<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/broadbeach-qld-4218">Broadbeach</a> offers plenty of reasons to live vertically, but moving from a substantial family home into an apartment can expose the compromises of high-density living. Privacy, room for guests and usable living space tend to matter more when an apartment is intended as a permanent home rather than an occasional coastal base.

A typical residential floor at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-eveleigh-broadbeach-7-9-surf-parade-broadbeach-qld-4218">The Eveleigh</a>, on Surf Parade,&nbsp;contains just four apartments. The 94-residence development by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/hirsch-faigen">Hirsch &amp; Faigen</a> is predominantly made up of expansive three-bedroom homes, with a limited collection of half-floor penthouses above.

Across the apartment floors, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/rothelowman">Rothelowman</a> has used the relatively limited number of residences to give each home greater access to natural light and outlook. Living spaces extend towards full-height glazing, while a series of bay windows frame selected views across the Pacific Ocean, city and hinterland rather than treating the building edge as a continuous wall of glass.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149670 project_image_fid=360965]

“The apartment floors deliver a collection of homes that embrace controlled outlook via a series of bay windows deliberately framing moments of view,” Rothelowman Director Kim Lowman said.

From outside, those projecting forms contribute to the tower’s faceted profile. Strong horizontal and vertical elements establish its proportions, while the changing position of the sun alters the light, shadow and reflection across the façade throughout the day.

The same attention moves inside the apartments, where the material palette combines warm timber, natural stone, metallic detailing and softer curved forms. Kitchens sit within the main living zone, with stone island benches, integrated joinery and European appliances, before the living areas extend towards the glazing and the outlook.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149670 project_image_fid=360981]

Three genuine bedrooms provide room to accommodate family and guests, while two secure car spaces and storage address some of the practical considerations that can become more noticeable when moving from a larger home. Feedback from the display suite has centred on the warmth and restraint of the interiors, with buyers commenting that the residences feel like homes rather than conventional coastal apartments.

A limited collection of half-floor penthouses occupies the upper levels, increasing the scale of the living spaces and adding private balconies and elevated finishes. From this position, the outlook extends between the ocean and hinterland.

Outside the private residences, The Eveleigh separates its shared spaces between the podium and rooftop. The podium is centred on wellness, with subtropical landscaping surrounding a swimming pool and pool terrace, yoga garden, private gymnasium, sauna and hot and cold plunge facilities. Landscaped retreats and pavilions provide additional places to sit away from the main recreation areas.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149670 project_image_fid=360966]

Higher in the building, a rooftop pavilion and private dining suite sit alongside resident lounge, barbecue and outdoor dining areas, opening towards panoramic views across the ocean, city and hinterland.

“Buyers are no longer just looking for an apartment, but a lifestyle where they can relax, reset, and enjoy a balanced way of living,” Hirsch &amp; Faigen Director of Sales Matt George said.

Interest to date has come from established owner-occupiers and interstate lifestyle purchasers, including buyers planning a future move to the Gold Coast. Many are coming from larger homes and want to reduce ongoing maintenance without giving up space for family and guests, privacy, two car spaces or the ability to entertain at home.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149670 project_image_fid=360969]

Much of that daily life can also take place beyond the building without requiring a drive. Kurrawa Beach and Pratten Park are an easy walk from Surf Parade, while Pacific Fair, Oracle Boulevard, The Oasis, restaurants, cafés, entertainment and public transport are also within walking distance.

The Eveleigh is Hirsch &amp; Faigen's fourth Gold Coast development since entering the market in 2021, following The Hemingway at Palm Beach, The Emerson at Kirra and Yves at Mermaid Beach. Each of the preceding projects sold out before completion.

“Broadbeach had been on our radar throughout our time operating on the Gold Coast,” the developer said. “Following our projects in Palm Beach, Kirra and Mermaid Beach, Broadbeach represented the natural next step for the business.”

The Surf Parade site brought together proximity to the beach, protected coastal outlooks and walkability to dining, shopping and recreation. Hirsch &amp; Faigen also identified the street as an emerging premium residential address, with enough separation from Broadbeach's busier destinations to retain a quieter environment at home.

The Eveleigh is now under construction by Maxcon, with completion forecast for mid-2028. Three-bedroom residences are currently available from $2.87 million.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=149670]

Joel Robinson

The Eveleigh brings house-like apartments to Broadbeach

A long-stalled Campbelltown development site is back in play, with new plans for 139 apartments set to supersede a mixed-use scheme approved almost a decade ago but never built.

