Housing Affordability Busted For Good…

Whatever announcables may come from the Government, the truth is housing crisis in Australia is far from over.

As I discussed with Leith van Onselen on Tuesday, high migration is the root cause of the problem – a problem created by bad policy and ultra-high migration. Yet some are arguing we should import more construction workers to build more homes. Sounds like shoot ready aim, to me.

Sure it is true that as Australia’s housing affordability crisis worsens, governments are spending more on housing. But as a recent The Conversation article says, without coordinated action to increase supply, government grants will have little practical effect on house affordability anytime soon.

Victoria’s Andrews government has announced a suite of reforms (such as boosting social housing and making planning processes faster) in an effort to get 800,000 extra homes in Victoria over the next decade.

Federally, the Albanese government’s A$10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, or HAFF, has passed the Senate with the help of the Greens, who supported the bill in exchange for another A$1 billion for social housing.
And this year’s federal budget has expanded eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme so more people can buy a home with a smaller deposit.
But is Australia ready for a house construction boom?

Supply chain constraints say no. Ballooning construction costs and labour shortages have already claimed well-known building firms across the country. Delivering thousands of extra new homes in the coming years will not be easy.

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Today’s post is brought to you by Ribbon Property Consultants.

The Limitations Of Monetary Policy (And What Lowe Does Next…)

Last week, the departing RBA Central Bank Governor Philip Lowe used his final public comments given at the Anika Foundation to defend his more controversial comments, saying while some of his explanations had “missed the mark” the media also had a responsibility to avoid “clickbait”.

But he also highlighted the limitations of monetary policy and suggested that fiscal and monetary policy could be better connected than today, something which should have been considered by the recent RBA review.

So today we look at what he said, and will also touch on where Central Bank Governors go after they leave their post.

http://www.martinnorth.com/

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog
The Limitations Of Monetary Policy (And What Lowe Does Next...)
Loading
/

The Limitations Of Monetary Policy (And What Lowe Does Next…)

Last week, the departing RBA Central Bank Governor Philip Lowe used his final public comments given at the Anika Foundation to defend his more controversial comments, saying while some of his explanations had “missed the mark” the media also had a responsibility to avoid “clickbait”.

But he also highlighted the limitations of monetary policy and suggested that fiscal and monetary policy could be better connected than today, something which should have been considered by the recent RBA review.

So today we look at what he said, and will also touch on where Central Bank Governors go after they leave their post.

http://www.martinnorth.com/

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

The One Million Vacant Homes Question…

The recent release of 2021 Census data revealed a shocking “one million homes were unoccupied”.

This statistic sent housing commentators, government agencies and policymakers into a spin. At a time of significant housing shortages, this extra million homes would surely make a big difference. They could provide housing for some homeless, ease the rental affordability crisis, and get first-home owners into their first home. There has been a great deal of speculation about how this has happened. Has it been caused by overseas millionaires buying up housing and leaving it as an empty investment? Is it Airbnb taking up homes that could be used for families? Or are cashed-up Gen-Xers double-consuming by living in one house while renovating another?

So, why were 1,043,776 dwellings empty on census night?

The Media Let Us Down!

An excellent piece from The Conversation about how the reality-distorting machinery of the federal election campaign delivered sub-par journalism.

https://theconversation.com/how-the-reality-distorting-machinery-of-the-federal-election-campaign-delivered-sub-par-journalism-183629

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

CO₂ Snap Back Confirms Case For Action

We look at an article in The Conversation.

“Global carbon dioxide emissions have bounced back after COVID-19 restrictions and are likely to reach close to pre-pandemic levels this year, our analysis released today has found.

The new numbers vividly illustrate the global challenge posed by decades of delayed climate policy and investment. To meet the 2050 goal of the Paris Agreement, which calls for limits to warming temperatures, nations would now have to cut emissions every year by an amount greater than the combined carbon output of Germany and Saudi Arabia.

The troubling finding comes as the COP26 climate talks continue in Glasgow in a last-ditch bid to keep dangerous global warming at bay. The analysis was undertaken by the Global Carbon Project, a consortium of scientists from around the world who produce, collect and analyse global greenhouse gas information.

