Chalmers hits back at critics talking down economic talkfest before it has even begun
As the Greens vowed to use their balance of power in the Senate to drive progressive reforms from the roundtable, Chalmers said that next week's forum would be the start of a three-year drive to increase productivity rather than 'instant policy gratification'.
The roundtable begins on Tuesday with discussions to focus on issues ranging from regulatory barriers to building new homes, the structure of the tax system and recognition of occupational licences across state and territory boundaries.
The government has already ruled out substantial tax reform from the roundtable, especially in contentious areas such as the GST and negative gearing. There have also been criticisms that the roundtable could become a talkfest that will fail to deliver policies to address the nation's slowdown in productivity growth.
But Chalmers said he wanted to push back at critics, many in the Coalition, who have claimed that the gathering will be a waste of time.
Loading
'I feel the effort we've put in, which has been very, very substantial, probably the most intensive period of consultation that I've been involved in, I feel like it's already worth it,' he told this masthead.
'You shouldn't anticipate that we will have every problem solved in the economy at the end of three days of fruitful discussions, but it will be a really important way to inform the decisions of the cabinet.'
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the treasurer have at times struck different tones, creating a perception that Chalmers is more keen to use the roundtable to enact bigger reforms, though the pair have not been obviously at odds over any specific policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
a few seconds ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance
Clutching a bright yellow bidding panel, amid a crowd of onlookers stretched across a concrete driveway, Rebecca Borkman was quietly hopeful she was about to secure her dream home. Advertised at just $700,000, the two-bedroom townhouse in the Sydney suburb of Bankstown was within the budget of Borkman and her partner, Byron Tolley, with $150,000 to spare. The couple were so serious about the home that they had shelled out more than $500 to obtain pest, building and strata reports in preparation, and discussed bidding tactics. But it soon became clear they never stood a chance. What Borkman, 33, didn't know when she arrived at the auction was that the reserve price for the property was $850,000, more than 20 per cent above the advertised guide. The sale had lured 18 registered bidders, and the townhouse sold for $896,000. 'As soon as that auction started, we were wondering why we even bothered showing up or getting excited,' Borkman said. 'If they let us know that the reserve was anywhere even around $800,000, we wouldn't have put so much time and money into it. But they [the agent] were firm on the $700,000 guide.' Scenes like this are repeated at weekend auctions across the country. In response to an online survey, almost 5600 people told this masthead's Bidding Blind investigation that they had spent money and time investigating properties that they would later discover they could not afford. A separate data analysis of more than 36,000 auction listings reveals that more often than not Sydneysiders and Melburnians are being misled by advertised price guides. That means Australians are forking out thousands of dollars on multiple pest and building inspections, contract reviews and strata reports during extended property hunts, only for the homes they had fallen in love with to sell hundreds of thousands of dollars above the guide. Several Victorian buyers said they had recently paid for a building inspection on homes advertised within their budget. Then, even though auction bidding surpassed the top end of the sale guide – sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars – the home was passed in because it didn't meet the vendor's reserve. 'Agents often argue that it's the buyers and auctions that drive up the price, but conversations with the agent often indicate early on that the buyer wants a much higher rate than advertised,' said one of these prospective buyers. Another buyer looking in Sydney's inner west, a hotspot for underquoting complaints, said it felt like they were being constantly scammed. 'We are often lied to about vendor expectations and then spend money on building reports, contract reviews by lawyers ... We recently had an experience where the auction guide was $1.7 million and the reserve was closer to $2.2 million.' Following the Bidding Blind investigation, the Victorian and NSW governments are facing pressure from industry groups, consumers and opposition parties to stem the tide of wasted cash by overhauling underquoting laws. Victoria's peak real estate lobby group announced it would support the mandatory pre-auction disclosure of reserve prices by sellers, a significant policy shift for a group long resistant to such a proposal. Key real estate industry leaders in NSW have also backed that model, with both state governments promising to seek advice or continue consultation on potential solutions. Another idea to stem the cost of inaccurate price guides is to require vendors to provide prospective purchasers with free building and pest inspections before auction, as is the case in the ACT. 'There will still be buyers who will want to get their own independent report, but this removes the cost and the double up for a large portion of buyers, and it would directly remove the financial harm of underquoting,' said Consumer Policy Research Centre chief executive Erin Turner. In NSW, agents are required to provide prospective purchasers with a contract of sale and disclose issues such as whether the property has been subject to recent flooding, has any external combustible cladding or has been the scene of a murder or manslaughter in the past five years. In Victoria, sellers are legally required to provide a 'section 32 vendor's statement', which details information about any easements, zonings, strata scheme management and fees and whether a property is in a bushfire-prone area. However, buyers in both states are encouraged to seek their own building inspections, which usually cost between $300 and $1000 depending on the size of the property and whether a pest inspection is included. Contract reviews, also recommended, will generally cost $200 or $300. And in NSW, buyers have to pay a fee to access strata reports. 