Sunday, 19 February 2017

Choice reports on life in Australia's private rental market


‘54% of regional renters are +6% more likely to face discrimination than metro renters if they have kids or pets’


Australia has traditionally been a nation of homeowners. However, as the dream of the quarter-acre block dwindles, more and more of us are renting. Between 1994-5 and 2013-14 the number of Australian households that rent increased from 25.7% to 31%.  While home ownership offers many advantages, renting is not necessarily bad for consumers or society more broadly. Many advanced economies such as Germany have low levels of home ownership. However, Australia lacks many of the protections these countries afford to renters.

Australian renters live in a unique rental market. Australia relies on small investors supported by generous tax concessions to provide nearly all of its private rental housing. Social housing (made up of public housing provided by the states, community housing provided by not for profit companies and Indigenous community housing providers) makes up less than 4% of the housing market, down from over 5% 15 years ago.

Home ownership rates continue to decline in Australia as investors buy a greater share of the housing supply which subsequently increases pressure on renting and lowers owner occupation. Australia now has lower rates of outright ownership than owning with a mortgage, and investors make up nearly half of our home purchases. Housing is subsidised by the federal government via tax concessions. Home owners face no capital gains tax while investors have a capital gains tax discount of 50% and are able to deduct loses incurred through maintenance and interest payments. Some renters are subsidised through Commonwealth Rent Assistance but it is estimated that owners receive an average of $8000 per annum and investors $4000, while renters receive $1000.

These tax arrangements distort the Australian housing market, increase competition for limited supply, inflate house prices and unfairly advantage investors over owner-occupiers and lessors over lessees. This has contributed to a shortage of affordable rental housing available to low-income households of 500,000 dwellings due to frustrated prospective owners displacing other renters from available properties.3 These issues contribute significantly to Australia’s rising rate of homelessness……

As property prices have grown faster in the cities and in certain states such as NSW, Vic and WA, more people in those areas have been entering the rental market. As a result, renters in regional areas are more likely to have been renting for over five years (79%) than those in metro areas (64%). Meanwhile more renters in WA (41%), Vic (40%) and NSW (30%), including Sydney or Melbourne (39%) specifically, have been renting for less than five years than those in Qld (24%), SA (22%) or the other states and territories (28%). This suggests that more Australians have entered the rental market only recently in Vic, WA and metro areas, notably Sydney and Melbourne……

Most renters personally pay between $201 and $400 a week (53%), with 30% of renters paying $200 or less and 16% paying over $400. Unsurprisingly this varies considerably based on location, income and other factors. For example, 49% of renters in metro areas personally pay more than $301 a week in rent versus roughly a quarter in regional areas and 42% of renters overall. This rises to 55% for renters in Australia’s two largest cities – Sydney and Melbourne. Meanwhile, in these cities almost three quarters of renters live in households where the total rent is more than $301 a week. This aligns with the Rental Affordability Index data that found the median rent in Sydney in 2016 was $480 per week……

Many regional areas of Australia are more affordable but some also display unaffordable rents, especially for low and moderate income households. East and west coastal zones often display affordability levels similar to capitals…..

Despite recent talk of an over-supply of rental properties, Australia remains a landlord’s market with three quarters of renters believing that competition between applicants is fierce. As a result, prospective renters don’t feel like they can ask for changes and need to simply take what is on offer (62%), and worry that they’ll need to offer more money if they want to secure a place to live (55%). Renters also feel like the amount of information they are required to give for an application is excessive (60%) and unreasonable (46%). This creates concerns over privacy, with some renters (45%) fearing that their information will not be handled in accordance with the law. While renters largely agree that the application process is transparent (39%), 22% do not……

A sizable minority of renters (8%) are currently living in properties they regard as needing urgent repairs. This includes one in ten of those renting a house and 11% of women. People on a rolling lease are more likely to live in a property in need of urgent repairs (14%) than those on fixed-term leases. Renters in NSW (10%) and SA (12%) are more likely to report needing urgent repairs than those in Vic (6%) and NT, Tas and the ACT (2%). Meanwhile, 30% of renters report requiring non-urgent repairs to their property.