The fast recovery in CO₂ emissions, following last year’s sharp drop, should come as no surprise. The world’s strong economic rebound has created a surge in demand for energy, and the global energy system is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels”.

https://theconversation.com/global-emissions-almost-back-to-pre-pandemic-levels-after-unprecedented-drop-in-2020-new-analysis-shows-170866

Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Economic democracy: why handing power back to the people will fix our broken system

The current structure of finance and its interlock with society based on debt creation and financialisation is not working effectively – as the current market gyrations indicate, and as we face into an extensional crisis. So far the solutions are to grow debt more, cut rates and let Central Banks build their balance sheets (and buy assets from Government bonds and beyond). But there comes a point where we need to think more deeply about what is happening and what needs to change. So in coming days, I will be featuring some of the different alternative approaches.

One approach which I have been examining is called Economic Democracy. There was an excellent post from The Conversation a few months back, which is now more relevant than ever. Andrew Cumbers, Professor of Regional Political Economy, University of Glasgow writes:

We need to fundamentally fix the way we run our economies and hand economic power back to the people. I believe this can – and must – be done through a concept called economic democracy. As I outline in a forthcoming book, The Case for Economic Democracy, it is key to transitioning toward a more socially just and ecologically sustainable system.

In the past, people have tended to think about the idea of economic democracy in quite a restricted sense. They have focused on developing the collective voice of employees through trade unions and collective bargaining. Or concentrated on cooperative or employee ownership policies. While these remain important, my colleagues and I argue that an expanded definition is needed, one that forces us to think afresh about how we might radically democratise the economy as a whole.

In this respect, I argue that there are three critical interlocking pillars to economic democracy: individual economic rights, diverse forms of democratic collective ownership of companies, and the need for greater public participation in economic decision-making.

Populists have benefited from the lack of economic democracy. Evan Al-Amin / Shutterstock

The economic democratic deficit

There is plenty of mainstream media commentary about a global crisis of liberal democracy, the deepening divide between elites and citizens, and the opportunism of faux “outsiders” such as Trump and Johnson (themselves from wealthy elites). But there is seldom much discussion of the underlying economic fundamentals.

A common feature of disaffected voters is anger toward the excesses of economic globalisation, which was pursued by centre-left and centre-right politicians of the 1990s. The theory ran that reducing the restrictions on business and finance operating across borders – and, in the EU’s case, a single market with freedom of movement for both business and workers – would be good for us all.

But that has not been the experience for many. The collapse of well paid and unionised industrial jobs in Europe and North America, and the shift of work to China and other developing countries, has fuelled a reaction against globalisation. Or at least against globalisation in its neoliberal, free trade variant. Economic nationalists such as Trump and Victor Orban in Hungary, have capitalised on this reaction.

The 2007-08 financial crisis and the years of state-sanctioned austerity that followed it added to the stagnation of real wages for the average worker in a number of developed economies seen since the 1970s. Meanwhile, CEO pay and the wealth of the very rich shot into the stratosphere.

This has fuelled a sense of alienation and loss of control among ordinary people. The threat posed to work by further automation is likely to further depress everyday life, adding grist to the mill of populists.

Brexit and the broader rise of right-wing populism show the limitations of democracy under the existing capitalist system. Politically, voters are asked every few years to choose from a limited range of options and then leave everything else in the hands of their political representatives.

In economic terms, people have a diminishing sense of control over the key activities and events that shape their lives. The proliferation of zero hours contracts and casual work, and the decline of stable permanent employment have disconnected many from secure jobs and incomes.

In the workplace itself, employees have little say over their companies’ decision-making process. Trade unions are in retreat and what limited collective bargaining we have is under attack in most large developed economies. There is still a tradition of cooperatives and employee-owned enterprises nominally committed to democratic practice (though often sadly lacking in reality). But even these are marginal to the dominant corporate and privatised economy.

In short, ordinary citizens have very little say in how the capitalist economy works. This applies at the macro level – how the economy as a whole functions, who controls it and makes the key decisions on investment, what to produce, how and what to tax, what to regulate and what is produced. And it applies at the individual level of accessing economic resources to lead decent lives, in a way that is fair to others and sustainable in caring for the planet and future generations. Both are critical matters of concern.

