<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Election season means transport season: just as the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-nsw-election-promises-on-transport-add-up-112531" target="_blank">New South Wales</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-will-voters-pay-for-an-early-christmas-eight-charts-that-explain-victorias-transport-election-106782" target="_blank">Victorian</a> elections gave us massive new transport promises, so too is the federal government relying on the enduring popularity of new roads and rail. But look beyond the rhetoric and the past three years have been largely business as usual. That leaves plenty of room for the next government, of whatever colour, to take a fresh look at how transport promises are made – and plenty of room to improve.
Last week’s federal budget committed to transport expenditure of <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1_final.pdf" target="_blank">A$7.4 billion in 2019-20</a>, and A$33 billion over the four-year forward estimates period.
The government claims it’s spending a <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/community.htm#transport" target="_blank">record A$100 billion</a> over a decade. Yet the <a href="https://www.billshorten.com.au/2018_budget_reply_canberra_thursday_10_may_2018" target="_blank">opposition claims</a>: “Across the four years of this budget, Commonwealth investment in infrastructure actually falls, from A$8 billion to A$4.5 billion.” And <a href="https://www.afr.com/business/infrastructure/coalition-needs-to-fill-infrastructure-shortfall-20190329-p518u0" target="_blank">Infrastructure Partnerships Australia says</a> recent budgets are down on the long-term average by about A$11 billion over the forward estimates.
How much is the government actually spending?
With such polarised views, who are we to believe?
In reality, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-transport-spending-is-about-par-for-the-course-but-the-pattern-is-unusual-114597" target="_blank">expenditure for 2019-20</a> is absolutely normal. At 0.37% of GDP, it’s close to the midpoint of spending on transport under treasurers Scott Morrison, Joe Hockey and Wayne Swan. In each of the past ten budgets, annual transport spending in the year following the budget has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-transport-spending-is-about-par-for-the-course-but-the-pattern-is-unusual-114597" target="_blank">0.26-0.53% of GDP</a>.
What is different is the extent of promises that lie beyond the forward estimates period. The move to a <a href="https://buildingourfuture.gov.au/assets/documents/10_Year_Infrastructure_Pipeline.pdf" target="_blank">ten-year pipeline of promises</a> might be fine in theory, but an interested elector can rely only on what’s in the budget papers. And from that they would conclude there’s nothing unusual to see here.
A new enthusiasm for equity investments
All these figures concern grants to state governments, which are responsible for transport networks. But, in addition to these grants, the federal government has developed an enthusiasm for funding projects “off-budget”. In the past two years, the Commonwealth made <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/ministerial-statements/2018-19-regional-ministerial-budget-statement.pdf" target="_blank">equity investments</a> of A$9.3 billion in <a href="https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/" target="_blank">Inland Rail</a> and A$5.3 billion in <a href="https://westernsydneyairport.gov.au/" target="_blank">Western Sydney Airport</a>.
The <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/charter-of-budget-honesty-policy-costing-guidelines__trashed/appendix-a-costing-of-measures-and-updating-estimates__trashed" target="_blank">Charter of Budget Honesty</a> states that an investment can be treated as an off-budget equity injection only if the government has a “reasonable expectation” of recovering the investment. In other words, the entity must be expected to make a positive return over time.
But this gives governments a lot of latitude. A positive rate of return is not the same as a commercial one. And there seems little likelihood of commercial returns in either case.
For Inland Rail, it’s no secret that the Australian Rail Track Corporation will <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/economy/barnaby-joyces-inland-rail-revenues-wont-cover-capital-cost-artc-ceo-says-20180219-h0wbvw" target="_blank">never be asked to repay the A$9.3 billion</a>, even when project revenues start to flow in 2025. Let’s hope the finance minister is right to insist there’s no prospect the project will need even more taxpayer support, despite the risks identified in the <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/bp1/bp1.pdf" target="_blank">budget papers themselves</a> and by the Commonwealth <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2017-2018_9.pdf" target="_blank">Auditor-General</a>. With no expectation of repayment, there is no practical difference between this “equity investment” and a grant.
For Western Sydney Airport, the government decided to build the airport itself after Sydney Airport Corporation declined its right to build it. The airport operator said the offer as it stood was “<a href="https://www.afr.com/business/infrastructure/airports/badgerys-creek-deeply-uneconomic-sydney-airport-ceo-kerrie-mather-20170216-gueiq6" target="_blank">deeply uneconomic</a>”. It cited operational, traffic, financial and political risks.
So it’s hard to share the confidence of the then treasurer (and now prime minister), Scott Morrison, when <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/govt-set-to-build-airport-rail-link-with-good-debt-20170427-gvtcmy">he said</a> the new airport will “generate an income stream that’s going to pay for itself”.
In both cases, if a future government ends up writing down the fair value of these assets, this will appear on the balance sheet as a change to “other economic flows”. It won’t be separately identified. Nor will the write-down show up in the underlying cash balance figure that the media spotlight highlights on budget night.
The unavoidable conclusion is that pushing transport spending off-budget seriously diminishes not only the discipline that comes from competing for funds through the budget process, but also transparency in how public money is being spent.
A foray into road pricing is stillborn
In November 2016 the government took an unusually bold step: <a href="https://transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/files/Australian_Government_Response_to_Australian_Infrastructure_Plan_November_2016.pdf" target="_blank">it committed</a> to holding an inquiry into road-user charging. The then minister for urban infrastructure, Paul Fletcher, was in good company. His commitment to commission a review led by an eminent Australian was in response to a <a href="https://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/Australian_Infrastructure_Plan.pdf" target="_blank">2016 recommendation</a> from Infrastructure Australia, which invoked a similar <a href="http://competitionpolicyreview.gov.au/files/2015/03/Competition-policy-review-report_online.pdf" target="_blank">recommendation in the 2015 Harper Review</a> of competition policy, which in turn referred to a <a href="/news">2014 Productivity Commission recommendation</a>. And the backdrop to all these reports was a <a href="http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report_part_1/00_afts_final_report_consolidated.pdf" target="_blank">recommendation of the 2010 Henry Tax Review</a>.
But time passed and no eminent person was appointed. More time passed, ministers moved portfolio, and no eminent person was appointed. Finally, in October 2018, current minister Michael McCormack <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/deputy-pm-michael-mccormack-shelves-inquiry-into-road-pricing-20181004-h1688d" target="_blank">declined to commit</a> to the inquiry.
An inquiry is no more than an inquiry, but a non-inquiry is a commitment to the status quo. Roads funding and roads investment are serious topics, and many <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/news-media/speeches/infrastructure-pricing-reform/infrastructure-pricing-reform.pdf" target="_blank">commentators have argued</a> that they are the laggards of regulatory reform.
A change to how road use is funded could significantly alter which roads are funded, what maintenance is done, and how networks are managed. It appears to have been all too much for this government. This task awaits a future government.
The alternative government’s most important promises aren’t the sexy ones about electric vehicles. They are <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/media/1539/2018_alp_national_platform_constitution.pdf" target="_blank">Labor’s promises</a> that Infrastructure Australia should assess projects before the decision to invest, and to release assessed business cases. These promises may sound worthy and a little dull, but in reality they are big and welcome commitments.
Less obvious is how to square them with federal Labor’s promise to advance high-speed rail, or the promise to <a href="https://www.billshorten.com.au/getting_melbourne_s_suburban_rail_loop_on_a_faster_track_sunday_14_october_2018" target="_blank">work with the Victorian premier “to deliver the visionary Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop”</a>. Both of these are massively expensive projects with nothing approaching an assessed and publicly available business case.
It would be a significant improvement if whichever party wins government next month were to commit to, and follow through on, careful assessment of transport gaps and problems, consideration of the various feasible solutions, and rigorous evaluation of the preferred approach. And it’s not enough just to do this; it should be done in public.
Let’s hope.
Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/business-as-usual-record-on-transport-leaves-next-government-plenty-of-room-to-improve-113571" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Business-as-usual record on transport leaves next government plenty of room to improve

