Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

Joel Robinson

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

Local Little Bay residents, along with buyers from premium postcodes across Sydney’s affluent Eastern Suburbs, have dominated purchases in developer-builder Urban Property Group’s first Eastern Suburbs apartment development, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/este-little-bay-jennifer-street-little-bay-nsw-2036">ESTE Little Bay</a>.

The $250 million coastal project, one of the first new developments in the area in several years, has proven particularly popular with downsizers, especially those from Coogee and Bondi. One Double Bay downsizer paid $4.7 million for a four-bedroom penthouse, setting a new local apartment price record in the process.

Buyers have been attracted to the combination of coastal tranquillity, premium design and amenity-rich neighbourhood living. The walkable village setting, along with proximity to three of Sydney’s leading golf courses, New South Wales Golf Club, St Michael’s Golf Club and The Coast Golf Club, has also been a key drawcard.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352689]

Built across two low-rise buildings designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/hill-thalis-architecture-urban-projects-pty-ltd">Hill Thalis</a> and set along a lush, landscaped green spine, designed by leading landscape architect <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/landscape-architect/arcadia-landscape-architecture">Arcadia</a>, ESTE Little Bay offers a collection of one, two, three and four-bedroom residences with interiors by Richards Stanisich.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> Sales Director, Tom McIvor said the response to ESTE has been "nothing short of extraordinary."

“Buyers have been quick to recognise ESTE as a rare opportunity to invest in a coastal sanctuary that offers both seclusion and connectivity to the heart of Sydney,” McIvor said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352687]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/srm-residential">SRM Residential</a> Senior Director, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/srm-residential">Clayton Ross</a> said the local market has responded incredibly well, driven by ESTE’s exceptional location and the rarity it offers.

“We’ve seen strong interest from a variety of buyer groups, all of whom are drawn to the exclusivity and quality of the build and construction by the 4.5-star iCIRT-rated builder / developer, Urban Property Group. There’s truly nothing else like it along Sydney’s coastline.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352690]

The project also includes robust buyer protections, including Resilience Insurance’s Latent Defects Insurance, providing 10 years of structural cover, and an independent iCIRT-rating of the developer.

“The iCIRT-rating adds another layer of confidence,” Ross added. “Buyers see it as a safeguard for their investment and their lifestyle.” A highlight of ESTE’s offering is its exclusive wellness amenities, including a heated rooftop infinity pool and outdoor heated spa, a state-of-the-art Technogym fitness centre, and a sauna.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/este-little-bay-jennifer-street-little-bay-nsw-2036">ESTE Little Bay</a> is topped out and is on track to complete towards the end of 2026, with residents moving in before Christmas.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112343]

Eastern Suburbs buyers snap up ESTE Little Bay apartments

Sydney’s property market is known for high prices, competitive bidding, and mounting pressure on first home buyers. But change is on the horizon.

From late 2025, eligible first home buyers in New South Wales will have access to a new federal government initiative aimed at addressing affordability: the Help to Buy Scheme.&nbsp;

<h2>What is the Help to Buy Scheme?</h2>

The program introduces a shared equity model intended to reduce the upfront cost of entering the property market, particularly in high-demand urban areas such as Sydney.

The scheme operates under a shared ownership structure in which the federal government takes an equity stake of up to 40 per cent for new homes, or 30 per cent for existing dwellings. This arrangement allows eligible buyers to significantly reduce their loan size and avoid the added cost of Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI).

Under this model, purchasers can enter the property market with as little as a two per cent deposit, well below the traditional 10 to 20 per cent usually required. The government’s contribution is not a loan but a co-ownership stake in the property. As such, there is no interest or rent charged on its portion.

Because the government’s equity combined with the buyer’s deposit typically meets or exceeds the 20 per cent threshold, LMI does not apply. The remaining balance, generally between 60 and 70 per cent of the property’s value, is financed through a standard home loan with a participating lender.

The government's equity in the property remains in place until the buyer chooses to repay it voluntarily or until the property is sold. Buyers can buy back the government’s share over time, in increments of at least five per cent, depending on their financial situation.

There is no fixed repayment timeline, but the amount to be repaid will be based on the property's market value at the time of repayment, not the original purchase price.

<h2>How do you qualify for the&nbsp;Help to Buy Scheme?</h2>

To qualify for the Help to Buy Scheme, applicants must meet the following conditions:

<ul>
	<li>Be an Australian citizen at least 18 years of age.</li>
	<li>Be a first-home buyer who does not currently own property.</li>
	<li>Intend to live in the property as their primary residence.</li>
	<li>Earn less than $100,000 per year for individuals, or $160,000 for couples.</li>
	<li>Purchase a property within the regional price caps, currently $950,000 in Sydney, though this is expected to rise to approximately $1.3 million ahead of the program’s launch.</li>
</ul>

While the Help to Buy Scheme does not solve affordability challenges across the board, it does offer a more accessible pathway for a defined segment of the market, particularly younger buyers with moderate incomes who have been priced out of traditional lending routes.