The new proposal for 28 Cordeaux Street would deliver 116 market and 23 affordable apartments in a part 14-storey building, bringing a substantial new project into a Campbelltown market where new apartment supply remains limited.

Plans have been filed over the 3,092 sqm corner site at Moore-Oxley Street, around 600 metres from Campbelltown Railway Station and the city-centre retail core.

The site already carries a mixed-use residential approval dating to 2016. Doroch Architects has now been engaged on a larger replacement scheme, which is progressing as a State Significant Development Application following a Housing Delivery Authority determination in August 2025.

The apartment mix comprises 39 one-bedroom, 72 two-bedroom and 28 three-bedroom residences. Two-bedroom apartments make up just over half of the project, while three-bedroom homes account for 20 per cent.

<img alt="First look: New 139-apartment plans revive long-stalled Campbelltown city centre site" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="136dd5b9-3791-4da6-9e31-76f533f5b4de" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Campbelltown%20da2.png?VersionId=LgOSy9nwf5u.MGswBBwaGGxuX8QpHSl_" />

Of the 139 apartments, 23 will be delivered as affordable housing under the in-fill affordable housing provisions of the Housing SEPP. The affordable component represents 15 per cent of the residential gross floor area and will be managed by a registered Community Housing Provider.

Doroch has sought to break the scale of the building into two distinct elements, with a masonry podium of around four storeys establishing the street edge before the residential tower steps back above.

The corner position has shaped that approach. Cordeaux Street faces toward the commercial and civic centre, while Moore-Oxley Street leads into the lower-scale residential neighbourhood to the south, and the design verification report describes the site as "bridging the commercial core to the north and established residential areas to the south."

The podium will be expressed predominantly in face brick, while the upper levels shift to brushed and grooved concrete cladding with darker metal detailing. Recessed sections, deep balcony edges and landscaping break down the upper form, with an approximately 11.8-metre setback to the northern boundary addressing the adjoining St Peters Anglican School.

<img alt="First look: New 139-apartment plans revive long-stalled Campbelltown city centre site" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c8b3d2d3-c561-4bfc-a5d9-a68c0c10dac1" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Campbelltown%20da1.png?VersionId=AeAEyJU02Gk2k5noUj2StziCvdQ7fW4B" />

Campbelltown has been starved of new residential developments in the last decade.

The only other notable development set to come to market this year is ALAND's Queen Square, a mixed-use precinct on over two hectares that will comprise apartments above a vibrant ground-level retail and hospitality dining precinct.

First look: New 139-apartment plans revive long-stalled Campbelltown city centre site

First Look: Sherlock Construction pitches apartments for low-rise Deception Bay

Queensland builder-developer MAYD has revealed the first look at its major North Kirra beachfront development, lodging amended plans that reduce the number of apartments and increase the proportion of larger residences.

The project is planned across a substantial 4,742 sqm amalgamated site spanning seven lots at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/2-6-pacific-parade-bilinga-qld-4225">2-6 Pacific Parade</a> and 27-33 Golden Four Drive in Bilin​ga, directly opposite Nor​th Kirra Beach.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/mayd-group">MAYD</a> secured the site for $32.5 million in 2025, in what was one of the Gold Coast's largest property transactions of the year.

The development will be delivered across two stages, with the first stage carrying an estimated gross realisation value of around $360 million.

The latest amendments seek to reduce the overall apartment count and shift the project further toward the owner-occupier market, with larger residences designed for buyers wanting considerably more space than traditionally offered in a beachfront apartment.

The residential mix will include townhomes, oversized two-bedroom apartments, substantial three-bedroom residences and four-bedroom homes.

MAYD has appointed Cera Stribley to lead the architecture and interiors, with the Melbourne-based design practice drawing on the beachfront setting through a series of ocean-facing terraces and heavily landscaped balconies.

Strong horizontal forms and curved balconies will define the exterior, with subtropical landscaping integrated throughout the building to soften the built form and increase the connection between the residences and the beachfront.

The project will also include an extensive collection of resident wellness and lifestyle facilities, continuing the broader shift across the Gold Coast's luxury apartment market toward larger homes supported by resort-style amenity.

<img alt="MAYD" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="d1bcbb05-e659-4b47-8bd4-1e595315e2ad" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-27%20at%202.05.03%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=jj0XEud1X1DuLt7_KyElhjMdZGOXmLHP" />

MAYD Founder Todd Mould said North Kirra was increasingly appealing to buyers attracted to the more established, lower-density character of the southern Gold Coast.

