<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia is a nation of pet owners. Yet as the popularity of apartment living grows, this culture is increasingly at risk from strata regulations that restrict the keeping of animals. Are these laws out of touch?
NSW Fair Trading has released a review of strata regulation. Key changes include a review of model by-laws relating to pet ownership. The proposed by-laws will make it easier for residents to keep pets in a strata scheme, such as an apartment or townhouse.
<h2>What changes are proposed?</h2>
The Strata Schemes Development Act currently incorporates three model by-laws, one of which bans pets. The proposed model by-laws remove this option.
Modifications to retained by-laws are also proposed. For example, a current clause allowing small dogs requires that people “carry the animal when it is on the common property”. The review proposes replacing this with one that doesn’t mention size and requires that owners “supervise the animal when it is on common property”.
The proposed changes are to the model by-laws. Strata communities will still retain the right to adopt by-laws that suit their particular context, including restricting pets.
<h2>Why support the changes?</h2>
Anecdotal evidence suggests that animals are banned from the majority of strata schemes, especially apartment buildings. However, the market appears to be undergoing change.
Growing numbers of pet-friendly apartments are going on sale. It is now not uncommon to see advertisements for apartments that include a picture of a fluffy dog. For developers, pet-friendly status is often part of the sales strategy and is believed to broaden market appeal.
Growing support for pet keeping in strata communities reflects the cultural importance of pet ownership in Australia. More than 60 percent of Australian households include at least one companion animal, with dogs and cats most common. These animals are more than just “pets”: 88 percent of households see them as family members.
Restrictive policies on pets are a real barrier to apartment living. Such rules can force people to consider relinquishing their pets, which can result in euthanasia and be devastating for the owner. Restrictive by-laws also drastically reduce the available market for people trying to sell an apartment.
Pets can be an asset to the whole community. More than just supporting good physical health and wellbeing and acting as a buffer against loneliness, pets have a “ripple effect” on interactions within neighbourhoods; they help to create a sense of community.
My research with dog owners in apartments across Sydney shows this. People I spoke with described having more social interactions with their neighbours after they got a dog. Dogs made people recognisable to their neighbours and served as an ice-breaker, helping people to have “easy conversation” without the feeling of invading someone else’s privacy or personal space.
<h2>I don’t want to live with a barking dog!</h2>
Unsurprisingly, barking dogs are one of the top concerns that people have when they think about allowing pets in apartments. It is important to remember, though, that the vast majority of dogs are not nuisance barkers.
Also, dogs already live across Australia in 39% of households. You wouldn’t even know that most of these dogs were there.
Issues with barking in apartments can be managed in the same way as in detached housing. This involves talking with the owner of the dog and involving the local council if the issue persists.
Importantly, apartments also bring another layer of regulation. The same noise by-laws that can be used to stop your neighbour playing loud music all night also apply to pets.
<h2>What’s wrong with the current rules?</h2>
Existing model by-laws are unnecessarily restrictive. While some are “other regarding”, ensuring that animals do not have negative impacts on the experience of others living in the strata building, many (such as blanket pet bans) are “self-regarding”.
These by-laws do not regulate a specific behaviour that may have impacts on other residents, such as barking. Instead, these are blanket restrictions that limit residents’ choices regardless of whether these would have impacts on others.
The current model by-law that favours small dogs is a good example of an “other regulating” by-law. It also comes with a sting in the tail: some large dogs are behaviourally quite well suited to living in apartment buildings, while some small dogs are high energy and not as suited to this type of living unless kept by someone who is able to meet these energy needs.
The current by-laws therefore risk encouraging some pets that are entirely unsuited to apartment living.
<h2>What else do we need to do?</h2>
Proposed changes to strata regulation in NSW are open for public comment until May 27, 2016. If the changes are adopted, new strata schemes should be encouraged to adopt one of the pet-friendly by-laws. Existing schemes can also be proactive and consider making changes to their by-laws to make them more pet-friendly.
Beyond changes to strata regulation, apartment and urban design that is pet-friendly is needed so that people can live well with companion animals. Design measures such as good sound-proofing, ledges and windows that allow animals to see outside, and pet-friendly open spaces in and around apartment buildings (including gardens and local parks) are good for the wellbeing of people and animals.
We should also support good neighbouring. Recent research, including my own with pet owners, suggests that in many strata communities neighbours make formal complaints about neighbours rather than knocking on the door and having a chat.
Some pet owners claim to be unaware that their pet has been a nuisance to others until they get a letter from the strata committee. This is not only stressful, it also limits the opportunity for people to respond to any issues.
Pet keeping is already widespread in Australia and brings numerous benefits to individuals and communities. Rather than trying to restrict the presence of pets in one type of housing, it is time to think about how we can live well with our companion animals.
Emma Power is senior research fellow, Geography and Urban Studies, Western Sydney University and author for The Conversation.
She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-power-250930" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