The scheme is expected to commence in NSW in late 2025, as part of a national rollout.

Under the new model, purchasers can enter the property market with as little as a two per cent deposit, well below the traditional 10 to 20 per cent usually required

Help to Buy Scheme: What first home buyers in NSW need to know

<html><body>
According to SMSF Association CEO and managing director Andrea Slattery, the cut in the official interest rate to a new low of 1.5 percent will hurt SMSF trustees who have large cash balances in retirement phase.
“Although this low interest rate environment is cause for concern for some trustees, the Association is, however, greatly heartened by the fact that a current research report shows that those SMSFs in the transition to retirement or pension phases are typically coping “very well”, she said.
“Research by the SMSF Association and the retirement experts Accurium shows that the medium average return of funds in these two phases of transition to retirement and full retirement is 4.2% – a real return of more than 3% after inflation, an excellent result in this volatile investment environment. 
“Quite clearly such a real return shows SMSF trustees are getting good advice and are making informed decisions to ensure they are both safeguarding their capital and generating an income.” 
Slattery says the research should help dispel the myth that trustees – especially in the retirement phase – are a one-trick pony with their money only in cash or fixed deposits and blue-chip Australian equities.
“The reality is trustees have been able to find ways of diversifying their investment portfolios to generate healthy returns after inflation, especially considering low interest rates and difficult investment markets, highlighting, yet again, the value of sound strategic advice," she said.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

SMSF trustees in retirement phase set to be hurt after official RBA rate cut

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The government is still consulting on superannuation after concerns raised by backbenchers over changes made in the budget. However these changes are more important than ever, as evidenced by the 2016 HILDA statistics on wealth and superannuation.
The statistics highlighted changes in the distribution of wealth of Australians since the survey commenced in 2001. The most significant assets held by most Australians continue to be their family residence and superannuation, but policy changes over the time of decade the survey have changed the balance of those investments.
More concerning is the finding that wealth inequality has increased. The data adds strength to the argument that superannuation reforms are overdue, with a small number of wealthy people able to accumulate wealth in superannuation and investment property.
In Chapter 5 of the report, which discusses household wealth, the authors note that superannuation will soon overtake the family home as the major asset owned by Australians. This is the result of two separate trends: increases in superannuation balances and lower net wealth in housing.
Looking at the HILDA data, it’s not unexpected to see that younger age cohorts have experienced the strongest growth in superannuation assets.
Prior to 1993 superannuation was very different to the current system. According to Treasury data in 1986 53.5 percent of Australian full time employees did not have superannuation coverage, and over 80% of those who did, were members of a defined benefit scheme, which would not generally be reported as an asset. By 2000, 96.9% of full time employees had superannuation coverage, with 86% of those employees in accumulation type funds.
The superannuation guarantee has been a significant contributing factor in the importance of superannuation as a household asset. Notably, the phasing in of the rate of the superannuation guarantee shows in account balances. As can be seen from the HILDA report the increased rate of superannuation guarantee after 2002 has resulted in higher superannuation balances for people at the same age in successive surveys.
The increase in housing values is the second trend which has altered the mix of assets. Over this time residential house prices rose significantly, with ABS data showing an increase in the Residential Property Price Index across eight capital cities from 69.0 in September 2003 to 120.2 in Dec 2014.
Given that in the 2002 data the major asset of Australians was the family home, homeowners benefited disproportionately from the increased value of housing. Even with the significant increases in superannuation, for older Australians the proportion of wealth held in housing has been maintained as their total wealth has increased.
However for younger age groups the story is not as positive. The rate of home ownership is declining as it is becoming more difficult to enter the housing market and home equity is declining among younger age groups as the value of loans has increased.
The HILDA data shows that most age cohorts, including all except the oldest retirees, have seen increases in their superannuation accounts over time. Policy changes effective from 2007 have supported superannuants through tax exemptions and high contribution levels.
Another trend contibuting to this is that people are retiring later. The change in the pension age to 67 has been accompanied by a trend for people to work longer. Not only are they deferring withdrawals from their superannuation fund, but they are also continuing to contribute during this time.
As noted in the Productivity Commission report last year there is some evidence of withdrawals at the time of retirement, but these are generally used to pay outstanding debts, including mortgages against the family home.
Others convert their superannuation at retirement into other financial investments. This cements the family home as the most significant asset held by retirees.
The more concerning finding for policy makers is that wealth inequality has increased, and that superannuation holdings and investment properties are factors in this inequality. HILDA data shows that in 2014 the mean superannuation balance of the top 10% of people aged 50 to 69 was $991,268, up from $650,619 in 2002, compared to $210,798 in 2014 for the sixth to ninth decile and $13,719 for the bottom 50% (although a significant number of retirees in this age group do not have any superannuation balance).
There is a strong correlation between high superannuation balances, income and non-superannuation wealth. People in the top decile have access to higher levels of income to make higher levels of concessional contributions, and the ability to find the funds to make non-concessional contributions into a tax preferred investment environment.
As has been noted previously, the current superannuation system allows high income and high wealth individuals to over-accumulate in tax preferred superannuation, which increases wealth inequality as well as intergenerational inequality.
The Government proposals to restrict the level of contributions and to reduce the amount that can be retained in a tax free environment are important tools to address increasing levels of wealth inequality in our community.
Helen Hodgson is associate professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/helen-hodgson-94553" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Wealth inequality shows superannuation changes are overdue

