Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
The speech the MSM refused to publish, blatant short-sighted narrow self-interest behaviour!; THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OUTLOOK FOR REFORM (we’ve regressed to a culture of rent-seeking)
Topic Started: 11 Oct 2013, 10:12 AM (1,729 Views)
Basil
Member Avatar

SMH columnist Ross Gittins delivered a stunning keynote speech at the National Conference on Resources and Energy last week.

The speech was so direct that the MSM have refused to publish it (quite ironically, given the content!)

Quote:
 
THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OUTLOOK FOR REFORM

Australian National Conference on Resources and Energy

Talk to conference dinner, Canberra, Wednesday, October 3, 2013

Ross Gittins, Economics Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald

I suppose I should start by warning you I’m an adherent to the Paddy McGuinness school of public speaking, which holds that there’s no point in speaking to an audience unless you say something that makes them sit up, challenges their comfortable assumptions and gives them something uncomfortable to think about. This has become, I admit, a terribly unfashionable way to engage an audience. The fragmentation of the media that’s occurring in the digital age is increasingly allowing consumers of the media to customise their news and opinion, selecting those items they’ll find congenial and reinforcing, and selecting out anything that jars with their long-held view of the world. And it’s certainly the case that the main organs of business news have switched to a strategy of only ever telling the captains of industry what they want to hear, of echoing their own opinions back to them.

Sorry, but I’m too close to retirement and too comfortably off to be bothered abasing myself in such a way. In Paddy McGuinness’s heyday the business bible saw its role as being devil’s advocate to business and that’s a role I’m much more comfortable with. And since I didn’t ask to be paid to talk to you tonight, I’m going to do it my way. So I imagine many of you won’t enjoy what I’ve got to say and may even heartily disagree with some of it. Feel free to think of some disparaging label to attach to me and use as an excuse to close your mind to the challenging things I say. I’ll still bother saying them in the hope at least some of you are bosses who don’t want to be surrounded by yes-men and do want to be challenged to rethink some of your more comforting beliefs.

Perhaps among all the labels you could use to dismiss my views the least abusive is that I’m ‘anti-mining’. I assure you I’m not. I’ve spent the past decade singing the praises of the resources boom to my readers, arguing staunchly that this reinforcement of Australia’s comparative advantage in the provision of minerals and energy to the rest of the world is a blessing, and that the rest of our economy has to cop the painful structural adjustment this new stroke of good fortune makes necessary.

What I’m not, however, is pro-mining. I’d like to think I’m not pro any particular sector of industry. When I got into the economic commentary business 40 years ago it was the farmers and the manufacturers who were always trying to tell us they were special, that the rest of the economy rode on their back and that this entitled them to special consideration. It was self-serving self-delusion then, and it still is. What’s changed is that, these days, we also have the miners trying to tell us they’re special, that the rest of the economy rides on their back and that they’re entitled to special consideration. Sorry, not buying that one, either.

With the change of government I’m sure you’re a lot happier about the prospects for the economy and its management, and a lot more confident of a sympathetic hearing from the new government. I wouldn’t be so sure. I suspect the mining industry’s lobbying success is reaching its zenith as we speak. It won’t surprise me if, looking back on the life of the Abbott government, you come to realise the big gains the industry made actually occurred under the Labor government. They occurred no thanks to Labor, and all thanks to the Coalition, but they occurred in reaction to the policies of Labor as part of Tony Abbott’s successful four-year campaign to fight his way back into office. Why did Abbott immediately oppose the mining tax and promise to repeal it? Because he genuinely believed it would wreck the mining industry and do great damage to the wider economy? I doubt it. He did it primarily because he saw opposing the tax as a popular cause and was hoping for a lot of monetary support from the big miners in the 2010 election campaign. Why did he set his face against the carbon pricing scheme? Because it was the price of getting the backing within the party that allowed him to wrest the Liberal leadership from Malcolm Turnbull and because he could see what a popular cause it would be to oppose this ‘great big new tax on everything’.

