Dear ,
If you're like me you've been to a few Anzac Day services, but you probably don't go every year. And now this year you can't go, even if you wanted to.

But maybe there is a way you can.
AIP member Peter Rasey alerted me to the "Stand at the end of your driveway" campaign, being run by the RSL and others. The idea is that at 6:00 am tomorrow morning we all stand at the end of our driveways and play the last post and reveille, or download the Anzac 2020 app for your phone and listen to a service.

This might be the most significant Anzac Day in your life.

I'm not suggesting the COVID-19 pandemic comes close to Gallipoli, or any serious war effort. That would be ridiculous and vainglorious for the current generation.

This might be the worst deprivation in 71 years, but compared to a real war, it is nothing.

But it is a deprivation, and Anzac Day has become our default, secular celebration of what it is to be Australian. What I always find most poignant about it is that we celebrate a defeat, not a victory. It's about perseverance and duty, not glory, and it speaks to me of the pragmatic, phlegmatic character of Australia.

Standing at the ends of our driveways tomorrow will be a statement that our traditional values still matter, and that this temporary setback won't fundamentally alter what Australia is, or who we are, nor our resolve to rebuild the country in its own image, just better than ever, when things are back into order.

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation (COVID-19 Emergency Response) Regulations

A number of organisations ran campaigns against these regulations (which were only made public late on the day they were passed in parliament), including most notably the REIQ. You can download the regulations from here. They form part of a bill, the COVID Emergency Response Bill 2020, which you can download from here.

The government made some changes in response to these campaigns, which the REIQ and the Property Council were apparently satisfied with. This reminded me of one of the deficiencies of industry organisations – they tend to become part of the club, and then they are happy with what they think is possible, rather than what is right, and they end-up giving away more than they should.

The COVID-19 legislation was passed unanimously, and neither the opposition nor the cross-bench tried to amend it to delete any of these regulations. However, Deb Frecklington, John Paul Langbroek, Michael Hart, Andrew Powell, Fiona Simpson and Nick Dametto all raised some concerns. So please let them know you support them, and encourage them to do more next time.

I've summarised some of the outcomes of the regulations in the attached media release that went out yesterday, but I just wanted to make some comments in general.

• The government was in the middle of reviewing the Residential Tenancies Act, and acquiescing to the demands of some tenants organisations. I suspect this bill will lay the ground for subsequent legislation which seeks to make the rent that can be charged contingent to some extent on the tenant's ability to pay. This will make the landlord financially liable for his tenant's misfortune, rather than just running the financial risk that his tenant might not be able to pay. The image above is of a leaflet that was distributed in West End, and gives you some idea of the radical fringe on this issue.
  
• While most of the changes were related to COVID-19, and the financial, or health, difficulties arising from it, a large section of the bill was given over to measures for people suffering from domestic violence. This is only tangentially related to COVID (and the latest stats from NSW say DV has actually gone down in the crisis). This further suggests the bill is about establishing precedents.
  
• The most damaging precedent the bill establishes is that one small part of the community should be arbitrarily made to bear a major part of the cost of providing social insurance to people with whom their only relationship is commercial. It smacks of an ideological view that sees property owners as exploitative and rich, and in receipt of unearned income that should belong to someone else. This view has no place in modern Australia.
  
• Many landlords were dealing very humanely with their tenants, understanding that these are unusual times, and that their own interests and the tenant's are partially aligned. This is demonstrated from the feedback that some of you gave me about the effect of this legislation on you. Far from having the whiphand over their tenants, many landlords are beholden to their rents to be able to maintain a very modest standard of living. (I've also attached some of the feedback that I received from property owenrs).
  
• I am not aware of another state that has mandated such draconian legislation. In every other state, at the least, they expect tenants to pay their rent except in rare cases. They don't expect the landlord to be forced to give them a discount because the tenant has lost income, subject to arbitration by a third party if they can't agree.

What all of this means is that we need to ensure that the problems with the government's victimisation of property owners is made clear during the remainder of the COVID-19 crisis, so that it doesn't end-up forming part of new residential tenancy legislation. When you make an asset class riskier you make it more expensive, and there is generally less of it - that's not in the interests of tenants, or the investors.

If they are not challenged, they are not likely to stop with rental housing.

 Regards, and see you in the driveway tomorrow,

Graham Young
Executive Director