<html><body>
Rental properties make money for investors through income and capital gains, both of which are taxable. Depending on your annual income from investments, wages and other sources, tax can eat up a sizable chunk of your returns.
One way to minimise your tax bill is to ensure you’re claiming all of the deductions you can on your investment property.
Expenses you incur due to owning a rental property can be offset set against the income the investment brings in.
If the deductions add up to more than the income, you can offset the tax loss against earnings from other sources. If the income is higher than the total value of deductions, you must pay tax on the excess.
For more tax planning tips for property investment in the new financial year, download our free eBook from Mortgage Down.
For more information, contact Mortgage Down by <a href="https://mortgagedown.com.au" target="_blank">clicking here</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

How to maximise your tax advantages and pay off your home sooner

<html><body>
Commercial properties in NSW’s Port Macquarie are attracting self-managed super funds (SMSF) because of the Mid North Coast’s affordability and healthy yields.
“It’s a bit like Sydney in towns such as Port Macquarie, with SMSFs driving the sales of quality investment assets,” said Graeme Garrett, co-principal of Raine &amp; Horne Commercial Port Macquarie. 
SMSFs leasing a commercial property back to a related business is becoming a common trend in the sub-$500,000 market in Port Macquarie, added Garrett.
Several small business owners too are buying properties through SMSFs and then leasing them back to the business, which the current superannuation laws allow, he said.
In many cases, professionals such as accountants, lawyers, engineers, architects and real estate agents are buying commercial properties through a related DIY fund. Properties around the range $400,000-$500,000 are in particularly in demand.
“The trouble is that there’s a shortage of industrial stock in this price range to meet demand,” said Garrett.
Investors operating outside a super fund are also active in the Port Macquarie market because of the low interest rates and the fact that commercial properties are viewed as an investment safe haven, he added.
“Sydney investors seeking solid yields are also starting to make their presence felt in Port Macquarie.”
Yields for industrial stock priced below $500,000 range from 8%, while it’s 6.75-7% for retail and 8% for office space, according to Raine &amp; Horne Commercial Port Macquarie. 
“We auctioned a retail property to a Sydney investor, who purchased it through a self-managed super fund, and who intends on retiring to Port Macquarie down the track,” said Garrett. The property located at 5/56 Clarence Street, Port Macquarie sold under the hammer for $622,500.
Garrett said members of SMSFs would be best served considering a commercial asset that will appeal to future tenants.
“If you occupy it yourself now and then retire, you need to consider what appeal that property will have to future tenants and whether it will be easily let out if it’s part of your future retirement plans.
“Our proximity to Sydney and Newcastle is attracting investors from those cities through a combination of our healthy yields and commercial real estate affordability. 
“When you can buy two or three assets in Port Macquarie for the equivalent of a single-tenant property in Sydney, investors see this as value.”
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

