Social Trends – Page 126 – Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog

More Evidence of Poor Mortgage Lending Practice

The Australian Financial Review is reporting that New ‘liar loans’ data reveal borrowers more stretched than some lenders suspect.

One in five property borrowers are exaggerating their income and nearly half understating their spending, triggering new concerns about underwriting standards and vulnerability to sharp economic corrections, according to new analysis of loan applications by online property lender Tic:Toc Home Loans.

The number of ‘liar loans’ exceeds original estimates by investment bank UBS that last year found about 30 per cent of home loans, or $500 billion worth of loans could be affected.

Tic:Toc Home Loans’ founder and chief executive, Anthony Baum, said loan applications are representative of larger lenders in terms of location, borrower and loan size, which range from about $60,000 to $1.3 million.

Mr Baum, a senior banker for nearly 30 years, said in many cases applicants did not have to over-state their income for the required loan.

“Our portfolio looks like other organisations,” he said.

Analysis of their applications reveals about 20 per cent overstate their income, typically by about 30 per cent, and 50 per cent state their expenses are lower than the Household Expenditure Measure, also by about 30 per cent.

Property market experts claim the latest analysis, although based on a smaller sample than UBS’s survey, are credible and consistent with independent analysis of the lending standards.

“They do not surprise me,” said Richard Holden, professor economics at University of NSW Business School, who argues the potential problems are compounded by more than one-in-three loans being interest only.

Martin North, principal of Digital Finance Analytics, an independent consultancy, also backed the latest ‘liar loan’ numbers.

Mr North said standards had slipped because of lenders’ readiness to “jump over backwards” to increase business and commission incentives for mortgage brokers rewarding bigger loans.

“Not all lenders are the same but these numbers do not surprise me at all,” he said.

Mr North said there was strong evidence that salaries are overstated by between 15 and 20 per cent by borrowers using a range of tactics, such as over-stating bonuses or, for variable income earners, using peak rather than average income.

Household Financial Confidence Trudges South In December

The latest edition of the Digital Finance Analytics Household Financial Security Confidence Index, to December 2017 shows another fall, down from 96.1 last month to 95.7 this time, and remains below the neutral measure of 100.

The trend continues to drift south as flat incomes, big debt and now falling home prices all impact.

Analysis of households by their property owning status reveals that property investors are in particular turning sour, as flat net rental incomes, and rising interest rates hit many, at a time when property capital growth is stalling. Owner occupied households are faring a little better, thanks to a range of ultra cheap mortgage rates on offer at the moment, but they are also concerned about price momentum. Those without property interests remain the least confident, as the costs of renting outstrip income growth, and more are slipping into rental stress.

Looking across the states, they all slipped a little, with NSW now well behind VIC (we think the Victorian market is about 6 months behind Sydney, so will drift lower ahead). WA has not improved this time, suggesting that those talking up the market in the west may be over optimistic.

Across the age groups, young households are most concerned about their financial position, but every age group shows a small fall this month – perhaps thanks to the Christmas binge (though we think credit card debt will not rise that much this year) and retail stats may be lower than expected.

Looking in detail at the scorecard, which shows the elements which drive the index; job security is pretty stable, but savings are being raided by many to support their finances, while rates on bank deposits continue to drift lower. Households are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the level of debt they hold (they should at a ratio of 2:1, debt to income). Income continues to fall in real terms and costs of living are rising (child care costs and rising fuel costs are concerning many). We also see a slide in net worth, as home prices, especially in the Sydney region decline. This despite high stock market prices at the moment.

We cannot see any circuit breakers in the mix ahead, so we expect the falling trend to continue into autumn.

By way of background, these results are derived from our household surveys, averaged across Australia. We have 52,000 households in our sample at any one time. We include detailed questions covering various aspects of a household’s financial footprint. The index measures how households are feeling about their financial health. To calculate the index we ask questions which cover a number of different dimensions. We start by asking households how confident they are feeling about their job security, whether their real income has risen or fallen in the past year, their view on their costs of living over the same period, whether they have increased their loans and other outstanding debts including credit cards and whether they are saving more than last year. Finally we ask about their overall change in net worth over the past 12 months – by net worth we mean net assets less outstanding debts.

We will update the results again next month.