What's a nation of pet owners to do with the rise of apartment living?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In debates about urban density we often find comments about buildings being too tall or not tall enough, about too many people in a neighbourhood or too few, about streets and buildings being overcrowded or empty.
We are told that Melbourne is building at four times the density of Hong Kong, or that density is good and will make us happy. As these debates over density in Australian cities continue, what is most often missing is any clear understanding of what people mean when they use the word “density”.
Is it the volume or height of buildings? Or is it the numbers of people? One person’s high density may be another’s sprawl; the same tall building may be experienced as oppressive or exhilarating; a “good crowd” for one can be “overcrowded” for another. One is reminded of Humpty Dumpty’s logic in Through the Looking Glass:
"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
What such debate most needs is greater density literacy. Density is a concept borrowed from physics where the meaning is clear – mass divided by volume. Yet when transferred to the city nothing is so simple.
<h2>Are we talking about buildings or people?</h2>
First, we need to clarify whether we are talking about concentrations of people or of buildings. If we take population densities first, these are generally measured as residents per hectare based on census data.
But we also need to distinguish between “internal” and “external” densities – the numbers of people in a room or apartment versus those in an urban precinct. If you look at new high-rise housing in the evening, you can find many apartments unoccupied. At the other extreme, internal crowding largely defines a slum. Building density does not mean population density. 
Population densities cannot be based on residents alone since the numbers of people in a given neighbourhood at a given time include those who work there or are visiting. In a mixed-use neighbourhood, residents may be a small proportion of the population density.
There are also population density rhythms as people move from place to place throughout the day and week. The same urban precinct can be densely populated during work hours and empty on weekends. Population density is not only the number of residents but fluctuates over time and with functional mix.
<h2>And how do you measure building density?</h2>
When we shift attention to building densities, we soon encounter some unavoidable jargon. The most common measure of building density is the “floor area ratio” (known variously as FAR, FSI, FSR and plot ratio) – the ratio of floor area to land area. This is the most widely used measure for limiting the bulk of development on any given plot.
However, it does not control the building height, “footprint” (the area occupied by the building) or “coverage” (the proportion of land covered by buildings). Thus it is quite possible to build high-rise low-density (with very low coverage or small footprints) or low-rise high-density (with high coverage or large footprints).
Most high-rise public housing from the 1960s and 70s is roughly the same FAR as the low-rise housing that was demolished to build it.
Building height is not a measure of density, although sometimes the two align. Confusions here abound; press reports regularly equate FAR with height control.
Another common measure of density is dwellings per hectare. This is often used as a means of assessing population and building densities at the same time. But it does neither, unless we know the size of dwellings and of households. Thus dwellings per hectare is a very blunt measure of density, although a useful proxy for comparing housing projects.
Then there is the distinction between gross and net densities. Urban planning controls are focused on the net density on a particular site. Yet such measures are of little use in understanding how cities work because they do not include the public space of streets and parks.
The gross density is always lower than net density and it is the one that matters in debates over urban density. While we might be packed in on a particular site, the street network of a car-based city tends to keep us apart. Net density is not an effective measure of urban density.
As we measure densities of people or buildings at larger scales, we also incorporate water bodies, freeways and unbuildable sites, so the average density diminishes. Where one draws the boundary is a crucial decision in measuring urban density, or in getting the answer one wants.
Even urbanists such as Paul Mees can be guilty of this when using broad metropolitan density measures to advocate for public transport at suburban densities. Elizabeth Farrelly, a vocal proponent of higher density, compares it to the thread-count of luxury sheets (her minimum is 1,000), yet her only measure for urban density is “dwellings per hectare” – whatever the scale, net or gross.
Here we encounter the politics of density literacy and return to the logic of Humpty Dumpty:
"The question is which is to be master – that’s all."
There is no single scale at which to measure urban density, but the larger the scale the lower the density. The best approach is to understand density as multi-scalar: for any location there is an internal density, a net density, a walkable density and a metropolitan density.
<h2>High density is no guarantee of urban buzz</h2>
Finally, there is the question of streetlife density – of people in public space, of crowds and crowding. Here the complexities multiply. While we can measure the outcomes in pedestrians per minute or per square metre, we are far from understanding the ways in which streetlife is geared to building and population densities.
These connections depend at least on numbers of jobs and visitors, functional mix, car dependency, access networks and walkability. Yet this is where density delivers its greatest benefits in social and economic encounters – what we often call the urban “buzz” or “intensity” – along with disbenefits such as congestion.
In Australian cities we have become quite good at generating high density without intensity. Think of car-dominated high-rise districts where few people use the street. Yet we also have good inner-city examples of intensity without high density.
For many people, density has become a negative word. Those who want more of it often use other words and phrases: the “compact city”, “urban intensification”, “transit-oriented development” and the “30-minute city”.
This can be useful language but the question of what it means remains. The challenge is to raise the standard of urban density literacy – not to make density mean one thing but, as Alice might put it, to understand the ways it is made to mean so many different things.
Kim Dovey, professor of Architecture and Urban Design, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kim-dovey-107660" target="_blank">here</a>.
Elek Pafka research fellow, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elek-pafka-128908" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Urban density matters – but what does it mean?

<html><body>
Five families from the NSW Southern Highlands have won their appeal to stop mining company Hume Coal accessing their land for exploration drilling.
The landowners of five rural properties in Sutton Forrest appealed against a November decision by the Land &amp; Environment Court that allowed the Korean-owned firm prospecting rights over their properties.
Chief judge Brian Preston of the Land and Environment Court ruled in favour of the landowners and ordered Hume Coal to pay their legal costs.
The judge accepted the families' argument they had made "significant improvements" to their properties, which included a berry farm, cattle properties and an equestrian farm.
"It was an extraordinary outcome," local broadcster Alan Jones from 2GB said.
Peter Martin, who owns a property in Sutton Forest, said it was a huge relief.
He said it set a precedent for fellow landowners fighting coal companies who want to enter their land.
"It's fundamental to our fight against Hume Coal and POSCO in the Highlands, it really says they can't get onto some key properties, which will make developing a mine plan incredibly difficult," he said.
"But its bigger than that, it means a coal mine will have great difficulty getting up and running in the Southern Highlands.
Hume Coal project director Greig Duncan told the ABC the court decision would have "severe ramifications for mining and exploration in NSW".
"It is now up to the NSW State Government to review the land access laws and regulations, so that the exploration industry can continue to progress opportunities, employment and the economy for the people of NSW," he said.
Alan Jones advised POSCO have now indicated they will not appeal the latest decision.
Hume Coal has spent approximately $50 million acquiring seven properties, including Mereworth near Berrima for $11.1 million and Evandale at Sutton Forest for $12 million.
</body></html>

Southern Highland landowners win appeal against Korean coal miners

<html><body>
Not all of Australia’s major banks have fully recognised the impact of dairy crisis on clients.
Announcing short-term relief measures for farmers, the ANZ led the announcements last week with its “dairy relief package.”
Their response followed pressure from the state and federal politicians to support the industry, following cuts to the farm gate price of milk paid by Murray Goulburn and Fonterra.
ANZ’s dairy clients can apply for a three-month suspension of loan repayments, waived loan restructuring fees, adjustments to lending limits on credit cards and early access to term deposits.
ANZ would not, however, commit to a request from Victorian Agriculture Minister Jaala Pulford, to suspend all foreclosures on dairy farmers, until an ASIC investigation is complete.
“I think it’s just too early to contemplate that,” Mr Bennett said.
The ABC was told Westpac, NAB, Commbank, Rabobank would work on ‘case-by-case’ basis.
Westpac said it would not foreclose on any dairy farmers “over the next few months”.
Westpac will not match ANZ’s relief package.
National Australia Bank, Commonwealth Bank and Rabobank repeated assurances they too were discussing the situation with clients. 
</body></html>

ANZ leads on dairy crisis relief package

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
There was never going to be any surprises in Federal Treasury’s assessment of the economy given the Federal Budget was released just over a fortnight ago. It wouldn’t have been a good look if there was significant discrepancies in key economic assumptions and Federal budget projections in such a short period.
To recap, Federal Treasury is tipping growth of around 2½ per cent in both 2015/16 and 2016/17. Employment growth is expected to remain “solid”  with the unemployment rate forecast to fall to 5½ per cent in the June quarter of 2017.
When it comes to nominal economic growth, once again it is expected to remain weak at just 2½ percent this year before lifting to 4¼ percent in 2016/17. However given the downside risks to inflation Federal Treasury has concede an interesting point when it comes to nominal growth outcomes.
 “If inflation outcomes were consistent with the lower bound of the range presented in the RBA May 2016 Statement on Monetary Policy in the forecast period from 2015-16 to 2017-18, nominal GDP could be around 1. per cent lower by 2017-18”.  Overall a lower nominal GDP result would mean an even more prolonged period of budget deficits.
Interestingly not all the figures in the PEFO document were the same as the May Budget. The PEFO projects an underlying cash balance deficit of $40 billion in 2015/16 and the Federal Budget shows a deficit of $39.1 billion - essentially splitting hairs. But Federal Treasury goes on to explain that “parameter and other variations have resulted in a negative impact on the underlying cash balance of $103 million in 2015-16, reflecting a reduction in expected receipts from Unclaimed Superannuation Monies”.  
The deficit for 2016/17 was forecast to remain at $37.1 billion.
Overall the budget deficit and debt levels are low on a global scale but arguably could be lower. In fact the Reserve Bank has weighed into the debate on deficits. Reserve Bank Board member John Edwards has commented that the Government should seek “more plausible”  measures of deficit reduction.
<a href="/images/2016/05/20/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%203.04.23%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/20/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%203.04.23%20PM.png" alt="">
 In a wide ranging discussion with the Wall St Journal, Edwards suggests that a return to a balanced budget in two years should have been the government’s goal and that the government is at the risk of trying the patience of ratings agencies.
The $64 question is how businesses are feeling, an Election has been called and interest rates have been cut. There has been a modest slowdown in economic activity in the past few months. The bottom line is that Aussie businesses will only start to look at investing when the election is out of the road.
The PEFO highlights the challenges that lie ahead for the next Government. The hope would be that once the election is out of the way the Government would focus on changing the tax framework including discussions on the GST.
What do the figures show?
Pre-Election Economic &amp; Fiscal Outlook (PEFO):
The budget deficit for 2015/16 is now estimated at $40 billion or 2.4 per cent of GDP, up from the earlier Federal Budget estimate of $39.9 billion. The 2016/17 budget deficit is tipped at $37.1 billion (2.2 per cent of GDP).
Looking further out: the 2017/18 budget deficit is forecast at $26.1 billion (1.4 per cent of GDP); the 2018/19 budget deficit $15.4 billion (0.8 per cent of GDP); 2019/20 budget deficit $5.9 billion (0.3 per cent of GDP).
Federal Treasury tips 2½ per cent economic growth in current year, in line with the May budget forecast.
The jobless rate is seen to fall to 5½ per cent by June 2017, in line with the May budget.
Nominal GDP expected to grow by 2½ per cent this year, before rising to 4¼ per cent in 2016/17.
Consumer price index to average 1¼ per cent this year, before rising to 2 per cent in 2016/17.
Net debt is expected to peak as a proportion of GDP in 2017/18 at 19.2 per cent ($347.1 billion) and fall to 17.8 per cent in 2019/20 ($355.4 billion).
Why is the data important?
The Pre-Election Economic &amp; Fiscal Outlook  document is released by Federal Treasury after an election is called. It contains the latest economic assumptions and Budget projections.
What are the implications?
The PEFO document has no major implications for financial markets. The economy is locked in a holding pattern until the election is held.
The PEFO highlights the fact that all sources of government revenue should be up for review after the election.
No matter what party takes Government, there is a revenue problem to be addressed. And no option should be ruled out. Any responsible Government needs to assess all taxation measures and that includes the GST
<a href="/images/2016/05/20/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%203.06.29%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/20/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%203.06.29%20PM.png" alt="" width="1277" height="520">
Savanth Sebastian is an economist for <a href="https://www.commsec.com.au/" target="_blank">CommSec</a>
</body></html>

RBA weighs in on deficit debate: CommSec's Savanth Sebastian

<html><body>
The magistrate of Blacktown Local Court has handed down judgement dismissing all charges against BresicWhitney Estate Agents Pty Ltd for falsely understating the estimated selling prices when marketing properties in 2014.
After a considerably delayed trial, the dismissal came on a technicality concerning the term ‘employee’ in the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (the Act).
In this case the ‘operating’ arm of the business was the licence holder and undertook the business of a real estate agent.
A subsidiary company ‘employed’ the employees.
As a result the court found the ‘employees’ who made the statements about price, which were less than the estimated selling price in the agency agreement, were not technically employed by the licensed agent.
"This is not the policy intent of the provisions and in his findings the Magistrate acknowledged the likelihood that the business was structured in a way that would insulate it to some degree against liability in the event of such matters," a department spokesperson advised.
While the prosecution was taken under the old laws, the Government is now seeking urgent legal advice.
"Consumers can be assured any legal loopholes will be closed," the spokesperson advised.
No legislative timetable has been yet offered on the prospect of a BresicWhitney amendment.
Fair Trading is also still considering its position in relation to any appeal.
The consumer watchdog advised the more serious price discrepancy alleged was at Double Bay, where the publicly published price guidance reputedly did not match the private agency agreement documentation in the office paperwork.
The Murilla apartment at <a href="https://www.bresicwhitney.com.au/buy/543-545-new-south-head-road-double-bay-9956" target="_blank">62/543-545 New South Head Road</a> had a reported price guide of over $1.5 million last November, but Fair Trading investigations revealed the selling price estimate in the agency agreement at the low end of $1.6 million.
The late 1950s, A.M. Bolot-designed, company title apartment (below) was reported in the Wentworth Courier as sold for $1.79 million (and at $1.76 million by the Sunday Telegraph) through agent Walter Burfitt-Williams. The three bedroom sub-penthouse had 176 square metres space in the eight storey block above Redleaf Pool at the corner of New South Head and Victoria roads. The previous time it was marketed for sale was in 1989.
<img src="/images/2015/03/16/oduble-bay-march-16-one.jpg" alt="" width="764" height="450">
When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph cost of living editor, John Rolfe, before its front page splash, Walter Burfitt-Williams said: “The owner gave us instructions.”
At Surry Hills an 1890s terrace house at <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-nsw-surry+hills-118276043" target="_blank">14 Collins Street</a> was advertised last November with a price guide of over $1.05 million, but the estimate in the agency agreement was $1.1 to $1.2 million. The guidance was lifted from $1,025,000 during the marketing campaign.
The two bedroom terrace (below) actually sold for $1.07 million through Nic Krasnostein, so it appears, with benefit of hindsight, he may have been overly ambitious in his pitch to the vendor. It sold to an investor who sought to rent it out at $850 a week. It had previously sold at $610,000 in 2005.
<img src="/images/2015/03/16/surry%20hills%20mar%2016%20one.jpg" alt="">
The prosecutions were only the third in a decade.
“We believe we’ve found evidence to prove the agent has under quoted,” Commissioner Rod Stowe told The Sunday Telegraph who published a Warren cartoon too.
<img src="/images/2015/03/16/cartoon%20march%2016.jpg" alt="">
Source: Sunday Telegraph
Property Observer had previously reported possible underquoting activity from an undisclosed agency was under investigation.
Operation Balaya, an investigation specifically developed to look at real estate compliance, was launched on agencies operating in the inner-city.
Officers were also checking licences, certificates, current continuing professional development, professional indemnity insurance and current and past financial year qualified audits.
“During its inspections, NSW Fair Trading identified certain information that requires further investigation to establish whether or not representations made by a real estate agency in relation to a number of recent sales were misleading,” the then Minister for Fair Trading Matthew Mason-Cox said.
“Agents who engaged in this illegal practice could face a maximum penalty of $22,000 or depending on the severity of the breaches an agency could have its licence cancelled.”
The NSW Premier Mike Baird elevated the issue into an election policy.
The department has until June 3 to make a decision on any appeal.
“While the prosecution was taken under the old laws, the government is seeking urgent legal advice and consumers can be assured any legal loopholes will be closed,” it said.
</body></html>

BresicWhitney underquoting loophole let-off to trigger legislative amendment review

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A long-term plan to cut the company tax rate from 30 percent to 25 percent is the centrepiece of the Coalition’s economic plan for jobs and growth.
The Coalition maintains the change will boost GDP by more than 1 percent in the long-term, at a budgetary cost of $48.2 billion over the next 10 years.
But the very Treasury research papers relied on by the Coalition tell a more modest story than the headlines. Using these papers, we show that the net benefit to Australians in the real world will be only about half of the headline benefit, and it will be a long time before we are any better off at all.
<h2>The short story</h2>
The Government has made two claims about the economic impacts of its plan to cut the company tax rate.
On Budget night Treasurer Scott Morrison said that the tax cuts would:
“… mean higher living standards for Australians and an expected permanent increase in the size of the economy of just over one percent in the long term.”
Later last week, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said:
“The Treasury estimated last year…that for every dollar of company tax cut, there was four dollars of additional value created in the overall economy.”
<h2>Sound in theory, but there’s a back story</h2>
In theory, cutting the company tax rate boosts the economy in the long term. All taxes distort choices, and thereby drag on economic activity. Taxes on capital often have especially large economic costs because they discourage investment, which is mobile across borders. By some estimates, roughly half of the economic costs of Australian company tax ultimately fall on workers, as lower company profitability leads to lower investment, and therefore lower wages and higher unemployment.
But while the theoretical argument for company tax cuts is straightforward, the real story is more complicated.
<h2>The twist: a tax cut for foreign investors</h2>
The twist in the tale comes from Australia’s system of dividend imputation, or franking credits. The effect of this system is to make the company tax rate for Australian resident shareholders effectively close to zero. In nearly every other country, company profits are taxed twice: companies pay tax, and then individuals also pay income tax on the dividends, albeit often at a discount to full rates of personal income tax.
But in Australia, the shares of Australian residents in company profits are effectively only taxed once. Investors get franking credits for whatever tax a company has paid, and these credits reduce their personal income tax. Consequently, for Australian investors, the company tax rate doesn’t matter much: they effectively pay tax on corporate profits at their personal rate of income tax.
As a result, although Australia has a relatively high headline corporate tax rate compared to our peers, in practice the comparable tax rate is lower – at least for local investors. As a result, many of the international studies about the impact of cutting corporate tax rates are not readily applicable to Australia.
Local shareholders do get one small benefit from cutting corporate tax rates. If companies pay less tax, then they have more to reinvest, so long as the profits are not paid out to shareholders. Yet in practice, most profits are paid out. Therefore a company tax cut will generate little change in domestic investment.
By contrast, foreign investors do not benefit from franking credits. They pay tax on corporate profits twice: first at the company tax rate, and then as income tax on the dividends. This means that a cut to the company tax rate provides big benefits to them.
This week The Australia Institute pointed out that foreign investors from the United States and other countries that have tax treaties with Australia may not benefit from the company tax cut, because their home governments will collect the gains from any cut to Australia company tax as additional company tax. Yet this would only occur when foreign firms repatriate profits earned in Australia to the home country.
The big reductions in net tax revenue – and therefore the large benefits to companies – are expected when the corporate tax rate is cut from 30% to 25% between 2022 and 2027 for larger companies, including the bulk of businesses that are foreign-owned.
The headline from the Treasury modelling for the 2016-17 Budget is that this cut will ultimately increase GDP by up to 1.2% meaning larger foreign companies are attracted to invest more in Australia. The finding is based on work contained in a Treasury research paper that modelled the long-term impact of a company tax cut.
<h2>Activity is not income</h2>
However, it is a mistake to assume that all the increase in economic activity will make Australians better off. We often use Gross Domestic Product – the sum of all economic activity – as a short-hand measure for prosperity. But when the benefits disproportionately flow to non-residents, GDP can be misleading. It’s much better to look at Gross National Income (GNI), which measures the increase in the resources available to resident Australians.
Treasury expects that cutting corporate tax rates to 25% will only increase the incomes of Australians – GNI – by 0.8%. In other words, about a third of the increase in GDP flows out of the country to foreigners as they pay less tax in Australia. And because most of the additional economic activity is financed by foreigners, the profits on much of the additional activity will also tend to flow out of Australia.
<h2>You don’t get something for nothing</h2>
Yet even this increase in GNI of 0.8% is not the best estimate of the improvement in living standards Australians can expect from the Government’s company tax plan. If company taxes are lower, other taxes have to be higher, all other things being equal. In the modelling discussed so far, Treasury first assumes that these revenues can be collected by a fantasy tax that imposes no costs on the economy.
But that’s not what happens in the real world. So the Treasury research paper also models the scenario in which personal income taxes rise to offset the reduced company tax revenue. On this more realistic assumption, Treasury estimates that GNI will increase by just 0.6% in the long term, or roughly $10 billion a year in today’s dollars.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122984/width754/image-20160518-13455-yxfw6e.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h2><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122984/width754/image-20160518-13455-yxfw6e.jpg" alt=""></h2>
<h2>Other wrinkles in the story</h2>
Even this more modest Treasury figure may well over-estimate the long-term boost to GNI. In the real world, progressive income taxes impose higher costs than the hike to a hypothetical flat-rate personal income tax that Treasury modelled. Companies may also not increase investment as much as Treasury expects, and those firms that are part of oligopolies in Australia may not increase wages by as much as Treasury assumes.
While these are reasons to expect that the Treasury modelling overestimates the economic benefits of a company tax cut, they are offset by some more conservative assumptions. Treasury believes that tax cuts modestly change how much firms shift profits overseas; it may overstate how much tax cuts flow into additional profits rather than higher wages in those industries that it does recognise as oligopolies; and it may discount the benefits of investors making less distorted choices between debt and equity funding.
<h2>The verdict on the first claim</h2>
The bottom line is that, on Treasury’s own modelling, a corporate tax cut will increase Australian incomes in the long term by up to 0.6%. The Treasury research paper doesn’t commit itself to a timeframe, but it cites other work that expects the economic benefits of company tax cuts to take 20 years to bear fruit, with half the benefit in 10 years. Given that the important (and expensive) part of the corporate tax cuts only starts to take effect from 2022, Australia will be waiting 25 years for a 0.6% increase in incomes.
This economic benefit needs to be seen in context. If Australian per capita GDP and GNI increase at 1.5% a year (as the budget papers routinely assume), then over 25 years, incomes will rise by 45.1%. Corporate tax cuts mean that instead, incomes will rise by 45.7% – or perhaps a bit less. It may still be worth doing, but it’s not a plot twist that dramatically changes Australia’s story.
Others claim that in the past, company tax cuts have had no measurable effect on the economy. This is disputed – there may well be a link between corporate tax cuts and economic growth. But it’s inevitably hard to see in practice because on Treasury’s own modelling the economic effect of company tax cuts is small relative to other changes.
<h2>Not four-to-one, more like dollar for dollar</h2>
This brings us to the Government’s second claim. Late last week, Mr. Turnbull said that each dollar in company tax revenue cut would deliver an extra four dollars in GDP.
His claim appears to be drawn from an earlier 2015 Treasury research paper that modelled the economic impact of major Australian taxes, including company tax. The more <a href="https://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2016/working-paper-2016-02">recent</a> Treasury working paper, released in Budget week, implies a slightly larger $4.30 increase to GDP from each $1 in revenue cut.
But again this misses a big part of the story.
First, this claim is about GDP, and therefore includes the disproportionate increase in the income of foreigners. Our analysis of the Treasury modelling shows that the increase to Australian incomes, or GNI, is only $2.80 per dollar of revenue lost from a corporate tax cut.
Second, when corporate tax is replaced by a still hypothetical but marginally more realistic flat rate income tax – rather than a complete fantasy tax that has no impact on the economy – the increase to Australian incomes is less again: only $1.80 per dollar of revenue lost.
Third, the Prime Minister has framed the boost to the economy in terms of the long-term increase to GDP per dollar of company tax cut. Treasury calculates the revenue “dollar” lost after considering the additional tax revenue that the government hopes to collect from all taxes in twenty years time as incomes rise because of greater investment.
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-pm-bolstered-by-160bn-reform-promise/news-story/e5fe769c97a196959b6e34e14bcc273d?nk=21bd5293c6c9bf91e73e578611f79538-1463363505&amp;login=1">Many people</a> would interpret the Prime Minister’s statement to compare the ultimate benefit per dollar of tax revenue given up in the shorter term. On this basis, the increase to Australian incomes in the long term is only $1.20 for every dollar given up in the short term as a result of corporate tax cuts.
This story ends the same way. Corporate tax cuts may be worth doing, but the outcome is unlikely to set pulses racing.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122985/width754/image-20160518-13481-1ugr3e5.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h2><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122985/width754/image-20160518-13481-1ugr3e5.jpg" alt=""></h2>
<h2>The journey matters</h2>
So far, as the Treasury research paper does, we’ve focused on the long-term economic boost from a company tax cut once the economy has fully adjusted. But the journey to get there also matters.
For a decade, a cut to corporate taxes will reduce national income. Foreigners will pay less tax on the profits from their existing investments in Australia, reducing Australian incomes. Foreigners own about 20% of all capital in the economy, so it’s a big windfall gain for them. We estimate that when a 5 percentage point tax cut for big business is first implemented, national incomes will be reduced by about 0.5%, as a result of the immediate loss in company tax revenues formerly paid by foreign investors.
The benefits to Australians from a corporate tax cut only accumulate slowly as foreigners make additional investments. Treasury cites a paper that estimates that the benefits of corporate tax cuts take 20 years to flow through. Assuming that these benefits increase at a constant rate, Australian income will only be larger than otherwise after about 10 years.
Of course, the upfront costs of a company tax cut over the first decade must be offset against the long-term gains. On our estimates, the loss of income incurred over the first decade will only be offset by higher incomes after about 19 years. If Australians want the modest economic benefits of a corporate tax cut, they will be waiting a long time.
<h2>The moral of the story</h2>
Company tax cuts are not a knight in shining armour to save the Australian economy. On the basis of the modelling that the government uses to support its case, corporate tax cuts can make a modest contribution, and then over the very long term. That story won’t sell as many copies. Truth, on this occasion, is duller than fiction.
John Daley<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" rel="author" style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </a>is chief executive officer, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">here</a>.
Brendan Coates is fellow, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation
</body></html>

The full story on company tax cuts and your hip pocket

<html><body>
Macquarie Securities, in a note to clients, has lowered its cash rate expectation to 1 percent, and its nominal 10-year bond yield forecast to below 2 percent.
Macquarie also downgraded its “year-end target on the ASX200 from 5900 to 5700” on the back of disappointing earnings expectations for 2016.
It believes the local currency will round off the year at around US67c.
Macquarie Group analysts believe the Reserve Bank will be forced to cut the cash rate three more times before the current easing cycle ends.
The group revealed its new outlook in a note yesterday saying its former risk case for a record low of 1 percent had now become its “base case” owing to more extreme inflation weakness than expected.
“We think that the RBA will have to cut the cash rate further, to at least 1 per cent, and have further delayed the timing of expected policy normalisation,” the note read.
“With little to differentiate Australia from other advanced economies, the risk lies with a slow and persistent grind to even lower rates.”
The group foresees just one more rate cut this year, likely in August, but expects a further two in 2017 in May and August.
A similar call came from JPMorgan last week, with its 1 percent forecast at the low end of the range among all other analysts.
</body></html>

Macquarie sees interest rates at below 1 percent in 2017

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The introduction of new legislative changes on property sales over $2 million will create a new compliance burden and could delay property settlements.
On the 1st of July 2016 the new legislation will come into effect under The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment Bill 2015. It introduces a new 10 per cent withholding obligation on the purchasers of properties over $2 million where the vendor is a foreign resident for tax purposes. Sellers are also now required to obtain a clearance certificate to prove they are an Australian resident for tax purposes.
According to data from APM Research and the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the 2016 FYI (up to 31 April) there were 12,072 house and apartment sales in Australia over $2 million.
The legislative changes will put Australian and foreign residents on a level playing field, but will have their challenges. The tax compliance burden for resident taxpayers will significantly increase and conveyancers will need to ensure their clients are abiding by the new laws to limit property settlement delays.
The Federal government is expected to significantly benefit from the new changes as there should be less tax revenue leakage.
From a buyer’s perspective they now have an obligation to withhold 10 percent of the property price to ensure the purchaser is compliant with the new regulations, otherwise they could be liable to pay a penalty which is up to the full 10 percent of the purchase price plus interest.
From a seller’s perspective, they could have less funds available which might otherwise have been available to discharge the mortgage on the property and/or fund a new property purchase. They could end up with only 90 percent of the proceeds on settlement unless they are able to obtain a clearance certificate from the tax office. If there are data irregularities, delays of between 14 to 28 days are expected to obtain a clearance certificate.
The legislative changes were introduced to reduce difficulties that can be associated with collecting tax on gains resulting from the sale of property assets from foreign resident taxpayers. Some of these tax payers have a limited connection to the Australian tax system and may be in a position to transfer proceeds offshore prior to compliance action being taken. Voluntary compliance by foreign residents in this regard is said to be extremely low.
The ATO has just released forms for the following: clearance certificate application for Australian residents; variation application for foreign residents and other parties; purchaser payment notification.
Manda Trautwein is director at William Buck, national accounting and advisory practice and can be contacted <a href="https://www.williambuck.com" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Legislative changes to create new compliance burden and could delay property settlements: Manda Trautwein

