<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;

Lanevick to cater for Hunters Hill downsizers with new Gladesville apartment development

Policy

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
At the current frequency of financial system inquiries (Campbell 1982, Wallis 1997, Murray 2014) there will not be another until 2030. That makes this week’s interim report from David Murray all the more critical.
By far the biggest problem with Australia’s financial system is the retirement savings system. Its fundamentally flawed structure is damaging the welfare of millions of Australian households.
There are three closely related problems. First, Australia’s retirement system forces households to make complex decisions that most households are not well placed to make.
Households in Australia have more freedom in managing their retirement savings than in any other developed country. That freedom would be terrific if it was matched by a world-leading level of financial literacy, but it is not. So the putative freedom is really more a burden to the majority of households who cannot navigate a complicated system without help from advisers.
The second problem is the poor quality of financial advice provided to households. The certification required to be employed as a financial adviser is an RG146. A person of average ability takes a few weeks to meet the RG146 requirements. That is, with a few weeks' training almost anyone can be employed in a financial advisory group and advise households on their lifetime savings.
The knowledge hurdle for financial adviser certification is not low because the requisite knowledge is small. It is low because of political pressure not to make it too high. In the 1980s and 1990s the life insurance sales sector morphed into the financial advice sector. Financial advice deals with much more complicated questions than insurance but the sector was able to resist regulation that would force its members to be properly trained.
Lobbyists have won
To this day the financial advisory firms have successfully resisted attempts to raise the bar on the expertise required by their employees to provide financial advice. Because most financial advisers are so poorly trained they cannot provide quality advice solutions to the problems of their clients. Most financial advisory firms simply have a set of cookie-cutter solutions for clients and the financial adviser’s job is to decide which cookie cutter goes with which client.
The third problem is by the far the most important. Most financial advisers have a substantial conflict of interest – the interests of their employer are at odds with the interests of their clients.
To make the point imagine the following situation. Your doctor is an employee of the Acme Drug Company. Acme has a suite of drugs covering many but not all medical conditions. For some conditions the Acme drug is the best, but for many conditions there are better drugs.
You pay for medical advice by the hour, but your doctor is paid by Acme. Your doctor can prescribe whichever drug she chooses, but her compensation depends on the volume of Acme drugs she prescribes, not other drugs.
Even though the medical profession has a well-deserved reputation for putting patients first, drug companies are not allowed to own medical practices. It is obvious that vertical integration in the medical system, where drug companies employed doctors, would corrupt the system. Sadly, this is exactly the situation we have in the retirement savings sector in Australia.
Conflicts remain
Over 80% of financial advisers work for firms that are either directly owned by, or very closely affiliated with, firms that provide a suite of financial management products. When a household goes to a financial advisory firm they will most likely be talking to a financial adviser who works for a firm that is vertically integrated with a provider of financial products. The financial adviser may or may not be free to select whichever financial products he chooses for the client’s solution, but he will only be compensated for recommending his own product provider (investment management firm).
This obvious conflict of interest is leading to dreadful outcomes in Australia. Households are being put into retail funds when they would be better off in industry funds. They are being put into very high-fee investment products when low-fee products would deliver the same expected returns before fees. They are being encouraged to borrow money to invest, to be underdiversified, to make the wrong decisions all around.
The financial system inquiry should address each of these three problems. First, it should recommend the federal government implement a long-term program of public education about fundamental ideas in retirement savings: save while you are young, don’t put all your eggs in one basket, and get a second opinion from an adviser who is certified as independent.
Second, it should insist on a proper level of training for all financial advisers.
Third, it should insist that financial advisers cannot be affiliated with financial product providers in any way – using the medical sector as its template.
The missing institution
There is another retirement savings problem that is of first order importance but unrelated to financial advice. Elderly households need a way of releasing the equity in their homes without the uncertainty that they will lose control of their residence.
The largest form of saving that most Australian households undertake over their lifetimes is that they buy homes that appreciate in value. The equity that Australian households have in residential real estate (value minus debt) is about A$2.8 trillion. That is nearly twice the A$1.6 trillion that Australian households have in retirement savings. Yet, there is no direct connection between these great pools of value.
There is a missing institution in the Australian financial system. What is needed is a financial organisation that will allow Australian households to borrow against their homes without any fear of losing control of the home and at an interest rate close to government treasury rates.
There are reverse mortgage products in the market. But those products are too expensive and poorly structured for most households. Releasing the equity in the homes of retirees is essential for solving the fiscal problems of the ageing of the Australian population.
Sam Wylie is principal fellow at <a href="https://mbs.edu/Pages/Default.aspx" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Melbourne Business School</a><img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/28725/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.3em;">.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Three financial system flaws David Murray can’t ignore

<html><body>
It’s always refreshing to read an intelligent report, so when the Centre for Independent Studies released <a href="https://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/issue-analysis/ia146.pdf" target="_blank" title="Eight Housing Affordability Myths">Eight Housing Affordability Myths</a> by Dr Stephen Kirchner, we finally got to see why Australia’s housing debate is long overdue.
The only problem that comes from such a precise paper is that it will require government intervention which, as most would agree, is where the problems start. They just don’t get it – if they did, we would not have the glaring problems that we see today. Some of the interesting points raised are:
<ul>
<li>Housing consumption and investment are both taxed and subsidised by all levels of government. The net effect of these taxes and subsidies on housing affordability is difficult to determine as it depends on the benchmarks used to assess what is taxed and what is subsidised.</li>
<li>Housing affordability is a relative rather than an absolute concept and there is no unique way of measuring housing affordability.</li>
<li>Much commentary on housing markets focuses on dramatic, ‘short-term’ changes in house prices, failing to put these changes into ‘long-term’ context.</li>
<li>The supply of new land for housing has declined over the last decade, with the average number of lots produced in the five largest capital cities declining by 21%.</li>
<li>The long-run increase in the price of new land for housing is indicative of the failure of state governments to increase land supply to accommodate rising demand for new housing.</li>
<li>A fundamental principle of economics is that if you tax something more heavily you will get less of it. This principle is well understood in relation to markets in goods and services, but it is often forgotten in relation to housing.</li>
</ul>
Some will argue that today, we are seeing two very clear markets; namely the principal place of residence and the investment market which in Melbourne and Sydney has gone berserk.
More confusing, is that we keep reading reports that consumer confidence is in a downward spiral even though investors are in an absolute feeding frenzy for off the plan properties and to such an extent, that they will pay over and above the asking prices.
Now let’s bring out those conspiracy theories. It is clear that since the global financial crisis (GFC) that the mum and dad investors have stayed well clear of the share market and will continue to do so simply because they don’t trust it. This massive investor shift is now driving property values upwards and creating an unprecedented financial burden on the federal government in terms of negative gearing subsidies and Australia is just one of a few developed countries that allows negative gearing.
<a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/files/2014/07/3-07-2014-3-44-05-PM1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-57102" src="https://www.rwm.com.au/files/2014/07/3-07-2014-3-44-05-PM1.jpg" alt="3-07-2014 3-44-05 PM" width="683" height="252"></a>
<a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/files/2014/07/10-07-2014-9-33-53-AM.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-57104" src="https://www.rwm.com.au/files/2014/07/10-07-2014-9-33-53-AM.jpg" alt="10-07-2014 9-33-53 AM" width="630" height="312"></a>
Today, 1.2 million negatively gear with the Australian Tax Office statistics revealing that property investors claimed $13.2 billion in losses in 2010/11 which was up from $10.1 billion the year before.
Given the huge run on investment property over the last few years it will be frightening to see what the negative gearing figures are for 2012/13 and 2013/14. <a href="https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/9/australian-news/why-negative-gearing-australias-biggest-policy-failure" target="_blank" title="Why negative gearing is Australia’s biggest policy failure ">Why negative gearing is Australia’s biggest policy failure </a>– “It is difficult to find a government policy that has been less successful at meeting its objectives than negative gearing on residential property. But unfortunately that is the nature of housing policy in Australia, where sound policies are ignored in favour of policies that encourage speculation, reduce home ownership and redistribute wealth towards the already affluent.”
Negative gearing by property investors reduced personal income tax revenue in Australia by $600 million in the 2001-02 tax year, $3.9 billion in 2004-05 and $13.2 billion in 2010-11 – so this itself leaves a pretty good clue as to how popular it has become. Negative gearing was introduced back in July 1985 and many argue that today, it is no longer relevant. Investors have taken the first home buyers out of the market and they can’t compete as it is not a level playing field.
<a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/files/2014/07/9-07-2014-4-11-47-PM.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-57106" src="https://www.rwm.com.au/files/2014/07/9-07-2014-4-11-47-PM.jpg" alt="9-07-2014 4-11-47 PM" width="573" height="345"></a>
Then you have the foreign investors where an inquiry is currently underway, although the only way to really see what is happening is to extrapolate the relevant stamp duty records and cross pollinate this data – every sale in Australia pays stamp duty although for some strange reason this point has been missed by the inquiry. This data is readily available – although I doubt it will ever see the light of day.
So the debate should be “what benefit is negative gearing to the Australian economy when nearly all the other advanced economies don’t permit it”. Australian property markets would be decimated if it was abolished and would take the banks with them given the significant borrowings on each investment property which are crucial to maximise the negative gearing subsidies.
When the government brought in the GST in July 2000, this immediately brought about the decline of property developers as they had to pay the 10% GST on the construction costs. Maybe a possible answer is to remove the GST on construction, to see more construction which will increase employment and off-set this by scaling back negative gearing subsidies. In the long-term, this would lower property prices more particularly in the property investment sector. Or, do you place a limit on the number of investment properties allowed that can qualify for negative gearing subsidies?
Now we need to see a politician brave to start this conversation. Better still the Abbott government might even decide that they now need a Housing Minister.
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