DIY super funds driving Port Macquarie commercial markets: Raine & Horne

<html><body>
ASIC has accepted an enforceable undertaking from Ascentiv Group Pty Ltd, based in Mascot, New South Wales, and its sole director, Mr Chris Pappas.
An ASIC surveillance of Ascentiv, the holder of an Australian financial services (AFS) licence, found concerns about Ascentiv's advice to clients to establish or use a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF).
In particular, ASIC had concerns about Ascentiv's failure to:
<ul>
<li>ensure its representatives provide SMSF advice that was appropriate and in the best interests of their clients</li>
<li>adequately manage conflicts of interest</li>
<li>adequately monitor and supervise its representatives, and</li>
<li>ensure its representatives were adequately trained and competent to provide SMSF advice.</li>
</ul>
According to ASIC, surveillance also found that Ascentiv failed to provide its clients with clear and concise statements of advice. 
"Instead the statements of advice were very lengthy and difficult to understand, making it difficult for Ascentiv's clients to make informed decisions about the advice provided to them," ASIC said.
"Under the EU, Ascentiv has agreed to cancel its AFS licence and write to some of its existing clients to inform them of the EU and the clients' rights to dispute resolution."
Mr Pappas has also undertaken to:
<ul>
<li>give a copy of the EU to any AFS licensee that authorises him to provide financial services in the future;</li>
<li>complete further SMSF specialist training before becoming a representative of an AFS licensee; and</li>
<li>refrain from becoming an AFS licensee or office holder of an AFS licensee for two years.</li>
</ul>
ASIC Deputy Chairman, Peter Kell said elf-managed super funds are not appropriate for everyone. It is important that the advice provided to clients of financial advisers is appropriate for those individuals' needs and circumstances.
'ASIC further expects that AFS licensees that provide SMSF advice to adequately monitor their representatives and have processes which lead to the provision of high quality SMSF advice," he said.
"ASIC will intervene where it finds the quality of advice provided by advisers and the supervision of those advisers by the licensee to be lacking."
ASIC acknowledges Ascentiv and Mr Pappas' cooperation throughout the process.
</body></html>