Property, debt stress prompts clients to take tax risks

SMSF and accounting professionals alike are increasingly finding that clients are willing to take risky moves with their property portfolios, in an effort to reduce their mortgage stress. From SMSF Adviser.

These patterns are surfacing as instances of mortgage stress continue to climb significantly in Australian households. Research house Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) has released its mortgage stress and default analysis for December 2017, showing about 29.7 per cent of households — 921,000 — are under “mortgage stress.”

About 24,000 households are under “severe mortgage stress”, up by 3,000 from November 2017.

DFA principal Martin North believes the risk of default for Australians has increased for 2018, with an estimated 54,000 households currently at risk of 30-day debt defaults in the next 12 months.

Several accountants and financial advisers have told Accountants Daily that their clients, including high-net-worth property investors, are increasingly looking to take on more risk to sustain their levels of debt.

Director at Verante Financial Planning, and chair of the SMSF Association’s NSW state chapter, Liam Shorte, said he’s seen evidence of investors asking accountants to increase their reportable income to increase their borrowing capacity, usually where they need to refinance. Historically, clients have sought advice on how to minimise their reportable income for tax purposes.

He also told sister publication Accountants Daily that more clients are asking their parents to do a “family pledge,” or guarantee about 20 per cent of a loan to help reduce debt while refinancing.

For Lielette Calleja, director at bookkeeping firm All That Counts, mortgage stress is most pronounced with small business owners, and doesn’t necessarily only affect those at the lower end of the earning scale.

“I would have to say that small business owners are heavily affected. Your income is not always consistent, as opposed to being a PAYG. Mortgage stress is across the board I don’t believe it discriminates as it’s relative to each type of borrower. Property investors and high-net-worth individuals tend to be asset rich but lack cash flow until their development is complete and/or sold/leased out,” Ms Calleja told Accountants Daily.

Further, Ms Calleja is finding clients are modifying their behaviours and expenses to adjust to a new normal in household debt levels.

“Families that are not in a position to refinance are resorting to taking their kids out of private schools and foregoing luxury holidays, even simple things like making your own lunch instead of buying is becoming the Aussie way,” she said.

“Small business owners are coming to the conclusion that having good financials consistently all year round is critical in keeping their mortgage stress levels at bay,” she added.

Households Under The Mortgage Stress Gun In December

Digital Finance Analytics has released the December mortgage stress and default analysis update. Across Australia, more than 921,000 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 913,000). This equates to 29.7% of households. In addition, more than 24,000 of these in severe stress, up 3,000 from last month. We estimate that more than 52,000 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months, similar to last month. We expect bank portfolio losses to be around 2.8 basis points, though with losses in WA rising to 4.9 basis points. Households in NSW are showing the most significant rise in stress, thanks to larger mortgages relative to income, while income growth is slow.

Martin North, Principal of Digital Finance Analytics said “the number of households impacted are economically significant, especially as household debt continues to climb to new record levels. Mortgage lending is still growing at three times income. This is not sustainable”. The latest household debt to income ratio is now at a record 199.7.[1]

Risks in the system continue to rise, and while recent strengthening of lending standards will help protect new borrowers, there are many households currently holding loans which would not now be approved. This is a significant sleeping problem and the risks in the system are higher than many recognise.

Our analysis uses the DFA core market model which combines information from our 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA; and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to end December 2017. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.

Households are defined as “stressed” when net income (or cash flow) does not cover ongoing costs. Households in mild stress have little leeway in their cash flows, whereas those in severe stress are unable to meet repayments from current income. In both cases, households manage this deficit by cutting back on spending, putting more on credit cards and seeking to refinance, restructure or sell their home. Those in severe stress are more likely to be seeking hardship assistance and are often forced to sell.

The forces which are lifting mortgage stress levels remain largely the same. In cash flow terms, we see households having to cope with rising living costs whilst real incomes continue to fall and underemployment remains high. Households have larger mortgages, thanks to the strong rise in home prices, especially in the main eastern state centres, but now there are signs prices are slipping. While mortgage rates remain quite low for owner occupied borrowers, those with interest only loans or investment loans have seen significant rises. We expect some upward pressure on real mortgage rates in the next year as international funding pressures mount, a potential for local rate rises and margin pressure on the banks.

