Last of the Jacarandas blooming in Lionel Bowen Park

Congratulations Dr Christina Curry, Mayor of Bayside Council

Mobile phones need to be banned from NSW classrooms

You have done us proud Socceroos

Eastlakes Reserve renamed to the Jack Mundy Reserve

With the passing of that great Australian hero Jack Mundey last year Bayside Council graciously accepted my suggestion to rename Easetlakes Reserve in his honour.

Had it not been for Jack and his leadership, and the Buildings Labourers Federation placing a "Green Ban" on that area there would be a mass of apartment buildings rather than a park. It would be difficult to imagine Eastlakes without Eastlakes Reserve.

I had the great honour of talking with Judy Mundey, Jacks wife, about the "Green Bans" that rescued so much of Sydney's heritage and environment including Eastlakes Reserve. Her recollection of this pivotal time in our local history is fascinating. Have a listen.

Replacing stamp duty with a yearly property tax - What does it mean?

The NSW Treasurer has been for many months floating the idea of abolishing stamp duty on the purchase of properties and replacing the one of stamp duty with a yearly property tax. Many people are attracted to the idea. 

They think they will not have to fund that huge stamp duty payment when they buy a home. My parliamentary colleague, Anoulack Chanthivong, Member for Macquarie Fields analysed the effect of this policy charge in a speech to the NSW Parliament. It is worth reading. He calls it "the snake oil salesman’s pitch" His speech is below.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields) (18:12:58): Every so often in political life, we get the odd economic snake oil salesman spruiking their political ideas as the public policy panacea for all our ills. The snake oil salesman promises "jobs boost by the hundreds and thousands, skyrocketing economic growth by the billions and savings in the many thousands for people doing it tough". But with careful analysis and an evidence‑based argument, the snake oil salesman's pitch does not deliver magical economic unicorns; it can actually be harmful. 

The Treasurer's proposed snake oil property tax panacea will replace a one‑off tax with one that never ends. Somehow getting rid of stamp duty will solve all our property market ills. The Treasurer might be a Gordon Gekko, high‑flying corporate lawyer, but I question his slick economics marketing of replacing a one‑off progressive tax with a never‑ending regressive land tax. The Treasurer, and Premier aspirant, has been recently making big media statements about his reform vision. 

Let me remind the House of the Treasurer's recent reform accomplishments. He could not even deliver the Fire and Emergency Services Levy—a proposal only a fraction in difficulty and complexity—when it had been handed to him on a platter and he has proposed an increase to the GST on food and the cost of living. 

The Treasurer is an A‑grade policy spruiker but a D‑grade policy deliverer. 

Property prices do not go up or down because stamp duty exists or is taken away and replaced with a never‑ending annual land tax. To suggest they do is at best deception and at worst just plain absurd. 

Any good economist knows—and I am but a mere humble working‑class economist from Macquarie Fields—that property prices are reflective of demand and supply factors, namely, the ease in accessing credit, the price of credit, people's current and future expectations of their employment and income and property stock supply and the timing of that supply and population growth. 

A 2020 study by the Australian National University and University of Canberra modelling the impact of the Australian Capital Territory's stamp duty reform to a land tax system produced the following findings: House prices increased by 9 per cent; units increased by 4 per cent; housing sales decreased by 6 to 7 per cent; unit sales decreased by 23 per cent to 24 per cent; and potential new home owners used the illusory stamp duty savings to bid up property prices. 

Using the above facts, let us run through a scenario: A young aspiring couple wants to buy a home in Leppington which has an expected value of $800,000 and unimproved land value of $500,000. 

The couple will pay an estimated $31,000 in stamp duty. Under the new snake oil, never‑ending annual land tax market conditions, the expected property increases by 9 per cent, or about $72,000, meaning the winning bid for the property is now $872,000. 

The snake oil, never‑ending annual land tax is equal to $500 plus 0.3 per cent of $500,000 or about $2,000 per year, increasing every year the couple lives in that house. 

CoreLogic property data shows that the length of home ownership continues to rise, with home owners in some suburbs holding onto their property for more than 20 years. In some parts of south‑west Sydney on former greenfield estates like Leppington, properties are held for greater than or equal to 15 years. 

So the expected land tax is $2,000 times 15 years, which equals $30,000. That does not include any annual compounding interest on land value or rate increases. This is the end result: Under the Treasurer's magical, snake oil, never‑ending land tax, the home owner pays $72,000 more to purchase their property, plus a $30,000 tax bill on their home. 