ASIC accepts enforceable undertaking from Ascentiv Group relating to SMSF advice 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia votes on 2 July 2016 and never before has so much superannuation policy turned on one election. A Liberal victory could mean very different things than a Labor victory.
In this article, I explore some of the ins and outs of each party’s announced policies.
Labor
The policy
Labor has been consistent with their policies for superannuation (including SMSF) pensions. Its position is <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/fairer_super_plan" target="_blank">available here</a>.
… reduce the tax-free concession available to people with annual superannuation incomes from earnings of more than $75,000. From 1 July 2017, future earnings on assets supporting income streams will be tax‑free up to $75,000 a year for each individual. Earnings above the $75,000 threshold will attract the same concessional rate of 15 per cent that applies to earnings in the accumulation phase
… capital gains will be grandfathered …
The drawbacks
The key drawback I feel is that the above could be very difficult to implement for those with pensions from multiple funds. For example, consider an individual who receives pensions from two superannuation funds. The earnings from the assets supporting the first pension in the first fund might total $60,000. The earnings from the assets supporting the second pension in the second fund might also total $60,000. Accordingly, total earnings (ie, $60,000 + $60,000 = $120,000) exceed the $75,000 threshold by $45,000. This raises a tricky question: in which fund is the $45,000 excess subject to tax?
I suspect that the most practical way of dealing with this problem is as follows. I stress that this is only what I suspect what would happen. Again, I have no special inside information.
At the end of each financial year, each fund tells their pensioners what the associated pension assets earnings of the fund are by way of a document that is similar to a PAYG payment summary.
Each pensioner has to lodge an income tax return with the total of all associated pension assets earnings from all funds. These figures would not constitute assessable income of the pensioner.
If total associated pension assets earnings is greater than $75,000, the ATO sends the pensioner a tax bill calculated as the excess (eg, $45,000 in the above example) multiplied by 15 percent.
The pensioner must give this bill to one or more for their superannuation funds to pay. The superannuation funds can adjust the tax bill by any deductions/losses they have in the relevant year.
The pensioner can only pay the tax bill him or herself if there is insufficient money in any of their superannuation accounts in any superannuation funds to pay the bill.
Naturally, the above would be very paperwork heavy. Further, it would be mean that pensioners who might not otherwise have to lodge income tax returns would need to start lodging tax returns. However, I suspect the above — or some version of it — is what would be needed to make the Labor policy work.
Another drawback is the question of what happens in respect of the sale of ‘lumpy’ assets such as real estate. Real estate can be quite low yielding in rent meaning that in most years the $75,000 threshold might not be used up. However, when sold, there could be a large capital gain. If this capital gain is greater than $112,500 (ie, $75,000 grossed up for the one-third CGT discount that superannuation funds currently get if the asset is held for more than 12 months), then the SMSF would pay tax at usual superannuation fund rates on the excess of the net capital gain over $75,000. However, some of the harshness of this would be mitigated by the fact that ‘capital gains will be grandfathered’. Also, there is no suggestion that the $75,000 threshold will be indexed.
The pros
Firstly, ‘capital gains will be grandfathered’. On one construction, this could mean that pension assets already owned in superannuation funds will remain CGT free upon sale. Alternatively, on a more charitable/optimistic reading of the sentence, this could even mean that the second drawback doesn’t even occur (ie, that there’s no limit on the pension exemption that applies to capital gains). Alternatively, it also mean even other things.
Liberals
The liberals made three noteworthy policy announcements in the Budget.
The first policy
The first policy is to:
… [f]rom 1 July 2017 … introduce a $1.6 million transfer balance cap on the total amount of accumulated superannuation an individual can transfer into the retirement phase. Subsequent earnings on these balances will not be restricted.
This $1.6 million cap will be indexed in increments of $100,000 in line with the consumer price index. A fact sheet released on Budget night explains:
A proportionate method which measures the percentage of the cap previously utilised will determine how much cap space an individual has available at any single point in time. ― For example, if an individual has previously used up 75 per cent of their cap they will have access to 25 per cent of the current (indexed) cap
The drawbacks of the first policy
On its face, the Liberals’ policy is similar to Labor’s policy. Afterall, assuming that assets yield income of 4–5% pa, $1.6 million of assets will generate approximately $75,000 of income. However, I suspect the reality could be quite different. My reasoning is as follows. Firstly, remember that under Liberals’ policy ‘[s]ubsequent earnings on these balances will not be restricted.’ Accordingly, a taxpayer with greater than $1.6 million of assets will have a tremendous incentive to try to do a bit of ‘crystal ball gazing’ in order to determine which assets will experience significant capital appreciation and use those assets to fund their pension. This can work out in two ways:
If the crystal ball gazing is right and assets that will experience significant capital grow are allocated to the pension, then — contrary to the Liberals’ motivation — high wealth individuals could still experience significant tax free income, including net capital gains.
However, the opposite could occur (ie, the crystal ball gazing is wrong), and indeed I suspect the opposite will occur more regularly. That is, assets are allocated to commence pensions and those assets end up collapsing in value, for example, where the next GFC comes along. Because it very much sounds like the Liberals want to implement a lifetime cap of $1.6 million, if you pick the wrong assets (eg, if you started your pension with $1.6 million of shares in the next Enron), then it appears to be a case of too bad: even though the original assets might collapse in value down to effectively nothing, you can never use your pension exemption again.
This means that the income tax system would not be taxing income. Rather, it would be giving a tremendous free kick to those who are good at picking investments and it would be giving a tremendous kick in the guts to those who mis-predict future investment performance.
Other draw backs of this policy include:
It sounds like there will be a harsh penalty for exceeding one’s cap. This could occur if a fund miscalculates market values and starts a pension not with $1.6 million of assets but with what ends up being valued at, for example, $1.7 million of assets. The penalty would a tax on not just the earnings of the excess but also on the capital of the excess. Hopefully lessons from the poorly drafted excess contributions tax regime would be learnt and a sensible discretion will be given to the ATO (or even to taxpayers themselves) in order to avoid unfair and harsh outcomes.
It would require tracking of how much of each individual’s lifetime cap — as proportionally indexed — has been used.
The pros of the first policy
This policy would be conceptually easier to administer I think than the Labor equivalent.
The second policy
The Liberals have said that they will remove ‘the tax exemption on earnings of assets supporting Transition to Retirement Income Streams from 1 July 2017’.
The key point here is that to date, for those wishing to take no greater than 10% of their assets per annum, it has not made a huge difference whether they receive transition to retirement income streams or full account-based pensions. However, under this policy it would make a big difference. Accordingly, if this policy ultimately becomes law, those wishing to commence transition to retirement income streams will have an incentive to see if they can first ‘trigger’ a retirement event so that they can take a full account-based pension rather than a transition to retirement income stream and thus pension assets can access the pension exemption. It has been noted by many that — particular once someone reaches age 60 — ‘retirement’ as defined in superannuation law can occur in ways that are very unintuitive. For example, according to paragraph 22 of APRA’s Prudential Practice Guide SPG 280 Payment Standard, if a 60 year old works two jobs and quits one job (eg, to work even more in the other job) this constitutes retirement under the superannuation law.
The third policy
The Liberals propose to remove the ability to make a reg 995‑1.03 election that ‘allows individuals to treat certain superannuation income stream payments as lump sums for tax purposes.’
Succession planning
Both the Liberals and Labor’s proposals could have a massive impact on succession planning.
Currently, the legislature has been quite explicit that if a fund member dies in pension mode, so long as their benefits are cashed as soon as practical after death, the pension exemption at the fund level will continue and there will be no ‘back door’ death tax by way of CGT at the fund level.
This could change a lot regardless of who wins. I won’t give this full consideration in this article, however, I will note the following consideration in respect of the Liberals’ policy. Namely, unlike Labor where an infinite amount can support a pension, it appears that under the Liberals’ policy, someone can never receive pensions with assets that were worth more than $1.6 million upon their commencement.
This might mean in a mum and dad fund with real estate worth say $3.2 million, if dad dies and mum already has a pension, all of dad’s benefits (ie, a 50% interest in the real estate) might need to be cashed out of the fund by way of a lump sum with no scope of a death benefit pension to mum.
Therefore substantially more CGT may be collected in superannuation funds in respect of death benefits especially given the Liberals’ proposed removal of the anti-detriment deduction.
Disclaimer: The following is based on my view of materials publicly available as at the date of writing (16 May 2016). I suspect that when more details become known about both parties’ policies, some comments could become redundant.
This article is for general information only and should not be relied upon without first seeking advice from an appropriately qualified professional. 
Bryce Figot is director, DBA Lawyers and <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/">can be contacted here</a>.
</body></html>