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Regulation of the Australian building industry is broken, according to the <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/building-confidence-building-ministers-forum-expert-assessment" target="_blank">Shergold-Weir report</a> to the <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/regulation-and-standards/building-and-construction/building-ministers-forum" target="_blank">Building Ministers’ Forum</a> (BMF).
"[…] we have concluded that [the] nature and extent [of problems] are significant and concerning. The problems have led to diminishing public confidence that the building and construction industry can deliver compliant, safe buildings which will perform to the expected standards over the long term."
You can say that again.
Just one of the issues identified in the report, combustible cladding, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/hit-list-identifies-10000-potential-grenfellstyle-buildings/news-story/65aaf99088ead16bd3e0947a6e242770" target="_blank">could affect over 1,000 buildings across Australia</a>. An unknown proportion of these are tall (four storey and above) residential strata buildings. Fears of rectification costs are starting to have <a href="https://www.afr.com/real-estate/melbourne-apartment-buildings-face-extra-scrutiny-over-combustible-cladding-20190205-h1avoi" target="_blank">severe impacts on the apartment market</a>.
The cost of replacing combustible panels at the Lacrosse Apartments in Melbourne, which caught fire in 2014, will be <a href="https://theconversation.com/lacrosse-fire-ruling-sends-shudders-through-building-industry-consultants-and-governments-112777" target="_blank">at least A$5.7 million, plus A$6 million or so in consequential damages</a>. The total cost of replacing combustible panels across Australia is unknown at this point, but is likely to run to billions of dollars.
The <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/building-confidence-building-ministers-forum-expert-assessment" target="_blank">Shergold-Weir report</a> identifies a catalogue of other problems, including water leaks, structurally unsound roof construction and poorly constructed fire-resisting elements. Faults appear to be widespread.
A <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/documents/44/Governing_the_Compact_City_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.pdf" target="_blank">2012 study by UNSW City Futures</a> surveyed 1,020 strata owners across New South Wales and found 72% of respondents (85% in buildings built since 2000) knew of at least one significant defect in their complex. Fixing these problems will cost billions more.
Regulatory failures are not only “diminishing public confidence”, they have a direct impact on the hip pockets of many Australians who own a residential apartment. In short, building defects resulting from lax regulation are a multi-billion dollar disaster.
How could authorities let this happen?
A web of regulations and standards enacted by governments cover construction in Australia, but this regulation is centred on the <a href="https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/ncc-online/About" target="_blank">National Construction Code</a> (NCC). The <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/ABCB/The-Board" target="_blank">Australian Building Codes Board</a> (ABCB), a body controlled by the Building Ministers’ Forum, manages the NCC. The ABCB board comprises appointed representatives from the Commonwealth plus all the states and territories and a few industry groups.
It is such a complicated system that it is hard to identify any government, organisation or person that is directly responsible for its performance.
The NCC is supposed to create “benefits to society that outweigh costs” but it appears the ABCB may have been more focused on the need to “consider the competitive effects of regulation” and “not be unnecessarily restrictive” (Introduction to NCC Volume 1).
The BMF’s <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/bmf-communique-8-february-2019.pdf" target="_blank">February 8 communique</a>, issued after the <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/bmf-communique-8-february-2019.pdf" target="_blank">fire in the Neo200 building</a> in Melbourne, is straight out of the Yes Minister playbook:
"Ministers agreed in principle to a national ban on the unsafe use of combustible ACPs (aluminium composite panels) in new construction, subject to a cost/benefit analysis being undertaken on the proposed ban, including impacts on the supply chain, potential impacts on the building industry, any unintended consequences, and a proposed timeline for implementation. Ministers will further consider this at their next meeting [in May this year]."
This suggests the ministers are more concerned about possible impacts on the panel suppliers and the building industry than the consumer. The earliest a ban can take effect is in May. In the meantime, anecdotal evidence suggests buildings are still being clad in combustible ACP.
Thanks to the journalist Michael Bleby, we know <a href="https://www.afr.com/real-estate/governments-failed-to-act-on-warnings-of-combustible-cladding-dangers-20190226-h1br6n" target="_blank">governments and the ABCB failed to act in 2010</a> when presented with evidence that combustible ACP was not only a danger, but was also being widely used on tall residential buildings.
Bleby quoted ABCB general manager Neil Savery as saying neither his organisation, nor any of the states, was aware that builders were using the product incorrectly.
We also know that panel manufacturers, including the Australian supplier of Alucobond, actively lobbied building ministers. At the July 2011 BMF meeting, the ACT representative effectively vetoed an ABCB proposal to issue an advisory note on the use of combustible ACP.
We are entitled to ask why the ABCB and its staff, or the downstream regulators and their staff, did not know about serious fire problems with ACP that the technical press <a href="http://www.cookeonfire.com/pdfs/eurisolgreenreport.pdf" target="_blank">identified as long ago as 2000</a>. The answer will be of particular interest to residents of tall apartment buildings clad in these panels, all of whom are now living with an active threat to their safety.
Consumers are owed better protection
While both Labor and Coalition governments have worked to improve consumer protection for people buying consumer goods, their record on housing, particularly apartments, is awful. While a consumer can be reasonably sure of getting restitution if they buy a faulty fridge, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/victims-suffer-as-combustible-cladding-crisis-rages-on-20190402-p519yy" target="_blank">no such certainty exists if they buy a faulty house or apartment</a>.
At the moment, the NCC does not have any focus on providing protection for buyers of houses or apartments. There are few requirements for the durability of components and astonishingly weak requirements for waterproofing. Under the NCC and its attached Australian Standards, particularly AS 4654.1 and 2-2012, a waterproof membrane could last, in practice, five minutes or 50 years.
Given the magnitude of the economic loss, it would be appropriate for the BMF and ABCB board to publicly admit they have failed. Since their appointments in November 2017 and January 2013 respectively, neither ABCB chair John Fahey nor Savery as general manager has remedied the situation. The Shergold-Weir report has not been implemented and the combustible cladding issues remain unresolved. It would be reasonable for Fahey to step down and for Savery to consider his future.
The next federal government should consider what further action should be taken, particularly in relation to individuals on the BMF and within the ABCB involved in the 2010-2011 decision not to issue the proposed advisory note on the use of ACP. Since the ABCB does not publish minutes and none of its deliberations are in the public domain no one knows what actually happened or who did what.
The new board should consider moving residential apartment buildings (Class 2 buildings in the NCC classification) from Volume 1 of the NCC to Volume 2, which controls detached and semi-detached housing. Volume 2 should then have as its overriding objective the protection of consumers.
The downstream regulators should focus on requiring builders to deliver residential buildings with no serious faults and providing simple mechanisms for redress if they don’t.
Surely this is not too much to ask.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113115/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, UNSW
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/housing-with-buyer-protection-and-no-serious-faults-is-that-too-much-to-ask-of-builders-and-regulators-113115" target="_blank">original article</a>.
This article has been updated to correct a reference to NCC volumes 1 and 2 – the latter controls detached and semi-detached housing.
</body></html>

Housing with no serious faults and buyer protection – is that too much to ask of builders and regulators?