"North Kirra presents one of the most compelling luxury residential opportunities currently emerging in Australia, combining absolute beachfront with the character and authenticity that buyers are increasingly seeking, and the same sense of tight-knit community that defined Burleigh and Currumbin perhaps 10 or 15 years ago," Mould said.

"With Gold Coast Airport on its doorstep, it also offers a level of accessibility that broadens its appeal across almost every market demographic."

The project comes as the southern Gold Coast continues to attract an increasing share of high-end apartment development and buyer activity.

Kirra in particular has emerged as one of the region's more tightly held beachfront markets, with its relatively low-density character, established surf and hospitality scene and proximity to Gold Coast Airport differentiating it from the higher-density markets further north.

Mould said those characteristics had informed the approach MAYD and Cera Stribley had taken to the project.

"We've worked closely with Cera Stribley to create a vision that is deeply connected to its surroundings," he said.

"Inspired by the coastline itself, the architecture has been shaped around space, privacy and resort-style living, creating a collection of homes that reflects the next generation of luxury on the southern Gold Coast."

MOTIV Managing Director Carly Cottam, who has been appointed to market the project, said buyer attention had continued to move south along the Gold Coast.

"Purchasers who may once have defaulted to Broadbeach, Main Beach or Surfers Paradise are increasingly recognising the value of a genuine beachfront location that offers lower density, strong amenity and a more established sense of community," Cottam said.

"Kirra has a powerful combination of growing demand and genuine scarcity. Beachfront supply is inherently constrained, the area remains relatively low density, and buyers are increasingly placing a premium on locations that feel established, uncrowded and authentic rather than heavily developed."

Cottam said the proximity to Gold Coast Airport was also proving increasingly important for interstate and second-home buyers.

"Being minutes from Gold Coast Airport makes it particularly compelling for interstate buyers, frequent travellers and second-home purchasers who can access an authentic coastal lifestyle almost immediately after stepping off a flight."

The acquisition takes MAYD's active development portfolio to more than $500 million, with the North Kirra project representing one of its largest undertakings to date.

MAYD is targeting an early 2027 launch.

First look at MAYD's North Kirra mixed-use precinct

<main data-perf-region="main">
Castle Hill, the longtime hub of the Hills District, has been one of the major beneficiaries of Sydney's Metro expansion, with improved connectivity helping drive continued population growth, development and buyer demand across the Hills District.

But despite that growth, the suburb has seen relatively few major new apartment projects brought to market over the past 18 months.

Hills District developer Reve Group is looking to fill that gap with <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/nova-r-ve-castle-hill-2-garthowen-crescent-castle-hill-nsw-2154">Nova Rêve</a>, a major new mixed-use precinct on the corner of Garthowen Crescent and Old Castle Hill Road, a short walk from Castle Hill Metro Station and Castle Towers.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377679]

The project will comprise three residential towers alongside a hotel, restaurants, cafes and a skybar, more than 1,600 sqm of ground-floor retail and almost an acre of landscaped gardens.

It represents the largest project undertaken by Reve Group, the development arm of the Kassis family, which has been building across the Hills District for more than 30 years through Kassis Homes.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377675]

Nova Rêve also represents a significant step up from the family's first apartment development, Grand Rêve, which was delivered nearby on Garthowen Crescent.

Grand Rêve introduced larger, house-like apartment layouts and premium inclusions including Wolf and Sub-Zero appliances to the Castle Hill market.

Nova Rêve takes that approach to a precinct scale, combining the residential component with hospitality, retail and substantial public and resident landscaping.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377685]

Reve Group Managing Director Sam Kassis said the project reflected the family's three decades of building in the Hills, which has evolved from trophy homes on quarter-acre blocks to larger-scale apartment development.

"Grand Rêve was our first apartment project here and it showed us what this pocket of Castle Hill could be. Nova Rêve is the refinement of that idea: not just apartments, but a place the whole suburb can use," Kassis said.

A key part of that approach is the hotel, which has been designed to operate as an amenity for the wider Castle Hill community rather than solely hotel guests.

It will include restaurants, cafes, skybars and all-day dining, alongside conference and event facilities catering to business functions, community groups and private events.

At ground level, more than 1,600 sqm of shops and cafes will open onto the surrounding streets and landscaped areas.