Why Australia urgently needs a housing debate

<html><body>
Five years on since the US recession ‘officially’ ended in June 2009, urban land prices are rising, the pattern of history is repeating, and this time the players on the chessboard have changed.
But our governments are turning a blind eye. 
They have yet to acknowledge why the crisis happened, or put policies in place to prevent it happening again.
Expensive welfare systems, elaborate tax and transfer policies, and the financial ‘cures’ following the previous land induced crash in the early 1990s did nothing to prevent the swiftest and sharpest synchronised global downturn in human history.
Taxpayers were punished, bankers got a “get out of jail free” card, and the largest real estate investment trusts spent $50 billion purchasing 386,000 foreclosed homes, to rent out to previous owners who believed and acted on the lie “there is no bubble”.
The IMF and policy makers are now twisting themselves in economic knots trying to pin down a ‘cure’ for the dangers of excessive house price inflation they readily admit lead to most banking crises, with Australia featuring in the top five of each of their highlighted risk assessments;
“Our research indicates that boom-bust patterns in house prices preceded more than two-thirds of the recent 50 systemic banking crises,” an <a href="https://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2014/06/11/era-of-benign-neglect-of-house-price-booms-is-over/" target="_blank">IMF blog post warned</a> last month.
The IMF claims the ‘neglect of house price booms is over’ but as the OECD ‘Post Mortem’ of the 2008 crises reveals, these economists can’t see. 
They ignore the role that rent (unearned income), debt and the financial sector play in shaping the economy. 
They have a colourful history of recurrent boom bust land cycles, all replete with rampant speculation and easy credit, spanning in excess of 300 years from which to study … and yet:
 “The macroeconomic models available at the time of the crisis typically ignored the banking system…”  (OECD Forecasts During And After The Financial Crisis: A Post Mortem – February 2014).
In other words, based on the aesthetic qualities of their equations, the 2006/7 bubble couldn’t exist. A story we hear repeated every year as prices continue to defy gravity and economist try and explain it away with ‘sound fundamentals’.
Neo-liberal policy made matters worst. 
Less government interference, protecting labour, redistributing wealth through taxing the rich, deregulation of capital markets, lowering trade barriers, and reducing state influence though privatization and fiscal austerity were termed by American scholar Robert Waterman McChesney as “capitalism with the gloves off”.
It promised to lead to efficient markets and lower unemployment.
But at the onset of the GFC, unemployment in developed nations rose above any previous recession of the past three decades, whilst wages, as a share of GDP plummeted to their lowest point since the Second World War.
<img src="/images/2014/07/14/cashmore%20july%2014%20one.png" alt="">
“This should be a wake-up call,”concluded the UN in their annual <a href="https://unctad.org/en/PublicationChapters/tdr2012ch6_en.pdf" target="_blank">Trade and Development report that revealed the findings</a>:
 “There must be something fundamentally wrong with an economic theory, that justifies the rise of inequality mainly in terms of the need to tackle persistent unemployment.”
In the UK, Bank of England has imposed a 4.5 times loan to income cap on 85% of mortgages, along with various ‘stress tests’ to please the regulators.
But the Council of Mortgage lenders show only 19% of recent London mortgages are at or above this ratio, whilst the national figure is a mere 9%.
By volume, London accounts for around a quarter of loans nationally, (Q1) so the 85% cap will do little to nothing, except perhaps eliminate home ownership for low-income groups.
But stemming inflation or deterring speculative activity is not, and never will be, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/26/bank-of-england-limit-large-loans-housebuyers-mortgage-lenders" target="_blank">Central Bank policy</a>:
"These actions should not restrain current market housing activity … these actions will have minimal impact in the future if the housing market evolves in line with the Bank's central view."
In the U.S.A just five megabanks and their holding companies control a derivatives market worth hundreds of trillions of dollars, in Australia the ‘Big Four’ command 80% of the market and 88% of residential mortgages.
“These are the men who have the most economic power in the world’’ wrote British philosopher, mathematician and historian, Bertrand Russell, one of the 20th century’s leading logicians; “and they derive it from land, minerals, and credit, in combination.”
Russell understood only too well, that all productive gains, every improvement in society and the economy, would be capitalised into rising land values, enriching those who owned the assets but more so, those who created the credit and traded on the debt. 
Milton Friedman meanwhile tutored that societies are structured on greed. 
But greed means taking something from another, grasping for a larger slice of the pie (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency" target="_blank">pareto efficiency</a>).
Greed is not a natural feature of a well-functioning community; rather it’s a feature of a dysfunctional economy that allows a country’s wealth to gravitate into an elite nucleus of financially strong hands.
It remains that the economy is fuelled by what is termed the ‘FIRE’ sector – finance, insurance, and real estate.
The FIRE Economy is dependent on rising asset prices – on you and me buying houses - so it can extract economic rent.
The three sectors work together – they’re intrinsically linked.  
The banking sector pumps a colossal amount of credit into the system by way of a home loan. Real estate businesses sell the products – some trading as REITs - insurance companies underwrite the owners debt, property, and income, and as the interest payments compound – doubling and doubling again – the debt is recycled into more lending, more borrowing, higher house prices - making those who trade on the debt in an obscure concentrated market of derivatives, increasingly wealthy.
<img src="/images/2014/07/14/cashmore%20july%2014%20two.png" alt="">
Source: <a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/books" target="_blank">Bubble Economics</a>: Australian Land Speculation 1830 – 2013, by Paul D. Egan and Philip Soos
Article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
The government, many members of which come directly from the industry itself, receive substantial payments from the FIRE sector.
For example, between 1998 and 2008 the banking industry spent <a href="https://newint.org/features/2011/01/01/10-worst-corporate-lobbyists/#sthash.nyyaPmr4.dpuf" target="_blank">$3.4 billion</a> lobbying the US government.
In Australia, the ICAC investigations into Illegal donations from developers and <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/comment/even-i-am-shocked-by-icac-revelations-20140516-zreh2" target="_blank">“wealthy property tycoons”</a> reveal tens of thousands of dollars have been used to influence decisions by local, state and federal governments.
It should therefore be of no surprise that ‘affordable housing policy’ always seems to work in reverse. 
Generous subsidies are handed over to investors – all of which are capitalised into land prices.
Restraints on supply are imposed, ‘rich neighbourhoods’ are protected from over development, land on the fringes is no longer dirt cheap, acreages are banked, <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2014/06/18/no-land-for-you-melbourne/" target="_blank">exempt from State Land Tax</a> until subdivision at the owner’s pleasure.
To survive, the FIRE sector must effectively sell the illusion that the economy can grow on rooftops, that we can all take part in an orgy of economic rent.
“Only the little people pay taxes” (i.e. work for a living) - we can all become wealthy through property investment, dining out and trading on leveraged gains, perhaps donating a little to charity, or taking part in some publicity-generating event to raise funds for homelessness along the way – as our politicians are fond of doing.
Of course, first home buyers suffering alarm at rapidly escalating costs are necessary oxygen for the system.
So their judgement is manipulated as housing affordability is now reclassified as mortgage serviceability – how far the pay cheque can stretch each month rather than highlighting the upfront cost, while young buyers are encouraged to enter the market as speculators, living off their parents, until they gain a ‘foothold’ from leveraging the equity.
Banks assist with an array of financial products – offset accounts, honeymoon rates, shared equity schemes – mortgages treated like credit card payments, where all that’s required is the interest and should the market collapse with money still outstanding, they’ll collect the house too.
The result is land is now used for greed rather than need, pushing city boundaries outwards, requiring an excessive use of durable capital, which eventually leads to a shortage of loanable funds. 
You will never be told the system can fail.
Instead you will hear that house prices can maintain a ‘high plateau’ – stagnate for a while until we all ‘catch up.’
However, the increase in the annual rate of growth is now part of the income that buyers pay for and lenders rely upon.
This is how real estate is sold – investors gravitate to areas that advertise ‘good capital gains’, calculating the land’s value based on both the rent a tenant will pay plus the projected annual increase (land rent).
Buyers live in fear of land values collapsing, yet, while prices trend higher, expectations over shoot the mark by no small degree.  Landowners treat their unearned increment as income, raising consumption, lowering saving, putting to upward pressure on inflation, which eventually results in interest rates rising.
Never, throughout the course of history, has such a process been economically sustainable.
At some point the productive capacity of the economy can no longer support the boom – and as Australia’s history of land induced financial crises reveal, the end is not always as kind as experienced in 2008. <a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/books"> </a>
“House prices don’t always go up” warned the Governor of the RBA, Glenn Stevens at a recent speech in Hobart, just as he did in <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3958842.htm" target="_blank">March</a>, - a message he has <a href="https://www.mywealth.commbank.com.au/property/house-prices-rises-cyclical--rba-s-stevens-news20131029" target="_blank">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/glenn-stevens-says-aussie-dollar-needs-to-fall-further-20131213-2zapf" target="_blank">reiterated</a> since appearing on Seven Network’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2858942.htm" target="_blank">Sunrise</a> in 2010.
But Australian investors aren’t listening to Glenn – they’re reading the media headlines, covering the latest findings in the BRW Rich 200, which shows property to be the ‘single biggest source of wealth’, and entrepreneurs “piling into property faster than ever”.
Banks remain disturbingly under-capitalised. 
“I’ve had land that has doubled in value in the past 12 months,” <a href="https://www.brw.com.au/p/investing/brw_rich_fatter_profits_for_property_tBzXYYtLFJ8zKUsFclS3eJ" target="_blank">said Harry Triguboff</a>.
But while Triguboff paid a lot for his land, but he did not make his cheque payable to the local school, park, rail network, or the array of public and community services that yield his land a healthy source of locational revenue that grants such windfall gains.
His payment went direct to the previous owner of the land, who pocketed the profit, while the funding needed for maintaining the facilities and attracting workers to the city, come from an elaborate network of taxes, which fall primarily on income and productivity – ‘the little people’.
<img src="/images/2014/07/14/cashmore-july-14-three.gif" alt="">
Source: <a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/books" target="_blank">Bubble Economics</a>: Australian Land Speculation 1830 – 2013, by Paul D. Egan and Philip Soos.
This is the kind of rent seeking most of us have some experience of, a process that effectively punishes and disheartens the priced out sectors of the community, whilst encouraging the hoarding of land as the road that leads to riches – thereby ignoring the social and ethical problems that result from the process. 
The effect is to turn us into a nation of speculators where moral judgement is subverted by the unearned yields one can receive.
Investigate most societal problems, wages, housing, health, poverty, the loss of jobs to off shore markets, and this will be found at the root.
No one is born into poverty or inequality – these things are not by-products of nature – in a modern society the extremes we experience that lead to protests and riots over cuts in expenditure to welfare (a requirement exacerbated by the process outlined above) are due to policy and political ignorance.
When the Henry tax review in 2008 concluded: “Economic growth would be higher if governments raised more revenue from land and less revenue from other tax bases.”
It was onto something important.
Lifting taxes off labour and restructuring our tax and supply policies is a good start, but alone it won’t do.  Removing the power embedded in the banking industry to create credit based on their own vested interests is equally important, it would free up the creative capacity of the community and move instead toward a society and culture that is able to provide for all.
However it remains, that every effort in history to effect the changes suggested above have been fought by the establishment.  In this respect, change can never come from the top down. It requires a system that can return democracy to the people through a slow process of re-education, and it’s a system we need to advocate if social and economic justice is the goal.
But until such a time, it’s business as usual – and in this respect, the date for the next financial crisis has been set. 
</body></html>

catherinecashmore-6LXia3pPQj

With rising land prices history is repeating and the date for the next financial crisis is set