Gig workers. Mike Dotta / Shutterstock

This is the backdrop for understanding the growing popularity of alternative economic policies that seek to give workers and citizens real power and control over their livelihoods. In the UK, the Labour party’s policies to reverse privatisation and create new more democratic forms of public ownership are massively popular. A recent opinion poll by the right-wing Legatum Institute think tank found 83% of respondents favoured nationalisation of water companies, 77% for electricity and gas, and 76% for train services.

Other radical proposals include plans to give workers elected representation on company boards. This has long been done in Germany. It was even mooted by former UK prime minister, Theresa May (who then u-turned on the issue) and is now part of Labour’s UK election campaign, as well as both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s bids for the US presidency. Even more radical, is the endorsement on both sides of the Atlantic of a policy to force larger companies to transfer a percentage of their profits to employee ownership funds.

Even in the US, where there is traditional hostility to ideas seen as “socialist”, public opinion appears to be shifting. A poll carried out by Washington-based think tank the Democracy Collaborative discovered that 55% of people supported the idea of employee ownership funds, while only 20% were opposed. The idea that workers should have the first right to buy their companies when they comes up for sale had 69% support.

Add to this the upsurge in demand to tackle climate change by fundamentally transitioning away from a growth-driven carbon-based economic model and it is clear that there is something radical in the air. This, in short, is the case for economic democracy.

Individual rights

But what should this look like in practice? Unlike older visions of economic democracy that started with class or the collective, my starting point is the individual. We should all have the right to participate in a democratic society on equal terms.

Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen has emphasised that individual economic freedom is only possible where citizens have the resources, competence and capability to flourish. Rather than the restricted choice of whatever the market is offering, it is important to create a sense of economic citizenship, one that provides all people with the resources and capability to make meaningful life choices.

More choice, please. Matt Gibson / Shutterstock

An important mechanism for doing this is to provide everyone with a universal basic income that would cover their essential living requirements: food, shelter and clothing. This idea has provoked plenty of controversy with enthusiasts and detractors on the left and right.

Right wing proponents, such as Milton Friedman, support it because they think it could allow governments to cut welfare services elsewhere. Others reject it for creating indolence and dependency. If everyone was given an income, why would anybody turn up for work? Many trade unionists and social democrats don’t like the idea because they think it would shift focus away from workplace rights and public services, allowing further attacks from the right.

The more substantive research suggests little evidence that labour market participation falls when UBI is introduced, although some people take the opportunity to reduce hours for positive reasons such as spending more time with family and volunteering. Meanwhile, the biggest positives tend to be improvements in the physical and mental health of participants and the greater likelihood of young people staying on for longer in education.

In response to fears on the left, UBI should not be viewed as a standalone policy but rather part of a progressive agenda of fairer taxation, living wage rates, reducing working hours and strengthening employment rights. Framed this way, the idea has much appeal in providing people with real choices.

It would also change the balance of power in the labour market. Rather than coercing people into poorly paid and inhumane forms of work, employers would also be forced to make work more attractive and rewarding.

Democratic collective ownership

Under a proper economic democracy, the individual should also have ownership rights and control over the work they do and how it is used. Under capitalism, once we enter employment, we effectively sell the right to own and control our labour to employers. The workplace becomes a managerial dictatorship.

Many thinkers since the 19th century, from Karl Marx to liberals such as John Stuart Mill, have recognised that this is unjust. People have a basic right to control their labour and any benefits that accrue from it, whether that’s in the form of income or profit.

Work is a social activity, not an individual one. It involves interaction and cooperation with others. Recognising this, my second pillar of economic democracy is collective, diverse and democratic forms of ownership. This is very different to the existing dominance of shareholder capitalism, where companies are privately controlled and largely subject to the whims of the market.

Similarly, while plans to take privatised utilities back into public ownership are important, these entities need to be run along much more democratic lines than in the past. Many older and existing forms of public ownership have been too removed from public control, run by elite officials or boards composed of private sector interests rather than giving the public themselves a role in decision-making. The BBC is a good example of this, set up as a corporation on behalf of the pubic, who in reality have little say over how it is run.