Probability of default extends our mortgage stress analysis by overlaying economic indicators such as employment, future wage growth and cpi changes. Our Core Market Model also examines the potential of portfolio risk of loss in basis point and value terms. Losses are likely to be higher among more affluent households.

Stress by The Numbers.

Regional analysis shows that NSW has 258,572 households in stress (251,576 last month), VIC 254,485 (253,248 last month), QLD 156,097 (157,019 last month) and WA 121,934 (123,849 last month). The probability of default rose, with around 9,800 in WA, around 9,500 in QLD, 13,000 in VIC and 14,000 in NSW.

The largest financial losses relating to bank write-offs reside in NSW ($1.3 billion) from Owner Occupied borrowers) and VIC ($957 million) from Owner Occupied Borrowers, which equates to 2.1 and 2.7 basis points respectively. Losses are likely to be highest in WA at 4.9 basis points, which equates to $682 million from Owner Occupied borrowers.

You can request our media release. Note this will NOT automatically send you our research updates, for that register here.

[contact-form to=’mnorth@digitalfinanceanalytics.com’ subject=’Request The December 2017 Stress Release’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email Me The December 2017 Media Release’ type=’radio’ required=’1′ options=’Yes Please’/][contact-field label=”Comment If You Like” type=”textarea”/][/contact-form]

Note that the detailed results from our surveys and analysis are made available to our paying clients.

[1] RBA E2 Household Finances – Selected Ratios September 2017

Some Segments Are More Likely To Buy, But Is It Enough?

Now, in our review of the results from our household surveys, we look at owner occupied purchasers. We start with “want to buys” – households who would like to purchase but cannot. High home prices are the strongest barrier (31%), followed by availability of finance (27%), rising costs of living (17%) and concerns about interest rate rises (16%). Unemployment is not currently a major concern.

Turning to first time buyers, around 30% are buying for a place to live, while 17% are eying the potential capital gains (down from 31% a year ago). 15% are motivated by tax breaks, and 11% by the availability of first home owner grants (FHOG), up from 1% a year ago. Greater security is also another factor (12%).

Turning to first time buyer barriers, the most significant challenge is problems with finance availability at 24.5% (compared with 11% a year ago), and house prices 41.1% (compared with 45.5% a year ago). Finding a place to buy is a little easier, down from 24% a year ago to 16% now.

Looking at the type of property they expect to purchase, we see a rise in city edge units, and suburban units, as more purchase an apartment not a house. 17% are not sure what to buy, compared with 22% a year ago.

Those seeking to refinance are driven a desire to reduce monthly payments (42%), 17% to withdraw capital, 18% for a better interest rate and 14% to lock in a fixed rate. Poor lender service is not a significant driver of refinancing.

Those seeking to sell and move down the market are seeking to release capital for retirement (41%), up from a year ago, 30% moving for great living convenience, and 10% because of illness or death of a spouse. Interestingly, the attraction of putting funds into an investment property has reduced from 23% a year ago to 16% now.

Finally, those seeking to trade up, 32% are doing so to get more space, 38% for investment purposes down from 43% a year ago, 17% for life style change and 13% for job change.

So the surveys highlight the lower appetite for investment property, the barriers limiting access to funds, and the desire to extract capital before prices fall much further.

Putting all this together, we think home prices are likely to fall further, as investor appetite continue to dissipate, and whilst there will be some first time buyer substitution, it will not be sufficient to keep prices high. Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne markets are most likely to see a fall though 2018. There is a risk of a more sustained fall if more property investors decide to cut their losses and try to lock in paper profits.

Household Spending Remains Key to U.S. Economic Growth

From The St. Louis Fed On The Economy Blog.

Household-related spending is driving the economy like never before, according to a recent Housing Market Perspectives analysis.

Since the U.S. economy began to recover in 2009, close to 83 percent of total growth has been fueled by household spending, said William R. Emmons, lead economist with the St. Louis Fed’s Center for Household Financial Stability.

“Hence, the continuation of the current expansion may depend largely on the strength of U.S. households,” noted Emmons.

An Examination of the Current Expansion

In July, the U.S. economic expansion entered its ninth year, and it should soon become the third-longest growth period since WWII, Emmons said. He noted that it would become the longest post-WWII recovery if it persists through the second quarter of 2020.