Almost an acre of gardens designed by Land and Form Studios will run through the precinct, incorporating pathways, seating, barbecue areas and children's play spaces.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152737 project_image_fid=377680]

Reve Group's Romio Georges said creating an active ground plane had been central to the planning of Nova Rêve.

"There are gardens with pathways, barbecues, seating and play areas, shops and cafes opening onto the street, and a hotel with restaurants and a skybar that anyone in Castle Hill can walk into," Georges said.

The project's elevated position on one of Sydney's highest ridgelines will also provide apartments with outlooks toward the Sydney skyline, surrounding parkland and the Blue Mountains.

More than 80 per cent of the apartments will occupy corner positions, with Turner responsible for both the architecture and interiors.

&nbsp;

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=152737]

<h3 data-end="3697" data-section-id="q3n5ak" data-start="3672">&nbsp;</h3>
</main>

Nova Rêve arrives as Reve Group bets on Castle Hill's next growth phase

Policy

<html><body>
Currently there is no cost associated with any FIRB application so there are limited financial resources for the Treasury department to police the current regulations.
The bulk of their activity remains in processing.
But a modest FIRB application fee would be acceptable to overseas buyers that are often subject to fees in other international property markets, according to Steve Douglas, the executive chairman of the SMATS Group that has arranged over $1 billion in lending for expatriate and foreign buyers over recent years.
"These fees could be directed to FIRB for process improvement and policing activity to ensure the current regulations are enforced," he said.
Steve Douglas says provided it remains realistic, it should not have a detrimental impact on the current buyer activity levels, especially if it is balanced by the return of the CGT 50% discount and fairness is restored to previous legislation.
The submission was made to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics which is holding public hearings as part of its Inquiry into Foreign Investment in Australian residential real estate. 
"We do need to appropriately police the fairness of the FIRB regulations and protect the market from abuse and speculation," he told the parliamentary inquiry.
"A modest fee on the approximate 10,000 residential purchases would fund this and allow the FIRB to be properly resourced to investigate illegal activity – without introducing any new restrictions. 
"This would be logical, acceptable to the market and also easy to police with a simple 'Statement of Residency' at any property settlement confirming FIRB compliance and then lodging for spot checks with FIRB."
SMATS Group is an Australian tax agent that specialises in foreign investors and expatriates. 
It commenced in 1995 headquartered in Singapore with offices in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Dubai, London, New York, Perth and Sydney.
The SMATS submission suggests a modest fee would be acceptable by international standards set at:
<ul><ul>
<li>$2,000 for acquisitions under $500,000, and</li>
<li>$3,000 for acquisitions over $500,000</li>
</ul></ul>
"It is our strong opinion that the importance of foreign investors is not fully appreciated in Australia."
Douglas outlined two major misconceptions in the community when it comes to foreign investors.
The first misconception was that "foreigners are buying all the property at auction".
The second was that foreigners are driving up prices.
<ul>
<li>
Misconception: Foreigners are buying all the property at auctions.
</li>
<li>
Reality: Foreigners cannot buy established property under the FIRB Regulations, so the buyer must have held Australian Citizenship or Permanent Residency or if acquired under a Temporary Residency will need to sell the house on exit of Australia. It is more likely these are “new Australians” that have migrated and have appropriate permanent Visa status.
</li>
<li>
Misconception: Foreigners drive up prices.
</li>
<li>
Reality: Improved supply stabilises prices. In fact sometimes Foreigners have paid too much for Australian property then are willing to sell at a loss releasing lower value stock into the market.
</li>
</ul>
Source: SMATS Group's submission to the Inquiry into Foreign Investment in Australian residential real estate.
Douglas said the general community does not fully appreciate that the main driving force in property price increases was Australia’s growing population.
"It is our opinion that Australia’s strong population growth during the period of the global financial crisis between July 2007 and March 2010 was a key contributing factor to Australia’s economic resilience as it created compulsory consumption spending for new arrivals when domestic consumption fell away with economic uncertainty during the GFC."
He suggested that the current population growth now back near or above 400,000 per annum since December 2012 created a demand driven property market and with the absence of adequate supply of housing stock, must inevitably lead to a lift in prices.
In 2012-13 the FIRB approved 11,668 applications for residential property, and increase of 19.45% over the previous year; however the value of these applications actually decreased from $19.7 billion to $17.16 billion.
Douglas said it was a general misconception that foreigners push prices up. 
Where in reality it is more likely that they actually keep prices down for the vast majority of Australian’s as the newly constructed dwellings of foreign investors provide important rental accommodation and expansion of projects and estates that may otherwise not attract sufficient pre-sales to permit financing to begin and allow many larger scale projects to move from concept to reality."
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