Liberal v Labor: what different election outcomes could mean for smsf pensions

<html><body>
Guest Observer
 
One of the most disturbing aspects of the $500,000 lifetime non-concessional contribution (NCC) cap announcement in the 3 May 2016 Federal Budget is that the new lifetime NCC cap catches prior NCC’s made since 1 July 2007.
We consider the implementation of this announcement would effectively give rise to retrospective legislation for almost 9 years (ie, 1 July 2007 to 7.30pm (AEST) on 3 May 2016 is around 3,230 days or just over 8.8 years). Thus, people who have previously relied on the law during this 9 year period in making contributions to their super funds may now have no or little lifetime NCC cap left remaining.
We acknowledge that if your NCCs made during the prior 9 year period did not exceed $500,000, then there may be some remaining cap. For example, if someone had only made $10,000 of NCCs, they will have a $490,000 remaining cap.
However, if someone makes an NCC after the Budget announcement at 7.30pm on 3 May 2016, including any NCCs made in the prior 9 year period that exceeds $500,000, then their super fund must either reject any excess amount or the excess will be taxed at 49% if the member leaves the excess in their super account if possible. (There is doubt as to whether the announcement will allow the excess to remain in the superannuation fund given the little detail on this announced change).
If we trace back recent history, recent limits on making NCCs can be summarised as follows:
•        NCCs prior to 7.30 pm 9 May 2006 — unlimited;
•        NCCs from 9 May 2006 to 30 June 2007 — $1 million;
•        NCC from 1 July 2007 to 7.30 pm 3 May 2016 — $180,000 (indexed figure) per financial year or $540,000 averaged over three consecutive financial years where the member was under age 65 and was eligible to apply the bring forward rule in s 295-85(3) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (‘ITAA 1997’); and
·                NCCs from 1 July 2007 to 7.30pm 3 May 2016 — $500,000 as reduced by any NCCs made from 1 July 2007.
As you can see, given the far more generous contribution caps applying before 4 May 2016, the $500,000 lifetime cap is a retrospective and an unfair change of law made by way of Budget announcement especially as it may not survive the political and legal process that lies ahead.
Before anyone who has made NCCs in the past 9 years makes any further contributions to superannuation, they would be well advised to request ATO confirmation of their NCCs to check whether they will exceed the new cap. The Budget Paper confirms that:
To ensure maximum effectiveness the lifetime cap will take into account all non-concessional contributions made on or after 1 July 2007, from which time the Australian Taxation Office has reliable contributions records …
<h2>Other points on retrospective law</h2>
The Treasurer, Mr Scott Morrison, may argue that the new cap is not retrospective as it does not require NCCs that already exceed $500,000 on 3 May 2016 to be rejected and therefore prior contributions are not adversely impacted.
However, this is an argument equivalent to an argument about ‘splitting hairs’. The prior law permitted NCCs of $180,000 per financial year or $540,000 over three consecutive financial years (if the bring forward rule applied). Moreover, let’s assume that someone had contributed $540,000 of NCCs during the prior 9 years and now wishes to contribute more, they now have a nil lifetime cap. When did the current Government warn the public that the ‘rug may be pulled from underneath them?’
Indeed, the Government has repeatedly promised (particularly leading up to the 2013 election) that there would be no adverse changes in its next term of office without appropriate consultation. In particular, in January 2013, the Coalition released its pre-election policy document Real Solutions, which pledged to "deliver greater stability and certainty" around superannuation laws. "We won't move the goalposts... We will ensure that no more negative unexpected changes occur to the superannuation system," the document said.
However, following Mr Malcolm Turnbull’s appointment as Prime Minister in September 2015, he confirmed that under a Turnbull Government prior policies could be changed. “We've got to be agile all the time" Mr Turnbull told AM's Michael Brissenden on 21 September 2015.
This is despite the repeated requests for stability in respect of our superannuation law due to the ‘long-term’ nature of being locked into a regulatory environment where someone cannot withdraw their money if there is an adverse change in law.
The usual process of retrospective legislation
The Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’) report on retrospective law recognises that retrospective tax laws may be introduced, typically for tax avoidance or integrity type measures. Moreover, when retrospective tax laws are introduced, they usually only apply for a relatively short-time frame.
Also, these type of retroactive tax changes to address tax avoidance and integrity announcements should be contrasted with superannuation measures where people are ‘locked into’ a regulatory system without being able to easily withdraw their savings. Indeed, most people cannot access their superannuation until they attain age 65 (subject to strict exceptions under strict preservation rules).
The Senate has processes intended to minimise periods of retrospectivity. Standing Order 44 provides that where tax legislation has been announced by press release more than six months before the introduction of the relevant legislation into Parliament (or publication of a draft bill), that legislation will be amended to provide for a commencement date after the date of introduction (or publication).
Further, Ms Michelle Gordon, a High Court judge, commented that retrospective tax law is not only hurting taxpayers but may be making foreign investment less attractive. This comment was made during her presentation to tax experts at the University of Melbourne law school in late August 2012 when she was then a Federal Court judge.
Given that all Federal legislative processes are now in ‘care taker’ mode until after the election on 2 July 2016, there is going to be considerable uncertainty as to whether this lifetime cap announcement will become law and if it does, in what form. The Labor Government has ruled out any retrospectivity to this reform should it win the election.
More detail on the $500,000 lifetime cap
This article has put forward numerous reasons why retrospective law stretching back nearly 9 years should not be tolerated by the Australian community.
Assuming, despite these reasons, that the Government persists to introduce a $500,000 lifetime NCC cap, we note that such a cap is surprisingly low given the summary provided above where some 10 years ago, the amount of personal NCCs (then known as ‘undeducted contributions’) were unlimited in amount.
The NCC cap was then, following a brief transitional period, reduced to $150,000 (as indexed on 1 July 2014 to $180,000) per FY subject to then a $450,000 (as indexed on 1 July 2014 to $540,000) three year bring forward rule until 3 May 2016. This 10 year slide has been a major restriction on what people could previously have contributed to their super savings.
Certainly, there were numerous submissions to Government by different industry bodies and members of the community to restrict the tax concessions in relation to superannuation for those people who had attained a certain monetary threshold within the super system. However, the Government’s response overlooks the fact that these people had contributed on the basis of the law as then applying (which was unlimited prior to the budget announcement in May 2006) and as a result, the Government should not overly restrict the ability for everyone else to accumulate a reasonable amount in superannuation to provide a satisfactory lifestyle in their retirement.
Assuming the Government sees the light of day and drops the retrospective nature of the $500,000 lifetime cap, we also consider the Government has overreacted with a $500,000 lifetime cap. Such a cap does not allow any flexibility for the numerous investment timing and life cycle risks that may arise which we examine in further detail below.
What if a member suffers an investment loss?
Many who have previously contributed more than $500,000 have lost considerable value — many losing far more than 50% on their investments — as a result of the global financial crisis (‘GFC’).
A $500,000 lifetime cap provides no scope or flexibility for these people who may suffer another GFC or another market correction (as in the October 1987 share market crash), where a substantial value of their lifetime savings may be lost in volatile trading over a short-time frame.
Indeed, there are many who were hoping to retire but got GFC’d and are still in the workforce at age 65 and 70, who expected to retire much earlier.
Moreover there have been many thousands of people who have suffered from one of the many fraudulent investment schemes and who will have no chance to accumulate any further super savings as they will generally have burnt up their lifetime NCC cap but unfortunately, and through no fault of their own, have zero or next to no dollars remaining in superannuation.
SMSFs that have entered into contracts pre-budget
SMSFs that have entered into contracts and transactions to buy investments, incurring limited recourse borrowing arrangements to gear up an investment property and other investment contacts that span 7.30pm 3 May 2016, may now be in default of such contracts and stand to lose deposits and suffer considerable loss and damages as a result of the threatened retrospective impact of the new lifetime NCC cap.
So with a mere Budget announcement without any forewarning or transitioning rule, many peoples’ superannuation planning may now be in ruins by the announced change in law.
In contrast, when changes were made to restrict SMSFs investing related unit trusts on 11 August 1999, a special 10 year transitional rule was introduced to allow an SMSF that invested in a related unit trust with borrowings to invest in further units up to 30 June 2009 to enable the unit trust to reduce its debt. Without the introduction of s 71E of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (‘SISA’), SMSFs would have similarly been caught by an announced change but were granted a 10 year transitioning period.
The timing of the $500,000 lifetime NCC cap is particularly adverse for many SMSFs with related party LRBAs that need considerable cash flow before 30 June 2016 to place their LRBAs on arm’s length terms to comply with recent ATO guidelines. For these SMSFs to comply with the ATO’s recently released Practice Compliance Guideline PCG 2016/5, relevant SMSFs need to make the entire outstanding 2016 FY payments of principal and interest on non-arm’s length loans before 30 June 2016.
Impact on small business
The new cap is particularly unfortunate for business owners who generally are not in a financial position to contribute super throughout their lives and fall outside the CGT small business concessions in div 152 of the ITAA 1997. Many small business owners treat their business as a ‘de facto’ superannuation savings vehicle as they generally do not have enough cash to contribute to superannuation as they are building their business.
Small business owners will also have limited capacity to utilise their SMSFs from now on to acquire their business premises. The proposed lifetime NCC cap will adversely affect many small businesses, farmers and others that wish to invest in real estate, with many properties now in capital cities (and farm land on the city fringes) valued far in excess of $1 million.
Transfers from overseas to Australian superannuation funds
Those seeking to make transfers funds from foreign superannuation funds will also now be limited on what they can transfer to Australian superannuation funds.
Without the ability to transfer savings from foreign superannuation funds, many will leave their moneys in these overseas funds as the upfront tax cost on repatriation may be unviable compared to drawing a steady pension.
Australia should encourage foreign savings to be invested here, but the new lifetime cap imposes severe limits on these savings being available to produce any benefit to the Australian economy.
Conclusions
If there is to be announced legislation by budget or press release, then it should prospective. Being prospective, if the limit is $500,000 then most people will hopefully adjust and learn to live with this new limit. However, to then seek to impose a retrospective 9 year inclusion period on prior contributions when people have gone about their affairs in an ordinary and lawful manner is unreasonable and should not be tolerated by our community. Indeed, the current Government has misrepresented that there will be no adverse super changes. A change of Prime Minister in September 2015 is no excuse for such poor law making.
 