<html><body>
NSW Treasurer Andrew Constance has confirmed just how much Sydney’s real estate boom is adding to the general fortunes of the state.
The 2014 budget papers show that "a resurgence in the property market has significantly lifted transfer duties in 2013-14". Transfer duty, including stamp duty, contributed $938 million of state budget revenue. This result was seen as a ‘windfall’ and measures to further stimulate the rate of new home construction were also announced in the budget.
The Treasurer also announced that the threshold for the first home buyer $15,000 grant will be boosted to $750,000 – an increase of $100,000. From 1 July 2014, the NSW government will boost the threshold of the First Home Buyers Grant for new homes by $100,000, which means entry level buyers can spend up to $750,000 on a new property.
However extending this to established homes appears to be totally off the agenda given the level of demand and the increased prices over the last six to 12 months. Still, eligibility for the grant will from 1 July 2014 be restricted only to citizens who are permanent Australian residents.
The NSW government has also pledged to freeing up land supply and speeding the delivery of some infrastructure to help boost construction activity.
Property Plays a Big Part in State’s Economy
However when looking at the government’s revenue papers in the budget, it is easy to see how important a robust property market is. But at the same time the extent of revenue from property and some related areas may be placing too great a burden on the sector.
Comments in the budget also underline how relatively volatile, even fragile this revenue stream can be, and so I think it’s worth looking in more detail at some key points. What we can see is how reliant the government is on this revenue and why any move to abolish stamp duty as part of a possible review of state-based tax reforms looks a long way off, if ever, although remaining mortgage duty is being abolished in 2015.
One of the most telling figures in the revenue statement is the comparison between GST revenue and transfer duty. GST revenue in 2014-15 is estimated at $6.094 billion rising to $6.9 billion in 2017-18. By comparison transfer duty revenue in 2014-15 is estimated at $6.095 billiob but is anticipated to rise more than GST to $7.256 billion in 2017-18. On top of which Land Tax will add $2.4 billion – $2.8 billion in the same time frame, while we should not forget the parking space levy set to reach $115 million by 2017-18 and so adding these figures we see that by 2017-18 direct property related revenue for the state will be some $10.24 billion.
The budget papers do point out that the 2013-14 results were expected to increase by 20.5% but in fact the increase looks set to be closer to 35%. Further the current budget anticipated an increased volume of sales at 6% but the final figure was much more at 18%. And residential property prices have increased by some 10% over the past budget period, however those figures are not expected to be maintained, but any slow down is expected to be gentler than previous cycles. And in the four years to 2017-18 the government is expecting a growth rate of 7% over the four years. In today’s market this looks a conservative estimate.
What Has Been Driving These Figures
The Office of State Revenue might be expected to be conservative in its views, however key facts driving the revenue in 2013-14 have, according to the Office, been: historically low interest rates, pent up demand, under supply, improved consumer confidence and of course the obvious big increase in house prices.
When looking at the impact of house prices, the Office points out that activity was initially driven by sales of less than $600,000 but now strong growth in sales of homes valued over $1.2 million is apparent, however the Offices argues that this trend might also mark a peak in the housing cycle.
A Keen Eye Out for Strong Construction Activity
Given the potential of $10 billion in annual revenue by 2017-18 the government is also keen to keep the recovery in new construction on a robust footing. In the December quarter 2013 private sector dwelling approvals were 44% higher than the decade average, as were dwelling commencements while completion were 14% above the decade average.
The hope is that these strong results will continue over the next 4 years, as this appears vital for the health of NSW. However the reality is that the sector and those home buyers paying stamp duty (and that’s the majority) are doing some heavy lifting when it comes to government revenues and any adjustment to the GST needs to address this reality.
</body></html>

pchittenden-eLqUUC8TWW

New South Wales reliant on the property market for revenue

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
"We are in the coal business. If you want decent hospitals, schools and police on the beat we all need to understand that." – <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/unesco-slams-great-barrier-reef-management-youve-got-eight-months-to-fix-it/story-e6frfkw0-1226381188474" target="_blank">Queensland Premier Campbell Newman, June 2012</a>.
It was a rare moment of unscripted truth in Australian politics, which summed up decades of national policy.
The Premier was responding to United Nations report on the health of the Great Barrier Reef, warning that it could be listed as a World Heritage site <a href="https://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/" target="_blank">“in danger”</a> unless Australia stepped up its protection of the reef, particularly from increased port development. (The World Heritage Committee is due to discuss it again at a meeting <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-courting-danger-with-the-great-barrier-reef-20411" target="_blank">in June this year</a>.)
Newman was not just articulating Liberal National Party policy; keeping Australia in the coal business has also been core to Labor’s economic policy for many decades, going back to the “no regrets” approach of <a href="https://apo.org.au/commentary/our-lost-history-climate-change" target="_blank">the Hawke/Keating years</a>.
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/43769/area14mp/pdr4v67g-1394673302.jpg">
Australia has massive coal resources, as this 2012 map shows. <a class="source" href="/news" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Geoscience Australia</a>, <a class="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">CC BY</a>
It’s not hard to see why the bipartisan consensus on coal persists. Coal is the <a href="https://www.dfat.gov.au/tradematters/qld" target="_blank">biggest export earner for Queensland</a> and <a href="https://www.dfat.gov.au/tradematters/nsw" target="_blank">New South Wales</a>, and our second biggest nationally, worth <a href="https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade/trade-at-a-glance-2013/trade_performance_at_a_glance/part03_australias_trade_and_economic_statistics" target="_blank">A$41 billion in 2012</a>.
So here’s the surprising part. Over the past year, Newman has been asking Queenslanders to come up with a 30-year vision for the state, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM1rYlhjGVg" target="_blank">beyond politics, and beyond the next 10 elections</a>. It will be a genuine reflection of our collective aspirations for the future.”
Nearly 80,000 people have had their say – and in the draft plan currently under review by the state government, coal doesn’t rate a mention.
By the people, for the people
The Queensland government’s <a href="https://queenslandplan.qld.gov.au/">Queensland Plan</a> is significant because it’s among the most extensive public consultation processes ever undertaken by an Australian or state government. A leading American planning consultant and adviser to the Premier, <a href="https://www.nxtconsulting.com/team">Steven Ames</a>, describes the effort being made to hear views from across the state as a “virtuous circle”:
"Bottom line, the more engaged the public, and the more aware the government of public perceptions, the more effective and long-lasting outcomes that can be expected." – Ames, correspondence with the author.
Launched early last year, there have been major summits in Mackay and Brisbane, dozens of workshops and <a href="https://queenslandplan.qld.gov.au/journey/">hundreds of meetings across the state</a>, as well as online surveys and discussions, all feeding into a <a href="https://queenslandplan.qld.gov.au/journey/public-review-working-draft/assets/qld-plan-working-draft.pdf">draft 30-year plan</a>. The final plan will be <a href="https://queenslandplan.qld.gov.au/next-steps/">released in mid-2014</a>.
Subtitled “Our working draft created by Queenslanders, for Queensland”, the <a href="https://queenslandplan.qld.gov.au/journey/public-review-working-draft/assets/qld-plan-working-draft.pdf">44-page draft plan</a> distills all that community consultation into nine key subjects: education, community, regions, economy, health and well-being, environment, people, infrastructure, and governance.
More thorough than any public opinion poll, the draft Queensland Plan shows that Queenslanders want regional development and livable communities, but importantly they want these to be innovative, sustainable, and supportive of emerging industries.
Surprisingly, “coal” is nowhere to be found in the draft Queensland Plan. Instead, people have expressed a clear preference for developing agriculture, ecotourism, education, research and development, and alternative energy.
Among the top 35 goals outlined are that “We protect the environment” and “We invest in and adopt sustainable and renewable solutions”. Asked “What does success look like?” in achieving that latter goal, Queenslanders have said “Renewable energy will be the norm.”
An animated summary of the draft Queensland Plan and what Queenslanders say they want.
Article continues on next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Envisaging a different future
For so many people from such a coal-reliant state to envisage a generational shift away from coal is remarkable.
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/43771/area14mp/8f84wdp6-1394673904.jpg">
Coal mines operating in Queensland (shown in red) and coal deposits (shown in yellow). Map created using interactive tools on 13 March 2014. <a class="source" href="https://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Australian Mines Atlas</a>, <a class="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">CC BY</a>
But it mirrors some other shifts in public sentiment and behaviour, in which ordinary Australians have moved ahead of politicians – sometimes catching federal and state governments off-guard.
Even a few years ago, who would have confidently predicted the recent trends in rooftop solar power? Certainly not major power companies like AGL, which have <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/massive-losses-hit-energyaustralia-as-demand-falls-solar-soars-67443" target="_blank">reported hits to their profits</a> as more Australians try to control their rising power bills by going solar. Between March 2011 and the end of 2013, the proportion of Australian homes with solar panels more than doubled <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/three-million-sleep-under-solar-rooftops/story-e6frg90f-1226852425006" target="_blank">from 7.5% in March 2011 to 16%</a>, representing more than 3 million people.
However, imagining a future without significant coal export revenues will be harder for political leaders from both major parties.
For instance, even while the Gillard government was introducing a carbon tax, it went to great lengths to reassure its heartland about the future for coal, with Climate Change Minister <a href="https://www.climatechange.gov.au/ministers/hon-greg-combet-am-mp/media-release/gillard-government-supports-coal-mining-jobs" target="_blank">Greg Combet declaring in 2011</a>: “I can assure coal miners that their industry has a bright future under a carbon price.”
Will politicians listen?
Campbell Newman has shown himself to be a commendably unorthodox political leader in conceiving and championing such an inclusive, forward-thinking process as the Queensland Plan.
Campbell Newman invites Queenslanders to have their say on the state’s future.
So now the question is whether both sides of politics will heed the sentiment so strongly articulated in this bold 30-year community vision for Australia’s leading coal state.
Ultimately, it is a vision that neither the Liberal National Party nor Labor can ignore.
The alternative, as the people have rightly identified, leaves us dependent on the hope that Asia’s major coal consumers will never clean up their own industries. It’s <a href="https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research/stranded-assets/Stranded%20Down%20Under%20Report.pdf">a risky strategy</a>, as <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/iea-casts-doubt-future-queensland-mega-coal-mines-51236">more analysts</a> are warning, particularly as our region’s economic powerhouse and main Australian market, China, has announced its own <a href="https://www.bna.com/china-outlines-environmental-n17179882762/">“war on pollution”</a> – much of it generated by burning coal.
John Cole is executive director, Institute for Resilient Regions at University of Southern Queensland.
John Cole is a member of the finance management committee of the Queensland Trust For Nature, a not-for-profit organisation that buys private property to protect at-risk ecosystems and secures management solutions through commercial contracts on privately-owned land. He was a delegate at the Queensland Plan Brisbane summit in November 2013, participated in a recent online "webjam" as an expert on balancing environmental protection and economic development, and remains actively involved in the Queensland Plan process. However, all opinions in this article are his.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Queensland, Australia’s biggest coal state plans for life beyond coal