FIRB application fee would help fund compliance: SMATS Group

<html><body>
Second-round submissions to an inquiry into the banking system have challenged findings that the system is competitive and called for a review of mortgage broking practices to ensure consumers are getting quality advice on home loans.
The Financial System Inquiry released its interim report in July, calling for further input on a range of questions, including whether bank ownership of mortgage brokers was restricting competition.
Second round submissions were published on Friday.
The Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia challenged the report’s finding that the banking sector was “competitive, albeit concentrated”, noting that the financial crisis and government intervention had restricted competition.
However, the MFAA said there was no evidence that bank ownership of mortgage broking groups was limiting competition or discouraging brokers from acting in the consumers’ interest.
The MFAA argued that the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, 2009 required brokers to disclose commissions and lender panels and ensure clients were not disadvantaged by any conflicts of interest.
Suncorp disagreed, arguing that bank ownership of mortgage brokers was distorting the way in which mortgage brokers directed borrowers to lenders.
“Of great concern is the fact that customers view brokers as independent but the major banks have growing influence over these channels which they now predominantly own, and coupled with generous incentive schemes, are able to direct business to their products,” Suncorp said in its submission.
Consumer group Choice called for a review of how mortgage broking regulations were working for consumers including an assessment of the impact of mortgage brokers’ remuneration and institutional arrangements on the services they offered. It also called for an investigation into whether more extensive rules about the quality of mortgage broker recommendations and disclosures were required.
Choice said conflicts of interest reduced the quality of mortgage brokers’ recommendations and service for consumers. 
</body></html>

zfielding-GvX3Uq9KTa

Banking system uncompetitive and mortgage broking review needed: Senate inquiry submissions

catherinecashmore-6LXia3pPQj

"Our distrust is very expensive": We can't have a trustworthy financial market without an honest property system

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australian politicians are keen property owners. <a href="/expert-insights/investing/the-propertied-federal-politicians-pollies-and-their-300-million-property-portfolio">Data compiled by Lindsay David, Deakin University’s Philip Soos and Paul Egan</a> from the parliamentary register of members’ interests shows the 226 members of federal parliament (both houses) have an ownership stake in some 563 properties. While these properties may be jointly owned with a spouse, this is an average of 2.5 properties per member.
In 2013, the 76 members of the Senate had 202 property holdings and the 150 members of the House of Representatives had 361 property holdings.
Top of the leader board is National Party Senator Barry O’Sullivan with a portfolio of 50 properties. David Gillespie follows with 18 and Palmer United Party Senator Clive Palmer has a seemingly conservative 13, although the total value of Palmer’s properties is unknown (see table below).
<img src="/images/2014/08/06/Table2-1.png"> 
Compiled by Lindsay David, Philip Soos and Paul Egan.
The estimated total value of these properties is said to be around A$298 million. This was calculated by multiplying the 563 properties by the median dwelling price of $530,000, as of July 2014. If these properties are located in major cities or other high-value areas the property holding could be substantially higher.
Property, democracy and fairness
Major Australian cities have been feeling the housing affordability squeeze for some time now. Owning multiple investment properties does nothing to ease the upward pressure on real estate prices or to increase first home buyer opportunities. Ensuring housing equality – for example, by providing adequate housing for all social groups – is becoming an increasingly complex task in Australian cities.
When the philosopher <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/" target="_blank">John Rawls</a> coined the phrase the “property-owning democracy” he was interested in how property might be used to satisfy the principles of justice as fairness. Rawls could hardly have known the illuminating irony he might cast on the property holdings of politicians.
Should we be alert, perhaps even alarmed, at the real estate investment practices of the guardians of Australian democracy? Well, maybe. Some 94% of the members of federal parliament owned real estate in 2013. More than 50% own investment or commercial property. By comparison, ABS data show less than 20% of the general population owned a property other than the one they lived in in 2012. But it’s politicians that set the taxation and housing policies that attempt to address our housing concerns.
Policy push
Senator Xenophon is currently <a href="https://nickxenophon.com.au/media/releases/show/home-affordability-a-super-idea/?Stage=stage" target="_blank">seeking</a> changes to the Superannuation Act that would allow funds to be released to purchase a first home. This would not put downward pressure on first home buyer housing stock. In fact, it could diversify the investment pool and lead to upward pressure.
According to the register, Independent Senator for South Australia Nick Xenophon has a portfolio of eight investment properties.
A spokesperson for Senator Xenophon said the register was outdated, but confirmed the Senator owns four investment units and his super fund also owns a property (under management). The correct figure is expected to be reflected in the next register of Senator’s interests.
Addressing housing disparity
Australia’s democratic process is predicated on notions of impartiality and transparency. The parliamentary register of members’ interests is an important citizenry “watch dog” mechanism. It is a mechanism that should be employed to monitor the property holdings of Australian politicians and then deployed to call their actions to account.
It is important to note that the research doesn’t show a causal link between property holdings and decisions of politicians. But it would be imprudent to assume prima facie that the property holdings of Australian politicians do not play a role in their political thinking, especially as this thinking relates to housing, taxation or even superannuation policy.
What is needed is a broader discussion about housing disparity that fully acknowledges and accounts for these vested interests and tools of political influence. This should include the politics and interests of the politicians themselves.
The naïve assumption that housing wealth will trickle down through a property-owning democracy have been shattered by the realities of 21st century Australian cities. The question which remains is whether our democratic processes can be reorganised to address these now clearly evident housing disparities. A discussion about the real estate ideologies that underwrite the investment agendas of Australian politicians seems like a fitting starting point.
Dallas Rogers is research fellow at the Urban Research Centre, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-western-sydney">University of Western Sydney</a>.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

