<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>
Allowing young buyers to withdraw their superannuation savings to buy their first home would trigger a $31 billion federal budget hole by mid-century, according to indicative modelling by PwC.
Changing super rules to fund housing would cost the government between $500 million and $1.1 billion a year in lost revenue.
Treasurer Joe Hockey has triggered debate since last weekend's reported comments about making super more "flexible" in the wake of the intergenerational report.
The analysis by PwC was provided to The Australian Financial Review based loosely on a similar scheme in Canada, which allows a withdrawal of $25,000 for a first home.
PwC partner Paul Abbey said he assumed that an Australian scheme would be limited to people below 35 years, with around half of those eligible choosing to withdraw $25,000 for a 10-year period.
The loss to government – which taxes earnings on super balances at 15% – would be $1.1 billion in 2016-17, and fluctuate between $611 million and $993 million over the next nine years.
By 2049-50, the figure would hit $2.1 billion, taking the accumulated hit to government to $31 billion, according to the PwC estimate.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

FHB super access would blow hole in federal budget

<html><body>
You don’t become a fully fledged member of Australian society without first owning a property. And the more properties you own, the more Australian you become. Take this far enough and eventually even The Block becomes compelling viewing.
We know this to be true because the tax system, like reality TV, is a mirror to our national aspirations. Both tell us that property investment is good and rising house prices even better.
Australians do not pay capital gains tax on the family home and investors can negatively gear their property investments. Own 30 properties? Please, claim a tax deduction on all of them. Want to cut your capital gains tax bill in half? Sure, just hold the asset for more than 12 months.
As the effects of these policies took hold and prices rose, first-home owners were squeezed out. This wasn’t politically acceptable and anyway, who was going to hold up the ladder if not those on the bottom rung?
The solution was to throw money at them, too. In Tasmania, home to some of the cheapest housing in the country, the state Labor government recently<a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/lifestyle/new-home-grants/story-fnj64ocs-1226754568608" target="_blank"> increased the first-home buyer’s grant to an incredible $30,000</a>. Self-managed super funds were also recently encouraged to leverage into the boom.
Now Treasurer Joe Hockey has turned the idiocy up to 11 by suggesting those struggling to get on the property ladder should also be allowed the chance to blow up their super funds by speculating on higher house prices. Well, if super funds can do it, why not everyone else?
There is bipartisan stupidity on housing market affordability policies. Politicians of both major parties love the idea of throwing huge sums of money to make the problem worse. They want to make housing more affordable, but only if they can do so by pushing prices up.
There is simply no evidence to suggest first-home owner grants make property more affordable. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they make them more expensive.
As Bank of America chief economist Saul Eslake told a Senate committee in 2014: "It's hard to think of any government policy that has been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that it doesn't work, than the policy of giving cash to first-home buyers in the belief that doing so will promote home ownership."
But instead of ending the stupidity, like so many treasurers before him Joe Hockey is intent on finding another way to perpetuate it.
The effect of these policies is three-fold. First, property prices have well beyond the rate of inflation and wage growth (see <a href="https://www.afr.com/p/national/australia_housing_boom_in_five_graphs_OEp5Bttj0dyWeE9zAEXxjM" target="_blank">Australia’s housing boom in five graphs</a>). Second, despite taxpayers spending billions on first home-owner grants since 1964, the share of first-home buyers as a percentage of the total market has never been smaller. In November last year, they represented just 12.3% of the market.
Finally, owning property is becoming something only the rich can afford. Eslake suggests that <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/downloads/media/The_Australian_-_Locked_out.pdf" target="_blank">the top 20% of income earners own 36%</a> of the housing stock.
There are many things politicians could do to make housing more affordable, not least of which would be to eliminate negative gearing. That would remove some of the demand for housing. Making it easier and cheaper to build through greater land releases and quicker and cheaper development approvals would increase supply. The combined effect would be lower property prices.
But that isn’t something any politician wants to countenance, let along bring about through sensible, well-reasoned policy.
Until we get a courageous politician that is willing to do that, the bipartisan but expensive charade -- that housing can be made more affordable with policies that push prices up -- will continue.
John Addis is the founder of Intelligent Investor Share Advisor and director of Private Media, publishers of Property Observer. Unlock all of Share Advisor’s stock research and buy recommendations<a href="https://landing.intelligentinvestor.com.au/crikey-article?utm_source=crikey&amp;utm_medium=article&amp;utm_campaign=crikey_articles" target="_blank"> by taking out a 15-day free membership</a>.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/" target="_blank">Crikey</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

