Placeholder Content Image

Do tenancy reforms to protect renters cause landlords to exit the market?

<p>More Australians are <a href="https://theconversation.com/wealthy-landlords-and-more-sharehousing-how-the-rental-sector-is-changing-94394">renting their housing longer</a> than in the past. But they have relatively little legal security against rent increases and evictions compared to <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-australia-can-learn-from-overseas-about-the-future-of-rental-housing-90401">tenants in other countries</a>. When state governments suggest stronger protections for tenants, landlords and real estate agents <a href="https://www.reiq.com/articles/reiq-concerned-rental-reforms-unravel-rights-of-property-owners/">claim it will cause disinvestment</a> from the sector, increasing pressure on already tight rental markets.</p> <p>In <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/391">research</a> for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (<a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/about">AHURI</a>), published today, we put the “disinvestment” claim to the test. We looked at the impacts of tenancy reforms in New South Wales and Victoria on rental property records over 20 years, as well as surveying hundreds of property investors. We found no evidence to support this claim.</p> <p>We did find a high rate of turnover as properties enter and leave the sector. This happened regardless of tenancy law reforms. It’s a major cause of the unsettled nature of private rental housing for tenants.</p> <p>We suggest that if substantial tenancy reforms did cause less committed landlords to exit the sector, that might not be a bad thing.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">A tenancy law expert says it could be illegal in several states, while tenants’ advocates say it preys on vulnerable renters during Australia’s housing crisis. <a href="https://t.co/hQEdS80a3h">https://t.co/hQEdS80a3h</a> (via <a href="https://twitter.com/abcnews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@abcnews</a>)</p> <p>— ABC Australia (@ABCaustralia) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCaustralia/status/1587927668846399488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2022</a></p></blockquote> <p><strong>How did we test the disinvestment claim?</strong></p> <p>We analysed records of all rental bond lodgements and refunds in Sydney and Melbourne from 2000 to 2020. From these records we can see properties entering the rental sector for the first time (investment) and exiting the sector (disinvestment).</p> <p>We looked for changes in trends in property entries and exits around two law reform episodes: when the 2010 NSW Residential Tenancies Act took effect, and the start of a tenancy law reform review in Victoria in 2015.</p> <p>We found no evidence the NSW reforms affected property entries (investment). And property exits (disinvestment) were slightly reduced – that is, fewer properties exited than expected.</p> <p>In Victoria, we found property entries reduced slightly when the law reform review started – perhaps a sign of investors pausing for “due diligence”. We saw no effect on property exits.</p> <p>So in neither state did we find evidence of a disinvestment effect.</p> <p>We also surveyed 970 current and previous property investors, and got a similar picture. When deciding to invest, investors said prospective rental income and capital gains were the most important considerations, but tenancy laws were important too.</p> <p>On the other hand, tenancy laws were the least-cited reason for disposing of properties. Many more investors said they did it because they judged it a good time to sell and realise gains, or they wanted money for other purposes, or because the investment was not paying as they had hoped.</p> <p><strong>A state of constant churn</strong></p> <p>Our research also gives new insights into the private rental sector, which <a href="https://www.housingdata.gov.au/">has been growing</a> relative to owner-occupied and social housing.</p> <p>Small-holding “mum and dad” landlords dominate the sector. Some 70% of landlords own a single property. Multiple-property owners own more properties in total, but still relatively small numbers (rarely more than ten) compared to corporate landlords in other countries who have tens of thousands of properties, or even more. Australia now has some large corporate landlords, but their properties are a tiny fraction of the total rental stock.</p> <p>Beneath its gradual growth and persistent small-holding pattern, the private rental sector is dynamic. Properties enter and exit the sector very frequently. In both Sydney and Melbourne, our analysis shows, most properties exit within five years of entering.