'It's not unusual to get 30 or 40 people through a home … let's just say half of them [arranged inspections and other due diligence] – there's 15 grand down the toilet,' said buyers agent Paul Mulligan. Loading 'There are a lot of gutted buyers out there, and what ends up happening is even worse than the cost [because] they go out and then they buy a place out of frustration, and potentially overpay or buy a lemon. It's huge. It's a huge consumer cost, emotionally and financially.' Victorian buyers advocate David Morrell, who described underquoting as 'cheating', said the practice came with an 'opportunity cost' for prospective buyers who missed out on properties when they didn't obtain access to enough pre-approved finance due to misleading price guides. 'If the agent hadn't lied to you at the start, you'd be living in your favourite home,' Morrell said. As a former property manager at a real estate agency, Rebecca Borkman felt like she should have been in a better position than most to navigate the auction process when she was searching for a home in Sydney last year. But the human resources professional said her experience was so painful that she eventually refused to consider buying any property that was being auctioned. Borkman and her partner instead bought a home in Carlingford, in Sydney's north-west, through a private sale. 'If something came up for auction, we would immediately write it off the list, no matter how much it suited our needs, because it was so damaging to our bank account, to our self-esteem and to our emotional wellbeing,' she said. 'If even I, with that experience [of being a property manager] in my past, feel almost scammed, then what's someone who has no idea what they're getting themselves into meant to do?' Borkman said the reason they had fallen in love with the Bankstown townhouse, with its front and back garden and 297-square-metre block, was because it had been undervalued by the $700,000 auction guide. 'The minute that we showed up there and looked at the property, I thought, 'This is so far beyond anything else that we had seen within that price range' … as it turns out, we were looking at a property that was worth $900,000.'
The Age
a few seconds ago
- The Age
This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance
Clutching a bright yellow bidding panel, amid a crowd of onlookers stretched across a concrete driveway, Rebecca Borkman was quietly hopeful she was about to secure her dream home. Advertised at just $700,000, the two-bedroom townhouse in the Sydney suburb of Bankstown was within the budget of Borkman and her partner, Byron Tolley, with $150,000 to spare. The couple were so serious about the home that they had shelled out more than $500 to obtain pest, building and strata reports in preparation, and discussed bidding tactics. But it soon became clear they never stood a chance. What Borkman, 33, didn't know when she arrived at the auction was that the reserve price for the property was $850,000, more than 20 per cent above the advertised guide. The sale had lured 18 registered bidders, and the townhouse sold for $896,000. 'As soon as that auction started, we were wondering why we even bothered showing up or getting excited,' Borkman said. 'If they let us know that the reserve was anywhere even around $800,000, we wouldn't have put so much time and money into it. But they [the agent] were firm on the $700,000 guide.' Scenes like this are repeated at weekend auctions across the country. In response to an online survey, almost 5600 people told this masthead's Bidding Blind investigation that they had spent money and time investigating properties that they would later discover they could not afford. A separate data analysis of more than 36,000 auction listings reveals that more often than not Sydneysiders and Melburnians are being misled by advertised price guides. That means Australians are forking out thousands of dollars on multiple pest and building inspections, contract reviews and strata reports during extended property hunts, only for the homes they had fallen in love with to sell hundreds of thousands of dollars above the guide. Several Victorian buyers said they had recently paid for a building inspection on homes advertised within their budget. Then, even though auction bidding surpassed the top end of the sale guide – sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars – the home was passed in because it didn't meet the vendor's reserve. 'Agents often argue that it's the buyers and auctions that drive up the price, but conversations with the agent often indicate early on that the buyer wants a much higher rate than advertised,' said one of these prospective buyers. Another buyer looking in Sydney's inner west, a hotspot for underquoting complaints, said it felt like they were being constantly scammed. 'We are often lied to about vendor expectations and then spend money on building reports, contract reviews by lawyers ... We recently had an experience where the auction guide was $1.7 million and the reserve was closer to $2.2 million.' Following the Bidding Blind investigation, the Victorian and NSW governments are facing pressure from industry groups, consumers and opposition parties to stem the tide of wasted cash by overhauling underquoting laws. Victoria's peak real estate lobby group announced it would support the mandatory pre-auction disclosure of reserve prices by sellers, a significant policy shift for a group long resistant to such a proposal. Key real estate industry leaders in NSW have also backed that model, with both state governments promising to seek advice or continue consultation on potential solutions. Another idea to stem the cost of inaccurate price guides is to require vendors to provide prospective purchasers with free building and pest inspections before auction, as is the case in the ACT. 'There will still be buyers who will want to get their own independent report, but this removes the cost and the double up for a large portion of buyers, and it would directly remove the financial harm of underquoting,' said Consumer Policy Research Centre chief executive Erin Turner. In NSW, agents are required to provide prospective purchasers with a contract of sale and disclose issues such as whether the property has been subject to recent flooding, has any external combustible cladding or has been the scene of a murder or manslaughter in the past five years. In Victoria, sellers are legally required to provide a 'section 32 vendor's statement', which details information about any easements, zonings, strata scheme management and fees and whether a property is in a bushfire-prone area. However, buyers in both states are encouraged to seek their own building inspections, which usually cost between $300 and $1000 depending on the size of the property and whether a pest inspection is included. Contract reviews, also recommended, will generally cost $200 or $300. And in NSW, buyers have to pay a fee to access strata reports. 