Independent thought an abstract concept; Big beef over a bill

Super Members Council chair Ann Sherry.

House prices would rise by up to 10 per cent in capital cities if people were able to raid their super to pay for a deposit, according to a “rigorous new academic study” conducted by one of Australia’s “leading housing economists”.

And paid for by a Big Super lobby group stacked with Labor figures. And Sally McManus.

We’re talking about the Super Members Council, the umbrella group for industry super funds chaired by Ann Sherry. It commissioned South Australian housing economist Chris Leishman to write an “independent” report into this proposed raid on super – a Coalition policy being taken to the election to ease people out of the rental market and finally get them into home ownership for keeps.

Crunching through thousands of studies, Leishman’s research allegedly found that if people drew $50,000 from their retirement savings, per the Coalition’s vision, median house prices would rise by roughly $92,500 across the capital cities. Leishman also found that between 130,000 and 148,500 people would end up finding themselves a home in the policy’s first year, which may incidentally prove that it works.

Whether that’s true or not, and whether Leishman is right or not about the price increases, well, that’s not really our bag. What we’re wondering about is his SMC-vaunted independence.

Because undisclosed in ­Leishman’s research is that he sits on the board of Housing Choices Australia, a community not-for-profit that’s propped up by industry super funds and working in partnership with them to ­construct build-to-rent developments.

Nicola Roxon. Picture: Hollie Adams

Misha Schubert. Picture: Eamon Gallagher

The two big investors on these build-to-rent projects are HESTA and AustralianSuper. Their chairs, Nicola Roxon and Don Russell, respectively, both sit on the SMC board. We don’t think that trips any wires of a conflict, but we’re not quite swallowing the claim that Leishman’s research can be branded wholly independent, either.

The industry funds have spent months bagging the Coalition’s policy, for the obvious reason that letting people scoop money out in $50,000 chunks will undermine their business model. Meanwhile, these funds have partnered with HCA, where Leishman sits on the board, and they’re spending millions on developing build-to-rent developments that offer an alternative to the Coalition’s housing solution.

Actually, this is the third piece of paid-research commissioned by the SMC over the past 12 months to argue, with an elevated state of alarm on each occasion, that the Coalition’s plan for raiding super savings will push up house prices. None of these reports have bothered to factor in supply-side relief.

Leishman said this himself in his report: “This study set out to estimate what the housing market effect would be if a policy change led to an increase in housing demand, but without corresponding supply side or demand reduction interventions.”

Leishman tells us that there was no need to declare his role on the board of a not-for-profit community organisation working in partnership with the industry super funds, because doing so would have fallen outside the usual obligations of academic practice.

“I am a member of the board and act entirely in a governance capacity – I play no role in operational matters,” he said.

“HCA has no connection with either SMC, the university or the study’s content.

“The study is independent, and the findings are not contentious.

“It has no connection with Housing Choices Australia (HCA).”

Meanwhile, SMC chief Misha Schubert told us that Leishman’s “rigorous, independent work is the latest in a very long line of robust and compelling evidence that shows withdrawing super for house deposits would make the nation’s housing affordability crisis worse. The key principle of those findings is Economics 101”.

Supply and demand, right? Key principle! And yet supply, as Leishman himself said, wasn’t a factor in this particular piece of research, so spare us the lecture. YB

A beef over the bill

Should you have to pay the full tab for a last-minute restaurant cancellation? Even if you’re actually doing the restaurant a favour by hanging out with politicians rather than turning up and then covering your bills? That’s the claim made by one group of movers and shakers in a bizarre blue between an agricultural lobby group and a Canberra eatery.

Cancelled bookings are the bane of most hospitality businesses, particularly for group bookings. The smaller your restaurant, the more it hurts.

Enter Cattle Australia, a lobby group for farmers who feed their cows on grass, led by WA veterinarian Chris Parker.

The Otis Dining Hall restaurant is at the centre of the dispute. Picture: AAP

In February the group booked a table for 10 of its latest crop of National Beef Leaders during a Parliamentary sitting week, trad­itionally the busiest time for Canberra’s dining industry, choosing a $110 a head degustation menu at Otis Dining Hall, a 40 seat eatery once favoured by pro-coal Labor factional power­brokers.

Sadly for restaurateur Damian Brabender, a better offer came along on the night. The group got an invitation to a barbecue put on by the Parliamentary Friends of Red Meat.

Offered the prospect of a free feed instead, Cattle Australia promptly cancelled, instead opting to rub shoulders at Parliament House with such luminaries as shadow resources minister Susan McDonald, Speaker of the House Milton Dick, and small business minister Julie Collins (oh, the irony!)

Leaving Brabender short 10 diners and $1100. Having already bought and prepared the bulk of the food, the outraged restaurateur promptly issued CA with a bill for the full amount. Which CA refuses to pay.

Chris Parker.

And why? Here accounts differ. Brabender says Otis’s terms and conditions for group bookings clearly say the full amount is due for no-shows where they have pre-ordered the food.

Cattle Australia says Otis’s terms included, at the time of booking, only a $50 a head deposit which could be forfeited on a late cancellation. Which CA didn’t pay beforehand, but which Parker says he has since offered to cover.

A bigger business might conclude the $700 difference is hardly a high-steaks affair. But to a small restaurant already suffering from rising costs, that kind of shortfall is a big deal.

Besides, what appears to have really gotten Brabender’s goat is the lame excuses offered by the lobbyists.

First CA’s membership officer tried to sell the cancellation as a net benefit to Otis, telling Brabender their National Beef Leaders had toddled off to drink with pollies “aiming to create conversations about keeping red meat on the plates of restaurants like yours”. Then Parker tried to milk a bit of sympathy by noting that his family “owns a small winery in the Canberra district”, and therefore understands how much trouble this sort of thing causes.

Besides, the parliamentary barbecue was really important.

“The young group got a last-minute opportunity to interact with decision makers in our parliament.

“This was a really good opportunity for them and something we did not want them to miss out on when the offer was made,” he told Brabender.

Margin Call has been to a few of these shindigs over the years, and Parker’s line is the biggest load of bull we’ve heard in quite a while.

As of Wednesday, however, Parker was sticking to his guns, telling Margin Call the $500 offer still stands but he won’t be moved on the rest, given “the owner of the restaurant has subsequently changed the terms and conditions to impose new charges for late cancellations, which he is now trying to impose on CA via media campaign”. NE