<html><body>
I was contacted twice last week to comment on news stories that featured young Australians building their way to retirement, through debt, leverage and speculation, on the back of rising property prices.
Described as ‘an entrepreneur,’ another a ‘wonder kid,’ both stories told a similar tale.
A gift from mum and dad had helped with the deposit - living in the family home had enabled investment into areas that may not have suited their 'home' buying requirements.
Rising property prices had enabled equity to leverage into the second acquisition – it was not reinventing the wheel, rather a repeat of an all too familiar theme. One had managed to reach his sixth investment by the age of 26 (having started at only 19) - both were on their way to becoming property investment advisors – wanting to help others achieve real estate riches too.
“Young buyers are entering the property market as investors” prompted one reporter – which is no more obvious than saying “circles are round”.
Everyone who enters the property market is an investor, I responded. 
There would be few in the industry working on the buying side of the equation who had not been involved in what I often term ‘the capital gain game’ – where every option suggested is followed by the question “but which will get the best growth?”
Australia has a lopsided neoliberal economy founded on the back of a 5.1 trillion dollar housing market, over 4.1 trillion dollars of which is irreplaceable land.
We’re slaves to a system where the retirement wealth egg is the family home – our personal economic leverage for all lifestyle and business needs - something that is only achievable if policies are manufactured to ensure values remain high (and climbing), whilst debt levels remain ever affordable.
Click to open in new window:
<a href="/images/2014/06/23/cashmore-june-23-one.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="/images/2014/06/23/cashmore-june-23-one.jpg" alt=""></a>
Source: <a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/books" target="_blank">Bubble Economics</a> by Paul D. Egan and Philip Soos
It used to be called ‘Monopoly’. Today its termed: ‘getting onto the property ladder’.
Retire as a renter or find a way to ‘work the system,’ playing a dangerous game of debt and leverage, and hoping when the wind finally blows, you’re not left holding the house of cards.
For those unable to afford current high prices, they will see no tax benefit - unless their income is low enough to require welfare assistance. 
Rather they will be at the mercy of rising rents with an uncanny tendency to outpace inflation, tight vacancy rates and few low budget options.
If, as above, they are the ‘lucky’ beneficiaries of family assistance to enable their step onto the first rung of the ladder, they’ll enter a tax system skewed toward ownership, the benefits of which are capitalised into the price, pushing values higher.
<img src="/images/2014/06/23/cashmore%20june%2023%20two.png" alt="">
Source: <a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/books" target="_blank">Bubble Economics</a> by Paul D. Egan and Philip Soos
Under such a system, the final consequences are set in stone.
On a global scale, the land bubble induced financial crisis of 2008 left millions suffering fatal burns.
Tough austerity measures that followed destroyed the hopes and dreams of thousands of Europe’s youth.
For those just entering retirement, savings were wiped away, along with any chance of employment in later years.
Australia escaped relatively unscathed, but this isn’t because we’ve solved the boom/bust cycle.
Our policies differ little from the affected countries that promote ownership with similar inflationary measures.
First time buyers have no memory of a recession and understandably want their share of the pie.
However our history is littered with recurrent patterns of <a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/books" target="_blank">boom-bust credit and asset bubbles</a>, commonly triggered by high land prices. 
They all heralded financial instability and dreadful social consequences - a study of which should perhaps feature higher on the school curriculum.
We’ve just entered into another cycle and already prices have exceeded previous peaks. 
Housing cycles are long-term affairs, however unless we begin to studiously take measures to change our tax and supply policies, when the clock ticks round again – as it inevitably will – our house of cards will blow over like the rest.
Many applauded Malcolm Turnbull as he made the most of his share of publicity during the CEO sleep out last week, to raise money for the homeless. 
However, Turnbull is part and parcel of a budget and government that exacerbates housing affordability, and by consequence, the very problems he endured a cold night to help ‘solve’.
This is because the government has structured the tax burden to fall predominantly on wages and productivity – which advantages those at the top, who see their landholdings increase way in excess of any taxation or earned income through no individual effort of their own, rather the collective efforts of community investment (<a href="https://catherinecashmore.com.au/" target="_parent">items of which I’ve detailed previously</a>) – whilst the productive earners at the bottom of the pile, struggle to make ends meet.   
In other words, by hoarding housing, the rich pay less - the poor pay more.
Unless we restructure our tax and supply policies to address this and reduce land prices, encouraging instead individual investment into productivity rather than rising land values. Welfare measures to help the homeless are merely a Band-Aid to capture the increasing number falling foul of the system and never a cure.
Which brings me back to the one question both reporters failed to asked,
“Who are rising property prices good for?”
</body></html>

Housing hoarders: Where the rich pay less and the poor pay more

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The government today is set to bow to public and industry pressure to ensure that commissions remain outlawed under its controversial financial advice legislation.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann is expected to announce that a rewrite of the legislation proposed by a Senate inquiry will be undertaken.
The government has faced a storm of protest over its plans to water down Labor’s Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) law, weakening consumer protection and benefiting the banks by permitting the payment of commissions for “general advice” given by bank employees that dealt with bank products.
The government members of the Senate inquiry say in their report, tabled last night, that the legislation’s explanatory memorandum should make it clear “that it is not the government’s intention to reintroduce commissions”.
The provisions governing “conflicted remuneration” should be redrafted to make them clearer, the report says.
The distinctions between the terms “information”, “general advice” and “personal advice” should be made “much sharper and applicable in the practical sense” in relation to allowing exemptions from conflicted remuneration.
Bank employees would still be able to receive bonuses and incentives but not commissions related to products.
The report says a number of submissions strongly objected to the amendment broadening the exemptions from conflicted remuneration. They came not only from consumer groups but from a range of industry groups.
The bill’s intention is to enable a business, under certain circumstances, to give general advice to retail clients on its own products, the report says. The present law needs to be changed to remove “unnecessary complications” around the provision of general advice. But the committee is concerned about the confusion surrounding the proposed changes “and the fear that they have the potential to reopen the door to commissions”.
The committee also notes the concerns about the possible misuse or misunderstanding of the term “general advice”.
Labor and the Greens put in dissenting reports opposing the government’s legislation.
Cormann took over carriage of the legislation from Arthur Sinodinos, who had to stand aside as Assistant Treasurer when called as a witness before the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Sinodinos was seen as very sympathetic to the banks' demands.
The pressure on the government to alter its legislation intensified because of the revelations about fraud by the financial planning business of the Commonwealth Bank, followed by the Bank’s bad handing of the scandal. The Bank has paid out $52 million in compensation to about 1100 customers but now could be forced to pay hundred of millions of dollars more.
The concessions on the financial advice legislation comes as today’s Newspoll shows the Coalition trailing Labor on the two party vote 47-53% The Coalition’s primary vote rose one point to 37% and Labor dropped one to 36%, in the past fortnight. Support for independents and micro parties has climbed to a record high of 17%.
Michelle Grattan is one of Australia's most respected and awarded political journalists. Michelle currently has a dual role with an academic position at the University of Canberra and as associate editor (politics) and chief political correspondent at The Conversation.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. 
</body></html>

Government to tighten its financial advice changes to rule out commissions

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
It’s rare when something from Parliament obtains the obsessive attention of the real estate industry.
The Parliamentary inquiry into foreign investment in residential real estate is an exception. Since so many interesting facts have come to light through the inquiry, this post is a helpful cheat sheet to the most important ones.
Foreign Investment: It’s Actually Plummeting
One of the most interesting submissions to the inquiry comes from Urban Taskforce Australia. They pointed out that foreign investment in Australia is not increasing, but decreasing. (Read <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d3eae632-8ae7-43b3-aff3-4680dc17993a&amp;subId=252519" target="_blank">their submission here</a>.)
That’s happening despite the greater number of buyers from China, who have been the salvation of any number of stranded vendors.
Overall foreign investment in Australian plummeted by 18%, according to official statistics, between 2011 and 2013. Some governments would consider such a large and fast drop to be a crisis in the making.
This is where the Chinese come in. In the context of rapidly falling foreign investment, the Chinese are the rare bright spot. I know this isn’t how things are usually presented, but it’s what the facts show.
The US, Singapore, the UK — these once-reliable friends have dramatically cut their investments in Australian property. With other friends deserting our real estate market, the Chinese are almost alone in sticking with us. 
Rather than abandoning our property market, Chinese have actually increased their investment. They haven’t yet reached the heights of $8.2 billion that the Yanks reached in 2012. However, with a 40% increase to $5.9 billion last year, the Chinese can hardly be accused of failing to pull their weight.  
Foreign Buyers Mean More New Buildings
The submission from Meriton, Australia’s largest apartment builder, showed that foreign buyers actually create new housing in Australia. (Read <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a30eb4e3-146a-4a68-905e-06f75b083e13&amp;subId=252539" target="_blank">the Meriton submission here</a>.)
Meriton wrote that foreign investment "provides a significant contribution to the stock of new Australian housing," increasing supply for sale and rent.
Meriton founder Harry Triguboff says that foreign investors buy 13% of his new apartments – often off the plan. That provides "vital initial impetus” that makes possible the construction of Meriton’s new complexes. 
He also points to government data that shows that foreign buyers pay an average of $1.06 million for established homes and $646,000 for new dwellings. That’s much more than the national median and puts them in another league altogether than first home buyers.
While Foreign Buyers Spend More, They Pay Less
One submission to the Parliamentary inquiry involved actual new research. Lorenzo Casavecchia and Adrian Lee of the University of Technology in Sydney looked at about 74,000 established home sales. (You can <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=3e731a61-1f26-42c5-93ae-238064206991&amp;subId=252425" target="_blank">download their paper here</a>.)
They found that the number of Chinese buyers went up over time. That matches with the data we’ve already looked at, showing more Chinese investment in recent years.
What’s shocking, given what passes for accepted wisdom about Chinese buyers, is that the pair also found that, “on average, Chinese buyers pay 2.04% or $13,800 less than other buyers.”
I won’t get into every little detail of this fascinating research paper, so suffice to say that they controlled for just about every conceivable factor that could affect the price.
The low-down is this: while foreign buyers buy more expensive homes, they seem to get them at a bargain. That makes it unlikely that they are pricing other buyers out of the market. 
It’s hard to price someone out of the market when you’re paying less than the market price.
Perhaps the most poignant submission to the Parliamentary inquiry was from a Mr Kristijan Gjikoski. He wrote, simply and directly. Here are his own words, slightly edited for length (read <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=036c65fb-30ee-4a79-925d-1456f8b0a035&amp;subId=252269" target="_blank">his whole submission here</a>):
"Please don’t change any laws in relation to foreign real estate investment, [which is] creating jobs in manufacturing, trades and services. Long term overseas investment can been seen as a automatic stabiliser as when things go bad." 
Andrew Taylor is the co-CEO of <a href="https://juwai.com/" rel="nofollow">Juwai.com</a>.
Image courtesy of JJ Harrison/Wikimedia/<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en" target="_blank">Creative Commons</a>.
</body></html>

ataylor-LB7AWVFTs9

The Parliamentary inquiry into foreign investment: A quick submissions cheat sheet