The Treasurer has potentially cost them up to $102,000 under this scheme. No matter your linguistic abilities, that is a lot of money in anyone's language. The never‑ending annual land tax would be more than $30,000 if the property is kept for more than 15 years. 

When the home owner does move, they are just as likely to pay a new snake oil, never‑ending annual land tax on their next home for the rest of their life. 

No doubt there will be interjections that this is an optional scheme. Let me also say that the fact that it is an optional scheme makes it an adverse selection one—that is, those who can least afford it or are in a tighter financial situation will opt for the land tax because they have been sold a stamp duty savings pup. Those who can most afford it will pay the stamp duty and not have to worry about a tax bill arriving in their letterbox every year. 

The Treasurer's snake oil annual land tax is in effect a double taxation system in higher property prices and an increasing never‑ending land tax. Double the property tax and higher property prices? No, thank you. 

Time does not permit me to say more about this snake oil, never‑ending land tax, but I will make further factual‑based arguments to reinforce the old aphorism of "anything that is too good to be true usually is". 

Bayside Massive Rate Increase - Disgraceful

I am outraged at the Liberal and Independent councillors on Bayside Council who a couple of weeks ago voted to increase residential rates in the former Botany Bay Council area by up to 51 per cent from 1 July next year. The council, under the pretence of harmonisation of council rates across the amalgamated council area, determined a massive increase in rates to residents in my electorate. 

All eight Liberal and Independent councillors voted in favour of this plan, which will see rates increase on average by between 28 per cent and 51 per cent from 1 July 2021. All seven Labor councillors voted against it. 

The Liberals did this during a devastating pandemic and the worst recession since the Great Depression. When the airlines and universities—which support the employment of many of my constituents—are laying off thousands of workers, as are many other employers across my electorate, I will name those Liberal councillors who represent residents in my electorate. Mascot residents are being slugged by the vote of councillor Michael Nagi and Eastlakes residents are being slugged by the vote of councillor Paul Sedrak. 

Their vote for this increase is on the public record and they will be accountable for it. The Bayside Council amalgamation has been an abject failure. The amalgamation was forced upon the residents of the former City of Botany Bay, despite 90 per cent of residents voting against it at a plebiscite. 

Complaints of poor customer service and a reduction in service standards flood my office. Councillors and staff meet for hours in secret under the pretence of briefings, with no public scrutiny of the information conveyed to councillors. When the Minister for Local Government, warned the council that its committees were not permitted to meet in secret, the council abandoned its committee meetings. 

For weeks councillors were locked away with an unresponsive bureaucracy. They were away from pesky, prying, public eyes, being housetrained with various financial models, all designed to get them on board for a massive rate increase. Fortunately, the Labor councillors were not buying it. 

 The Liberal councillors who want to impose this huge increase on my constituents are the same Bayside Liberals who shot to infamy in 2018 when at a Liberal Party branch meeting they started brawling in the streets of Bayside. A number of attendees were charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assaulting police in the execution of their duty. 

Not only did the Liberals give us a council that our community did not want, the same Liberals who just two years ago were brawling in the streets of the local government area are now voting to increase residents' rates by 51 per cent. No wonder the Premier does not want the Liberals endorsing candidates at the next local government elections. 

If others are like the brawlers from Bayside, I do not blame her. I am loath to blame the legislation at this point. Other amalgamated councils seem to have managed the process. The good, conservative burghers who govern the northern beaches were able to manage a rate harmonisation with the merger of three councils without these extreme increases. 

I am also conscious of the Auditor‑General's report to Parliament and the briefings I received in relation to the council's financial management and procedures, including rates. Voting to increase taxes during a pandemic and a recession at a time of crisis and massive unemployment is outrageous. 

The councillor who represents Mascot in my electorate, Councillor Michael Nagi, to justify his vote told the council, "It's less than a dollar a week", "What does it cost, a cup of coffee?" Councillor Barlow said, "I am just saying it's $4 a week". Those councillors should look Qantas workers in the eye and tell them the same thing. 

I am told that councillors led by councillor Christina Curry and Scott Morrissey have lodged a rescission motion that will be considered next month. That gives the opportunity for those Liberal councillors to reconsider the significance of what they wish to impose on my community. Councillor Michael Nagi and Councillor Paul Sedrak can utilise the time and do something really novel: consult with the people of Mascot and Eastlakes, an area that they do not live in or ever visit. They can look them in the eye and say to these struggling people of my electorate, "Your massive increase is only the price of a cup of coffee."