</p> <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=307&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=307&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=307&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=385&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=385&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=385&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" alt="Chart showing private rental properties, Sydney and Melbourne, 2000–20, by year of first observation in rental bonds data and at five-year intervals" /></a><figcaption><span class="caption">Numbers of private rental properties in Sydney and Melbourne at five-year intervals from 2000 to 2020. Properties are categorised by year of first observation in rental bonds data.</span> <span class="attribution">The authors</span></figcaption></figure> <p>More than 30% of tenancies begin in a property that’s new to the rental sector. And more than 25% of tenancy terminations happen when the property exits the sector.</p> <p>Our investor survey also shows the sector’s dynamism. Many investors made repeated investments, owning multiple properties and some interstate. They indicated strong interest in <a href="https://theconversation.com/ever-wondered-how-many-airbnbs-australia-has-and-where-they-all-are-we-have-the-answers-129003">short-term letting</a>, such as Airbnb, and significant minorities had used their properties for purposes other than rental housing.</p> <p>Australia’s rental housing interacts closely with other sectors, particularly owner-occupied housing, as houses and strata-titled apartments trade between the sectors. The tax-subsidised property prices paid by owner-occupiers heavily influence investors’ gains and decision-making. Rental is also increasingly integrated with tourism, through governments’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-wins-and-who-loses-when-platforms-like-airbnb-disrupt-housing-and-how-do-you-regulate-it-106234">permissive approach to short-term letting</a>.</p> <p>In short, the Australian rental sector is built for investing and disinvesting. As properties churn in and out of rental, renters are churned in and out of housing.</p> <p>This presents problems for tenants.</p> <p><strong>A new agenda for tenancy law reform</strong></p> <p>Australian residential tenancies law has accommodated the long-term growth of the rental sector and its dynamic character. With no licensing or training requirements, it’s easy for landlords to enter the sector. It’s also easy to exit by terminating tenancies, on grounds they want to use a property for other purposes, or even without grounds in many cases.</p> <p>Over the years tenancy law reform has fixed some problem areas, but with virtually no national co-ordination. Laws are increasingly inconsistent on important topics, such as tenants’ security (for example, some states have restricted, but not eliminated, no-grounds terminations), minimum standards and domestic violence. Reforms have overlooked significant problem areas, such as steep rent increases and landlords’ liability for defective premises.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Works for Australia too. Although don't even need to pretend to put it on the market in NSW, it's called a "no grounds eviction" or perhaps more accurately: "tenant expected a liveable home or repairs to broken stuff". <a href="https://t.co/GolGDqlyCu">https://t.co/GolGDqlyCu</a> <a href="https://t.co/wORI3K6Yap">pic.twitter.com/wORI3K6Yap</a></p> <p>— Nathan Lee (@NathanLee) <a href="https://twitter.com/NathanLee/status/1542298797039964160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2022</a></p></blockquote> <p>It is time to pursue a national agenda that goes further than previous limited reforms. The focus should be on the rights of tenants to affordable housing, in decent condition, that supports autonomy and secure occupancy.</p> <p>Where landlords say it is too difficult and they will disinvest, this should not be taken as a threat. Indeed, it would be a good thing if the speculative, incapable and unwilling investors exited the sector. This would make properties available for new owner-occupiers and open up prospects for other, more committed landlords, especially non-profit providers of rental housing.</p> <p>Similarly, if we had higher standards and expectations to discourage private landlords from entering the sector, that would open up scope for new owner-occupiers and investors who are less inclined to churn properties and households.</p> <p>While past tenancy law reforms have not caused disinvestment, maybe the next reforms should.</p> <hr /> <p><em>The authors acknowledge the contributions of their research co-authors, Professor Kath Hulse, Professor Eileen O’Brien Webb, Dr Laura Crommelin and Liss Ralston.</em><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194900/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p><em>Writen by Chris Martin, </em><em>Milad Ghasri, Sharon Parkinson and Zoe Goodall</em><em>. Republished with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-tenancy-reforms-to-protect-renters-cause-landlords-to-exit-the-market-no-but-maybe-they-should-194900" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Real Estate

