AITPM Email Newsletter Volume 0907, July 2009 : President's Message

President’s Message AITPM President’s Message, July 2009 Hello fellow AITPM members, It’s now very early July so many Australians are going to experience a range of new, or increases in, fees, charges, and perhaps taxes by State and local governments. For example, Queenslanders are to be hit at the petrol pump, no longer living with the luxury of the State’s previous 8c per litre fuel subsidy, bringing general motorists’ fuel costs into line with the other States. A consolation is that they now don’t have to live with the real or perceived “price gouging” that has appeared in the past to make Queensland prices much closer than 8c to those in other States. Environmental lobbyists argue that this Government’s decision brings public transport costs closer to parity with private transport. However, my sense from sloppy petrol price elasticities is that the State’s motorists will get used to the reversal of what was a reverse tax pretty quickly, an amount which can be less than day-of-the week fluctuation. On the other hand, withholding this State revenue may help in some way the funding of the several major public transport infrastructure projects in progress; not to mention some of the cost of running the Transit Authority’s expanding service commitments. Other policy actions, such as a Federal Government review of taxation on employees’ package vehicles, which might discourage rather than encourage excess kilometres travelled, may have a greater environmental benefit. Of course, a downside is that many vehicles used so are Australian built, and discouraging fleet turnover may damage an industry which faces ever increasing uncertainty, and particularly at the present, is in need of some care and attention. I for one hope to this end that the new 4 cylinder (1.8L petrol or 2L diesel) so called “true Holden” Cruze and Toyota’s pending Camry Hybrid are both roaring successes, and will be taken up in droves as fleet and employee use vehicles. I’m not sure what drive-trains Ford and Holden plan to drop into their next full sized models but even if they’re not Australian sourced, let’s hope they coordinate the requisite performance expected by the “Aussie Battler” with suitable green credentials. I am also encouraged to see that already many Government fleet vehicles are smaller in size, but still fit for purpose. For instance, my local police station uses the Camry based Aurion as a district car. I close again in reminding everyone that AITPM’s flagship event, the 2009 AITPM National Conference, Traffic Beyond Tomorrow, is being held in Adelaide from 5 to 7 August. www.aitpm.com has all of the details about how to register, sponsor a booth, session, etc. Best regards all, Jon Bunker

Captured legislators and their twenty billion dollar annual superannuation cost legacy

By December 2010 total superannuation assets had reached $1.3 trillion, covering 94% of all Australians. This substantial growth was not a natural evolution. Rather it can be directly traced to three decades of bipartisan reform strategies based on a claimed public interest ideology. This article investigates the concerns raised by Superannuation Select Committees, consumer and union organisations, independent researchers and actuarial experts that, in contrast to the public interest rhetoric, the regulatory reforms have primarily achieved major private interest gains for powerful lobbyists. The findings of this analysis indicate that the democratic power of Australian governments to set economic policy agendas has been progressively eclipsed by the power of the financial services industry's producer groups. Rather than producing a best practice governance structure, fund members remain trapped in a post-reform cost paradox: no right of exit regardless of the deepening cost burden imposed. In an industry set to control a projected nominal figure of $6.7 trillion in superannuation assets by 2035, these findings suggest that the real change necessary to improve the deepening cost burden faced by fund members within a life-long, mandatory superannuation investment is now beyond any government's reach.