<html><body><div class="story-intro">
Foreigners’ access to the $5,000 New Home Owner Grant will be scrapped in ­tomorrow’s state budget.
Foreign investors have been able to secure $5,000 for each new home purchase. They represented 1.3% of the scheme's take-up.
The decision, heralded in today's Daily Telegraph, follows <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/realestate/buying/foreign-buyers-are-cashing-in-on-nsws-new-home-grant-scheme/story-fni0cate-1226817098977" target="_blank">a campaign by the The Daily Telegraph since February</a> which secured the support of Opposition Leader John ­Robertson.
The grant will be only available to individuals who are Australian citizens or permanent residents.
The Telegraph's state rounds reporter Andrew Clennell published previously unavailable data that showed some $2 million has been paid out to non-residents.
“We’re all about making sure these grants help those in our own backyard,” NSW Treasurer Andrew ­Constance told the News Ltd audience.
Since the New Home Owner Grant scheme was instituted in July 2012, there have been 429 ­recipients who are non-residents — or 1.3% of recipients.
The figures come despite NSW Premier Mike Baird expressing recent concern about the lack of official information on foreign investment residential purchases in NSW.
His concerns were made to <a href="/expert-insights/investing/nsw-treasury-in-the-dark-with-firb-foreign-buyer-data">the House of Representative inquiry into foreign ownership of residential property</a>.
The scheme began after the government scrapped first homeowner grants for existing properties and raised them for newer properties.
There have also been a small number of multiple applications.
From now on the New Home Grant will be restricted to one grant per person per year.
Opposition Leader John ­Robertson called in February for the government to change the New Home Grant scheme.
“The O’Farrell Liberal government is paying $5000 to overseas property investors to buy homes and land in Australia – that’s money taken straight out of the pockets of young first home buyers,” Opposition Leader John Robertson said at the time on the then O'Farrell government policy.
“Young couples doing the right thing and working flat-out to save for that deposit are paying the price for the O’Farrell Liberal government’s bungling of this scheme."
Last week John Robertson noted ABS figures showed that just 1,099 first home buyers received financing to purchase a home in April 2014 – down from 1,191 in March 2014 and less than half the level of the 2,415 who received financing in March 2011 before the Liberals came to power.
“Mike Baird has been patting himself on the back over the weekend for extending the threshold for first home buyers purchasing new properties – the ABS has confirmed that he is locking more young families out of owning their own home.
“First home buyers now represent only 7.6% of the NSW housing market – they have plummeted from 18.3% share of the market in March 2011."
The Shadow Treasurer Michael Daley accused the government of giving a leg up to overseas speculators – "and people buying their second, third or tenth property."
The grant is paid as a discount on stamp duty for properties worth up to $650,000 and vacant land worth up to $450,000. 
<a href="/expert-insights/building/nsw-first-home-buyers-can-buy-up-to-750-000-under-extended-fhog">The grant will be extended to new home purchases up to $750,000 in another pre-budget advisory</a>. 
The prospect of overseas non-citizens buying up newly built houses and apartments in bulk - all receiving multiple $5,000 grants under the NSW New Home Grant Scheme - was alarmingly raised in the Daily Telegraph.
<a href="/news/stay-calm-local-buyers-dominate-in-sydneys-sutherland-shire">It was wrapped within the now refuted suggestion that these Chinese investors were keeping first home buyers out of the property market</a>.
 
 
</div></body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Foreign buyers to be denied NSW new home owners grant