Only a quarter of renters report not having ever experienced any problem with their current property. In fact, many renters have experienced quite severe problems. For example, one in five renters have experienced leaking or flooding while the same amount have had mould that reappears or is difficult to remove – which poses a health risk…..


While many renters have experienced problems, not all have received adequate or prompt responses from their agent or landlord. Of all renters, just under a quarter received no response at all to their request for a repair. Meanwhile 21% had to wait over a week to even get a response about an urgent repair and 23% had to wait over a month to get a response for a nonurgent repair. Not only are renters not getting timely responses, but they can also face adverse consequences when they speak up. 11% of renters copped a rent hike after requesting a repair and 10% said that their landlord or agent became angry after they requested a repair. Some renters have even faced eviction for making a complaint (2%), requesting a repair (2%) or for taking their complaint to a third party like a tribunal or a tenants’ rights organisation (2%). Renters also had experiences with landlords that would access the property unannounced (6%) and take photos during inspections without permission (5%). One in ten renters also reported that they had experiences with routine inspections being arranged at times that were inconvenient…..

The experience of renters differs depending on whether they lease directly through a landlord or through a real estate agent. Of the renters who rent through a landlord and currently need repairs to their property, 75% have raised the repair with their landlord. Eighty-four percent of people renting through a real estate agent have raised their need for a repair. People renting through an agent are much more likely to have raised the issue multiple times (62%) than those renting through a landlord (41%). Overall about a fifth of renters received a positive response (all requested repairs have or will be carried out), regardless of renting through an agent or landlord, with 8% and 7% receiving a negative response respectively. Fourteen percent of those renting through an agent did not receive any response after raising a need for repair, while 10% of those renting through a landlord did not receive any response. And of those renting through a landlord, 64% received a mixed response (having some of the requested repairs completed, others not), compared to 56% of those renting through an agent…..

Half of all renters report having experienced some form of discrimination when looking for a rental property in the last five years. This includes discrimination for having a pet (23%), for receiving government payments (17%), on the basis of age (14%), for having young children (10%) and being a single parent (7%). Discrimination on the basis of race (6%), for needing to use a bond loan (5%), gender (5%), disability (5%) and sexuality (2%) are also experienced, though are less common. Older renters are much less likely to report discrimination. In fact only 20% of renters over 65 reported having experienced discrimination at all. Even renters aged 45-64 were less (43%) likely to report having felt discriminated against. Younger renters under the age of 35 were more likely to say they’ve been discriminated against (55%) – particularly in regard to their age (22%). Men (42%) reported less discrimination than women (56%) overall, though both were as likely to report discrimination based on gender (5%). Location also appears to have an impact, with renters in the NT, Tas and the ACT (41%) less likely to report discrimination and renters in SA (61%) much more likely to.

The impact of income on discrimination is mixed. For example households earning between $70,001 and $100,000 (41%) were less likely to report discrimination, while households earning between $100,001 and $150,000 were more likely to (55%). Fifty-seven percent of households earning less than $35,000 said they had been discriminated against, 62% of households earning $35,001–50,000 and 60% of households earning $50,001–70,000. However, the nature of the discrimination people reported experiencing varied greatly – those on low incomes were much more likely to have faced discrimination for receiving a government payment, for being a single parent, or based on their race or on their disability. Households on higher incomes were more likely to face discrimination for having young kids and having a pet. Renters who have previously had a disagreement with a landlord or agent about bond are the most likely to report discrimination (75%).

Read the full report here.

Saturday, 18 February 2017

Tweet of the Week


Political Cartoon of the Month


Democratic Underground

Jut because it is beautiful........ (22)


Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks
Southern Sierra Nevada
California USA

Friday, 17 February 2017

North Coast marine species protection record of NSW Coalition Government a very sad affair in 2017


One dead Great White Shark and 30 dead in non-target/ innocuous marine species. The NSW Coalition Government has a worse by-catch kill rate than many super trawlers.