However, the current expansion has been weak and ranks ninth among the 10 post-WWII business cycles, as shown in the figure below.¹ “Only the previous cycle, ending in the second quarter of 2009, was weaker,” he said. “That cycle was dominated by the housing boom and bust and culminated in the Great Recession.”

The Changing Composition of Economic Growth

Emmons noted that the composition of economic growth also has changed in recent decades and has generally shifted in favor of housing and consumer spending,² as shown in the figure below.

“Only during the brief 1958-61 cycle did residential investment—which includes both the construction of new housing units and the renovation of existing units—contribute proportionally more to the economy’s growth than it has during the current cycle,” Emmons said.

He noted that, perhaps surprisingly, homebuilding subtracted significantly from economic growth during the previous cycle even though it included the housing bubble. “The crash in residential investment was so severe between the fourth quarter of 2005 and the second quarter of 2009 that it erased all of housing investment’s previous growth contributions,” he said.

He noted that residential investment typically subtracts from growth during recessions. Thus, its ultimate contribution to the current cycle likely will be less than currently shown because the next recession will be included as part of the current cycle.

At the same time, he said, personal consumption expenditures (i.e., consumer spending) also have been very important in recent cycles.

Emmons noted that consumer spending has contributed close to 75 percent of overall economic growth during the current cycle. The share was higher in only two other cycles. “Not surprisingly, strong residential investment and strong consumer spending tend to coincide when households are doing well,” he said.

Notes and References

¹ The current business cycle began in the third quarter of 2009 and has not yet ended. The provisional “end date” used is the second quarter of 2017, which was the most recent quarter ended at the time this analysis was done.

² The other components of gross domestic product (GDP) are business investment, exports and imports of goods and services, and government consumption expenditures and gross investment.

A Year In A Week – The Property Imperative 23 Dec 2017

In This Week’s Edition of the Property Imperative we look back over 2017, the year in which the property market turned, focus on the risks to households increased, and banks came under the spotlight as never before.

Welcome the penultimate edition of our weekly property and finance digest for 2017.

We start with the latest Government budget statement, which came out this week. There was a modest improvement in the fiscal outlook, largely reflecting a boost in tax collections, including from higher corporate profits in the mining sector. But there was also a consumer shaped hole, driven by low wages, lower consumption and lower levels of consumer confidence. Yet, in the outlook, wages are predicted to rise back to 3%, and this supporting above trend GDP growth. This all seems over optimistic to me.

In any case, according to the IMF, GDP is a poor measure of economic progress, with its origins rooted firmly in production and manufacturing. In fact, GDP misrepresents productivity and they say companies that are making huge profits from mining big data have a responsibility to share their data with governments.

The mortgage industry has seen growth in lending at around 6% though the year, initially led by investors piling into the market, but then following the belated regulatory intervention to slow higher risk interest only lending, momentum has switched to first time buyers, at a time when some foreign buyers are less able to access the market. A third of customers with interest-only mortgages may not properly understand the type of loan they have taken out, which could put many in “substantial” stress when the time comes to pay their debt, UBS analysts have warned. We have also seen a change in mix, as smaller lenders and non-banks (who are not under the same regulatory pressure) have increased their share. AFG’s latest Competition index which came out yesterday, showed that Australia’s major lenders have taken a hit with their market share now down to a post-GFC low of 62.57% of the mortgage market.

Household finances have been under pressure this year, with income growth, one third the rate of mortgage growth, so the various debt ratios are off the dial – as a nation we have more indebted households than almost anywhere else. This is a long term issue, created by a combination of Government Policy, RBA interest rate settings, the financialisation of property, and the rabid growth of property investors – who hold 35% of mortgages (twice the proportion of the UK). The combination of rising costs of living, and out of cycle rate rises, have put pressure on many households as never before – and we have tracked the rise of mortgage stress through the year to an all-time high.

The latest MLC Wealth Sentiment Survey contained further evidence of the pressure on households and their finances. Being able to save has been a challenge for a number of Australians – almost 1 in 5 of us have been unable to save any of our income in recent years, and for more than 1 in 4 of us only 1-5%. Expectations for future income growth are very conservative – nearly 1 in 3 Australians expect no change in income over the next few years and 15% expect it to fall. Our savings expectations for the future are also very conservative – with more than 1 in 5 Australians believing their savings will fall. The “great Australian dream” of home ownership is still a reality for many, but for some it’s just a dream – fewer than 1 in 10 Australians said they didn’t want to own their own home, but 1 in 4 said home ownership was something they aspired to but did not think it would happen.