'It's not unusual to get 30 or 40 people through a home … let's just say half of them [arranged inspections and other due diligence] – there's 15 grand down the toilet,' said buyers agent Paul Mulligan. Loading 'There are a lot of gutted buyers out there, and what ends up happening is even worse than the cost [because] they go out and then they buy a place out of frustration, and potentially overpay or buy a lemon. It's huge. It's a huge consumer cost, emotionally and financially.' Victorian buyers advocate David Morrell, who described underquoting as 'cheating', said the practice came with an 'opportunity cost' for prospective buyers who missed out on properties when they didn't obtain access to enough pre-approved finance due to misleading price guides. 'If the agent hadn't lied to you at the start, you'd be living in your favourite home,' Morrell said. As a former property manager at a real estate agency, Rebecca Borkman felt like she should have been in a better position than most to navigate the auction process when she was searching for a home in Sydney last year. But the human resources professional said her experience was so painful that she eventually refused to consider buying any property that was being auctioned. Borkman and her partner instead bought a home in Carlingford, in Sydney's north-west, through a private sale. 'If something came up for auction, we would immediately write it off the list, no matter how much it suited our needs, because it was so damaging to our bank account, to our self-esteem and to our emotional wellbeing,' she said. 'If even I, with that experience [of being a property manager] in my past, feel almost scammed, then what's someone who has no idea what they're getting themselves into meant to do?' Borkman said the reason they had fallen in love with the Bankstown townhouse, with its front and back garden and 297-square-metre block, was because it had been undervalued by the $700,000 auction guide. 'The minute that we showed up there and looked at the property, I thought, 'This is so far beyond anything else that we had seen within that price range' … as it turns out, we were looking at a property that was worth $900,000.'
Sydney Morning Herald
a few seconds ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
This roundtable could have been an email
Federal Treasury has let the cat out of the bag: the erstwhile Productivity Summit, now Economic Reform Roundtable, is the kind of meeting which could have been an email. In a leaked document, the department recommended a set of outcomes for the roundtable, which was – supposedly – to be informed by the 500-odd pages of research conducted by the Productivity Commission covering five pillars laid out by Treasurer Jim Chalmers last year. Spoiler: the recommendations are only tangentially related to those documents, which have taken an army of policy minds at a purpose-built organisation six months to prepare. That's not just inefficient – it's a working case of the opposite of productivity. In fact, the whole process increasingly resembles a dramatisation of the CIA's 1944 Simple Sabotage Field Manual. To disrupt the effectiveness of organisations and conferences, the spy manual suggests a saboteur gum up progress by insisting on doing everything through 'channels' and 'never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions'. Consider that box ticked. Loading The roundtable is certainly not a shortcut. Especially given the fact that the roundtable attendee list is broad and many are coming armed with their own policy proposals, to complement the work of the Productivity Commission. The CIA advised saboteurs to 'make speeches', specifically, 'talk as frequently as possible and at great length'. Given Treasury's recommendations are, at least as reported, conspicuously limited, it's already clear there'll be a lot more talking than listening. The Business Council of Australia has flagged that it will be 'bringing constructive ideas' to the roundtable, which 'will assist in identifying policies that can increase investment across the economy through red tape reduction, faster approvals on major projects, future industries' growth, research and innovation, harnessing AI and tax reform'. Laudable stuff. But the advocacy body and its members tend to spend more time talking to business forums than selling their importance to the wider public. The timorous prime minister and his pre-chastened treasurer have no incentive to invest any political capital in putting them into practice. Predictably, big businesses will leave the roundtable lamenting a 'lack of political will' and go back to individually shaping regulation for their personal comfort. It is telling that big businesses were happier to donate to the campaign for an Indigenous Voice to parliament, cosying up to the government in the process, than they are to spend a bit of cash selling the public on a more competitive and productive Australia. The Australian Council of Trade Unions will have four representatives at the roundtable – a super-majority of three more than any other organisation represented. It has decided that this summit is the perfect opportunity to campaign on a four-day work week for the same pay. At least the peak body is out selling its proposal – though selling the idea of free money really doesn't take much skill. Four days on full pay would, say the ACTU, be made possible by implementing technological advances, like AI. Never one to shy away from irony, the union peak is simultaneously seeking to stymie the implementation of AI because it fears it would result in job losses. But then, as head honcho Sally McManus famously asserted in 2019, if you don't like laws, it's OK to break them. What are a couple of pesky laws of economics to a unionist armed with a populist proposal? The Australian Council of Social Service will be there to demand workers and savers get taxed more, of course. And the small business representative body will be there for decorative purposes, having never been a focus of an Albanese government which prefers its stakeholders large enough to be unionised. Opposition Treasury spokesman Ted O'Brien also has a seat, but seems increasingly perplexed by the process.