<html><body>
NSW’s population, currently sitting at 8,048,000 is tipped to rise to 8.63 million by 2022.
At the same time the Australian population will rise, according to the budget estimates, from 25.1 million to 26.9 million.
But NSW’s lead over Victoria will narrow from being some 1.5 million more residents to around 1.44 million more.
NSW is set to continue receiving high overseas migration settlement, but see a continued decline every year with residents moving interstate.
The interstate exodus from NSW is tipped to see a 16,000 annual decline for the next four years.
Queensland is the biggest beneficiary with 18,400 new arrivals from other states, with Victoria expected to gain 16,800 annually.
WA and SA are also set to lose resident, by 12,000 and 6,500 annually respectively.
The estimates of migration, interstate and overseas, are based on a weighted average of the past three years, the federal budget papers noted.
The total fertility rate is assumed to be 1.781 babies per woman in 2018, and is assumed to rise to 1.900 babies by 2021.
The budget confirmed the Government will reduce the level of overseas migration from 190,000 to 160,000 places for four years from 2019-20.
For the 2019-20 migration program, there will be 108,682 places in the skill stream, 47,732 places in the family stream, with a combined 3,586 places for child and special eligibility streams.
Net overseas migration is tipped to peak this year at 271,700.
</body></html>

Population gap to narrow between NSW and Victoria

<html><body>
Josh Frydenberg has accused Labor of “lying” about figures behind their negative gearing reforms. 
It comes as the Australian ­Bureau of Statistics has denied claims it had produced data showing that only 7 per cent of property invest­ors bought new homes, a figure opposition treasury spokesman Chris Bowen has been using repeatedly to back his housing policy.
Mr Bowen’s use of ABS data has been challenged by the Grattan Institute, a ­public policy think tank, which has argued that 14 per cent of ­investors buy new properties rather than existing ones. 
Mr Bowen has repeatedly referred to ABS figures purportedly showing that negative gearing has failed to promote construction in new housing and create jobs. 
But ABS financial statistics analyst Tony Mitchell told The Australian newspaper the ABS did not collate the figures Mr Bowen had been referring to since 2016. 
“If you wanted to have those numbers you wouldn’t be able to get them from our statistics ­because we don’t collect them,” Mr Mitchell told The Australian. 
“We’ve got a little bit about construction, but it is to do with lending to businesses for construction of investment dwellings. It is not to do with lending to households for construction of ­investment dwellings.
“There is nothing about lending­ for newly constructed dwellings. That is included in other statistics, but you can’t break it out.” 
The Treasurer said Bowen had been “caught out” and had to “come clean” about Labor’s sums in his budget reply speech later today.
“Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen have been tripping over their shoe laces and the election hasn’t even begun,” the Treasurer told Sydney’s Alan Jones on 2GB radio this morning.
“The Labor Party in reality may see a big black hole in them because they have underestimated the number of negative gearers who use new homes.
“Chris Bowen needs to come clean about the data.”
“The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that 93 per cent of new investment loans go to people purchasing ­existing housing stock,” Mr Bowen said in January. 
“This means that the vast bulk of investment does not increase supply or boost jobs. 
“All it does is increase demand and the price of the existing homes, allowing investors to use tax subsidies to outbid owner-occupiers and first-home buyers.”
Grattan Institute director Danielle Wood said the independent think tank had estimated that more investors bought new properties than Labor was claiming. 
“It is right that you can’t ­directly calculate it from the ABS data because some of the finance is going into homes that are newly constructed and you can’t see the split between­ investors and owner-occupiers for that ­category,” Ms Wood said. 
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The Property Investors Council of Australia (PICA) said the use of ‘dodgy data’ shows Labor must urgently authorise the Parliamentary Budget Office to release modelling and assumptions used in their negative gearing and capital gains tax policies.
“If Labor has nothing to hide, then this is a straight forward exercise in full disclosure so all property owners can understand their reasoning for such significant reform,” said PICA chairman, Ben Kingsley.
Mr Kingsley said Labor’s keystone policy failed to include off-the-plan and house-and- land packages in its estimation that more than 90 per cent of new investment loans are to people purchasing existing housing stock.
He said industry experts have shown this figure to be woefully inaccurate.
“Just today Australia biggest aggregator – AFG with over 2900 mortgage brokers – confirmed its mortgage application data for new investment purchases vs. existing property was 43% new and 57% existing,” he said.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

Labor's Chris Bowen accused on major negative gearing data miscalculation

<html><body>
Wynn Resorts says it has scrapped preliminary talks to acquire the James Packer-controlled Crown Resorts for $10 billion ($US7 billion) after the Australian Financial Review broke news of the negotiations.
Crown shares jumped as much as 22 per cent <a href="/news/las-vegass-wynn-resorts-seeking-crown-resorts">on the news yesterday</a> to $14.37, close to the $14.75 per share level that Crown said Wynn’s latest cash-and-stock offer valued the company.
When the markets opened they shot down 10.6% to $12.55.
After the AFR revealed Wynn’s takeover approach, Crown not only confirmed the confidential talks on Tuesday, but also disclosed the price that Wynn was offering.
It added that Crown’s board had not yet considered Wynn’s latest offer.
Wynn, the world’s No.2 casino operator, then issued two statements, first confirming the talks, and, a few hours later, stating that they had ended.
“Following the premature disclosure of preliminary discussions, Wynn Resorts has terminated all discussions with Crown Resorts concerning any transaction,” the company said in its second statement.
Wynn was founded in 2002 by Steve Wynn, who started his casino business in Las Vegas in the 1960s.
Beset by sexual misconduct allegations, Wynn left the company and sold his entire 11.8 per cent stake in Wynn Resorts for $US2.1 billion last month.
Wynn operates large resort-and-casino complexes in Las Vegas and Chinese gambling hub Macau, with another under construction in Massachusetts.
The Australian reported the departure of Wynn Resorts billionaire founder Steve Wynn last year enabled the US-based casino operator to come forward with its $10 billion takeover approach for Crown Resorts.
It wrote the offer landed with the company about one month ago, after which Crown called in Goldman Sachs and UBS as its defence advisers.
Ashurst is working as a legal adviser to Crown, which counts James Packer as a 47 per cent shareholder.
Then there was the period when both tycoons were competing for the casino licence in Sydney decades ago, <a href="/news/when-donald-trump-toyed-with-opening-darling-harbour-sydney-casino">and even Donald Trump</a>.
Wynn was unsuccessful in securing the Sydney casino, which was won by Harrah.
Moelis is understood to be working on the transaction with Wynn because of the connections of founder Ken Moelis with casino operators in the US. 
Deutsche Bank is also involved.
</body></html>