As well as providing democratic participation for workers, it’s also important to include users of public services in the way they are run. There are different ways of achieving this and plenty of good examples from around the world of how happens in practice.

For example, when the French city of Montpelier de-privatised its water system, taking it back into public ownership in 2016, it set up a water observatory, a citizens forum with the power to scrutinise and hold the new public enterprise to account. It also drew 30% of its board from civil society organisations.

If Montpellier can do it … Shutterstock

Another interesting example of a more hybrid form of democratic public ownership comes from Costa Rica. Here, the country’s third largest bank, the Banco Popular is a public enterprise that is legally owned by the country’s workers, with 1.2 million members (20% of the total population).

To own a share, a worker needs to have had a savings account with the bank for one year. The key governing body of the bank is a democratic assembly of 290 elected representatives, which determines the bank’s strategic direction. A quarter of the bank’s revenues fund social projects and it has played an increasingly important role in the country’s rapid expansion of renewable energy, including financing the first Latin American energy supplier to become carbon neutral.

Beyond public services, other forms of democratic collective ownership (such as employee ownership, cooperative or mutual societies) could play a greater role across the economy. The Mondragon network of worker cooperatives in Spain’s Basque country is inspirational for many because of its intense democratic ethos across its workforce of more than 70,000. Workers in every cooperative have an annual general assembly. On the basis of one member one vote, the assembly approves the business plan and budget, and elects a governing council (the board of directors).

Key ingredients in Mondragon’s continued success include having its own bank, lots of cooperation across its network, collective knowledge sharing and an emphasis upon lifelong learning alongside job security. These are measures of public effectiveness and social value that contrast strongly with the short-term, profit maximisation mantra of privately-owned firms.

Part of the wider appeal of Mondragon is the sense that its model can be transplanted elsewhere to create whole ecosystems of worker-owned enterprises at the local and regional level. These could stimulate interesting new initiatives that build the wealth of communities in post-industrial places, from Cleveland in the US to Preston in the UK.

Public participation and deliberation

Beyond extending economic rights to the individual and at the business level, my third pillar requires greater public participation and engagement at the macro level of the economy as a whole. This would involve the public becoming more involved in decisions about spending in the wider economy.

One well-researched phenomenon, for example, is the idea of participatory budgeting. This is where governments devote a proportion of their budget directly to citizens groups who are brought together in a series of deliberative exercises to decide on investment priorities.

So far, this has only occurred at the local level. But the results are overwhelmingly positive, both in engaging citizens and in making more socially progressive investment choices. Brazil, beginning with the southern city of Porto Alegre in the late 1980s, has been a pioneer of the concept.

Regional assemblies of residents were set up across the city to vote on priorities, which were then fed into city-level planning. Participatory budgeting then spread throughout Brazil with over 120 cities adopting it in the 1990s and 2000s. The idea has also spread widely across the world. There are currently over 250 schemes in the US, with Chicago and New York being important centres.

Brazil led the way with participatory budgeting. Shutterstock

Advocates of participatory budgets point to how they increase the involvement of women and lower income groups in democratic processes. When sustained over a longer time period, they reduce corruption, improve transparency and public engagement, and create better institutions that involve citizens more regularly into governance processes. The evidence also suggests that they lead to greater spending on health and education in poorer areas of cities, significantly reduce infant mortality and are linked to the growth of civil society organisations.

Struggling for economic democracy

There remain powerful vested interests that will mobilise against more radical initiatives to democratise the economy. Commercial interests have powerful resources to protect the status quo. They can fashion superficial media narratives, that have been notably successful in protecting fossil fuels and undermining efforts to tackle climate change.

But, if we are to confront the major economic, social and ecological crises that face us, these interests must be overcome to create a very different kind of global economy. This needs democratic mechanisms that rebalance economic resources and decision-making away from the rich and powerful toward the pursuit of the common good, while safeguarding the planet for future generations. As the examples here demonstrate, these ideas are not unworkable utopias but existing forms of democratic economy.

Support package gains shape as GDP turning point swamped

The good news is our economy was performing better than had been thought in the lead-up to the bushfires and coronavirus. Via The Conversation.