Now, I have no doubt that keeping his promises to get rid of the mining tax and the carbon tax – delivering on the commitments he made as a result of policies pursued in Labor’s term – will be among his highest priorities. But my point is this: Having delivered so handsomely for the mining industry, I doubt if he’ll feel in any way indebted to the miners. Indeed, he may well feel he’s the one that’s owed. Certainly, he’ll feel the miners have had enough favours to be going on with. And it won’t surprise me if that’s the attitude other industries take: that the miners have had their turn and it’s time to give other industries a go. I suspect the mining industry’s lobbying power has just reached its zenith.

Does this analysis shock you? Does it seem extraordinary cynical? Sorry, it’s just being brutally realistic. We all pursue our self-interest, but we all cloak our self-interest in arguments about how this would be in the best interest of the economy. All I’m doing is stripping away the bulldust.

Most people in business are hoping that with a more enlightened government in power with a big majority in the lower house and a reasonably workable Senate after July, we’ll now see some major economic reform – if not in Abbott’s first term then certainly in his second. I think this is an idle hope.

In a prophetic speech he delivered in May – and which he’s in the process of expanding into a short book – Professor Ross Garnaut argued that our political culture has changed since the reform era of 1983 to 2000, in ways that make it much more difficult to pursue policy reform in the broad public interest. ‘If we are to succeed, the political culture has to change again,’ he said. Policy change in the public interest seems to have become more difficult over time as interest groups have become increasingly active and sophisticated in bringing financial weight to account in influencing policy decisions, Garnaut said. ‘Interest groups have come to feel less inhibition about investment in politics in pursuit of private interests. ‘For a long time, these past dozen years, it has been rare for private interests of any kind to be asked to accept private losses in the interests of improved national economic performance. When asked, the response has been ferocious partisan reaction rather than contributions to reasoned discussion of the public interest in change and in the status quo,’ he said.

I would remind you that, though John Howard’s introduction of the GST is a notable exception, the many reforms of the Hawke-Keating era were achieved with bipartisan support – something that’s unthinkable today. Much of that reform, particularly in the area of taxation, involved packages of measures in which particular interest groups suffered some losses, offset by other gains. As Garnaut argues – and I’m about to demonstrate – this kind of co-operative give-and-take between interest groups willing to accept reforms in the wider public good simply isn’t conceivable today.

My way of making Garnaut’s point is that since the reform era of the 1980s and 90s we’ve regressed to a culture of rent-seeking. You can see this at the level of the political parties and at the level of the industry lobbies. When Howard had the courage to propose introducing a GST, Labor saw its chance to regain office by running a populist scare campaign against it, and came within a whisker of winning the 1998 election. At the time it professed to be righteously opposed to such a regressive tax, but when it finally regained power seven years later, the idea of doing something about that supposedly abhorrent regressivity never crossed its mind. When, in turn, the Rudd government – in its own quite ham-fisted way – attempted the risky reforms of installing the ‘economic instrument’ most economists recommend for responding to the challenge of climate change, and rebalancing the tax system by reforming the taxation of mineral deposits and using the proceeds to reduce taxes elsewhere, Abbott lost little time in deciding to take advantage of Labor’s vulnerability.

Do you really think the events of the past three years will have no bearing on the Labor opposition’s attitude to any controversial reforms Abbott might propose in the next six years, or that Abbott’s foreknowledge of this attitude will have no bearing on his willingness to propose such reforms? The truth is the nation has fought itself to an impasse on controversial reform – of the labour market as well as taxation – and, among the industry lobbies, the miners have played a more destructive role than the rest.

Now, you can respond that the miners did no more than what you’d expect them to do: oppose two new taxes they perceived to be contrary to their industry’s interests. But this is making my point: the reason the outlook for major economic reform is now so bleak isn’t solely because the two sides of politics have regressed to short-sighted, self-interested advantage seeking, it’s also because the industry lobby groups have done the same thing. There’s nothing new about industry lobbying but, as Garnaut says, in the past dozen years it’s become far more blatantly self-interested and far more willing to devote large sums to advertising campaigns to oppose whatever government reforms an industry sees as contrary to its interests.

What hasn’t yet occurred to many business people – but you can be sure is well understood by the politicians and their advisers – is that when industries lobby governments for favours or in opposition to new imposts, the various industries are in competition. It’s easy to imagine the government’s coffers are a bottomless pit but, in fact, there’s only so much rent to go around. As an economist would say, all concessions have an opportunity cost. It’s easy to believe all industries could pay less tax if the pollies would only make households pay more tax, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen. I doubt either side of politics would see that as consistent with their own self-interest. The truth is, when one industry gets in for a big cut, there’s less left in the pot for the others.