The expensive illusion of housing affordability policy: John Addis

<html><body>
Paul Keating, the architect of Australia's universal superannuation scheme, has said it was a bad idea to allow first home buyers to dip into their super savings.
"Any meaningful housing deposit taken from the accumulated savings of younger savers would effectively eliminate or near eliminate the base from which the important compounding [of earnings] would otherwise occur," Keating wrote in a column for Fairfax Media.
The former prime minister Paul Keating also warned that if Australians could dip into their super savings at an early age, it would increase pressure on the federal government's aged care budget.
"The key to wealth accumulation in retirement savings is compound earnings," Keating noted days after the Treasurer Joe Hockey raised the prospect of allowing people to dip into their super.
Joe Hockey called for public debate on making super more "flexible" during people's lives.
In an opinion piece, Paul Keating accuses the Liberal Party of attacking Australia's super system for ideological reasons.
"The Liberals have always hated national superannuation for the broad workforce," Keating writes.
"Superannuation for them is fundamentally an ideological matter.
"Just like Medicare, the Liberals object to the universality of Medicare and they keep having a go at it, like the recent attempt to require a co-payment to doctors.
"They have now dropped off that because the going got too rough for them.
"So that having failed, they are back at it again at super – the other great universal scheme.
"But instead of saying they oppose it ideologically, and arguing their case intellectually, the Treasurer will try to reach the same outcome by masking his real intentions as a professed concern for homebuyers." 
"This idea is certainly not an innovation and is not responsible enough even to be considered a thought bubble."
He wrote that proposals floated by the Treasurer would breach the principle of "preservation" of superannuation accumulations and would destroy universal retirement savings at its core.
"Breaking what is now a national consensus on the principle of preservation, where savings cannot be drawn down till age 55, would amount to the wilful destruction of one of the best retirement systems in the world."
</body></html>

Paul Keating says Joe Hockey's FHB super idea will compound ageing problems

<html><body>
While accountants PwC brush up on Point Piper foreign buyer laws, the Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey says further suspicious house purchases across Australia were to be investigated by the reinvigorated Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB).
It follows the government decision to <a href="/news/point-pipers-villa-del-mare-back-for-sale-as-australian-treasurer-thwarts-chinese-billionaire">force the sale of the $39 million Point Piper trophy home, Villa de Mare</a> (pictured above).
"It's amazing how many phone calls we got this morning," a chuffed Joe Hockey said yesterday, ignoring the backlash from some business interests which sees far wider ramifications for Chinese trade relations.
"We're not going on a witch hunt," the Treasurer added.
"And we definitely don't want an atmosphere of xenophobia or anything.
"We actually just want to be in a position where we maintain, preserve and enhance the integrity of the foreign investment regime."
The Sydney-based, but beneficially China-owned, company Golden Fast Foods has 90 days to offload 63-67 Wolseley Road, Point Piper after being found to have breached foreign investment rules.
The company was deemed ultimately beneficially controlled by Chinese developer Evergrande Real Estate Group and China's 15th richest man, according to Forbes, Xu Jiayin.
Golden Fast Foods is directed by Sydney-based accountant and former PwC partner Stanley Brogan and two Chinese associates, including the Evergrande director Huang Xiangui, <a href="/news/guangzhou-evergrandes-chinese-billionaire-owner-xu-jiayin-tipped-as-villa-del-mare-point-piper-buyer">as Property Observer noted on its November 2014 settlement</a>.
The federal goverrnment forced sale comes as Xu shortly attends, as a delegate, China's annual parliamentary meeting, the main public event on China's political calendar.
Searches on Baidu, a Chinese version of Google, brought up the matter of Xu's Point Piper mansion, though with an error page saying "the news content was unable to be provided".
Earlier critical coments by internet users had appeared on the Weibo website, according to The Australian's China correspondent, Scott Murdoch.
Hockey would give no details of the other houses under suspicion but advised they were across price ranges.
The Australian Financial Review reported Joe Hockey had indicated he had no sympathy for the owner of the home and the FIRB investigation had been requested personally.
The sale of Villa del Mare is FIRB's first forced divestment since 2006 coincided with the unveiling of a federal government consultation paper.
The proposed measures are designed to restore confidence in a foreign investment review system that had not prosecuted anyone for breaching the rules in nine years.
"We welcome foreign investment. It is hugely important," Hockey said.
But Sydney's top end of town fears the fallout will be much wider than a prestige property upheaval, arguing it was easy for the Chinese government to tacitly advise banks that there were not to be acquisitions of Australian businesses for a while.
Geoff Raby, Australia's former ambassador to Beijing, recently noted Chinese interest in Australian farms and processing assets was surging.
Since 1 March, foreign investors require approval from the FIRB to buy agricultural land worth $15 million, down from the previous threshold of $252 million.
Raby, who was the Chinese ambassador from 2007-2011 and has since founded Beijing-based advisory Geoff Raby &amp; Associates, said the changes had been noticed in China.
"The Chinese certainly wonder what our intention is and ask: Is this directed against China? Is this a Chinese concern we have? Any change in the [regulatory] regime will create uncertainty," he told The Australian Financial Review following his presentation to the ABARES Outlook 2015 conference in Canberra.
The Australian reported PwC had no role during the purchase of the Point Piper property as PwC merely helped Mr Xu establish the shelf company that later bought the property. 
The firm was also called in for advice after questions arose about why approval for the transaction had not been sought by the FIRB, The Australian advised.
 