Crown shares drop 10% after AFR leak on Wynn/Packer talks scuttle negotiations 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Chinese investment in Australia fell 36% in 2018, to A$8.2 billion (US$6.2 billion) from A$13 billion (US$10 billion) in 2017, according to research by KPMG and the University of Sydney Business School.
This is despite Chinese investors still generally regarding Australia as safer and more attractive than most other countries. So 2018 need not be a turning point. But it is cause for reflection.
Discussion about Chinese investment in recent years has been dominated by political and security concerns. These concerns need to be balanced by the national interest in economic prosperity. Chinese investment creates jobs, increases export opportunities and deepens relations with our most significant trade partner.
Arguably the pendulum has to swing back to thinking about the economic benefits. We need a more balanced national conversation.
Many losers, one winner
Our data covers direct investments through mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and new projects. We do not include portfolio investments, such as buying stocks and bonds, which do not result in foreign management, ownership or legal control. Nor do we include residential property sales.
In the mining, agribusiness and services sectors investment fell by more than 90%. In renewable energy it fell by 48%, and in commercial real estate by 31%.
The only sector where investment did not fall was health care, where investment more than doubled to A$3.4 billion. This made health care the biggest investment sector, attracting 41.7% of all Chinese money, relegating commercial real estate (36.7%) to second place.
The declines were driven by state-owned enterprises pulling back on foreign investment. In 2018 13% of Chinese money came from state-owned enterprises, with 87% from private companies.
This reflects the Chinese government’s greater control of capital outflows and pressure to reduce debt levels, as well as the Australian government’s security concerns about Chinese influence.
It also reflects global dynamics. Chinese investment in Australia is no longer isolated from scrutiny of Chinese investment in North America and Europe. Excluding Chinese technology from telecommunications infrastructure is a notable example.
In the United States, Chinese investment fell 83% to US$4.8 billion from US$29 billion in 2017. In Canada, it fell 47% to US$3.4 billion from US$6.2 billion in 2017.
Balancing competing concerns
Australian governments, corporations and professional advisers need to consider what types of Chinese investments and investors are desired and actively welcome in Australia.
Our report points to areas where Chinese investment is in Australia’s national interest and benefits the global integration and competitiveness of Australian industries.
Health care is a key example.
Chinese investment in health care companies has both provided capital for innovation and facilitated entry into the Chinese market.
Take the Chinese private equity firm <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/sirtex-medical-goodbyes-varian-backs-1-9b-chinese-offer-from-cdh-20180614-p4zlk1" target="_blank">CDH buying Sirtex Medical Ltd</a> for A$1.9 billion. Sirtex is an Australian medical device company with a treatment for liver cancer. Its acquisition enables expansion into China, which accounts for more half of the global incidence of liver cancer.
In mining, lithium provides an example of Chinese investment adding value. <a href="https://www.tianqilithium.com.au/site/About-Us/company-overview" target="_blank">Tianqi Lithium</a> has invested A$700 million in a <a href="https://www.tianqilithium.com.au/site/About-Us/tianqi-lithium-global" target="_blank">processing plant</a> in Perth. The plant will provide about 200 jobs and produce 48,000 tonnes of battery-grade lithium hydroxide for export.
Even in food and agriculture, which has generated much controversy over land acquisitions, we see room for advantageous investment processing and value-adding facilities, such as regional abattoirs.
Signalling Australia’s economic interests in Chinese and foreign investment is crucial to Australia’s prosperity.
At a time of global uncertainty, Australian politicians, bureaucrats, business leaders, educational organisations and others must work quietly and respectfully with their Chinese counterparts to allay community concerns and consolidate Australia’s reputation as a welcoming and proactive partner.
Hans Hendrischke, Professor of Chinese Business and Management, University of Sydney
The authors contributed to the Demystifying Chinese Investment in Australia Report.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114984/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/chinese-investment-in-australia-is-down-36-its-time-for-a-more-balanced-debate-about-the-national-interest-114984" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Chinese investment in down 36% - it’s time for a more balanced debate about the national interest

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Half a billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but that really depends on what you’re spending it on. In Tuesday’s federal budget, the Coalition government announced its <a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-giveaways-in-frydenbergs-back-in-the-black-budget-114177" target="_blank">Commuter Car Park Fund</a>, a A$500 million, 10-year package intended to make it easier for people in the suburbs and regions to drive to their local railway station.
While this is a drop in the ocean compared with the wider transport infrastructure budget, we’re going to use it here as a starting point to run some thought experiments to see if this is the best way to spend our taxes to help people get around.
How much car parking could we buy for $500 million?
The construction cost for a single parking spot can range from <a href="https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/parkride/" target="_blank">A$10,000 for a surface car park to A$68,000 per space in multi-level structures</a>. So, if all the money is spent on surface car parks, the new fund could build 50,000 spaces at railway stations around Australia.
Of course, not all of these spots are going to be in surface parking lots – some will need to be in multi-level parking garages. So, if we built one multi-level space for every five at ground level, the A$500 million earmarked in the budget would buy us 30,000 parking spaces.
Does increased parking increase transit usage?
If these 30,000 park-and-ride spaces at train stations are built, this is unlikely to lead to an increase in transit patronage. It could even <a href="https://humantransit.org/2014/10/basics-the-math-of-park-and-ride" target="_blank">run counter to providing good public transport</a>.
On the day of the 2016 Census, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036" target="_blank">1,225,668 people used public transport to get to work</a>. <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036" target="_blank">Generously assuming</a> that <a href="https://chartingtransport.com/tag/car-occupancy/" target="_blank">a single car has an average of 1.5 passengers</a>, the Commuter Car Park Fund might enable only 45,000 extra people to access the public transport network. That’s a tiny 4% of the current number of people who travel to work by public transport.
But <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/03/how-park-and-ride-encourages-car-use/5034/" target="_blank">studies</a> show that only a small proportion of park-and-riders had previously commuted by car all the way to their destination. Many are existing passengers who used to walk, cycle, bus or drive to a different station but are now opting to drive to the station with new parking places. Non-commuters working or shopping in nearby activity centres also often use park-and-ride spaces.
There are at least 705 train stations in metropolitan Australia, and it is not clear from the budget papers where these extra parking spaces are going to be placed. Sydney has <a href="https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/2017/Train%20Statistics%202014.pdf" target="_blank">176 train stations</a>, Melbourne has 218, Southeast Queensland has 152, Adelaide has 89, and Perth has 70. Even assuming only 300 stations will need extra parking, that provides an average of only 100 new spaces per station.
More bang for your buck
There are cheaper ways to move an extra 45,000 people a day to and from railway stations and around our cities.
Linking a major university campus with a Skytrain station, Vancouver’s 99 B-Line bus service moves <a href="https://public.tableau.com/profile/translink#!/vizhome/2017TSPR-BusSummary/TheWorkbook" target="_blank">56,000 passengers a day</a> at a cost of less than C$14 million (A$14.7 million) a year.
Similarly, in Toronto, the Finch West bus service carries <a href="https://www.ttc.ca/Customer_Service/Corporate_Plan/Appendices/Key_facts_and_figures/index.jsp" target="_blank">44,000 passengers a day</a> to and from the subway. The Toronto urban transit network moves <a href="https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/8bd3-TTC-2018-Op-Budget-Notes-V1.pdf" target="_blank">more than a million people a day with an annual operating subsidy of C$713 million</a>.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267740/original/file-20190405-123431-1f0fvg4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Passengers transferring from the Metro to a feeder bus in suburban Montreal. Iain Lawrie/University of Melbourne, Author provided
Each of these cities has comparable urban landscapes to suburban Australia, but is able to offer buses to nearby stations every five minutes.
We understand that these costs are not necessarily directly comparable. We provide them though as a point to think about, and so you might begin to ask how our cities could be better configured.
Better land use around train stations?
Alternatives like direct and frequent buses <a href="https://theconversation.com/freeing-up-the-huge-areas-set-aside-for-parking-can-transform-our-cities-85331" target="_blank">could liberate space around our suburban train stations</a>. Around the world, stations are community hubs, and even simple stations can be wonderful, vibrant places for people. The best ones are a pleasure to move through and spend time in, unencumbered by the conflict and noise of space dominated by car traffic.
Building car parks wastes that place potential. Instead, it bakes in the mobility habits and planning prejudices that condemn our public places to being grey deserts, difficult to move through, and keeping out parks, shops, gardens, street life, walkability and human interaction.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267750/original/file-20190405-114908-1qfn7cz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Unsealed car parking at Tarneit station in Melbourne’s western suburbs. Paul Fleckney/University of Melbourne, Author provided
Underpinning the futility of the Commuter Car Park Fund is the fact that “demand” for free parking is fundamentally insatiable. Just like urban road space, building more of the wrong infrastructure simply <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3141/2543-19" target="_blank">induces more use and perpetuates congestion</a>.
Parking policy scholars and practitioners have known for decades now that parking demand can be successfully managed, <a href="https://www.foreground.com.au/planning/car-parking-choking-cities/" target="_blank">including via pricing existing parking supply and improving transport alternatives</a>. Pricing and related policies serve as an effective disincentive to people who don’t need to be driving (and parking), freeing up road space for those who do.
Urban congestion is a problem of the quality and connectivity of our public transport network, not just a parking and road space issue. We have long known the policies and mechanisms to shift higher proportions of people to alternatives (and improve conditions for those who need to drive). We still need the funding and the planning capacity to achieve it.
Australia deserves better transport policy and a clearer, better-informed discussion about how its transport funds are being spent.
Nathan Pittman, PhD Candidate in Transportation Planning, University of Melbourne
Crystal Legacy, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
John Stone, Senior Lecturer in Transport Planning, University of Melbourne
Rebecca Clements, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/500m-for-station-car-parks-other-transport-solutions-could-do-much-more-for-the-money-114908">original article</a>.
Main photo: With more than a million Australians using public transport to get to work each day, demand for car parking at the station is virtually insatiable. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/philipmallis/46402974731/in/photolist-23RbPF2-Gjsh88-2ekmTqK-bEfVA-EDLrAJ-TgfpQc-M5wkF7-HQRQVf-2aX7ext-23zY5e1-PZ8Qfk-RCDnAd-24Lw2wt-RqYRZD-2dUEmhR-Ng589h-2bQ5kHc-RVZuuK-PWm1gP-SA6aE7-2eWmyh4-P6mmSo-D5GjN-dgxvHq-aF3Lb6-bpCRM-KH53p-259W8Ku-aF7wpU-aF7Ah5-4a9Rot-dpDGsV-cwBpZw-9hKnjZ-5sb8ah-91JveF-GLEnUQ-v74pZ4-uadf16-HaSga7-r8ztRk-6Yj2WA-28mpmu2-HTJjNL-23nR3sx-2dGtnJt-BSC48H-RyFCw3-TdcKuw-23NSTS4">Philip Mallis/flickr</a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a>
</body></html>