That industries don’t understand this simple point about opportunity cost – don’t realise they’re in competition with each other – is easily demonstrated by the demise of Labor’s mining tax package. Think about the original package: the big three miners were going to pay a lot more tax on their resource rents, but pretty much the whole of the proceeds was going to be distributed to other industries. In particular, all companies (including miners, big and small) were getting their company tax rate cut by 2 percentage points, small miners were getting a resource exploration rebate, small business was getting instant write-off of most assets, the banks were getting more concessional taxation of their depositors’ interest income and the financial services industry was getting its great dream of having compulsory super contributions jacked up from 9 per cent to 12, a one-third increase in contributions. So three big miners had a lot to lose, but the rest of industry had a lot to gain. So what was the rest of industry’s attitude to the resource super profits tax? Didn’t like the sound of it. And what did they do when the miners sought to scuttle the new tax? Precisely nothing. What happened then? The exploration rebate was to first thing to disappear and, in several stages under Labor, the cut in the company tax rate got whipped off the table. Now, with Abbott’s plan to abolish the cut-down mining tax, the small business concessions are being withdrawn and the phase-up of compulsory super contributions has been deferred for two years. With all the pressure on the Abbott’s budget, and the super industry extracting a promise from Abbott not to make any further savings on the concessional taxation of super, I’m prepared to bet the two-year deferment will become permanent.

Thus did the rest of business allow the miners to screw them over. And thus did the miners destroy faith in one of the techniques tax reformers believed made major tax reform possible: put together a large package with a mixture of wins and losses and the various industry lobbies keep each other on board in the wider interest.

But it doesn’t stop there. When the miners and the rest of business dream of further tax reform under the Abbott government – perhaps after yet another root-and-branch tax review – what do they have in mind? Mainly, a big cut in the company tax rate. Do you really see the Abbott government daring to fund such a cut by increasing the GST? Had the minerals resource rent tax survived and got past its accelerated depreciation phase, the fact that the most highly profitable part of the corporate sector (along with the banks) was paying a lot more tax on its profits, would have greatly strengthened the argument for a general cut in the company tax rate (this is particularly so because mining is so heavily foreign-owned). So the absence of the resource rent tax makes a cut in the company tax rate a lot less likely. One way a cut in the rate could still be afforded is if was covered by a broadening of the base by the removal of sectional concessions. But the bitter experience of the demise of the mining tax package makes it less likely any government would risk proposing such a compromise.

We can continue going down the road of ever-more blatantly short-sighted and narrowly self-interested behaviour by political parties on the one hand and industry lobby groups on the other, but while we do so it’s idle to dream of major, controversial reform. What we can do – as the miners have shown – is veto any reform we don’t fancy.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Steve
Unregistered

Why doesn't Mr Gittins dedicate as much venom to rent-seeking by the finance industry, notably through the convoluted, inefficient system of compulsory, private, defined-contribution superannuation?

This is often hailed – by its beneficiaries!! – as one of the great “reforms” of the Hawke-Keating era. Well it’s not! As we have discussed on many other occasions it has simply been a device to feed captive customers into the jaws of the (largely Sydney) funds management industry which has now amassed $1.6 trillion of funds on which to extract their 1% pa fees for doing very little.

The problem with the “rent-seeking” paradigm (uggh! sorry about that ugly word) is that it’s concerned only with the “seeking” of rent. It is not concerned with the far more important problem: the ongoing “allocative inefficiency” of systems based on rent-transfers.

Take, for example, the mining rent tax in Australia.

This arose out of the rhetoric of the “two-speed economy”: the fact that Western Australia and Queensland in particular were defying God’s Will by growing more quickly than Sydney and Melbourne. (You’ll notice that there was precious little talk of “two-speed economies” in the previous two decades when the situation was reversed. And I suspect there’ll be precious little talk of it in future now that the mining boom has collapsed.)