 
 
</body></html>

Foreign buyer crackdown is no witch hunt says Joe Hockey after Point Piper FIRB divestiture order

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The Abbott government’s lurch at a foreign investment fee to fund the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) will be a minor inconvenience. 
“There is significant global evidence from recent times including Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong where these types of taxes on foreign investment have been totally counterproductive, caused significant corrections within the markets and harmed the construction industry” CBRE residential projects chairman Justin Brown was quoeted as saying in the <a href="https://www.afr.com/p/national/politics/foreign_property_buyers_to_pay_approval_TnnDgOvoNycdqw7V5urAAN" target="_blank">AFR</a>.
The response from the real estate sector has been typical. 
Whilst we are supportive of some traction towards the taxation of excessive real estate profits, the 1% charge will mean little in comparison to last year's capital gains.
As outlined in <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2015/02/24/the-foreign-investment-future/" target="_blank">the foreign investment future</a>, the average $3,375,000 FIRB approved investments last year would pay a foreign investment fee of $33,750. The capital gains were running at $229,500. Such a fee will not break the bank.
In that same post I mentioned how effective Singapore’s foreign investment fee of 18% was in maintaining the public interest – low land prices. The property lobby have convinced the news cycle that rising property prices are a good thing. They are if you are a property seller or a bank. For the public this means rising debts and thus interest payments.
We do however see merit in the commentary of Ray White chairman Brian White in comparing such a charge as a stamp-duty like charge. Such a foreign investment fee will curb some demand, impeding turnover.
However, it is likely to be minor as the above capital gains to foreign investment fee comparison demonstrates. Treasurer Hockey was adamant the fee was purely an administrative one so that the FIRB could do its job.
Only $200 million is needed yearly to fund an expanded FIRB. <a href="https://www.firb.gov.au/content/default.asp" target="_blank">Will we get a new website for that?</a> The relative size of such fundraising is again minor to the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6416.0" target="_blank">$418 billion in land price increases in the 13-14 year.</a>
After a minor skirmish, we expect this will have little imposition on the global land bubble. The fact it is set at a much lower rate than Hong Kong and Singapore ensures global investors will still be set upon buying up locations of inspiring natural beauty.
If the government knew what they were doing, a Federal Land Value Tax would be reimposed nearly <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Taxation_Office#History" target="_blank">100 years since our first federal tax was announced</a>. Accompanying this would be a significant 5-10% income tax deduction and a doubling of the pension. The LVT would curb speculative foreign investment, reigniting the Australian creative spirit alongside lower land prices and a lower tax burden for all.
Karl Fiztgerald is project director of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/" target="_blank">Prosper Australia</a>.
This article first appeared on Prosper's website.
</body></html>

KarlFitzgerald-5HzVbxHhJb

Foreign investment fee will only be a minor inconvenience: Karl Fitzgerald

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION 
If the media is to be believed, the reason the real estate market is so hot is due to foreigners, especially Chinese, turning up with blank cheques buying everything in sight.
Apparently Australians are no longer able to get a foothold in the housing market because the playing field is not level. How much of this is true and how much of this is sensationalism and headline grabbing? Let’s explore the facts as they currently stand.
WHO CAN BUY WHAT?
<table style="width: 460px;" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td>
Australian citizens and permanent residents
</td>
<td>
Can buy any property, new or second hand.
There are no limitations of any kind.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Temporary resident
</td>
<td>
A temporary resident (such as those on student visas of more than 12 months or those who have applied for permanent residency and are on a bridging visa) may acquire one established dwelling only and it must be used as their residence (home) in Australia.
There is a condition which stipulates that the temporary resident must sell the property when it ceases to be their residence.
Temporary residents are not permitted to buy established dwellings as investment properties.
Temporary residents may buy new dwellings, or vacant land to build new dwellings, because these latter purchases increase the available housing stock in Australia.
Temporary residents need to apply to the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) to buy in Australia.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Foreigners / short-term visa holders
</td>
<td>
Only allowed to purchase brand new, off the plan properties, or vacant land for immediate development. 
Foreign residents cannot buy established or second-hand dwellings as investment properties or to live in. 
Foreign residents need to apply to the FIRB to buy in Australia. Such proposals are normally approved without conditions.
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
ARE CHINESE BUYERS REALLY DOMINATING?
There is no doubt that many people of Asian heritage are seen each week at open inspections and auctions everywhere in Sydney. It is easy to jump to the assumption that anyone looking remotely East Asian must be a ‘rich Chinese’.
The reality is that Asian buyers are easy to spot because they look different in a crowd of Caucasians. Nobody really spots the Kiwi or the Brit – but Asians do stand out in physical appearance. However, it is often the case that people of Asian appearance may be second, third or even fourth generation Australians. 
Even if they are newly arrived immigrants who do not speak English, they are as entitled as any other Australian citizens or long-terms resident to buy a property. In addition, many people have difficulty identifying the different Asian backgrounds and lump Koreans, Japanese, Singaporeans, Malaysians, Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesians, etc. all as ‘Chinese’.
Having said this, there has definitely been a significant increase of buyers from mainland China. Many factors have contributed to this rise: cheap Australian dollar, increasing middle class, fear of future instability in China and therefore the need to invest the money offshore, seeking a safe haven for the family by having children educated in Australia, etc. For many mainland Chinese buyers, buying a property is much more than just about having a roof over their head. It is about an insurance policy – and something they are willing to pay a premium for.
SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
The main issue is the lack of tracking system to ensure the rules as outlined above are being adhered to. There have been many claims of foreigners breaching the rules of investment. However, last year's parliamentary inquiry heard that the FIRB had not prosecuted a single case since 2006, rendering it essentially ineffective.
WHAT DOES THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSE TO DO?
Yesterday, <a href="/expert-insights/investing/10-000-firb-fee-to-buy-1-million-plus-home-tony-abbott-policy-unveiled">the Treasury released a proposal </a>on “Strengthening Australia’s Foreign Investment Framework”. It is a discussion paper which is open for public comments until the 20 March 2015.
This discussion paper forms the basis of the government’s consultation on reforms to the foreign investment framework. The proposed reforms include:
<ul>
<li>increasing compliance and enforcement activities around foreign investment in residential real estate through the creation of a specialised investigative and enforcement area within the Australian Taxation Office; and</li>
<li>introducing new civil penalties and increased criminal penalties for foreign investors and third parties who breach the foreign investment rules.</li>
</ul>
The government is looking at setting up a new register of foreign investors in both residential and agricultural real estate, with fines of up to 25% of the value of the property for any breaches.
Consideration is also being given to the introduction of an application fee on all foreign investment proposals – this is expected to raise $200 million a year. This is not to act as a deterrent to foreign investment, but to fund the costs of better data collection, screening, compliance and enforcement activities. A more sophisticated data matching systems drawing information from various government agencies such as the Treasury, Tax Office and Immigration is desperately needed and needs to be funded.
For residential real estate and rural land acquisitions, the proposal is for a fee of up to $5,000 that would apply to properties valued under $1 million. Applications to purchase a property equal to or greater than $1 million would be subject to a fee of up to $10,000. This would then increase in increments of up to $10,000 for each additional $1 million in property value. (e.g. For a property up to $2 million, the fee payable would be $20,000. For a property up to $3 million, the fee payable would be $30,000, etc.)
The proposed fees are much higher than the $1,500 recommended by last year's parliamentary inquiry into foreign investment.
IS THIS GOING TO WORK?
Foreigners who have the discretionary funds to purchase a property in Australia will probably not even blink at needing to pay this extra fee. So this is certainly a good fundraising opportunity for the government. For the majority of our foreign buyers, they are purchasing in cash. So a fee of $5,000 or even $30,000 for that matter is really small change for them. We anticipate this will have near zero deterrent effect – but then again, the government has stated that this is not intended to be a deterrent but a fundraising activity.
However, in addition to better enforcement of the current FIRB restrictions, there needs to be a more rigorous review of the current stamp duty structure. A very good model to learn from is the tiered stamp duty that Singapore recently phased in. To kerb overwhelming foreign interest in Singaporean residential properties which skyrocketed prices, the government introduced differing levels of stamp duty payable by citizens, permanent residents and foreigners. What is particularly interesting about the Singapore model is that they also charge additional stamp duty for those who own more than one to two residential properties. There is also special stamp duty on properties sold within three years: 10 to 20% of purchase price, depending on when sold. This was intended to prevent speculative buying.
So while the proposed enforcement reforms are certainly much needed, the separate question which needs to be asked is whether the current rules and tax structure are effective enough to begin with?
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://plus.google.com/110172465327488162875?rel=author" target="_blank">Shane Oliver</a> is head of investment strategy and economics and chief economist at <a href="https://www.ampcapital.com.au/home" target="_blank">AMP Capital</a> and is responsible for AMP Capital's diversified investment funds. 
</body></html>

soliver-smf6LQXgW9

New fees are small change for FIRB buyers: Shane Oliver

<html><body>
In the wake of yesterday's federal government announcement, industry figures are jumping in to give their thoughts on the proposed new laws.
Veronica Morgan of the Real Estate Buyers’ Association of Australia said her organisation supported better enforcement and widening of penalties for foreigners who failed to comply with local laws.
“It’s a hot market for loads of reasons but you can’t blame the Chinese,” Morgan told The New Daily.
There were concerns about foreign developers buying Australian land, building apartment blocks and then marketing those properties to overseas buyers with little oversight by local authorities, she acknowledged.
But she said it would be foolish to conclude the Chinese buyers were responsible for soaring pricess across the residential property market.
“It’s a hot market for loads of reasons but you can’t blame the Chinese,” Morgan said.
“It does appear that this debate appeals to some latent racism that exists in Australia.
“At the bottom of it all is fear and the reporting of it in the media needs to improve.”
The buyer's agent and managing director of Propertyology Simon Pressley said a tax of sorts on foreign property buyers had long been on the cards.
"There is absolutely no doubt that increased foreign buyer activity in Sydney and Melbourne have contributed to price growth", said Simon Pressley. "Developers already fork out rebates in the order of $40,000 for third parties to spruik properties worth $500,000.
"Absorbing a $5,000 fee to a foreign buyer on an $800,000 apartment or a $10,000 fee on a property worth $1 million plus isn't a drop in the ocean to them." "The principle of the fee proposal is sound and has likely come about with some influence from the RBA.
"But if legislators are seriously trying to cool Sydney's market they'd need to add another zero to the fee," Pressley said.
Ray White Real Estate chairman Brian White told Fairfax Media the proposed fees had the potential to "shock the market".
"And no market appreciates or responds well to shocks. It has connotations back to the aborted vendors tax proposed by the NSW Treasurer Michael Egan that needed to be abandoned due to market response," he recalled.
CBRE residential projects chairman Justin Brown told Fairfax Media the new taxes were counterproductive and ill-thought through.
"There is significant global evidence from recent times including Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong where these types of taxes on foreign investment have been totally counterproductive, caused significant corrections within the markets and harmed the construction industry," Brown said.
</body></html>

Don't blame the Chinese for soaring house prices: Buyer's agent Veronica Morgan

<html><body>
The Prime Minister’s clampdown on foreign investors in Australian real estate has been revealed as little more than a revenue raising exercise.
After all the posturing, this is what it comes down to: a cash grab. Politicians doing to real estate what they always do to real estate: using it as a cash cow.
Overseas buyers will be charged hefty fees for the privilege of buying Australian real estate and Australian developers will be charged the same hefty fees for the right to sell to them.
Otherwise nothing will change in the national property landscape. Not a single sale price will be reduced or not one first home buyer will be better off.
As well as a cash grab, the Tony Abbott move on foreign investment is also a push for popularity by appearing to be doing something for the ordinary bloke. But the thinking is so fuzzy and the policy delivery so confused that it won’t achieve even that shallow objective.
I listened to Abbott announcing and justifying the proposed policy and it was clear he had not sorted out his thinking. The arguments simply didn’t stack up.
He was still trying to infer that somehow this will help battlers achieve the 'Great Australian Dream' but couldn’t explain how this policy will achieve that.
He maintained that foreign investment was important to Australia and that foreign buying increased supply and therefore made dwellings more affordable for the ordinary bloke, but couldn’t explain how these new punitive measures would help to achieve that, when they appear set up to discourage and curtail foreign investment.
It’s all rather bizarre.
There are measures to clampdown on developers who focus their marketing overseas without trying to sell their high-rise apartments locally. But foreign investors are the sole reason most of these highrise buildings are being planned. This is particularly true in over-supplied markets like inner city Melbourne and downtown Brisbane.
They’re not designed for local consumption. Without most, if not all, of the units being sold offshore, these projects will not be built.
That will reduce supply, which theoretically places upward pressure on prices. And it will reduce construction activity, which is deemed the economic savior of the nation at a time when resources investment is declining.
The bottom line is that restraining foreign investment won’t make Australian dwellings more affordable. It will do nothing to change the situation for first time buyers.
Foreign investors are a very small component of the Australian buying market. Their activity is primarily focused on Top End properties in the prestige suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, and on highrise apartments in the inner city areas of our major cities.
They are not competing with local first time buyers. Restricting foreign buyers won’t change the price on a single house anywhere in Australia. It won’t stop people of Asian appearance (dubbed foreign buyers by disgruntled under-bidders) from winning bidding wars at Sydney and Melbourne auctions of prestige property.
It’s a Yes Minister scenario, designed by Sir Humphrey Appleby and delivered by a befuddled Jim Hacker, who somehow got the pages of the script mixed up - again.
TERRY RYDER is the founder of <a href="https://hotspotting.com.au/" target="_blank">hotspotting.com.au</a>. You can <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email him</a> or follow him on <a href="https://www.twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.
</body></html>