<html><body>
Protests that continue to erupt across the country against the federal budget consist of two sectors:
Those who are disadvantaged through cuts to government expenditure - young people, job seekers, groups on low-incomes, the homeless - against political parties who want to exploit the situation to swing the popular vote in their favour.
It comes at a time when many young Australian’s are growing increasingly disillusioned with what politics in a neo-liberal capitalist culture is able to achieve.
The various groups opposing the current budget may not be aware of the full backdrop that sits behind the issues they dispute.
Separating the politics of envy from the basic principles of equity is not an easy task, not only in the items we consider ‘wealth,’ but also in judging whether income is a true representation of skill and effort, or granted disproportionately at the expense of others.
Most however recognise a process that favours the rich - one where politicians subject themselves to the interests of lobbyists and promise what they need to gain a seat in power.
We’ve seen this most recently with the ICAC investigations.  Tens of thousands of dollars pouring into the major party coffers from property developers all claiming to be ‘legitimate’ – yet, as we know, you don’t hand over cash without expecting special favours in return.
It would be nice to think that democracy alone could remedy this, but democracy unless underpinned by good policy, has a fatal flaw - that of short-termism.
While voters will champion the environmental crisis of climate change and affordable accommodation, they will recoil at the thought of living near a wind-farm or high-rise block.
Public housing and commission homes are fine in theory, but not in the local neighbourhood, or indeed, anywhere in view.
We’ll welcome the stranger and rally in defence of the asylum seeker, but only on the condition they don’t take away our jobs or price the locals out of housing. In other words, you can come in, but just don’t join in.
No one cheers at the thought of saddling our younger population with student debt – however, when it comes to the cost of shelter, a different attitude arises. ‘Generation Whine’ are instead told to shut up and save up. 
While we desire a country built on the pillars of community, equity, and economic justice, it’s simply not possible in country that is pinned to the foundation of rising land values, as a necessity to fund retirement and most other lifestyle and business needs. 
The social consequence that arises from this costs us millions in welfare payments throughout the year.  Yet it is still advertised and promoted as the road to riches, creating a “FIRE” economy (finance, insurance and real estate) - disproportionally inflating land costs without due acknowledgement of the consequence.   
Unfortunately, the web of confusion that surrounds the subject has put capitalist democracy, which has managed to free so many from the dominance of politically oppressive and controlling regimes, under attack. 
Yet, capitalism, which in its truest form is simply a free market system of competing goods and services, is not what we have presently.
Today, faulty economic thinking has allowed items that are not made, or earned and by nature cannot compete; to be traded and profited from as if they were created capital. This has corrupted what should be a very good and fair system.
It’s important therefore to understand what wealth and capital is exactly.
Article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Wealth is not the paper and numbers in our bank account. Money is simply a measurement of the resources we need, to produce the goods and services we consume (capital) for both business and pleasure.
In simplest terms - a person’s wealth is made through his/her own enterprise; whilst a country’s wealth consists of its land and natural resources.
When we earn money in exchange for our skills and labour it can’t be considered unjust or unfair. 
However, when it comes through a government legislated process, of allowing some to profit at the expense of others, by trading items that are not capital or derived from any physical effort, this yields a special kind of unearned income, which in classical economics is termed “rent.”
Rent seeking can take on many forms – such as patents and government licences for example, which cripple competition from smaller industries and produce an unfair advantage. 
The <a href="https://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-10/uber-protests-spread-across-europe-as-taxi-app-backlash-grows#p2" target="_blank">Uber and Lyft revolution</a> is one such example. 
It threatens to undermine the cartel of the Taxi industry’s licencing monopoly, which gleans an economic rent from purposely-limiting the number granted.
Uber and Lyft offer a cheap and reportedly safe match-making alternative for consumers; however their progress has been repeatedly stifled by government intervention, determined to protect a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/no-tears-shed-for-backward-taxi-industry-20140424-37696" target="_blank">monopoly and a culture of regulation</a> evidently fearing a cut to revenue.
The most damaging of rent seeking behaviour however, and the one that yields the most gains, is trading the economic rent of land. 
An increase in the market price of land is an expected result when economies are improving along with capital investment in infrastructure. Therefore, of all rent seeking behaviour, owning a plot of land in path of this progress yields not only the greatest windfall of passive gains, but is also used as a significant source of territorial and political power. 
This is not surprising when you consider all the goods we consume come from it.  Our oil, natural gas, timber, coal, and water reserves are the product of it. 
We travel on it, work on it, party on it, sleep on it, and bury our dead in it.
Wi-fi, airplanes, all forms of technology need it. We evolved from it and progress on it.
Try and think of an activity, or item, that does not include land, and you will come up short. 
However, the flow of income that comes from owning land over and above the value of building on it, when capitalised into the price, leads to a monopolist culture that feeds speculation, attracting a cabal of banking and finance interests and concentrating the vast proportion of a country’s wealth in the hands of a few, above the very real needs of many.
Rupert Murdoch ironically coined it best when, in his 1994 John Bonython lecture <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.cis.org.au/events/event/53/RUPERT-MURDOCH---The-Century-of-Networking-/0" target="_blank">“The Century of Networking</a>” he said: 
"Because capitalists are always trying to stab each other in the back, free markets do not lead to monopolies.  Monopolies can only exist when governments protect them."
This is in essence what the Arab Spring was all about. 
Many mistook it as a grasp for democracy – however it wasn’t. It was a grasp for true capitalism – the freedom to prosper unimpeded by onerous regulation or rent seeking behaviour. At its essence was a desire for economic justice, equal access to opportunity – matters we look to government to provide.
Since politician and the driving force behind the early settlement of South Australia, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon_Wakefield" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Edward Gibbon Wakefield</a> (1796-1862), devised his grand plan of “systematic colonisation” – making land just so 'sufficiently' unaffordable as to create a willing workforce of labourers. Economists and politicians have done everything possible to distract public attention from what is nothing more than a modern day game of feudalism. 