In pursuit of an architecture realism

The noble idea of studying seminal works to ‘see what we can learn’ has turned in the 1990s into ‘let’s see what we can take’ and in the last decade a more toxic derivative ‘what else can’t we take’. That is my observation as a student of architecture in the 1990s, and as a practitioner in the 2000s. In 2010, the sense that something is ending is clear. The next generation is rising and their gaze has shifted. The idea of classification (as a means of separation) was previously rejected by a generation of Postmodernists; the usefulness of difference declined. It’s there in the presence of plurality in the resulting architecture, a decision to mine history and seize in a willful manner. This is a process of looking back but never forward. It has been a mono-culture of absorption. The mono-culture rejected the pursuit of the realistic. It is a blanket suffocating all practice of architecture in this country from the mercantile to the intellectual. Independent reviews of Australia’s recent contributions to the Venice Architecture Biennales confirm the malaise. The next generation is beginning to reconsider classification as a means of unification. By acknowledging the characteristics of competing forces it is possible to bring them into a state of tension. Seeking a beautiful contrast is a means to a new end. In the political setting, this is described by Noel Pearson as the radical centre[1]. The concept transcends the political and in its most essential form is a cultural phenomenon. It resists the compromised position and suggests that we can look back while looking forward. The radical centre is the only demonstrated opportunity where it is possible to pursue a realistic architecture. A realistic architecture in Australia may be partially resolved by addressing our anxiety of permanence. Farrelly’s built desires[2] and Markham’s ritual demonstrations[3] are two ways into understanding the broader spectrum of permanence. But I think they are downstream of our core problem. Our problem, as architects, is that we are yet to come to terms with this place. Some call it landscape others call it country. Australian cities were laid out on what was mistaken for a blank canvas. On some occasions there was the consideration of the landscape when it presented insurmountable physical obstacles. The architecture since has continued to work on its piece of a constantly blank canvas. Even more ironic is the commercial awards programs that represent a claim within this framework but at best can only establish a dialogue within itself. This is a closed system unable to look forward. It is said that Melbourne is the most European city in the southern hemisphere but what is really being described there is the limitation of a senseless grid. After all, if Dutch landscape informs Dutch architecture why can’t the Australian landscape inform Australian architecture? To do that, we would have to acknowledge our moribund grasp of the meaning of the Australian landscape. Or more precisely what Indigenes call Country[4]. This is a complex notion and there are different ways into it. Country is experienced and understood through the senses and seared into memory. If one begins design at that starting point it is not unreasonable to think we can arrive at an end point that is a counter trajectory to where we have taken ourselves. A recent studio with Masters students confirmed this. Start by finding Country and it would be impossible to end up with a building looking like an Aboriginal man’s face. To date architecture in Australia has overwhelmingly ignored Country on the back of terra nullius. It can’t seem to get past the picturesque. Why is it so hard? The art world came to terms with this challenge, so too did the legal establishment, even the political scene headed into new waters. It would be easy to blame the budgets of commerce or the constraints of program or even the pressure of success. But that is too easy. Those factors are in fact the kind of limitations that opportunities grow out of. The past decade of economic plenty has, for the most part, smothered the idea that our capitals might enable civic settings or an architecture that is able to looks past lot line boundaries in a dignified manner. The denied opportunities of these settings to be prompted by the Country they occupy is criminal. The public realm is arrested in its development because we refuse to accept Country as a spatial condition. What we seem to be able to embrace is literal and symbolic gestures usually taking the form of a trumped up art installations. All talk – no action. To continue to leave the public realm to the stewardship of mercantile interests is like embracing derivative lending after the global financial crisis.Herein rests an argument for why we need a resourced Government Architect’s office operating not as an isolated lobbyist for business but as a steward of the public realm for both the past and the future. New South Wales is the leading model with Queensland close behind. That is not to say both do not have flaws but current calls for their cessation on the grounds of design parity poorly mask commercial self interest. In Queensland, lobbyists are heavily regulated now with an aim to ensure integrity and accountability. In essence, what I am speaking of will not be found in Reconciliation Action Plans that double as business plans, or the mining of Aboriginal culture for the next marketing gimmick, or even discussions around how to make buildings more ‘Aboriginal’. It will come from the next generation who reject the noxious mono-culture of absorption and embrace a counter trajectory to pursue an architecture of realism.

An Uber for apartments could solve some common housing problems

Speculative property developers, criticised for building dog boxes and the slums of tomorrow, are generally hated by urban planners and the public alike. But the doors of state governments are seemingly always open to developers and their lobbyists. Politicians find it hard to say no to the demands of the development industry for concessions because of the contribution housing construction makes to the economic bottom line and because there is a need for well located housing. New supply is also seen as a solution to declining housing affordability. Classical economic theory however is too simplistic for housing supply. Instead, an offshoot of Game Theory - Market Design – not only offers greater insight into apartment supply but also can simultaneously address price, design and quality issues. New research reveals the most significant risk in residential development is settlement risk – when buyers fail to proceed with their purchase despite there being a pre-sale contract. At the point of settlement, the developer has expended all the project funds only to see forecast revenue evaporate. While new buyers may be found, this process is likely to strip the profitability out of the project. As the global financial crisis exposed, buyers are inclined to walk if property values slide. This settlement problem reflects a poor legal mechanism (the pre-sale contract), and a lack of incentive for truthfulness. A second problem is the search costs of finding buyers. At around 10% of project costs, pre-sales are more expensive to developers than finance. This is where Market Design comes in.