Report period: 8 Jan 2017 – 7 Feb 2017

Over 8 Jan – 7 Feb 2017 nets were deployed on 27–31 days at five beaches and each checked 28-39 times (Table 1). The contractors are required to check the mesh nets twice a day, but if the weather or bar conditions prevent safe access, then fewer checks are made.

Table 1: The number of days that mesh nets were deployed at each beach, and the number of times each mesh net was checked over 8 Jan - 7 Feb 2017.
Beach
Number of days net deployed
Number of time net checked
Seven Mile, Lennox Head
27
28
Sharpes, Ballina
27
28
Shelly, Ballina
27
29
Lighthouse, Ballina
27
29
Main, Evans Head
31
39

During the second month, 72 individuals across 11 species were caught in the mesh nets

56% were released
44% were deceased and had tissue samples retained for analyses (Table 2).
of the three target shark species (White, Tiger and Bull Sharks), one White Shark was caught in the mesh nets at Sharpes Beach; the animal was deceased and retained for analysis.

      Table 2: The numbers of each species caught in the mesh nets that were alive and released, or dead at each beach.
Beach
Species
Number alive
Number dead
Seven Mile, Lennox Head
Cownose ray
1
0

Loggerhead turtle
1
0

Manta ray
0
1

Whitespotted guitar fish
1
0
Sharpes, Ballina
Cownose ray
1
0

Great hammerhead shark
0
2

White shark
0
1

Green turtle
0
1

Manta ray
2
3
Shelly, Ballina
Bottlenose dolphin
0
1

Cownose ray
3
2

Great hammerhead shark
0
1

Manta ray
0
1

Spotted eagle ray
3
0
Lighthouse, Ballina
Cownose ray
3
2

Great hammerhead shark
0
4

Ocellated eagle ray
1
0

Spotted eagle ray
1
0
Main, Evans Head
Cownose ray
17
7

Great hammerhead shark
0
3

Loggerhead turtle
0
1

Manta ray
0
1

Ocellated eagle ray
1
1

Spinner shark
1
0

Spotted eagle ray
4
0
Total

40
32

Koalas in Iluka on the NSW North Coast and coastal development pressure


Who would not get pleasure in seeing this healthy young Koala peering down at them from the foliage?

Photograph supplied by Gabrielle Barto

It was sighted in Paperbark and then later Flooded Gum in Sid and Eileen Gill Park in Elizabeth Street, Iluka all day on Wednesday, 8th February 2017 and is one of those koalas giving lie to the myth much favoured by developers that the local koala population is functionally extinct.

The amateur photographer on the spot, Ms. Barto stated: May be the same koala sighted in Elizabeth St. on 5th January. Both sightings are within 250 metres of Hickey St. Iluka D/A site. One of the criteria for assessing critical koala habitat  (E.P.B.C  Critical Koala Habitat assessment tool) is that one or more koalas are sighted within 2 kms. of the edge of impact area, in this case the Hickey St. (D/A) site, within the last 5 years.

Passions run deep in Iluka not only for koalas, but also more generally for protecting biodiversity for future generations.

Letter to the Editor in the Clarence Valley Independent on 8 February 2017:


15 January at 20:07 

Koala sighting again.

Intersection of Hogan street and Elizabeth streets 5th January 2017 around 9.30 am. (West of the 160 lot development proposal)

Thank you and great work Essential Energy. They got here pretty qiuckly and it was a great relocation to the relative safety of the bush across the road.


This situation came about because of a dog chasing the koala. Hopefully the koala headed back into the Bundjalung National Park (to the East of this location) and to relative safety.


This bush heading back to the national park is going to be largely cleared and broken up if the 160 lot subdivision gets approval. The re-submitted DA still does not include a continuous vegetation corridor for koalas to move in a east west or west east direction!