Updated figures in Wednesday’s national accounts show the economy grew 0.6% in the three months to September, rather than the 0.4% previously reported, and a healthier-than-expected 0.5% in the three months to December.

Combined, these figures pushed annual economic growth up above 2% to 2.2% for the first time in a year in which it had been below 2% for the longest period since the global financial crisis.

Annual GDP growth

Through-the-year economic growth by quarter. Source: ABS 5206.0

Not to put too fine a point on it, it looks as if we were actually experiencing the the “gentle turning point” repeatedly promised by Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe.

As Lowe put it during the second half of last year:

After having been through a soft patch, a gentle turning point has been reached. While we are not expecting a return to strong economic growth in the near term, we are expecting growth to pick up.

The figures show the economy began (gently) picking up after the Reserve Bank began cutting rates in June. Counting this week’s latest interest rate cut, it has cut four times.

But the coronavirus and the bushfires have consigned the turning point to history.

Negative growth now possible

Not for a minute does Treasurer Josh Frydenberg believe the economy continued to improve this quarter, the March quarter.

Reminded that the support package promised by the prime minister will come too late for the three months to March, and reminded that many businesses haren’t been able to trade much, Frydenberg was asked to assess the risk the economy might now be going backwards, a state of affairs that if it continued long enough would be a recession.

He replied that the Treasury believes the bushfires alone will shave 0.2 points from growth in the March quarter. Added to that will be the risk from the spread of the coronavirus, which he believes will be “substantial”.

Tonight (Wednesday) Frydenberg and Treasury officials will take part in a phone hookup with other members of the International Monetary Fund to discuss developments including interest rate cuts in both Australia and the United States.

Treasury update on Thursday

The Treasury will finalise its estimate of the impact of the coronavirus on March-quarter GDP later in the evening and report it to a Senate estimates hearing beginning at 9am Thursday.

It means we will know the likely impact at about the same time as the treasurer.

To support retirees hurt by four near-consecutive rate cuts, the treasurer is considering cutting the deeming rate – the rate investments are deemed to have earned for the purposes of the pension income test. It’ll be the second deeming rate cut in the space of a year and will make it easier for retirees earning very little to remain on the pension.

The focus of the support package will business investment, which slid an unexpected 1.1% in the final three months of the year and 3.4% over the course of the year in defiance of budget forecasts it would climb.

Standard of living slipping

Although not ruling out support for householders, Frydenberg said mortgage holders had done well out of the past four rate cuts. Households with A$400,000 mortgages could soon be paying $3,000 less per year than they had in June.

Living standards, as measured by the Reserve Bank’s preferred measure, real net national disposable income per capita, went backwards in the December quarter, slipping 1.3%. Over the year, it climbed just 1.2%.

Household spending recovered somewhat, climbing 0.4% in real terms in the December quarter after inching ahead only 0.1% in the September quarter.

Throughout the year to December, real household spending grew 1.2% at a time when Australia’s population grew 1.5%. This means the consumption of goods and services per person went backwards.

Government spending provided substantial support. Over the year to December public spending on infrastructure grew 4.1% in real terms.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said on Wednesday he would try and boost that by asking state and local governments to bring forward whatever projects they could, to start work in the next three to six months.

Recurrent government spending grew 5%.

Author: Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Cashless welfare cards do more harm than good

The Australian government touts compulsory income management as a way to stop welfare payments being spent on alcohol, drugs or gambling. Via The Conversation.

The Howard government introduced the BasicsCard more than a decade ago. About 22,500 welfare recipients now use it, mostly in the Northern Territory. Now the Coalition government has big plans for a more versatile Cashless Debit Card, trialled on about 12,700 people in four regional communities in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland.

The 2016 Indue Cashless Debit Card. indue.com.au

These trials aren’t complete, nor the findings compiled, but a string of senior ministers, including Prime Minister Scott Morrison, have indicated they are already sold on expanding the program.

Our research, however, adds to the evidence that compulsory income-management policies do as much harm as good.

Financial (in)stability

Over the past year we have conducted the first independent, multisite study of compulsory income management in Australia. It has involved 114 in-depth interviews at four sites: Playford (BasicsCard) and Ceduna (Cashless Debit Card) in South Australia; Shepparton (BasicsCard) in Victoria; and the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region (Cashless Debit Card) in Queensland. We also collected 199 survey responses from around Australia.