Placeholder Content Image

COP26: what the draft climate agreement says – and why it’s being criticised

<p>Having led the delegates at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow to believe that the first draft of the final agreement would be published at midnight Tuesday, the UK presidency will not have made many friends by delaying it till 6am Wednesday morning. There will have been plenty of negotiators – not to mention journalists – who will have needlessly waited up all night.</p> <p>In fact, COP26 president Alok Sharma will not have made many friends with the <a href="https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Overarching_decision_1-CMA-3.pdf">text itself</a> either. As the host and chair of the summit, it is the UK’s responsibility to pull together all the negotiating texts which have been submitted and agreed over the last week into a coherent overall agreement.</p> <p>But the widespread consensus among delegates I have spoken to is that the draft they have produced is not sufficiently “balanced” between the interests and positions of the various country groupings. And for the chair of such delicate negotiations, that is a dangerous sin.</p> <p>Let’s recap. This COP (the conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is the designated moment under the 2015 Paris Agreement when countries must come forward with strengthened commitments to act. There are two main areas for this. One is emissions cuts by 2030, the so-called “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs. The other, for the developed countries, is financial assistance to the least developed nations.</p> <p>The problem facing the COP is that we know already that, when added together, countries’ emissions targets are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-sets-course-for-disastrous-heating-of-more-than-24c-says-key-report">not nearly enough</a> to keep the world to a maximum warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial times, as the Paris Agreement aims for. And the financial promises don’t even reach the US$100 billion (£74.1 billion) a year that was meant to be achieved in 2020, let alone the much larger sums the most vulnerable countries need.</p> <p>So what have the poorest countries – and the vociferous civil society organisations demonstrating in Glasgow – been demanding?</p> <p>First, that NDCs should be strengthened before the scheduled date of 2025. And second, that <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02846-3">at least US$500 billion</a> should be provided in climate finance over the five years to 2025, with half of this going to help countries adapt to the climate change they are already experiencing.</p> <h2>Urging – not requiring</h2> <p>So what does the UK draft text say? It merely “urges” countries to strengthen their NDCs, proposing a meeting of ministers next year and a leaders’ summit in 2023. But “urges” is UN-speak for: “You may do this if you wish to, but you don’t have to if you don’t.” That is not enough to force countries to get onto a 1.5℃-compatible path. The text must require them to do so.</p> <p>On finance, the text is even weaker. There is no mention of the US$500 billion demand, although it does call for adaptation funding to be doubled. There is no mention of using the <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/08/23/how-the-world-can-make-the-most-of-new-special-drawing-rights">special drawing rights</a> (a kind of global money supply) which the IMF has recently issued for climate-compatible development. And there is insufficient recognition that the most vulnerable countries need much better access to the funds available.</p> <p>Of course, developing countries do not expect to get all their own way in the negotiations. But commenting on the overall balance of the text between different countries’ positions, one European delegate said to me: “This looks like it could have been written by the Americans.”</p> <p>It is of course true, as Alok Sharma emphasised in his afternoon press conference, that the text can still be changed. There are several issues on which negotiations are continuing and the text has yet to reflect their progress. Sharma has asked all parties to send in their suggested amendments to the draft and to meet him to discuss their reactions. He will find himself asked for a lot of meetings.</p> <p>But it matters how this early text is drafted, for two reasons. First, the lack of balance means that it is the least developed countries which will have to do the most work to change it. In Paris the French presidency worked the other way round. They drafted an ambitious text and dared the biggest emitters to oppose it.</p> <p>Second, the perceived imbalance could affect the trust in the British hosts. Sharma has built himself a strong reputation over the past couple of years preparing for the COP. He will not want to lose that in the crucial last days ahead.</p> <p><strong>This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.</strong> <br /><em>Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. <a href="https://page.theconversation.com/cop26-glasgow-2021-climate-change-summit/"><strong>More.</strong></a></em> <!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171632/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><span><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-jacobs-840558">Michael Jacobs</a>, Professorial Fellow, Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI), <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a></em></span></p> <p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cop26-what-the-draft-climate-agreement-says-and-why-its-being-criticised-171632">original article</a>.</p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