$500 million for station car parks? Other transport solutions could do much more for the money

<html><body>
There’s relief coming for workers who have been driven mad by the bumper to bumper.
The budget seeks to encourage the workforce to instead park and ride on the train.
The first funds will be spent at Hurstville, Panania, Gosford and Woy Woy.
The $500 million national program has been dubbed the Commuter Car Park Fund.
It is aimed at providing carparking for the workers wishing to commute to work rather than drive into the increasingly congested CBD.
The bulk will be spent at Gosford which will get a $30 million car park. Panania and Hurtsville gets a $7.5 million allocation with $5 in Woy Woy.
“The Commuter Car Park Fund will allow more people to park and ride, taking tens of thousands of cars off our major roads per day,” the budget papers noted.
“This fund will focus on immediate, practical measures to cut travel times within our cities.
"Removing bottlenecks and improving travel corridors,” the Treasurer said.
It will include a $500 million Commuter Car Park Fund that will improve access to public transport hubs and take tens of thousands of cars off our roads.
NSW is budgeted to get a $50 million car park building allocation which comes under the $4 billion Urban Congestion Fund, which has been boosted by $3 billion.
It comes as Sydney residents have been increasingly frustrated by the unavailability of carparking at railway stations, and also annoyed at the increased road congestion.
</body></html>

Car park construction spree for select railway stations 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
After a three-year cycle of industry comment, review and revision, May 1 marks the adoption of a new <a href="https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/ncc-online/About" target="_blank">National Construction Code</a> (NCC). Overseen by the <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/ABCB/The-Board" target="_blank">Australian Building Codes Board</a> (ABCB), the code is the nation’s defining operational document of building regulatory provisions, standards and performance levels. Its <a href="https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/ncc-online/About" target="_blank">mission statement</a> is to provide the minimum necessary requirements for safety and health, amenity, accessibility and sustainability in the design, construction, performance and liveability of new buildings.
Some say the building industry is in <a href="https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/columns/spinifex/construction-crisis-no-minister-its-broken-try-an-iron-clad-mandated-warranty-instead/" target="_blank">deep crisis and broken</a>, that even our entire building regulatory system is not fit for purpose. Consider what has happened, <a href="https://www.afr.com/real-estate/what-are-australias-other-defective-towers-aside-from-sydneys-opal-tower-20190102-h19n02" target="_blank">particularly in residential construction</a>. We have had buildings <a href="https://theconversation.com/cladding-fire-risks-have-been-known-for-years-lives-depend-on-acting-now-with-no-more-delays-111186" target="_blank">burning</a>, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/biggest-shake-up-in-building-laws-in-our-state-s-history-follows-opal-tower-debacle-20190210-p50wtd" target="_blank">cracking</a>, windows exploding, <a href="/news/vue-on-king-william-adelaide-cbd-apartment-owners-hot-under-the-collar">rooms with intolerable heat stress</a>, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-23/opal-tower-residents-face-long-wait-for-repair-work/10842504" target="_blank">rendered unfit for occupation</a> without <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/12/it-could-take-two-years-to-replace-flammable-cladding-in-melbourne-says-building-authority" target="_blank">costly remedial action</a>, class <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-08/residents-furious-builder-sued-combustible-cladding/10214570" target="_blank">actions against developers</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/lacrosse-fire-ruling-sends-shudders-through-building-industry-consultants-and-governments-112777" target="_blank">multi-million-dollar court judgments</a> against consultants and builders.
Well, how do you measure performance? We should think in terms of lives saved, <a href="https://theconversation.com/health-check-how-can-extreme-heat-lead-to-death-91480" target="_blank">heat stroke</a> minimised, costly remedial works avoided, <a href="https://theconversation.com/too-hot-to-sleep-heres-why-11492" target="_blank">less sleep deprivation</a> and climate-induced respiratory issues, <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-just-leave-it-to-the-ndis-to-create-cities-that-work-to-include-people-with-disability-93419" target="_blank">disability access</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/sustainable-housings-expensive-right-not-when-you-look-at-the-whole-equation-60056" target="_blank">less bill shock for the vulnerable</a>, and housing that is built to allow <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-australians-to-have-the-choice-of-growing-old-at-home-here-is-what-needs-to-change-91488" target="_blank">ageing in place</a>.
Safety and amenity
Widespread use of non-compliant building materials, and specifically combustible cladding, has been foremost in the minds of regulators. Three years ago, after the <a href="https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/mbs-report-lacrosse-fire.pdf" target="_blank">Lacrosse fire in Melbourne Docklands</a>, the ABCB amended the existing code. This crucial revision has been <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/Resources/Publications/Education-Training/Fire-performance-of-external-walls-and-cladding" target="_blank">carried forward into the new code</a>.
Individually, states have acted on the findings of a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Non-conforming45th/Report" target="_blank">Senate inquiry</a> into this area. Last October, for example, Queensland enacted the <a href="http://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/construction/BuildingPlumbing/Building/Pages/NonConformingBuildingProducts.aspx" target="_blank">Building and other Legislation (Cladding) Amendment Regulation 2018</a>.
Investigations into the highly publicised, structurally unsound Opal tower in Sydney found the design – namely the connections between the beams and the columns on level 10 and level 4, the two floors with significant damage — indicated “<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-16/opal-tower-investigation-what-the-report-actually-says/10717830" target="_blank">factors of safety lower than required by standards</a>”.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jj9MWsDrqg8?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Opal Tower report finds “construction issues”.
Just two months ago when the new code was released in preview form, we learnt that a significant number of approved CodeMarks used to certify compliance for a range of building materials are under recall. The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors <a href="https://aibs.com.au/Public/News/2019/20190220_CodeMark_Certificates_Withdrawn.aspx" target="_blank">posted urgent advice</a>: “We are in the process of making enquiries with the ABCB and Building Ministers to find out when they were made aware that these certificates were withdrawn and what the implications for members will be […] and owners of properties that have been constructed using these products.”
Fire safety concerns are driving changes in the code. The new NCC has extended the provision of fire sprinklers to lower-rise residential buildings, generally 4-8 storeys. However, non-sprinkler protection is still permitted where other fire safety measures meet the deemed minimum acceptable standard.
Comfort and health
The code includes new heating and cooling load limits. However, requirements for overall residential energy efficiency have not been increased. The 6-star minimum introduced in the 2010 NCC remains.
The code has just begun to respond to the problem of dwellings that are being constructed to comply but which <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27432732" target="_blank">perform very poorly in the peaks of summer</a> and winter and <a href="http://www.thrive-research.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Living-Well-Report-Final-for-issue-080317.pdf" target="_blank">against international minimum standards</a>. The change in the code deals with only the very worst houses – no more than 5% of designs with the highest heating loads and 5% with the highest cooling loads.
It’s a concern that the climate files used to assess housing thermal performance use 40-year-old BOM data. Off the back of record hot and dry summers, readers in such places as Adelaide and Perth might be surprised to learn the ABCB designates their climate as “<a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/Resources/Publications/Education-Training/Energy-Efficiency-NCC-Volume-Two" target="_blank">the mildest region</a>”.
For well over a decade my colleagues and I have researched thermal performance, comfort and health and improvements by regulation. Our <a href="http://anzasca.net/paper/investigating-equivalence-in-compliance-pathways-to-australian-housing-energy-efficiency/" target="_blank">recent paper</a>, based on a small <a href="http://www.nathers.gov.au/newsletters/issue-2-june-2016/nathers-news" target="_blank">sample of South Australian houses built between 2013 and 2016</a>, demonstrated what has been discussed anecdotally in hushed voices across the industry, that a building can <a href="http://anzasca.net/paper/investigating-equivalence-in-compliance-pathways-to-australian-housing-energy-efficiency/" target="_blank">fail minimum standards using one particular compliance option yet pass as compliant using a different pathway</a>.
A building that is not six stars can be built under the new code. In fact, it may have no stars!
Lamentably, there has been no national evidenced-based evaluation (let alone international comparison) of the measured effectiveness of the 6-star standard. CSIRO did carry out a <a href="https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?pid=csiro:EP1312595" target="_blank">limited evaluation</a> of the older 5-star standard (dating back to 2005). An <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/Resources/Publications/Consultation/Energy-Action-Modelling-and-Sensitivity-Analysis" target="_blank">evaluation for commercial buildings</a> is available from the ABCB website.
Accessibility and liveability
Volume 2 of the NCC covers housing and here it is business as usual, although the ABCB has released an <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/Resources/Publications/Consultation/Accessible-Housing-Options-Paper" target="_blank">options paper</a> on proposals that might be part of future codes. Accessible housing <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/Initiatives/All/Accessible-Housing" target="_blank">is treated as a discrete project</a>. Advocates for code changes in this area, such as the <a href="https://anuhd.org/" target="_blank">Australian Network for Universal Housing Design</a> (ANUHD), have written to the ABCB expressing disappointment.
A Regulation Impact Assessment on the costs and benefits of applying a minimum accessibility standard to all new housing has yet to see the light of day.
These proposals or “options” talk of silver and gold levels of design (there is no third-prize bronze option for liveable housing). Codes of good practice in accessible design have for decades recommended such measures.
It’s all about performance
Some argue that deep-seated problems have developed from a code that favours innovation and cost reduction over consumer protection. There is a cloud over the industry and over some provisions – or should we say safeguards and compliance?
Safety should not be a matter of good luck or depend on an accidental selection of a particular building material or system. New buildings born of this new code are hardly likely to differ measurably from their troublesome older siblings. The anxiety for insurers, regulators and building owners continues.
The National Construction Code adopts a performance-based approach to building regulation, but don’t expect the sales consultant to know the <a href="http://www.yourhome.gov.au/passive-design/glazing" target="_blank">U-value</a> of the windows, whether the doors are hung to allow for disabled access, or if the cleat on your tie beam is to Australian standards.
Anyone can propose changes to the NCC. The form is on the website. Consultants will be hired to model costs and benefits.
Regulatory reforms introduced through the ABCB over the past 20 years have produced an <a href="http://www.thecie.com.au/?page_id=379" target="_blank">estimated annual national economic benefit of A$1.1 billion</a>. That’s a lot of money! The owners of failing residential buildings could do with some of that cash to cover losses and legal fees.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113729/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Timothy O'Leary, Lecturer in Construction and Property, University of Melbourne
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-has-a-new-national-construction-code-but-its-still-not-good-enough-113729" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Australia new National Construction Code still isn't good enough

<html><body>
The South Yarra office market is set to double in size in the next four years in the most significant expansion this increasingly sought after commercial precinct has seen in recent history. 
According to Colliers International research, there is 80,000 square metres of upcoming space in the South Yarra commercial market over three projects, with a pipeline until 2023. 
The largest injection of new office space will be an additional 50,000 square metres over four buildings at the new-look Jam Factory, being developed by Newmark Capital.
An estimated 4,000 square metres will be added at Chapel Plaza (402 Chapel Street) and another 25,000 square metres at Goldfields Group’s 627 Chapel Street which will comprise 25,000 square metres of office space.  
“No substantial office building over 4,000 square metres had been delivered in South Yarra in the last six years – all development in the last five years has been in the Forrest Hill precinct, so as new office space comes online, it joins a thriving, mostly residential, development market in this area,” Rob Joyes, Colliers International National Director of Office Leasing, said. 
“In recent years, large occupiers of 4,000 square metres-plus have had to focus on other city fringe areas such as Richmond and Cremorne due to a lack of options in South Yarra.  
“Led by the rejuvenation of the Jam Factory, these new projects will open the door for large occupiers to position themselves in this tightly held precinct.” 
According to Colliers International, South Yarra’s net lettable area was 97,000 square metres at March 2019. 
“An 80,000 square metres investment in new office space will result in the doubling of this boutique commercial precinct and turn it into one of the next city fringe office hot spots,” Colliers International Research Manager Sarah Walker said. 
“An analysis of historic office demand in the CBD shows that for every new head of population, 0.9 square metres of office space is demanded. Up until about 2015, office supply in the Melbourne CBD broadly kept pace with population growth.
“Since that time, however, the increase in population has outpaced CBD supply growth. This has contributed to the exceptionally low vacancy we are recording in both the CBD and City Fringe markets. 
“Based on ABS forecasts, as well as Colliers’ own analysis of future office supply, this supply/demand imbalance is forecast to become even greater and the undersupply in the CBD will need to be met by alternative markets. 
“Tenant location preferences are continually moving towards greater emphasis on accessibility to public transport and amenity for staff. City fringe markets, particularly those serviced by a train station, are best positioned to capture this demand.  
“Vacancy in the city fringe is currently at just under 4.5%, and has been sub-4.5% for two years now. Coupled with the very low vacancy in the CBD, and a forecast for continued low vacancy, upcoming supply in the City Fringe is expected to be met favourably by Melbourne occupiers.” 
Joyes said office leasing teams were seeing a strong desire from businesses to cater to the lifestyle of their staff.
“People want to work, live and play in close proximity, and South Yarra offers not only easy access to the CBD for meetings but an abundance of after hours entertainment and amenity for employees to enjoy,” he said.
“The Jam Factory in particular is set to capture this demand and be snapped up by savvy businesses looking to attract and retain the best staff. This once in a generation development will truly unlock the full potential of this commanding 1.8 hectare site in one of Melbourne’s fastest growing and most affluent suburbs.  
“Occupiers of the Jam Factory will also be able to take advantage of a new dedicated pedestrian connection linking the development to South Yarra railway station, one of the busiest train stations outside the Melbourne CBD.” 
Jonathan Bradhurst , Newmark Capital Project Director, said The Jam Factory was at the focal point of South Yarra’s vibrant lifestyle precinct fueled by innovation, creative industry and its young and affluent demographic.  
“South Yarra continues to evolve, on trend, with an exciting lineup of new apartments, food halls, restaurants and gyms in the pipeline,” Bradhurst said.
“Businesses across the spectrum of culinary, physical fitness and wellness and entertainment see the value of bringing their services to South Yarra to reach the millennial, educated demographic that makes up nearly 50% of the neighbourhood’s residents.
Jonathan Isaacs, of the Clemenger Group, said South Yarra was an ideal fit for businesses looking to provide work-life balance in close proximity to the CBD and an abundance of amenity. 
“We’re proud to base some of the Clemenger Group’s businesses in South Yarra because our employees love to work here,” he said.
“Our agencies get to form a part of the creative precinct along Chapel Street, and the competitive overheads mean we can invest in contemporary, exciting office fit-outs that reflect the businesses they house.”
</body></html>

South Yarra office market set to double with record injection of capital

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/consolidated-properties">Consolidated Properties Group</a> (CPG) is approaching the launch of its latest Brisbane riverfront development, Castile, on the dress circle Skyring Terrace in Newstead.