If we use the idiosyncratic definition(*) of “rent seeking” preferred by HnH, the “attempt to obtain economic rent” by imposing a tax on the mineral rents of Western Australia – with the proceeds used to boost the lagging economies of Sydney and Melbourne – is itself the most egregious rent-seeking!!!

However, once the regime is in place there is no longer any “attempt to obtain” economic rent (since it has already been obtained) and presumably it ceases to be rent-seeking.

What it doesn’t cease to be is “allocatively inefficient”: it continues to subsidise and promote industries and cities which enjoy no comparative advantage, and which will never bother to obtain a comparative advantage because it’s easier to live off the rents extracted from those parts of the continent which do.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Strindberg
Member Avatar


The MSM is quite right to decline articles from a proven failed extreme left-wing misrepresenter of truths.

Here is Gittins lying about negative gearing in 2003.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/24/1061663676588.html
Quote:
 
..Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA) figures for the capital cities shows that rents rose sharply only in Sydney and Perth (and the Bureau of Statistics' figures for dwelling rent don't show a marked increase for any capital).


Gittins is a debunked serial poster of past claims that house prices have peaked as follows:

Gittins in 2004.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/28/1088392600154.html
Quote:
 
June 29, 2004

Prepare for a property crunch

There's little doubt the cycle's correction phase will involve big falls in house and apartment prices, and I expect thousands of negatively geared investors to do a lot of dough.


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ceiling-on-housing-affordability-reached-and-wont-be-breached-20120703-21fbj.html
Quote:
 
July 4, 2012
Ceiling on housing affordability reached, and won't be breached


http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/housing-market-about-to-take-off-again--in-your-dreams/2006/03/05/1141493544760.html
Quote:
 
March 6, 2006

Housing market about to take off again - in your dreams

The housing market took off.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Ross-Gittins/Housing-boom-runs-out-of-puff/2005/06/14/1118645806141.html
Quote:
 
June 15, 2005

Housing boom runs out of puff

There's been little real pain so far, but it could all still end in tears, warns Ross Gittins.

The property boom may be out of the headlines now that house prices have stopped rising, but we're going to be a long time recovering from it.
Housing costs to Income broadly unchanged since 1994 - re-ratified here
The People of Australia have the highest median wealth in the World
2002-2012 10 year house price growth the SLOWEST since 1952-1962
"There are two kinds of people in this world: ones that fiddle around wondering whether a thing's right or wrong and guys like us." (Hugo to Gagin in Ride the Pink Horse)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Veritas
Default APF Avatar


Strindberg
11 Oct 2013, 12:00 PM
Do you have a smear file on him too?

Actually, I think J Edgar Hoover suits you better than Goebbels.
Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?

The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly.
Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Strindberg
Member Avatar


Veritas
11 Oct 2013, 12:18 PM
Do you have a smear file on him too?

Actually, I think J Edgar Hoover suits you better than Goebbels.
I'll again ignore your obsessive trivialising insult to those who suffered under Goebbels in gas chambers and worse.

I found everything in that post on this forum. No need to keep files.

Worth repeating that Gittins' statement re house prices from 9 years ago for the benefit of worshippers (like yourself) of failed house price doomers like Gittins.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/28/1088392600154.html

Quote:
 
June 29, 2004

Prepare for a property crunch

There's little doubt the cycle's correction phase will involve big falls in house and apartment prices, and I expect thousands of negatively geared investors to do a lot of dough.
...
The big question is whether the implosion of the rental property sector can be successfully quarantined from the rest of the economy.

Loads of housing bears on Fairfax's Cracker forum at the time believed Gittins' tripe and got sucked in to renting. They're still waiting for the promised crunch after 9 years. Will you still be waiting in 9 years?
Housing costs to Income broadly unchanged since 1994 - re-ratified here
The People of Australia have the highest median wealth in the World
2002-2012 10 year house price growth the SLOWEST since 1952-1962
"There are two kinds of people in this world: ones that fiddle around wondering whether a thing's right or wrong and guys like us." (Hugo to Gagin in Ride the Pink Horse)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Catweasel
Member Avatar


Catweasel say it a bizarro.

A Gittins is a Gittins. Cardigan, slippers and hot tea.

It friend of mouse.

But mouzealot hot and a bother of what it interpret as anti-narrative.

But most famous anti-narrative was a Robert the Schiller.