<html><body>
GEUST OBSERVER
Keeping inflation on target is proving to be a challenge for many central banks. Most of the major central banks have had inflation well below their targets in recent years.
The RBA may now be having a similar problem. Headline CPI inflation has now been below the RBA’s 2-3% target band for six quarters, which is the longest period of sub-target inflation since 1999. More worrisome, the underlying measures of inflation, which abstract from temporary factors, are also well below the target band. The RBA’s preferred measures of underlying inflation were around 1.5% y-o-y in Q1.
Given the low global inflation story, it is tempting to suggest that Australia is now just succumbing to forces that are beyond local control. This possibility cannot be completed dismissed. However, at this stage, the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, the significant slowdown in inflation has been largely in non-tradable (domestically produced) inflation. This includes education and housing rents, which had much weaker prices growth in Q1. The factors driving this weakness are local rather than global. Tradable inflation, which is largely imported goods and services, was broadly in line with the level implied by the AUD and import prices in Q1.
Secondly, although local growth has been solid, it has still been below trend over the past three years. Below-trend growth has meant that spare capacity has built up, which is weighing on domestic inflation. For example, although the unemployment rate has fallen (it was 5.7% in April), it is still above the full employment level (5- 5.25%). As a result, wages growth is at its slowest rate in at least two decades. 
Finally, the rebalancing of growth from mining to the services sectors is proving to be disinflationary. This partly reflects that wages tend to be lower in the services sectors than in mining-related areas. 
Our models suggest that underlying inflation will remain below the RBA’s target band over the next year, but then lift back into the band as the labour market tightens and wages growth gradually rises. This is a stronger profile than the RBA is forecasting for underlying inflation, with the RBA forecasting a particularly weak inflation outlook.
<a href="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.24.37%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.24.37%20AM.png" alt="">
Domestic price pressures are weak, despite solid GDP growth
Given low global inflation, it is tempting to suggest that Australia is now just succumbing to the global story. Of course, to some degree, this is true. Indeed, the significant fall in global commodity prices has been a major driver of the dynamics in Australia’s economy in recent years and, to this extent, the global story is clearly having a big influence.
However, at a proximate level, it was not the low global inflation story that drove the significant recent downside surprise in Q1 CPI inflation, and thus triggered the recent RBA cut. Tradable inflation (mostly imported goods) was roughly in line with what was expected, given movements in the AUD and in imported prices. The big surprise in the Q1 CPI numbers was the lower-than expected domestic price pressures. Non-tradable (domestic) inflation fell to its lowest rate in at least 17 years, running at 1.7% y-o-y in Q1 (Chart 1). The broad-based nature of the weakness in price pressures saw the RBA’s preferred measures of underlying inflation – the trimmed mean and weighted median – fall to an average rate of 1.55% y-o-y (Chart 2).
Weaker domestic inflation has arrived, despite solid GDP growth (Chart 3). Importantly, however, it is worth keeping in mind that GDP has been below trend for the past three years, on average, which has seen a build-up in spare capacity, with the unemployment rate still well above the full employment level (Chart 4). There has been growth, but not quite enough of it.
The solid GDP growth numbers have also been heavily driven by exports of commodities and services. Domestic demand has been modest, even after stripping out the decline in mining investment (Chart 5). Weaker domestic demand has weighed on domestic wages and prices.
The rebalancing of growth from mining investment to the housing and services sectors has also put downward pressure on wages growth and thereby on inflation. Jobs in the mining and associated industries are being replaced by generally lower paid work in the services sectors, which has contributed to weaker wage outcomes. The latest numbers show that wages growth has weakened to its slowest pace in at least two decades (Chart 6). For more on this composition effect see Downunder Digest: Looking for signs of rising wages, 15 April 2016.
At a component level there are also clear signs that much of the weakness in inflation has been due to domestic factors. Two key components of CPI that surprised to the downside over the past year have been housing and education (Chart 7). On housing, the weakness has reflected sluggish growth in rents.
Part of the story is that rents have fallen in Perth, where the end of the mining boom has weighed on demand, while there has also been a significant boost to supply of rental properties, particularly apartments (Chart 8). Growth in rents is likely to have been held back in other capitals by a ramp-up in investor housing putting more rental properties onto the market.
Education has been weaker due to a surprisingly sharp fall in tertiary education fees.
<a href="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.25.58%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.25.58%20AM.png" alt="">
What the inflation models are saying
To take a more formal approach to understanding the recent inflation dynamics we estimate two workhorse inflation models – a mark-up model and an expectations-augmented Phillips curve model – both based on the RBA’s own approach to modelling inflation. The Phillips curve model that shows inflation as the result of past and present measures of spare capacity in the economy, proxied by the unemployment rate and output gap (reduced spare capacity leads to higher inflation). The mark-up model sees inflation driven by current and lagged unit labour costs and import prices (this assumes firms set prices as a mark-up over costs). For more on the models see: Downunder Digest: Australia’s low inflation outlook, 19 November 2015.
To start with, it is worth pointing out that these models were surprised significantly to the downside by the weakness of the Q1 CPI result (Chart 9). This could reflect a range of possibilities. It could be telling us that there was a statistical distortion in the Q1 CPI numbers that exaggerated the weakness (that is, the models are more right). On the other hand, it could be telling us that our model is mis-specified (the data are right). Interestingly, a look at the model residuals suggests that the forecasts ‘miss’ was not out of the ordinary (as Chart 10 shows, the model predicts a much smoother path for underlying inflation than is apparent in the actual numbers).
One thing is very clear: the models do not predict a repeat of the very low Q1 underlying inflation print, with underlying inflation expected to be around 0.4-0.5% q-o-q in Q2. Using our central forecasts as inputs to the models, underlying inflation is projected to run at around 0.4- 0.5% per quarter over the rest of 2016 and all of 2017. This would see the trimmed mean running at 1.6-1.7% y-o-y for the rest of 2016, and getting back to around 2.0% in mid-2017.
The RBA is now forecasting inflation to be low
Following the downside surprise to the Q1 CPI numbers the RBA significantly lowered its own forecasts for underlying inflation. The RBA has taken around 50bp out of its underlying inflation forecast over 2016 and around 25bp of the forecast in 2017 and into 2018 (Charts 11 and 12). The RBA now expects underlying inflation to be below the 2-3% target band until mid-2018. This is a significant change in the RBA’s view and seems to be a larger adjustment than just carrying forward the direct impact of the Q1 forecast miss. Our own models have a slightly stronger outlook for inflation, with underlying inflation getting back to 2% a year earlier than the RBA’s central forecast.
We see a part of the RBA’s approach as tactical. Firstly, the RBA will be hoping not to get further downside surprises to its current inflation forecast as this could undermine the credibility of the inflation-targeting regime. Secondly, the much lower inflation forecast helps to bolster the RBA’s easing bias, which in turn may help to put additional downward pressure on the AUD. A lower AUD is clearly desirable for supporting growth but also for lifting inflation.
<a href="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.27.00%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.27.00%20AM.png" alt="">
What this could mean for policy
If our view is the right one, stronger domestic growth, which drives a further improvement in the labour market, should lead to a pick-up in wages growth and inflation. In this story, the main driver of recent weaker-than-expected inflation has been an extended period of below-trend GDP growth and the effect of the transition from mining to services sector-led growth. In short, the recent disinflation can be largely explained as a cyclical phenomenon, rather than a structural one.
<a href="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.28.18%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.28.18%20AM.png" alt="">
If this is the case, the appropriate policy prescription is looser policy. As the RBA has a mandate to maintain price stability, it seems likely that the central bank will need to cut the cash rate further. If our models are correct though, domestic inflation is nearing its trough. As a result, we see the RBA cutting once more, to 1.50% in August, and holding steady at that level in subsequent quarters. Looser fiscal policy would also be helpful, albeit not expected.
There are, of course, risks around this outlook. The first is to growth itself. Weaker-thanexpected growth could continue to weigh on wages and inflation, forcing the RBA to cut further.
Another risk is that more of the recent weakness in wages and inflation is structural and perhaps a global phenomenon. This could reflect the impact of globalisation, technology or the flow on effect of a long period of weak growth in the developed world in recent years that has left considerable excess capacity in a range of economies.
<a href="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.22.13%20AM.png" target="_blank"> Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%208.22.13%20AM.png" alt="">
Paul Bloxham is chief economist (ANZ) for HSBC . Daniel Smith is economist. They can be contacted <a href="https://www.about.hsbc.com.au/hsbc-in-australia/management-team" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Property 101: Explaining Australia’s low inflation with HSBC's Paul Bloxham

The Victorian Government has secured the passage of the Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Bill 2026, introducing a suite of reforms aimed at improving consumer protection and confidence in the apartment market.