terryryder-YECXbqmri2

Abbott's foreign investor cash grab built on bizarre logic: Terry Ryder

<html><body>
There's a little-known government reverse mortgage scheme, the pension loan scheme (PLS), which will necessarily become part of Minister for Social Services Scott Morrison's solution to the pension assets test conundrum.
Most people may not be aware that the scheme exists and although the PLS is listed <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/pension-loans-scheme" target="_blank">on the Centrelink website</a>, it does not appear prominently. 
My barber told me about it. 
The issue has arisen given the proposal that family homes should be included in the assets test, raised last year in the Abbott government’s National Commission of Audit and <a href="/expert-insights/investing/scott-morrison-re-considering-family-home-inclusion-in-pension-assets-test">a hot topic last wee</a>k. 
Morrison suggested he would be addressing the rules that deter the elderly from selling the family home and then downsizing to a smaller, cheaper properties, while allowing pensioners to retain some cash without reducing their entitlements.
However the government scheme is currently only available to better-off retirees exchanging equity in their homes for a loan that is repaid from the proceeds when the home is eventually sold, the interest on the loan being capitalised.
The Centrelink and Department of Veterans' Affairs scheme is restricted to those on a part age pension, who own their own home or investment property.
The loan has to be taken as an income stream and is limited to that which, when added to the part-pension, takes them to the maximum pension.
The interest rate is 5.25% and fixed, which is much lower than the variable interest rates charged by reverse mortgage providers in the wider marketplace.
But oddly retirees who are poor enough to be on the full age pension and who own their own homes are currently unable to boost their income through the government scheme.
Self-funded retirees who own property can access the scheme if they are ineligible for the age pension under either the income test or the assets test, but if they are ineligible for the age pension under both tests, they cannot access the scheme.
The Australia Institute says the scheme<a href="https://www.tai.org.au/content/can-you-eat-family-home" target="_blank"></a> is available to retirees who need it the least and says the scheme should be made available to everyone of pension age.
"This may seem consistent with the broad goals of means testing," the institute suggested in the 2014 report, <a href="https://www.tai.org.au/content/boosting-retirement-incomes-easy-way-0" target="_blank">Boosting retirement incomes the easy way - Extending the Pension Loan Scheme to all retirees</a>.
"Those with both high income and high value assessable assets cannot use the PLS.
"But it also has consequences that seem perverse. A retiree with income just under the threshold and very high value assets can use the PLS, as can a retiree with very high income but assessable assets just under the threshold.
"But a single retiree with just over $202,000 in assessable assets and just over $160 private income a fortnight cannot access the scheme, as their pension is reduced under both tests."  
On the Australia Institute's numbers complied by researchers, Richard Denniss and Tom Swann, the scheme could be expanded without significant cost to the budget. 
"A simple modification to the PLS that would, in making it fairer, significantly help to boost the retirement incomes of a large number of current retirees," the report said. 
The Australian government will spend around $36 billion in 2014-15 on tax concessions for superannuation, the stated purpose of which is to increase retirement incomes.
The PLS has been in place in some form since at least 1986, and the interest rate has since been adjusted.
The researchers noted it was unlikely that governments and policymakers would have let a costly but regressively targeted loans scheme remain in place without it attracting attention – especially given current concern about budget deficits.
They then noted that the PLS is not mentioned in the 2012-13 Department of Human Services Annual Report and the Australian Instutute could not find mentions in previous annual reports.
Nonetheless, it is likely the scheme is run at a low cost to the government and could be expanded on a cost-neutral basis, it is suggested.
Indeed, given current concerns about the budget deficit now and down the track, the Abbott Hockey government could readily reform the scheme so that it actually generates revenue.
</body></html>