This was written by DBA Lawyers Director Daniel Butler and Special Counsel Rebecca James, who can be contacted below
Daniel Butler, Director (<a href="mailto:dbutler@dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">dbutler@dbalawyers.com.au</a>) 
Rebecca James, Special Counsel (<a href="mailto:rjames@dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">rjames@dbalawyers.com.au</a>)
 
</body></html>

The new $500,000 lifetime contribution cap is retrospective and bad law

<html><body>
The Living Future Institute of Australia (LFIA) has launched the Brickworks Living Building Challenge design competition, pressing the go button for designers, built environment professionals and students around the world to conceptualise what the world's most sustainable retail centre ought look like.
The Living Building Challenge is an international sustainable building certification program, advocacy tool and philosophy.
The Brickworks Living Building Challenge design competition, run by the Living Future Institute of Australia with principal partner Frasers Property Australia, aims to explore the boundaries of sustainable design within the retail environment and redefine ‘best practice’ for the sector.
It is the world's most aspirational and rigorous green building performance standard. The Challenge is comprised of seven performance categories called Petals: Place, Water, Energy, Health &amp; Happiness, Materials, Equity and Beauty.
The Living Building Challenge (LBC) has never before had a retail centre as its centrepiece, nor has an Australian project been subject to such a design competition before. 
The Living Building challenge boldly aspires to regenerative development, not simply sustainable development, and can be applied to almost every conceivable building project, or any scale and location.
For more information, download our eBook <a href="/images/2016/green_leadership/Australia_aspires_to_global_green_leadership.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Australia aspires to global green leadership: The Living Building Challenge

<html><body><div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
The average balance of self-managed super funds has topped $1 million for the first time, the latest tax office statistics show. It was at around $800,000 four years ago.
SMSFs returned 9.8 percent on assets in fiscal 2014, the fifth consecutive year of positive returns.
"For the first time the average assets of SMSFs grew to over $1 million in 2014, a growth of 23 percent over five years," ATO assistant commissioner Kasey Macfarlane said.
"Likewise, average assets per member increased to $564,000, the highest over the period," Fairfax Media reported.
The data shows there are one million members of DIY super funds which combined are worth $590 billion in assets.
The average assets per small fund are $1,066,080 and median assets $602,629.
Nearly 31percent of SMSFs now have assets of $1 million or over, including 10.8 percent with assets between $2 million to $5 million; 2.1percent in the $5 million to $10 million range and 0.5percent with a balance over $10 million.
 
</div></body></html>

SMSF average balance hits $1 million

<html><body>
The Year of the Monkey offers great opportunities for Chinese investors who are looking to buy property in Australia. 
The benefits to investing in Australia’s housing market include the country’s healthy and comfortable lifestyle, the property market’s relative stability, and regulations that protect investors’ ownership rights. 
Australian rental properties often deliver yields in the range of 3 percent to 5 percent, plus the potential for strong capital gains over the long term. 
Housing values in Australia’s major capitals have been rising over the past few years, driven by low interest rates and high investor demand. 
Simply <a href="/images/2016/chinese_ebook/Chinese_ebook.pdf" target="_blank" title="eBook">click here</a> to get your Chinese language copy of Property Observer's ebook Buying property in Australia: A guide for Chinese investors. 
</body></html>

Latest Guides

Help to Buy Scheme: What first home buyers in NSW need to know

News

Editor's Picks

News

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Latest Guides

Help to Buy Scheme: What first home buyers in NSW need to know

News

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

News

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News