Resilience Insurance, Australia’s leading Latent Defects Insurance (LDI) provider, has welcomed the move.

The LDI elements of the Bill passed with bipartisan support and now moves to the Legislative Council where debate and passage are expected later this month. It represents a significant milestone in the national shift toward stronger, longer-term protection for apartment buyers.&nbsp;

The reform would deliver practical benefits across the housing system. Apartment owners will have stronger protection if major defects emerge, developers and builders will have a clearer quality framework to work within, and the State will reduce the risk of serious building failures becoming a long-term financial and social burden for households, communities and government.&nbsp;

LDI helps support apartment delivery while providing stronger protection for buyers and encouraging better construction outcomes.&nbsp;

Resilience LDI provides apartment owners with 10 years of insurance-backed cover for major structural defects from completion, with direct claim access to the insurer. This means owners are not required to first pursue developers or builders through costly legal action before accessing protection.&nbsp;

Resilience Insurance has been operating in Australia since 2022 and has already insured hundreds of development projects covering many thousands of apartments across Australia.&nbsp;

At approximately 1.8 per cent of build cost, it is a cost-competitive alternative to the traditional two per cent Strata Bond, bond while delivering significantly broader and longer protection.&nbsp;

“The Victorian Lower House vote shows that reforms like this succeed when they are practical, evidence-based and supported by industry," says Corey Nugent, CEO of Resilience Insurance.

"Victoria is moving quickly on a reform that will make a real difference for apartment buyers, while supporting better building outcomes and greater confidence in apartment delivery.

“This is step one. We look forward to the Bill completing its passage through the Legislative Council and to working with government and industry to implement the framework effectively.”&nbsp;

Fast Facts: What is Resilience LDI?&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>Resilience Latent Defects Insurance (LDI): Covers major structural defects for 10 years from completion.&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Consumer-first: Direct claim access, no need for lengthy legal action.&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Cost advantage: At approximately 1.8% of build cost, LDI is typically priced below the traditional 2% Strata Bond while offering broader protection.&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Market leader: Resilience Insurance is the first approved LDI provider in NSW.</li>
</ul>

The Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Bill 2026 has passed the Victorian Lower House, putting Victoria on track to become the first state to legislate an industry workable LDI framework as a formal alternative to the Strata Building bond. 

Joel Robinson

10-year Latent Defects Insurance for new apartment buyers set to land in Victoria

Just a few months after acquiring a prime Broadbeach site on the corner of First Avenue and Surf Parade, family-run developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/raptis">Raptis</a> has filed fresh plans for a new apartment development.

Raptis is seeking to deliver a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/17-19-first-avenue-broadbeach-qld-4217">29-storey tower with 73 apartments</a> on the 818 sqm site. It will be the developer's seventh project in the suburb, as they are approaching completion of The Sterling on George Avenue.

There will be a pool, barbecue and outdoor dining area, residents lounge and dining, sauna and steam room, gym, and a Yoga and Pilates studio.

<img alt="Raptis" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b554da3f-7344-49aa-b1c9-44cf459af0d7" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-06-05%20at%2010.41.45%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=zzjWu1iO1wnuYv4EV4fyOyf5nSXjGYut" />

Raptis Joint Managing Director, Evan Raptis, says they remain&nbsp;committed to developing quality infill sites across the Gold Coast in the lead-up to the 2032 Brisbane Olympics.

"This project continues our long track record of delivery in Broadbeach, and we look forward to bringing another premium development to this thriving precinct."

The announcement follows strong delivery momentum for Raptis, with The Sterling Broadbeach nearing completion and construction well underway on the final stage of the Waterpoint community adjacent to Harbour Town. The developer's continued investment in the Gold Coast reflects confidence in the region's apartment market fundamentals, underpinned by sustained Southeast Queensland population growth.&nbsp;

The outlook for the region is further bolstered by infrastructure investment tied to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games, which is expected to drive continued economic and population growth across the SEQ corridor.&nbsp;

Subject to a favourable response from Gold Coast City Council, construction on the new First Avenue tower is targeted to commence before the end of 2026.&nbsp;

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/qld/it-s-all-in-the-family-four-decades-later-raptis-continues-to-shape-the-gold-coast-skyline">It’s all in the family: Four decades later, Raptis continues to shape the Gold Coast skyline</a>

Read more: <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/qld/raptis-secures-prime-surf-parade-site-for-next-broadbeach-apartment-development">Raptis secures prime Surf Parade site for next Broadbeach apartment development</a> 
&nbsp;

Gold Coast developer brings seventh Broadbeach project to market, targeting construction commencement before year end

First look: Raptis lodges plans for new 29-storey Broadbeach tower 

Brisbane development veteran Kevin Seymour's Seymour Group is set to deepen its presence on one of Brisbane's most tightly held riverfront addresses, lodging revised plans for a luxury apartment development on Oxlade, just a few doors down from The Oxlade, which it completed in 2024.

The <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/70-72-oxlade-drive-new-farm-qld-4005">new project at 70-72 Oxlade Drive</a>, directly north of The Oxlade, will have 27 apartments across a seven-storey building&nbsp;overlooking the Brisbane River and Merthyr Park. It's a revision from a 2021-approved design.

Designed by bureau^proberts, the project has evolved from the previously approved 26-apartment scheme, introducing an additional penthouse level while maintaining a low-density, boutique character. The development will comprise 26 three-bedroom apartments and a single four-bedroom penthouse, supported by two basement levels with 86 car spaces and 34 bicycle spaces.

The architectural response is centred around two distinct building forms separated by a landscaped open-air atrium.&nbsp;"This dual composition captures and embraces Brisbane’s subtropical environment whilst breaking down built form and scale," the submission to the Brisbane City Council noted.

<img alt="First look: Seymour Group returns to Oxlade Drive with revised riverfront apartment plans in New Farm" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c12d84d0-bc11-4067-b46f-5bd2d786a34d" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/new%20farm%20landscape.png?VersionId=YEPc2k5CAdh6aAPlu4uVpgZadh4MEfRd" />

A defining feature of the design is a deep landscaped void running through the centre of the building, creating what bureau^proberts describes as a "natural ravine" that enhances airflow, daylight penetration and resident amenity. The design report notes that the separation of the two building volumes is intended to maximise natural light, cross-ventilation and outlook while strengthening connections to the surrounding riverfront setting.

Curved balcony edges, integrated planting and extensive landscaping throughout the façade reinforce the subtropical design approach. The building's façade is softened by elevated gardens and planter beds, creating a green edge that complements the established landscape character of Oxlade Drive and neighbouring Merthyr Park.

New Farm has become one of Brisbane's most sought-after suburbs for developers delivering premium downsizer-focused apartments.