New Zealand to Australia travel bubble to begin in two weeks

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text ">New Zealanders will get the opportunity to travel quarantine-free to Australia in the first stage of a travel bubble deal between the two countries in two weeks.<br /><br />Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack says that the quarantine-free travel will begin from midnight on Friday, October 16.<br /><br />New Zealanders will be allowed to fly into NSW and the Northern Territory.<br /> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">Breaking! Australia and New Zealand agree on an air travel bubble within weeks!!</p> — Stephanie Hunter (@EliteStephanie) <a href="https://twitter.com/EliteStephanie/status/1311889612390891522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2020</a></blockquote> <br />It is expected that Australians will be given the opportunity to head to New Zealand at a later date.<br /><br />Prime Minister Scott Morrison smoothed out all the details of the arrangement with his New Zealand counterpart Jacinda Ardern on Friday.<br /><br />“This will allow New Zealanders and other residents in New Zealand who have not been in an area designated as a COVID-19 hot spot in New Zealand in the preceding 14 days to travel quarantine free to Australia,” Mr McCormack said at a press conference on Friday afternoon.<br /><br />Mr McCormack said that the Commonwealth definition of a COVID-19 hot spot was three locally acquired cases over a rolling three-day average.<br /><br />However, there was no date yet for when Australians would be able to travel to New Zealand.<br /><br />“Certainly if (Ms Ardern) wants to have Australians going to New Zealand, then that will be up to her and New Zealand as to how those arrangements can be put into place and under what conditions they can be put into place,” Mr McCormack said. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">Australia and New Zealand announce first stage of travel bubble between the two countries <a href="https://t.co/va69e62x8s">https://t.co/va69e62x8s</a></p> — abaskswhy (@abaskswhy) <a href="https://twitter.com/abaskswhy/status/1311888320838815745?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2020</a></blockquote> <br /><br />“But as I’d say, Northern Territory and New South Wales — very much open.”<br /><br />Mr McCormack said the trans-Tasman travel bubble was the first stage of the government’s plan to “open up Australia to the world”.<br /><br />South Australia has since opened up its domestic border but will not be part of the first travel bubble Mr McCormack said.<br /><br />However he says it is expected to be the “next cab off the rank”.<br /><br />He said other states could follow if they accepted the Federal Government’s COVID-19 hot spot definition.<br /><br />There are no plans to expand the international bubble beyond New Zealand yet, but the option may be a possibility soon.<br /><br />“We may well extend this. We want to open up Australia to the world. This is the first part of it,” McCormack said.<br /><br />“We will wait and see how this unfolds, we will wait and see the success of this.<br /><br />“I know Foreign Minister Marise Payne is working with many of our Pacific island friends at the moment, but for the Pacific Islands that want to go to New Zealand (and) be there for a fortnight, they can avail themselves of this opportunity.”<br /><br />Sydney Airport chief executive Geoff Culbert said that the announcement has given the travel industry “a welcome injection of hope”.<br /><br />“We applaud the Federal Government for driving this through,” Mr Culbert said.<br /><br />“Pre-COVID New Zealand was Sydney Airport’s second busiest passenger route behind the USA. We’ve been preparing for the ramp up of international passengers from the day restrictions came in and we’re looking forward to giving our Kiwi cousins a safe and warm welcome from October 16.”<br /><br />“I hope very soon to see New Zealanders coming and holidaying in Australia,” Mr Morrison told the National Press Club in Canberra this week.<br /><br />“I can’t tell you Australians will be able to holiday in New Zealand, but that’s their problem. I’m happy for Kiwi tourists to come here and spend money in NSW and South Australia. They’re very, very welcome.”</div> </div> </div> <div class="post-action-bar-component-wrapper"> <div class="post-actions-component"> <div class="upper-row"><span class="like-bar-component"></span> <div class="right-box-container"></div> </div> </div> </div>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Why Prince Harry refused to sign a prenup

<p>Prince Harry has reportedly refused to sign a prenuptial agreement ahead of his May 19 wedding to Meghan Markle.</p> <p>According to a friend of the couple, the 33-year-old royal, who has an estimated £30 million ($54 million) fortune, rejected the opportunity to sign the document because he is determined to make his marriage last. Meghan is believed to have a £4 million ($7.23 million) fortune of her own.</p> <p>“There was never any question in Harry’s mind that he would sign a prenup,” the friend told the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5511861/Prince-Harry-rejects-chance-safeguard-30million-fortune.html" target="_blank"><em><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Daily Mail</span></strong></em></a>. “He’s determined that his marriage will be a lasting one, so there’s no need for him to sign anything.”</p> <p>The decision comes after weeks of reports suggesting a prenup was being drawn up.</p> <p>“Both Harry and Meghan have assets to protect,” society columnist Sophia Money-Coutts wrote in <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/fear-not-meghan-harry-prenup-wont-kill-romance/" target="_blank"><em><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Telegraph</span></strong></em></a>. “Given divorce rates, it’s worth couples having a frank discussion about what each is bringing to the party before signing that marriage register.”</p> <p>But Harry and Meghan wouldn’t be the first couple to refuse a prenup.</p> <p>The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge also decided against one, as did the princes’ late mother Princess Diana, who fought hard to win £17 million ($30 million) plus £400,000 ($722,000) each year in her divorce settlement with Prince Charles.</p> <p>Tell us in the comments below, do you think Harry and Meghan made the right decision? Did you sign a prenup before your wedding?</p> <p><em>Image credit: Kensington Palace/Twitter.</em></p>

Legal