Drag over a coal by media,

for lose the mouse's money,

by missing the out.

Then pop-pop.

And Robert the Schiller saga forgotten by mouse and media.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
miw
Member Avatar


An interesting article based upon a flawed premise.

Quote:
 
In a prophetic speech he delivered in May – and which he’s in the process of expanding into a short book – Professor Ross Garnaut argued that our political culture has changed since the reform era of 1983 to 2000, in ways that make it much more difficult to pursue policy reform in the broad public interest. ‘If we are to succeed, the political culture has to change again,’ he said. Policy change in the public interest seems to have become more difficult over time as interest groups have become increasingly active and sophisticated in bringing financial weight to account in influencing policy decisions, Garnaut said. ‘Interest groups have come to feel less inhibition about investment in politics in pursuit of private interests. ‘For a long time, these past dozen years, it has been rare for private interests of any kind to be asked to accept private losses in the interests of improved national economic performance. When asked, the response has been ferocious partisan reaction rather than contributions to reasoned discussion of the public interest in change and in the status quo,’ he said.

I would remind you that, though John Howard’s introduction of the GST is a notable exception, the many reforms of the Hawke-Keating era were achieved with bipartisan support – something that’s unthinkable today. Much of that reform, particularly in the area of taxation, involved packages of measures in which particular interest groups suffered some losses, offset by other gains. As Garnaut argues – and I’m about to demonstrate – this kind of co-operative give-and-take between interest groups willing to accept reforms in the wider public good simply isn’t conceivable today.


When Keating moved into the treasurer's office in 1983, there was one document apparently abandoned there. It was a yellowing copy of the Campbell Report which had been commissioned by the Fraser government to give a blueprint for the reform of the Australian economy. After it had been done, Howard had wanted to start implementing it but Fraser was too gutless to do it. Keating spent the next 13 years implementing it with the tacit support of the opposition, because there was bipartisan agreement that the fuckup of the 1970s showed that the old order just did not work any more, and root-and-branch change had to be carried out. What is more, the public and the unions were on board with the idea that things needed to change. And furthermore, the reform process was kicked off in tandem with the upward swing of a V-shaped recovery that lifted all boats. Howard finished off pretty-much the last recommendation in the report with the GST in 2000.

The reason why we aren't getting big reforms now are:

a) We are still digesting the last lot.
b) Compared to the late 1970s, we are nowhere near to being on the burning deck where everyone agrees that something must be done, let alone what must be done.
c) Instead of a strong document addressing real problems and into which all sides had some input, we have political hacks like Ross Garnaut pushing half-baked theories.

The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
GloomBoomDoom
Member Avatar


Catweasel
11 Oct 2013, 01:30 PM
Catweasel say it a bizarro.

A Gittins is a Gittins. Cardigan, slippers and hot tea.

It friend of mouse.

But mouzealot hot and a bother of what it interpret as anti-narrative.

But most famous anti-narrative was a Robert the Schiller.

Drag over a coal by media,

for lose the mouse's money,

by missing the out.

Then pop-pop.

And Robert the Schiller saga forgotten by mouse and media.
If I interpreted that right you meant that a guy can be 100% correct but if the timing isn't exact then the whole argument is considered invalid.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
doubleview
Member Avatar


Veritas
11 Oct 2013, 12:18 PM
Do you have a smear file on him too?

Actually, I think J Edgar Hoover suits you better than Goebbels.
yep Must debunk anything about the bearish view on oz props.

Stinks of pr firm type antics to me!
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Strindberg
Member Avatar


doubleview
11 Oct 2013, 05:15 PM
yep Must debunk anything about the bearish view on oz props.

Stinks of pr firm type antics to me!
Sounds like you were one of those suckers duped by Gittins who promised a property crunch in 2004 and the memory hurts.

Take it out on him. I'm simply reminding you of your bear pin up boys' stuck records. It's fun.
Housing costs to Income broadly unchanged since 1994 - re-ratified here
The People of Australia have the highest median wealth in the World
2002-2012 10 year house price growth the SLOWEST since 1952-1962
"There are two kinds of people in this world: ones that fiddle around wondering whether a thing's right or wrong and guys like us." (Hugo to Gagin in Ride the Pink Horse)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy