: s 3(a) of the RFA Act.


2 Shortly before the expiry of the 20 year period for the NE RFA, on 28 November 2019 the respondents executed the “Deed of variation in relation to the Regional Forest Agreement for the North East Region” (the Variation Deed). The Variation Deed stated that it “amend[ed] the Regional Forest Agreement on the terms and conditions contained in this deed”: Variation Deed, Preamble B. As described in further detail below, one effect of the Variation Deed was to extend the NE RFA at least by a further 20 years.


3 The applicant, North East Forest Alliance Incorporated, seeks a declaration pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) that the NE RFA as amended by the Variation Deed (the Varied NE RFA) is not a “regional forest agreement” within the meaning of s 4 of the RFA Act. The consequence of so holding would not be that the Varied NE RFA is invalid, as the applicant accepts. Rather, the consequence relevantly would be that neither s 38 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) nor s 6(4) of the RFA Act would apply so as to exempt forestry operations undertaken in accordance with the Varied NE RFA from the approval processes under Part 3 of the EPBC Act.


4 In essence, the applicant contends that the Varied NE RFA is not an RFA for the purposes of the RFA Act because, in amending the NE RFA, regard was not had to an “assessment” of “environmental values” and “principles of ecologically sustainable management” as required by paragraph (a) of the definition of an RFA in s 4 of the RFA Act. This is because, in the applicant’s submission, of the failure in the materials before the Prime Minister, who executed the Variation Deed on behalf of the Commonwealth, to sufficiently evaluate those matters and to do so on the basis of reasonably contemporaneous information.


5 Those submissions are rejected for the reasons which I develop below. First, properly construed, there is no requirement that regard must be had to an assessment before an RFA is amended, including by extending its term, in order that the intergovernmental agreement continue to meet the definition of an RFA. That requirement applies only where the parties enter into an RFA. Secondly and in any event, there is no implicit requirement that an assessment must be sufficiently evaluative and reasonably contemporaneous in order to satisfy the condition in paragraph (a) of the RFA definition. Rather, the question is whether, objectively speaking, regard was had to assessments of the values and principles referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of an RFA. Thirdly, applying that test, the evidence establishes that the materials before the Prime Minister, and in particular the “Assessment of matters pertaining to renewal of Regional Forest Agreements” (Assessment Report), addressed each of the values and principles referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of an RFA. That being so and there being no issue that the Prime Minister had regard to the materials attached to the Prime Minister’s brief, the applicant has not established that the Varied NE RFA is no longer an RFA for the purposes of the RFA Act, even if an assessment was required before the RFA was amended. It follows that the application for relief must be dismissed.


6 Finally, it is important to stress that the effect of an RFA is not to leave a regulatory void with respect to the forest regions covered by the NE RFA. Rather, as I explain below, an RFA provides an alternative mechanism by which the objects of the EPBC Act can be achieved by way of an intergovernmental agreement allocating responsibility to a State for regulation of environmental matters of national environmental significance within an agreed framework. As such, the question of whether or not to enter into or vary an intergovernmental agreement of this nature is essentially a political one, the merits of which are matters for the government parties, and not the Courts, to determine.


In essence the judgment was stating that legislation, rules and regulations governing New South Wales forestry agreements allow for the Commonwealth and the NSW governments to vary agreements as they see fit, regardless of contemporary environmental realities existing within public and private native forests which potentially place natural biodiversity and vulnerable/threatened wildlife species at risk through depletion of flora and fauna habitat or complete loss of habitat.


The judgment also noted that there are clauses within the North East Forest Agreement (NSRFA) which did not create legally binding obligations on either the state government or NSW Forestry Corporation. That there was no requirement that an RFA must impose legally enforceable obligations in order to constitute an RFA for the purposes of the RFA Act. Indeed, that Commonwealth has the ability to pass legislation or subordinate legislation, which are inconsistent with the NE RFA.


These failures of policy and law meant there was no requirement for new comprehensive regional assessments to be undertaken before a variation deed was executed in relation to the NE RFA which covers the NSW North Coast region from South West Rocks to the NSW-Qld border.


The judgement in North East Forest Alliance Inc v Commonwealth of Australia clearly made no finding in relation to the environmental sustainability of logging operations. A fact that the Environmental Defenders Office noted in its response as solicitor for the appellants, North East Forest Alliance Inc.


This did not stop lobby group Forestry Australia quickly sending out a media release misleadingly trumpeting:

"Our Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) time and time again have proven to be a successful way of sustainably managing Australia’s forests for all their values, and the Federal Court has confirmed this today."


Friday 22 December 2023

When it comes to trashing the built environment & amenities in small regional towns the Minns Labor Government is as big a destructive bully as its Liberal-Nationals predecessors

 


This is a cruel hoax being perpetrated by the NSW Minns Labor Government which benefits no-one except financial speculators and slapdash property developers 


Echo, 21 December 2023:


The latest ‘affordable housing’ reforms by the NSW Labor government have been roundly criticised by the peak body representing councils, with Local Government NSW (LGNSW) saying it ‘further erodes council involvement in town planning, giving developers increasingly free rein in both city and country’.


The legislation that governs NSW ‘affordable housing’ is the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), and a revamped SEPP came into effect last week under NSW Labor, which aims ‘to make it faster and easier to build more affordable housing’.


It followed the original policy announcement made earlier in June.


A joint statement by Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Paul Scully, and Minister for Housing, Homelessness and the North Coast, Rose Jackson, spun a positive message around the reform, including amendments ‘to ensure the bonuses are available to Build to Rent developments, by allowing them to apply in commercial zones, even if residential accommodation is prohibited under the relevant Local Environmental Plan (LEP)’.


Inconsistent statements


Ms Jackson said, in the media release, ‘These reforms are about bringing together all key delivery partners while making sure we consider the views of councils and communities, so we get high quality homes supported by the right infrastructure and amenity.’


Yet LGNSW president, Cr Turley, said the new SEPP removes councils from the approval process, which removes community checks and balances, and that the reforms also do not address how the infrastructure required by the additional density and growth in population would be funded.


You can vote out a council which makes planning decisions you don’t support, but you have no such power to get rid of the bureaucrats,’ she said.


The Echo asked the office of Ms Jackson why she believes councils’ views were considered in the revised SEPP, given the views of LGNSW.


Additionally, The Echo asked how can the NSW government ‘be confident that their affordable housing reform will be effective, given there is no measure of effectiveness in this reform?’.


Also, ‘Does Ms Jackson support a parliamentary inquiry into the SEPP to establish how affordable housing outcomes can be measured and improved?’


Ms Jackson’s reply will be published if received.


Cr Turley added the SEPP change also allows developers of the biggest buildings to bypass every single component of the council approval process, leaving no protection for local communities.


Under the State Significant Development (SSD) pathway, communities will be at the mercy of faceless government bureaucrats any time a building costs more than $75m in the city, or $30m in regional areas’, she said.


Sunday 25 June 2023

Australian Politics in 2023: The pros and cons of rent control proposals

 

Academia invites itself into a contentious debate being had across sections of the national electorate.....


University of New South Wales (UNSW) media release via Medianet, 22 June 2023:


Proposed by the Australian Greens, a two-year emergency rent cap prevents rent increases, providing relief for tenants. However, it may lead to landlords selling their properties. Photo: Getty


 Would you benefit from a rent freeze?

 
 
UNSW
 
 

Mandated rent freezes, one of the rental crisis solutions proposed by the Australian Greens, seek to address the urgent needs of renters. The solution involves introducing an immediate two-year emergency freeze on rent, followed by the implementation of a rent cap where rent increases are capped within certain limits. 

This means that regardless of market fluctuations and rising interest rates, tenants could find solace in knowing their rent payments will remain relatively stable and stress less about their financial situation.  

“Rent increases have been getting much larger and more common,” said Dr Chris Martin, Senior Research Fellow in the City Futures Research Centre at UNSW Arts, Design & Architecture

How much have rents gone up? 

Research has shown that the national average of asking rents has increased by 11 per cent in the last 12 months. Renters in Sydney have seen the median average weekly rent for new tenancies soar by 20 per cent over the past year to $650 per week.  

“When properties are re-let, a new tenancy commences and 95 per cent are getting a higher rent than for the previous tenancy,” said Dr Martin.