Of course the RBA continues on one hand to warm of risks to households, as in the minutes published this week, yet also persists with its line that households can cope, with the massive debt burden, as its skewed towards more wealthy groups. They keep referring to the HILDA survey, which is 3 years old now, as a basis for this assertion. They should take note of a Bank of England Working paper which looked at UK mortgage data in detail, and concluded the surveys tend to understand the true mortgage risks in the market – partly because of the methodology used. They concluded “These results should make policy makers less sanguine about the developments in the UK mortgage market in recent years, which are traditionally analysed using these surveys”.

The latest report from S&P Global Ratings covering securised mortgage pools in Australia to end Oct 2017, showed 30-day delinquency fell to 1.04% in October from 1.08% in September. They attribute part of the decline to a rise in outstanding loan balances during the month, and many older loans in the portfolios (which may not be representative of all mortgages, thanks to the selection criteria for securitised pools). But 90+ defaults remain elevated – at a time when interest rates are rock bottom.

Banks are under the gun, as Government have turned up the pressure this year. There are a range of inquiries in train, from the wide-ranging Banking Royal Commission (which the Government long resisted, but then capitulated), and a notice requiring banks, insurance companies and superannuation funds to detail all cases of misconduct from 2008 onwards has also been issued. The scope includes mortgage brokers and financial advisers. Also the ACCC is looking at mortgage pricing, The Productivity Commission is looking at vertical integration, and we have the BEAR regime which is looking at Banking Executive Behaviour. This week we also got sight of the Enhanced Financial Services Product Design Obligations, and of course the major banks copped the bank tax. There are also a number of cases before the Courts. This week, NAB said it had refunded $1.7 million for overcharging interest on home loans and CommInsure paid $300,000 following ASIC concerns over misleading life insurance advertising

This tightening across the board is a reaction to earlier period of market deregulation, privatisation and sector growth. But at its heart, the issue is a cultural one, where banks are primary focussing on shareholder returns (as a company that is their job), but at the expense of their customers. Even now, the decks are stacked against customers, and the newly revised banking code of conduct won’t do much. We think the Open Banking Initiative will eventually help to lift competition, and force prices lower. But, after many years of easy money, banks are having to work a lot harder, and with much more lead in the saddle bag. Meantime, it is costing Australia INC. dear.

More significantly, the revised Basel rules, though watered down, still tilts the playing field towards mortgage lending, and makes productive lending to business less attractive. Also there is more to do on bank stress testing according to the Basel Committee. The regulation framework is in our view faulty.

One question worth considering, as the USA and other Central Banks lift their base cash rates, is whether there is really a “lower neutral rate” now. Some, in a BIS working paper have argued that Central Banker’s monetary policy have driven real interest rates lower, rather than demographics. But another working paper, this time from the Bank of England, comes down on the other side of the argument. The paper “Demographic trends and the real interest rate” says two-thirds of the fall in rates is attributable to demographic changes (in which case Central Bankers are responding, not leading rates lower). In fact, pressure towards even lower rates will continue to increase. This is a fundamentally important question to answer. We suspect the role of Central Bankers in driving rates is less significant than many suspect, and structural changes are afoot.

Rates in Australia have stayed low this year, at 1.5%, despite the RBA saying this is below the neutral setting, and we expect the bank to move later in 2018, upwards. The rate of rise is now expected to be lower than a year ago, but the international pressure will be up. In addition, the US tax reforms will likely switch more investment to the US, and so banks, who rely on international funding, will likely have to pay more. So we still expect real rates to go higher ahead, creating more pressure on households. Also, of course as rates rise, the costs of Governments running deficits rises, something which will be a drag on the budget later.

Home prices continued to rise through 2017 in the eastern states, while in NT and WA they fell. Recent corrections in Sydney may be an indication of what is ahead in the Melbourne market too. Demand remains strong, but lending standards have been tightened, and investors are getting more concerned about future capital appreciation. This year building approvals were still pretty strong, in line with firm population growth. As an aside, an OECD report this week said that Australian property may well be a target for money laundering, and more needs to be done to address this issue. Auction volumes continue to slide, and we have seen a significant fall in recent weeks.