GRAYA has been particularly active in the precinct, completing both Chalk and York in recent years, while construction of Moray House, being delivered for Spyre, is now nearing completion. Architect-turned-developer Joe Adsett recently launched <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/arcilla-new-farm-by-joe-adsett-28-maxwell-street-new-farm-qld-4005">Arcilla on Maxwell Street</a>, an exclusive collection of just nine apartments.

First look: Seymour Group returns to New Farm's Oxlade Drive with riverfront apartment plans

A new residential tower will be the first piece of a broader mixed-use precinct set to reshape a prominent Newcastle West site, with local developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/gwh">GWH</a> bringing its <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/cambridge-quarter-newcastle-west-12-denison-street-newcastle-west-nsw-2302">Cambridge Quarter</a> vision to market.

The first release, Tempo, will introduce 87 apartments across a 24-storey tower, marking Stage 1 of the residential component of a larger urban regeneration project planned for the western end of Newcastle's city centre, encompassing the former Cambridge Hotel site.

Positioned on Denison Street, Tempo has been designed as the inaugural building within Cambridge Quarter, a precinct that will ultimately combine apartments, retail activation and revitalised public spaces including the revamping of the Cambridge Hotel.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=135876 project_image_fid=368853]

The tower will comprise a mix of one, two and three-bedroom apartments, including layouts with multipurpose rooms, catering to a broad cross-section of owner-occupiers. Apartment sizes range from around 60 sqm to 192 sqm, with a number of residences oriented to capture views across Newcastle Harbour, the city skyline and coastline.

GWH has emphasised liveability in the design, with open-plan layouts extending to generous balconies and terraces. Residents will have a choice of two interior palettes, while specifications include engineered stone benchtops, SMEG appliances, full-height bathroom tiling and secure building access. Premium upgrade packages will also be available.

Multiple rooftop resident retreats will provide communal outdoor space overlooking the harbour and city, offering an elevated amenity layer above the activity of the precinct below.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=135876 project_image_fid=368851]

The broader Cambridge Quarter vision extends beyond the residential tower itself. Ground-level retail activation and landscaped public areas are planned throughout the precinct, creating a walkable neighbourhood environment connected to the surrounding renewal of Newcastle West. The Cambridge Hotel is also earmarked for future redevelopment into a family-friendly hospitality venue integrated with the new precinct.

The project is strategically positioned within walking distance of Newcastle Interchange, providing access to light rail, regional rail services and direct connections to Sydney. Residents will also be close to Honeysuckle, Newcastle Harbour and the city's beaches and coastal walkways.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=135876 project_image_fid=368852]

For GWH, Cambridge Quarter represents one of its most significant Newcastle developments to date. The locally based developer, which has operated in the Hunter region since 1995, describes the project as a new chapter in the ongoing transformation of Newcastle West.

GWH Executive Director Jonathan Craig said the project had been shaped by a focus on creating lasting community connections.

"We take pride in creating places that last. Spaces where people feel connected, comfortable and a genuine sense of belonging," Craig said.

"Cambridge Quarter is something we are truly proud of, a place shaped by local knowledge, built with care and designed to be part of Newcastle's next chapter."

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=135876]

GWH unveils first release at landmark Cambridge Quarter precinct in Newcastle West

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/ss-projects">S&amp;S Projects</a>,&nbsp;Rainbow Bay's busiest developer,&nbsp;has officially lodged plans for the largest development in its booming local portfolio, seeking approval for a further 88 apartments on Boundary Street.

The proposal&nbsp;at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/209-213-boundary-street-coolangatta-qld-4225">209–213 Boundary Street, Coolangatta</a>,&nbsp;marks the next chapter in the developer's transformation of the southern Gold Coast beachside precinct. It will be its fifth in the area, having already delivered Flow, Awaken and Esprit, while construction continues on the 38-apartment Radia. The new project would rise 57 metres above a consolidated 1,518 sqm site, on the same street as Radia and Esprit.

&nbsp;

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cottee-parker-architects">Cottee Parker</a>, the proposed development comprises 88 two and three-bedroom apartments across a contemporary podium-and-tower form that integrates extensive landscaping from street level through to the rooftop.

The tower would be delivered above a basement and multi-level podium accommodating resident and visitor parking, with the residential component commencing from level three. The design incorporates cascading planting throughout the façade, landscaped podium edges, and deep planting zones along the Boundary Street frontage.

<img alt="First look: S&amp;S Projects lodges plans for 88-apartment wellness tower at Coolangatta's Boundary Street" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="677e6615-b5c0-4b6c-b4f9-efb14fcde1a6" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/ss%20da%20pers.png?VersionId=YOnPKQm7IFXv0M5H326djEpxk80500Hi" />

A key feature of the development is its expansive rooftop wellness and recreation precinct. Plans reveal a resort-style pool deck, gymnasium, sauna, steam room, hot and cold plunge pools, rooftop terraces, barbecue areas and landscaped relaxation spaces positioned to capture views across the southern Gold Coast coastline.

The rooftop wellness focus builds on the vision S&amp;S Projects first outlined when it acquired the site for $20.25 million last year.

"We are taking every advantage to create a truly unique rooftop wellness experience with a natural feel for residents, offering stone features throughout and an underlying theme that emulates a botanical garden," S&amp;S Projects founder and director Paul Gedoun said at the time.

The proposal seeks a 57-metre building height, representing a 50 per cent uplift on the site's mapped 38-metre height limit. Planning documents argue the additional height is consistent with recently approved and emerging towers in the immediate Boundary Street and Rainbow Bay precinct.

Urbis, acting as planning consultant, said the development would provide "88 dwellings, comprising a mix of two and three-bedroom apartments, contributing to housing choice and supply within an established medium to high-rise coastal urban neighbourhood."

The scheme has undergone extensive pre-lodgement consultation with the City of Gold Coast, with the design refined following feedback relating to architectural expression, landscaping, traffic access and podium treatment.

<img alt="S&amp;S" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="0a2d70fd-62ac-4b83-97c6-b798fc1243dd" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-06-05%20at%209.16.31%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=yHmghUwKM3IVGpBktQU1mE.0Lpf3WimG" />

The architectural team is led by Brisbane-based Cottee Parker, one of Australia's most active residential design studios, with landscape architecture by Dunn + Moran. The consultant team also includes ADG Engineers, Windtech and Acoustic Works.

S&amp;S Projects has become one of the most influential private developers operating on the southern Gold Coast. Since entering Rainbow Bay in 2022, the company has assembled a portfolio exceeding $1 billion in end value, establishing itself as a key player in the area's evolution into a premium apartment destination. Pezet Matheson will again handle the sales for S&amp;S.

Coolangatta is entering another wave of apartment development, following the delivery of several prominent residential projects in recent years.

John Kearney's Immerse Projects will launch&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/kaiya-kirra-beach-5-haig-street-coolangatta-qld-4225">Kaiya on Haig Street</a>&nbsp;soon, meanwhile, Palm Beach-based Sherpa Property Group is preparing to bring its debut Coolangatta development, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/flourish-viver-87-griffith-street-coolangatta-qld-4225">Flourish Viveré</a>, to market later this year, subject to approvals.

Jonathan Chancellor

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News