They do this by allowing people to play a dangerous game of leverage, gambling on land price inflation by borrowing as much debt as possible to maximise their ‘capital gains,’ without acknowledging what is given with one hand, is taken with the other – or more accurately, from another.
This is clearly highlighted in the response to the budget.
Whilst rich land-‘lords’ and mining magnets grow wealthy, collecting their unearned windfall in economic rent – they ironically tell the young tenant saddled with student debt “so you think the world owes you a living?” while government stretches out its hand to the low waged worker commanding they “pull their weight.”
<img src="/images/2014/06/16/cashmore-june-16-one.jpg" alt="">
Source: <a href="https://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report_part_1/00_AFTS_final_report_consolidated.pdf" target="_blank">Ken Henry tax review</a>: “The current charging arrangements distort investment and production decisions….. they fail to collect a sufficient return for the community because they are unresponsive to changes in profits.”
It is no coincidence that whilst far from a perfect system of equitable land reform, the greatest equaliser in Australia and the one that had the most profound social and economic effect on reducing inequality, was the Mabo Judgement over land rights for the Aboriginal people.
The monopolists in the mining industry stringently and shamefully lobbied against it, as they did most recently with at mention of a resource tax, turning it into a national crisis.
This is essentially why Clive Palmer entered politics. 
Each year <a href="https://www.minesandmoney.com/london/report-ernst-young-business-risks-facing-mining-and-metals-2013-2014/">Ernst &amp; Young</a> produce a business report for the mining and metals industry, highlighting the top ten risks that can affect fat cat profits, along with tips on how to avoid them. 
<img src="/images/2014/06/16/cashmore-june-16-two.jpg" alt="">
SWource: Ernst &amp; Young
Featured prominently is “Resource nationalism” (sharing the gains) with the comment;
“Miners have had to become more politically savvy... the most successful are building strong relationships with government” to...”educate on tax reform”.
It is against this backdrop, that he loveable founder of PUP, which claims to “Unite All Australian’s” has bought himself a seat in power by promising peace, prosperity and goodwill to all men, alongside a raft of economic goodies.
When Clive comes to town, Christmas does too, ower income tax, free education, higher pensions, you name it, Clive will promise it.
His <a href="https://palmerunited.com/national-policy/" target="_blank">policies</a> are overwhelming wishy-washy with no detailed assessment as to how they’ll be funded – but that doesn’t matter. Economic analysis is not the PUP agenda.
Instead, it will act in the best interests of its leader ensuring the abolishment of any mining and carbon tax, whilst driving the cost of land higher with incentives for home buyers.
However, the corruption of politics to favour the vested interests of leaders is nothing new.
Article continues on next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
It is no coincidence that just about every housing policy designed to increase affordability results in quite the reverse.
This can be witnessed in any country that allows the economic rent of land to capitalise into the price, thereby becoming a tradable asset to gamble on.
All tax incentives such as negative gearing for example, simply inflate costs rather than reduce them.
Zoning policies create false scarcity by protecting affluent neighbourhoods from over development, restricting the use of fringe land with urban boundaries and onerous regulation, and advantaging existing owners by pushing up the price of marginal land – which buttresses the price of all land.
<a href="https://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/working-paper-is-inequality-exacerbating-our-housing-crisis" target="_blank">The evidence shows</a>, the richer vendors become, the more energetic they are to restrict development near their own land holdings – unless it acts to inflate values.
Many Melbournian’s will be familiar with the historical figure of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bent" target="_blank">Thomas Bent</a> for example, who became the 22nd premier of Victoria. 
His corrupt dealings are well documented, not least, using his political clout to extend the railway line from Caulfield to Cheltenham, thus enormously increasing the value of his own property developments, which just so happened to fall alongside the proposed route.
A more recent example is being alleged in New Zealand.
The country is undergoing a crisis of housing affordability and has been termed the world’s most over priced.
Policy makers are tying themselves in economic knots to uncover solutions, with the central bank employing strict lending regulations to prevent exuberant speculation, while 'up-zoning' to increase supply is underway.
However, these ‘up zonings’ <a href="https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/05/len-browns-zoning-hypocrisy-outed/" target="_blank">miss</a> Auckland mayor Len Brown’s spacious lifestyle block, which conveniently falls outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). 
Mayor Brown, who has recently purchased an American V8 whilst sporting the public face of being very ‘pro public transport’, has uncharacteristically <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&amp;objectid=10788288" target="_blank">infuriated</a> his council’s transport leader, by rallying in defence of significant road projects which are reputed to have a beneficial and value enhancing effect on his own <a href="https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/len-browns-lifestyle-block-%E2%80%98outrageous-hypocrisy-nk-p-139628" target="_blank">estate</a>.
There are numerous academic studies world wide, which outline housing affordability problems, yet fail to identify the root cause and therefore effective solutions. 
Economist <a href="https://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Hudson_Lies" target="_blank">Michael Hudson</a> points out in USA studies, how the magnitude of land-price gains are brushed under the carpet to hide the massive unearned profits reaped by those who hoard it.
The same phenomenon is happening in Australia, not only with the ‘<a href="https://avo.govspace.gov.au/" target="_blank">soft closure’</a> of the Australian Valuation Office and ‘rubbing out’ of first home buyer statistics from the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/first-home-buyer-statistics-not-adding-up-20140609-39sam">RBA chart pack</a>, but through budgetary cuts to <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/745695D9AEBEFE64CA257CEE0004715C">ABS funding</a>, which threaten to end the official “House Price Index” (considered the most reliable market indicator) in favour of private <a href="https://www.rpdata.com/" target="_blank">unaudited data</a> providers, whose transparency and reliability are consistently questioned. 
When you appreciate how lucrative rent-seeking is to those in power, it is very easy to see how democracy fails us – working tirelessly to silence voices by politically reinforcing faulty economic theories, while strenuously working against efforts to liberalise them.
</body></html>

Policy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Policy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News