Scott Morrison's budget solution rests with revised pension home loan scheme

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
With Sydney’s clearance rate hitting 87% on the weekend and a modest three bedroom weatherboard homes selling for $1.36 million, (some 40 minutes commute from the CBD), concerns over the role of speculative investment continue.
The ‘golden ticket’ to fast track residential status, the Significant Investment Visa (SIV), has seen <a href="https://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/significant-investor-visa-approvals-increase-fivefold-in-a-year-20150220-13kkzr" target="_blank">a five-fold increase in applications</a> over the last year. This program has attracted$3.2 billion in investments. Direct investments in real estate are not recognised as a qualifying factor.
The federal government has expanded such incentives with the Premium Investment Visa, developed for those willing to make a $15 million investment in non-real estate related investments. We commend the government for recognising further investment in real estate undermines the competitiveness delivered by lower land prices.
However the carefully worded statement by Minister Robb <a href="https://trademinister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2014/ar_mr_141017.aspx" target="_blank">announcing the Premium Investment Visas said</a>:
"Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb said that direct investment in residential real estate would not be a complying investment under the government’s proposed new Premium Investor Visa (PIV)."
Repeat – ‘no direct investment in real estate’. This implies real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other managed investments into real estate are allowed, encouraging both the further centralisation of economic power and additional investments in land. Those in the finance and real estate sectors will be delighted.
The chair of the parliamentary inquiry into foreign investment, Kelly O’Dwyer, said <a href="https://www.kellyodwyer.com.au/housing-supply-affordability-and-investment-address-to-the-committee-for-economic-development-of-australia/" target="_blank">in a speech last week:</a>
"Non resident foreign investors, while they can purchase new dwellings cannot generally purchase existing dwellings.
"Applications to purchase new dwellings are therefore generally granted, while applications to purchase existing homes are only granted if the purchaser is a temporary resident.
"So who is a temporary resident and what are the rules? Temporary residents in Australia, that is those people who have a visa to reside in Australia for over 12 months, are allowed to purchase an existing dwelling as a home but they must divest that home within three months of leaving the country at the expiry of their visa...
"The Committee found that there were loopholes in the current framework – that far from penalising individuals who made illegal purchases, in some instances it rewarded them.
"Let me give you an example. If a non-resident foreign person purchased an existing home this would be contrary to the rules. Just as it would be if that non-resident foreign person purchased multiple existing homes.
"Under the current regime, if FIRB found out and successfully divested that person of those properties – and those properties had appreciated in value from the time of purchase to the time of sale, that non-resident foreign investor would get to keep the windfall gain.
"Clearly this loophole needs to be closed."
Finally a recognition of windfall gains! If the naturally rising value of land is not fit for unlicensed foreign investors, does that mean in time the public will question all windfalls as <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/georgist-glossary#Unearned%20Income" target="_blank">Unearned Income</a>? If the community creates that value through their development, their existence, shouldn’t they too benefit? O’Dwyer continues:
"All foreign investors in residential real estate must apply for approval from the FIRB prior to purchase.
"According to the most recent FIRB statistics, last financial year, FIRB approved foreign investment into residential property of around $34 billion, double the $17 billion approved during 2012-13.
"Much of this investment is concentrated in the Melbourne and Sydney markets. Approximately 80% of total investment is attributable to new property, which at over $27 billion 2013-14 is 170% higher than 2012-13.
"The total number of established property approvals for 2013-14 is nearly 8,000 as compared to just over 5,000 for 2012-13."
The 8,000 approved foreign investments averaged $3,375,000 – with totals up 170%!
We fear the foreign investment ‘tightening’ further elaborated on in O’Dwyer’s speech will do little to stem the tide of international capital.The capital gain on a $3,375,000 investment at the national average of 6.8% for the last year equated to $229,500 (<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6416.0" target="_blank">ABS 8 Capital Cities</a>). A $1,500 application fee for purchases limited to new stock only, alongside the rigmarole of applying via the Foreign Investment Review Board, will do little when such large amounts are being invested on average.
If the windfall gains for an illegal foreign investor are to be forfeited to the government, then why not all such capital gains? The conflict between sovereignty and savvy investment is mounting in the eyes of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2015/02/19/the-rotting-fruits-of-a-100-year-old-trend/" target="_blank">the speculative onslaught</a>. Foreign investment is a direct challenge to the control of national resources.
Singapore has taken <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/a-highendproperty-collapse-in-singapore-20150219-13jkf5#ixzz3ScPhbzcR" target="_blank">a more direct approach</a>.
As progressive as that is, refinement is needed. A <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2012/10/02/council-rating-subsidies/" target="_blank">property tax penalises improvements</a> – install solar or renovate and you are penalised under this perverted system. This is not productive. The tax should focus on land values. Rising locational land values are the trigger for property price increases, so that is where the focus need be. The <a href="https://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page04.aspx?id=2094" target="_blank">Singaporean property tax does the opposite, by not including any land value</a>. This will encourage run down properties (accompanied by generous depreciation allowances no doubt).
It must be noted Singapore has also imposed additional measures limiting debts to income ratios.
Despite the property tax shortfalls, Singaporean property prices fell 4% last year, with further falls to come. After a close election with foreign investment a major election issue, we hope the political elite can hold their nerve in the face of the predictable vested interests backlash. Perhaps the recent five year extension of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-23/singapore-to-extend-tax-breaks-for-property-trusts-by-five-years" target="_blank">the tax amnesty on REIT foreign earnings</a> is a payback for such reform.
For Australia, the much vaunted housing supply mantra is being undermined by foreign investment in new homes. New re-zonings are being snapped up off the plan as a safehaven to park money. The mobility of capital is set to increase alongside technology, ensuring the commodification of housing escalates as the global housing marketplace matures. Housing supply alone cannot keep up with international demand for a commodity returning (barely taxed) huge capital gains.
<a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Speculative_Vacancies-2014_final.pdf" target="_blank">Our recent report</a> highlights the underutilised nature of many prime locations. It is important this measure expands to other cities to help the public understand just how extensive speculative holdings of housing are becoming. Then perhaps a more vocal political opposition will develop.
Until the unearned incomes in real estate are more highly taxed, the pressures on those trying to find a place to live will continue to grow.
Karl Fiztgerald is project director of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/" target="_blank">Prosper Australia</a>.
This article first appeared on Prosper's website.
</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