VIP buyers are now being engaged, with a full public sales launch coming later this year.

Positioned as the final opportunity to secure a new absolute riverfront residence on the East bank of Newstead, Teneriffe or New Farm, Castile at 47 Skyring Terrace has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/woods-bagot">Woods Bagot</a> as a timeless addition to the Brisbane skyline.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371113]

The name Castile draws on themes of permanence, sophistication and legacy, reflecting a broader vision centred on enduring architecture and timelessness in the rarest of riverfront positions.&nbsp;

CPG Chairman and CEO Don O’Rorke said the project had been envisioned as a future Brisbane icon.&nbsp;

“With 47 metres of direct river frontage and never to be built out views, 47 Skyring Terrace is the definitive address on the Brisbane River,” O’Rorke said.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371114]

“Rather than following trend-based apartment design, Castile draws inspiration from Brisbane’s great heritage buildings, reinterpreting classical architecture into a contemporary riverfront landmark designed to stand proudly for the next 100 years,” he said.&nbsp;

The approved development will comprise 227 apartments across a 25-storey tower alongside a boutique six-storey riverfront building of just 12 residences.&nbsp;

Construction is scheduled to commence in September 2026.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150489]

Joel Robinson

CPG unveils Castile Newstead ahead of upcoming sales launch

Australia’s online shopping habits have shifted dramatically over the last decade. As eCommerce volumes surged, so too did the frustrations that came with traditional parcel delivery: missed deliveries, long Post Office queues, parcel theft and the challenge of being home during business hours.

Australia Post’s Parcel Lockers emerged as one of the more practical responses to that changing consumer behaviour.

What started as a relatively niche delivery option has evolved into a nationwide network of more than 1,400 self-service Parcel Lockers positioned at train stations, shopping centres, supermarkets and Post Offices across the country. The system allows Australians to send, collect and return parcels 24 hours a day, fundamentally changing how many people interact with deliveries.

The appeal is relatively straightforward: flexibility.

Instead of waiting at home for a delivery driver or rushing to a Post Office before closing time, users can direct eligible parcels to a Parcel Locker location of their choice. Once the parcel arrives, Australia Post sends a notification with a collection code or QR access through the AusPost app, allowing customers to retrieve their package at any time within the collection window.

For apartment residents in particular, the system has become increasingly valuable.

Higher-density living has created logistical challenges around deliveries, especially in buildings without concierge services or secure parcel rooms. Missed deliveries are common, while parcel theft has become an increasing concern as online shopping volumes continue to rise.

Australia Post itself has repeatedly highlighted the growing issue of “porch pirates” during peak shopping periods, encouraging customers to use Parcel Lockers as a safer alternative to unattended home deliveries.

That security aspect is one of the key reasons the Australia Post Parcel Locker network has grown so rapidly.

Parcel Lockers are positioned as secure, monitored collection points that reduce the risk of theft while also improving delivery efficiency for Australia Post. Instead of multiple redelivery attempts, parcels can be consolidated into a single secure destination.

The Parcel Lockers themselves are free to use through a MyPost account and support a range of parcel sizes up to 16 kilograms and dimensions of approximately 35 x 44 x 61 centimetres.

Beyond receiving parcels, the system has increasingly become integrated into the broader eCommerce ecosystem.

Customers can now use Parcel Lockers to return online purchases, while retailers have embraced the model as a way to improve delivery success rates and reduce friction in the shopping process. Australia Post has actively expanded partnerships with major retailers and promoted Parcel Lockers as part of a broader out-of-home strategy.

The timing of that expansion aligns with broader changes in Australian shopping behaviour.

The acceleration of online retail during and after the pandemic placed enormous pressure on delivery infrastructure. Parcel volumes reached record highs, particularly during Black Friday and Christmas periods, with Australia Post delivering more than 100 million parcels during peak festive seasons.

That growth forced logistics providers to rethink the “last mile” of delivery, widely regarded as the most expensive and operationally difficult stage of the process.

Parcel Locker systems have increasingly been viewed as part of the long-term solution.

The concept itself is not unique to Australia. Parcel Locker networks have become common globally, particularly across Europe and Asia, where dense urban environments and apartment living create similar logistical challenges. But Australia’s geography and suburban sprawl made adoption slower initially.

Now, however, the convenience factor is driving mainstream usage.

For commuters, Parcel Lockers near train stations allow parcels to be collected on the way home from work. For apartment dwellers, they remove the uncertainty around access and missed deliveries.

The rise of the AusPost app has also streamlined the experience, centralising notifications, tracking and Parcel Locker access into a single platform. Australia Post has increasingly pushed customers toward app-based delivery management, partly as a way to combat phishing scams and fake delivery notifications, which have become more sophisticated in recent years.

The Parcel Locker model is also beginning to influence property development itself.

Parcel management has become a growing consideration in apartment building design, particularly as online shopping becomes embedded in everyday life. Many new residential developments are now incorporating dedicated parcel rooms or Parcel Locker systems into foyers and communal spaces.

For developers, parcel management is increasingly viewed as part of the broader resident amenity offering, alongside gyms, wellness spaces and communal work areas.

That reflects a wider evolution in how residential buildings are designed.

Apartment buyers are placing greater emphasis on convenience, security and operational functionality, particularly in higher-density urban environments. Parcel delivery, once considered a minor operational detail, has become an increasingly important part of that equation.

Australia Post’s Parcel Locker network sits at the centre of that behavioural shift.

What began as a simple alternative delivery option has evolved into a key piece of infrastructure supporting Australia’s growing eCommerce economy and changing urban lifestyles.

And as online shopping continues to expand, the role of Parcel Lockers is likely to become even more embedded in how Australians live, shop and receive goods.

How Australia Post Parcel Lockers changed parcel delivery convenience in Australia

Perth’s new apartment market recorded its strongest quarter of sales since Q4 2021, with 412 apartments sold in Q1 2026 and a record quarterly sold value of $537 million, according to Urbis’ latest Apartment Essentials results.

Urbis said the March quarter result reflects strong, highly product‑specific demand across both ends of the market, from more attainable projects delivering at scale, through to premium stock being absorbed by equity‑rich downsizers.&nbsp;

David Cresp, Partner at Urbis, said the key story in Perth is not demand, it is the market’s ability to convert demand into delivered housing.&nbsp;

“This is the strongest sales quarter since Q4 2021, and it reinforces that demand in Perth is real and it’s local,” David Cresp said. “But the task now is delivery, turning that demand into projects that can actually be built and completed.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=110291 project_image_fid=302785]

<h2>Affordable product leads, premium demand remains resilient</h2>

Sales in Q1 were led by more affordable projects, with The Boulevard (SKS Group) recording 115 sales in the quarter, the presentation noting this is only the second time a single project has surpassed 100 quarterly sales. The project was able to offer more affordable housing product right next to a train station.&nbsp;

Palmyra West (Finbar) also delivered strong results with 28 sales in Q1, following 84 sales in Q4, with an average price of under $800,000, underscoring depth of demand for well‑located, attainable new stock.&nbsp;

At the premium end, Urbis said downsizer demand is continuing, with the results highlighting Romeo (Applecross, Finbar) recording 75 sales and reaching almost 50% sold in one quarter.

Jual (Shenton Park, Celsius Property) also posted a strong quarter with 28 sales, reaching 39% sold in one quarter.