Koalas will become more vulnerable to dog attack and car strike unless the developer includes a realistic continuous vegetation corridor within the proposed development site.

Belatedly the NSW Coalition Government; is currently beginning the development of a whole of government koala strategy and asking for community feedback on planning issues and its Saving Our Species conservation strategy. At a federal level, the National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy expired in 2014. Word is that a new strategy is in the pipeline but at the moment we’re flying blind.

The best way to protect koalas is a tried and tested one. The scientists that identified the crisis ecoregion problem also identified the solution: large, well-connected protected areas. Only by protecting and connecting remaining koala habitat can the government enact meaningful conservation. Everything else is tinkering round the edges.

And only by demonstrating that it can effectively protect koalas can we have any confidence that the government can protect the rest of Australia’s extraordinary wildlife that doesn’t share the koala’s high profile. [The Guardian, 16 January 2017]

On the other hand professional property developer, climate change sceptic and alternate Clarence Valley Council representative on the NSW Northern Joint Planning Panel, Cr. Andrew Baker, made this characteristically snide comment on Saturday, 11 February 2016 in an email he cc’d to North Coast Voices1:

Thanks Gab for the copy

I hadn't appreciated the significance until your email.

It seems the only Koala sightings in the last 5 years have occurred at exactly the same time as Council is considering significant Iluka Development Applications.

I recall the identical occurrence as Council was about to consider the Anchorage Park expansion.

On the basis of your reports it seems development applications are proving extremely beneficial in attracting Koala to the area. Of course it might take a few more DA's to prove this obvious benefit but I expect this will now encourage further.

Of course I'm not suggesting the ability to encourage Koala is the only reason to support any development application - it will be just one of, if any, benefits to be considered along with disadvantages if any on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you for bringing this supporting information to our attention.

Regards

Andrew Baker

The tenor of this comment throws into doubt Cr. Baker’s ability to act as an unbiased council alternate (if called upon) in relation to this particular development application when it is considered by the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel in March this year.

North Coast Voices was not alone in noticing this comment, as one other recipient of Baker's email made clear when he told the councilor: "I find your comments not only highly offensive, but, given your supposedly impartial decision-making role as Councillor, deeply disturbing."

To which the property developing Cr. Baker's insouciant reply (again cc'd to this blog) was; "It's unfortunate that you are disturbed and offended. Surely that's some personal issue that can't be blamed only on my willingness to state the obvious?

And people wonder why - when all the world loves koalas - they are fast disappearing from this state's coastal landscape?

Note:
When deciding to send his reply email as "Reply All", Cr. Baker made a conscious choice to also make his personal views known to council staff having some responsibility for and/or carriage of formal advice to Council-in-the-Chamber in relation to DA SUB2015/0034. Thus muddying the waters considerably, given it is a number of concerned residents' understanding that a final staff report and recommendation on the development application is yet to be delivered.

Without wide consultation with indigenous peoples the Turnbull Government is fast tracking amendments to the C'wealth Native Title Act 1993


Without wide consultation with indigenous peoples the Turnbull Government has tabled a retrospective bill, Native title amendment (indigenous land use agreements) bill 2017, in order to overturn Federal Court of Australia orders handed down in McGlade  v Native Title Registrar [2017] FCAFC 10 and ensure that projects such as foreign multinational Adani Mining Pty Ltd’s Galilee Basin complex comprising six open-cut & five underground coal mines and associated infrastructure can proceed.

As it now stands this bill appears to allow a weakening of the authority of Native Title holders identified and named by the Native Title Tribunal in decisions made under existing provisions in Native Title Act 1993 as well as those who may be named in future decisions.

However, this is a complex issue given the number of existing Indigenous Land Use Agreements which have been entered into across Australia and merits Parliament’s attention – though perhaps not the less than 24 hour express train ride Turnbull gave it in the Lower House.

On 16 February the bill passed the House of Representatives with a majority of 9 MPs and has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which is expected to file a report on 17 March 2017.