Proponents of compulsory income management champion its potential to “provide a stabilising factor in the lives of families with regard to financial management and to encourage safe and healthy expenditure of welfare dollars”, as the then social services minister, Paul Fletcher, said in March last year.

Our study found some individuals experience these benefits. But most face extra financial challenges. These include not having enough cash for essential items, being unable to shop at preferred outlets, being unable to buy second-hand goods, and cards being declined even when they are supposed to work.


Survey respondents reported a range of challenges related to compulsory income management. Hidden Costs: An Independent Study into Income Management in Australia

The 2007 BasicsCard. AAP

In Playford, Jacob* told us about being on the BasicsCard, which can only be used with merchants that have agreed to not allow cardholders to buy excluded goods.

The limits on where he could shop made it harder for him to manage his finances.

“I couldn’t make decisions about saving money,” he told us. He and his wife used to catch the train to shop at the Adelaide markets, for example, but vendors there couldn’t take the BasicsCard.

The Cashless Debit Card is intended to overcome the limitations of the BasicsCard. It’s like a debit card except it can’t be used to withdraw cash or at businesses that sell prohibited items.

But Emma*, a single mother in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, told of her struggles to make basic purchases using the card. It often failed – even at businesses that purportedly accepted it – and her family went without. She also felt excluded from the markets and second-hand retailers where she used to shop.

Her greatest stress, however, was rent. Emma* said she had always been on time with rental payments until the Cashless Debit Card. She described one occasion when, two days after paying the rent, the money “bounced back” into her account. When she rang the card’s administrator (card payment company Indue), she was told: “It’s just a minor teething issue, just keep trying.”

The extra stress from “worrying about which payments were going to get paid” was considerable. Others shared similar experiences.

Social (dis)integration

Supporters of compulsory income management claim it brings people back into the community by combating addiction and encouraging pro-social behaviour and economic contribution. As federal Attorney-General Christian Porter said in 2018: “The cashless debit card can help to stabilise the lives of young people in the new trial locations by limiting spending on alcohol, drugs and gambling and thus improving the chances of young Australians finding employment or successfully completing education or training.”

However, our study found the card can also stigmatise and infantilise users – pushing people without these problems further to the margins.

One of the problems is that compulsory income management is routinely applied based on where a person lives and their payment type, and not on any history of problem behaviour. The large majority of our respondents indicated they did not have alcohol, drug or gambling issues.


The majority of survey respondents had been managing finances well before compulsory income management. Hidden Costs: An Independent Study into Income Management in Australia

But as Ray* in Ceduna explained, having the card meant others viewed him as a problem citizen.

I’m embarrassed every time I have to use it at the supermarket, which is about the only place I do use it. I sort of look around and see who’s behind me in the queue. I don’t want anybody to see me using it.

This was a common experience across the interview sites.

Maryanne* in Shepparton told about being judged for shopping for groceries with her BasicsCard.

I got called a junkie and I said: ‘I’m not a junkie, do you see any marks or anything?’ They were like: ‘No, but you have a BasicsCard.’ I said: ‘What’s that got to do with it? Centrelink gave it to me. I can’t do nothing.’


Stigma was a common concern among survey participants. Hidden Costs: An Independent Study into Income Management in Australia

A path forward

The overwhelming finding from our study is that compulsory income management is having a disabling, not an enabling, impact on many users’ lives. As the policy has been extended, more and more Australians with no pre-existing problems have been caught up in its path.

This does not mean a genuine voluntary scheme could not be maintained, but it would need to sit alongside evidence-based measures to tackle poverty.

Addressing the inadequacy of income support payments, ensuring decent employment and training opportunities, and providing accessible social services and secure and affordable housing would be a better starting point for creating healthy lives and flourishing communities.


Names have been changed to protect individuals’ privacy.

Authors: Greg Marston, Head of School, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland; Michelle Peterie, Research Fellow, The University of Queensland; Phillip Mendes, Associate Professor, Director Social Inclusion and Social Policy Research Unit, Monash University; Zoe Staines, Research fellow, The University of Queensland