“Most are going for at least 10 per cent more than previously let. About 75 per cent of properties with existing tenancies have recorded rent increases over the past 12 months, and about 25 per cent are getting increases of more than 10 per cent.” 

With statistics such as these, Dr Martin said a rent freeze, and a subsequent rent cap, would protect existing tenants from rents rising to similar levels.  

Dr Martin explained that significant rental increases are a crucial price signal to property owners. This should encourage the supply of new rental properties, ideally from sources outside the existing stock, such as newly constructed dwellings or currently unused and underused properties like second homes and Airbnb listings.  

“The goal is to expand the rental market by increasing available housing options.  

“That price signal is currently going into the existing stock; as landlords increase rent prices, tenants are being pushed out of their existing homes. That brings the property to the market but also means there’s another tenant looking for a lower-cost rental property or are being made homeless.  

“By regulating rent increases for existing tenants, the price signal from the new tenancy market is directed into sources of genuine new supply,” said Dr Martin. 

This approach aims to ensure that the rental market expands in a sustainable manner while simultaneously addressing the immediate needs of tenants facing displacement and housing instability.  

Rent freeze policy pitfalls  

While the rent freeze policy is designed to alleviate financial stress on renters, crucial questions remain about the impact on landlords.  

With interest rates on the rise and mortgage repayments increasing, the policy could have serious implications for homeowners.  

Dr Peter Swan, a Professor in the School of Banking & Finance at UNSW Business School, said the rental crisis would become “far worse for tenants and landlords” if the policy came into force.  

“While it is true that tenants who are not evicted may gain temporarily, tenants as a whole lose as rental accommodation is withdrawn, fewer new places are provided, and maintenance of rent-controlled housing deteriorates.   

“Rental rates rise due to restricted supply, while landlords with sitting tenants suffer. Eventually, a black market evolves with ‘protected’ tenants unable to move and with the rampant use of sizeable ‘key money’ paid by prospective new tenants.   

“The latest version of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in the ACT reveals that pre-existing rent control in Canberra has doubled in its severity in 2019.  It now limits rent increases to no more than 10 per cent above the increase in the rent component of the ACT Consumer Price Index (CPI). It was previously 20 per cent.   

“As a result, it has left some landlords no option but to sell their properties, leaving evicted tenants back on a tighter rental market.” 

Prof. Swan explained how another example can be seen in the Californian Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which imposed a 10 per cent cap on rental increases.   

According to a 2018 analysis by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on San Francisco legislation, rent control resulted in a 15 per cent reduction in rental supply as landlords converted their properties to exempt building types, subsequently causing a 5.1 per cent rise in rents.  

“The repercussions of these circumstances result in a significant portion of tenants being at risk of eviction and will face the challenge of re-entering an increasingly competitive rental market, where they may be required to pay, effectively, a substantial increase in rent in the form of a bribe to secure a new place.  

“Interest rates will persistently climb until we align with the rates of countries like the US, UK, and others. As a result, these escalations will lead to even higher rental prices and if restrictions were imposed on these unavoidable increases, the current inventory of rental housing will diminish even more,” said Prof. Swan.  

A possible solution: adopting other rental practices  

The rent freeze policy has both positive and negative implications, and it has prompted the need to examine the delicate balance between the needs of renters and the challenges faced by landlords.  

“The solution to the crisis lies in boosting the housing supply. However, governments and councils commonly exhibit significant reluctance when it comes to permitting new developments or streamlining bureaucratic processes plagued by excessive regulations and prolonged delays,” said Prof Swan.  

However, governments and councils often hesitate to approve new developments or streamline bureaucratic processes, which can create housing supply bottlenecks. This begs the question: should we turn to international renting practices and consider alternative methods?  

Dr Martin said: “All these variations on rent regulations should be on the table. 

Scotland implemented a rent freeze in September 2022, and in April 2023 moved to a rent cap of 3 per cent, in most cases. For years, most Canadian provinces have had rent caps - called ‘guidelines’ there - that limits rent increases to a certain percentage rate set by the government. 

“Ireland has a system of ‘rent pressure zones’, if a local government area records increases in median rents above a certain threshold for successive quarters, a cap kicks in, currently 2 per cent, and not more than once in 12 months.”