Urbis noted that Perth apartment demand is not speculative, not investor‑led, and not uniform, describing it as localised, often equity‑driven and highly product‑specific, a pattern reflected in the polarisation between strong “attainable” performers and premium downsizer product.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=148957 project_image_fid=364102]

<h2>Prices underpinned by costs, and the delivery risk is growing</h2>

Urbis said pricing pressure is cost not demand‑driven: construction costs and delivery risk are now a central constraint, with the results noting build costs remain elevated and volatile, and that energy, fuel and labour uncertainty weigh on feasibility.

David Cresp said a growing challenge for private Build‑to‑Sell developers is simply securing a builder in the current environment.

“Developers are really feeling the pressure from a building market that was operating at capacity and securing a builder is challenging,” David Cresp said, adding that even where a builder can be secured, “trying to get to the price that makes the development financially viable is incredibly challenging in the current market.”&nbsp;

Urbis’ broader WA commentary also notes that industry remains at or above capacity with lot and housing creation, and that many builders are limiting new sales to manage stretched workforces and fixed‑price contract pressures, conditions that flow directly into apartment feasibility and delivery timing.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108869 project_image_fid=317905]

<h2>Supply: improving later, but still constrained, and Perth lags eastern benchmarks</h2>

While near‑term supply remains constrained, Urbis’ forecast shows completions lifting “Supply is forecast to be back above 1,500 apartments per annum for the first time since 2019”, with 1,775 completions forecast for 2026, and volumes remaining above that level over the following years.&nbsp;

Looking further ahead, completions are forecast to reach 2,500 in 2028, with the report noting 32% of that total is social/affordable, reflecting the role of government‑supported delivery in rebuilding the pipeline.&nbsp;

However, Urbis said Perth remains behind comparable markets on pipeline scale. In a national comparison of projects under construction, the report shows under construction Perth Build‑to‑Sell (BTS) at 3,446 apartments versus the Gold Coast at 7,922. Mr Cresp said “The challenge for Perth is how to we grow the delivery pipeline”.

Urbis’ conclusion is that Perth’s market is increasingly defined by product discipline and delivery certainty, with the research identifying “delivery certainty is key” and calling out builder risk and procurement models as core success factors, alongside “timing and staging”.&nbsp;

Perth apartment sales hit strongest pace since late 2021 as builder capacity tightens

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sammut-developments">Sammut Group</a> has secured development approval for its latest Brisbane apartment project, marking the Sydney developer’s next step in expanding its Queensland pipeline following the success of its debut Gold Coast development, Coast.

The approved project at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/44-glen-road-toowong-qld-4066">44 Glen Road, </a><a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/toowong-qld-4066">Toowong</a> will deliver a 15-storey riverfront apartment building with 42 residences, significantly increasing the scale of the site’s previous approval for a smaller luxury scheme. Designed by Bureau^proberts, the development will comprise a mix of predominantly four-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments positioned to maximise Brisbane River and city views.

Sammut Director Julian Sammut said the group had been actively searching Brisbane for several years before identifying Toowong as the right fit.

“Brisbane was the right step for Sammut,” Sammut said.

“With the success of Coast we thought we should definitely look to do more in Queensland alone. We then pushed up to look at Brisbane. We've been looking for I'd say two to three years actually and it was hard to find the right location.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.14%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=dYAVIL7qdcGA8ojvkslSrLjczXFejSSx" />

Sammut said suburbs including New Farm and Teneriffe were considered before the group ultimately focused on Toowong due to its strong downsizer demographic and limited supply of developable riverfront land.

The site was acquired off-market after what Sammut described as a lengthy negotiation and planning process, with the developer pursuing an uplift to the original approval.

“We are DA approved now which is very exciting,” Sammut said.

“We've had our change approval come through and we've obviously doubled the height, 15 storeys plus rooftop. We've got 42 amazing apartments that are going to be coming to market soon.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,dpr_2.0,q_auto:good/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ohkRkY0dIZlqdfME2EZePsCQavRiBadE" />

Bureau^proberts said the design responds to Toowong’s evolving urban character, balancing contemporary apartment living with the area’s established residential identity.

“A place where traditional Queensland living has taken place for centuries; Toowong is seeing a shift of contemporary influence, commercial and retail hubs mixed with well-considered residential offerings – all the while maintaining its character and charm,” the architect noted in planning documents submitted to Brisbane City Council.

The architecture practice said the project’s form was shaped by its riverfront setting, flood considerations, neighbouring building scales, and view corridors.

“They said the mix of four and two-bedroom apartments capture the ‘fundamental qualities of Queenslander living,’ translated into the context of a contemporary subtropical building.”

The development sits just off Coronation Drive within walking distance of Toowong’s retail precinct and the upgraded Regatta ferry terminal, while also benefiting from proximity to the incoming green bridge connection to West End. Sammut said the accessibility and amenity offering were central to the site’s appeal.

The approval adds to growing residential activity along the Toowong riverfront, joining nearby projects including Consolidated Properties’ Monarch Residences and Spyre Group’s ARC Residences.

Sammut secures approval for debut Brisbane apartment development in Toowong

Developer Lanevick is heading back into Sydney’s apartment market after focusing more heavily on the luxury townhouse and terrace sector in recent years.

Lanevick, founded and directed by Steve Maroun, is expecting to receive approval in the coming months for a new apartment development in Gladesville, with the aim to launch it to the market later this year.

The 51-apartment project, designed by Studio Johnston, will comprise a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments positioned toward the Hunters Hill downsizer market.

“Traditionally it’s been difficult for people in that market to downsize because there just hasn’t been the right product available,” Maroun said.

“We’re targeting buyers who might have 30 to 40 per cent of their house value sitting in the bank after downsizing.

“They still want good spacious entertaining areas, they still want quality design, but they also want flexibility and the ability to enjoy life a bit more after working hard for a long time.”

The project sits near Boronia Park and within close proximity to the Parramatta River foreshore, an area Maroun says offers more of a Hunters Hill lifestyle than a traditional apartment precinct.

“From a lifestyle perspective, it’s really more Hunters Hill than Gladesville,” Maroun said. “You’re close to the foreshore, close to parklands, and still connected back into the village precinct.”

From level four and above, apartments will capture water views&nbsp;toward Sydney Harbour. Communal amenity will include rooftop entertaining areas, wellness spaces, and a gym tailored toward owner-occupier buyers.

“We’ve really designed these apartments around that buyer coming from the Hunters Hill LGA and what they’re actually looking for in their next chapter.”

The proposed development has also been designed to respond to the changing character of the broader Gladesville town centre, where a growing number of mixed-use and residential proposals are expected to emerge over the coming years.

“Gladesville presented a rare opportunity to deliver a genuinely design-led residential project within an evolving lifestyle precinct, just moments from the growing Gladesville town centre, and we’ve approached the project with a strong focus on architecture, liveability and long-term community value,” Maroun said.

Maroun said Lanevick saw a first-mover advantage within the precinct as planning controls continue to evolve to accommodate greater housing density.

“We think there’s a real opportunity there that hasn’t really been serviced properly yet,” he said.

“There’s going to be a broader evolution of the whole Gladesville village precinct over time, particularly with more activation and mixed-use outcomes.”

The Venus Street proposal will include a commercial and retail component at ground level designed to contribute to that evolving streetscape activation.

“A big part of the thinking was how do you activate that area properly and create more vibrancy and amenity, which is what Hunters Hill has been looking for,” Maroun said.

Lanevick’s focus since 2020 has largely been on smaller-scale luxury townhouse and terrace developments. The developer recently completed Royale Randwick, also designed by Studio Johnston, where prices reached $3.65 million. The project was featured in the UDIA NSW 2026 Professional Development Prospectus and was also named a finalist for Development of the Year.

&nbsp;

Staff reporter

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News