So, this year we have seen changes in the financial services landscape, the property market is on the turn, and household’s debt levels are rising, creating financial stress for many. As a result, we expect many to spend less this Christmas.

Next time we will discuss the likely trajectory through 2018, but we wanted to wish all our followers a peaceful and restful holiday season. We have really appreciated all the interest in our work – through the year we have more than doubled our readership, thanks to you.

Many thanks for watching. Check back next week for our views on what 2018 may bring.

Bad data collection means we don’t know how much the middle class is being squeezed by the wealthy

From The Conversation.

Australia is falling behind other nations and international bodies in measuring inequality, particularly the concentration of wealth. This also means we are in the dark about the trends affecting Australia’s middle class.

The main source of local data is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which publishes a Survey of Income and Housing every two years. The survey provides no information on the wealth of Australia’s top 10%, let alone the top 1% or the top 0.1%. Nor does it quantify the bottom 50%.

The ABS also publishes an index known as the “Gini coefficient”, but as the recent World Inequality Report points out, this indicator can produce the same score for radically different distributions of wealth and downplays the distribution’s top end.

Studying the different groups (such as the top 10%, the middle 40% and the bottom 50%) has become standard in the flourishing international literature on inequality. It has also been embraced by international agencies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and increasingly, the United Nations.

As a sign of how far Australia has slipped behind, when we reported on wealth inequality in 2016, we had to draw on data for the top 10% that the ABS had supplied to the OECD but which were not published here in Australia.

Why looking at the middle class matters

The World Inequality Report finds that the share of the world’s wealth owned by the richest 10% of adult individuals is now over 70%. Meanwhile the poorest 50% of people owns under 2% of the total wealth. This is extreme economic inequality.

Changes in recent decades have been driven by a surge in wealth accumulation at the very top of the distribution. Worldwide, the wealthiest 1% now owns 33% of the total, up from 28% in 1980. In the United States, the top 1% share has risen from a little over 20% to almost 40%.

This is not a simple story of growing extremities between the global rich and poor. On the contrary, the wealth-share of the bottom 50% has barely changed since 1980.

This means the rise in the top share has come at the expense of that held by the middle class, defined as the 40% of people whose wealth-share lies between the median and the top 10%.

This middle-class squeeze is a long-established trend. The wealth of the top 1% exceeded that of the middle class in the early 1990s, and is projected to reach almost 40% by 2050.

Most gains have accrued to the top 0.1%, a tiny elite whose wealth is projected to equal that of the middle class around the same year. This crossing point has already been reached in the United States, where the top 0.1% now has about the same wealth-share as the bottom 90%.

The squeezed global wealth middle class, 1980-2050

Facundo Alvaredo, Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, _World Inequality Report 2018, World Inequality Lab. 2017, Figure E9, p. 13

Better data collection

There is a glaring need to reform Australia’s archaic wealth inequality statistics to make them commensurate with international practice. The political implications are significant.

If there is a squeeze on middle-class wealth, as is happening in many other countries, it is likely to create greater political volatility. Access to more and better data is the key to understanding the trends, and will help ground debate, deliberations and policy decisions. The ABS’ household survey needs to be restructured and integrated with the national accounts and, ideally, tax data.

Perhaps the current Australian government, responsible for funding the ABS, is unconcerned. In that case, it is worth remembering that the ABS is charged with servicing both the Commonwealth and the states, most of whom transferred their statistical agencies to the national body in the 1950s on the understanding that their data requirements would continue to be met. The limitations in the existing data hinder the ability of the states to frame policies for their vital housing, education and health services.

The Council of Australian Governments could be a suitable forum to advance reform, particularly in the event of continued federal inertia. Alternatively, given the revolutionary advances in data collection since the 1950s, it might be feasible for the states to again think about establishing their own statistical agencies to ensure their needs – which is to say, our needs – are properly met.

Authors:Christopher Sheil, Visiting Fellow in History, UNSW; Frank Stilwell, Emeritus Professor, Department of Political Economy, University of Sydney