drogers-JvoVgMGDGm

Our $300 million propertied federal pollies: How should they influence housing policy?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Independent Australian Senator Nick Xenophon is planning a legislative <a href="https://nickxenophon.com.au/media/releases/show/home-affordability-a-super-idea/?Stage=stage" target="_blank">push</a> for first home buyers to be able to access their superannuation savings to pay for a house deposit, mirroring a similar policy in Canada.
As with Australia and Canada, home ownership in New Zealand continues to be seen as a birthright and there is concern about home affordability as house prices, in the main centres at least, continue to rise.
When New Zealand’s workplace-based retirement savings scheme - KiwiSaver - was launched in 2007 the government included several incentives to make the scheme more attractive. One of these was the ability to withdraw contributions to enable the KiwiSaver member to purchase his or her first home.
The government also offers a first home deposit subsidy of NZ$1,000 per year of KiwiSaver membership, with a minimum of three years and a maximum of five years. Both benefits were in response to concerns that the deduction of KiwiSaver contributions from a young person’s pay packet would restrict their ability to get on the home ownership ladder.
How it works
Withdrawing savings for a first home becomes an option after three years or more of KiwiSaver membership. The member’s own contributions can be withdrawn, along with those of their employer. However, the government’s contributions, comprising a NZ$1,000 kickstart for new members and a member tax credit of up to $521.43 per annum, cannot be withdrawn.
The availability of the deposit subsidy is more restricted, with limits on income and the maximum purchase price of the property. Both benefits are only available for the purchase of a first home, with very limited exceptions, and never for an investment property.
These incentives were important in making the controversial scheme more palatable to the public. However, research has shown these incentives are less important to KiwiSaver members than the other government incentives. (Although this is likely to reflect the fact that many members will have already purchased their first home).
Incentives aren’t helping affordability
The benefits for first home buyers do little to assist with home affordability, which relates to the ongoing cost of home ownership. The latest <a href="https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/learning/colleges/college-business/school-of-economics-and-finance/research/mureau.cfm">report</a> from Massey University’s Real Estate Analysis Unit found home affordability across New Zealand had deteriorated by 7.6% over the year to May 2014.
The benefits are also likely to have limited impact on house prices overall, particularly given the purchase price restrictions associated with the deposit subsidy. Certainly no restraining impact has been indicated, with house prices continuing to rise and ongoing concerns of a housing bubble in New Zealand.
While the benefits could also potentially help push prices up by increasing demand from first home buyers, there is no evidence this has occurred. The purchase price restrictions associated with the deposit subsidy will help curb any potential inflationary impact on house prices. The persistent increase in house prices, particularly in Auckland, continues to be driven primarily by immigration and speculation.
However, KiwiSaver’s first home benefits do assist New Zealanders into their first home by helping them meet the minimum deposit levels required to be able to obtain a loan, something made more difficult with the introduction of loan-to-value ratio (LVR) limits by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand in October 2013. (This has meant that 90% of a bank’s new home loans require a deposit of 20% or more).
The most recent figures available pre-date the LVR changes, but show that more than 10,000 New Zealanders withdrew savings of more than NZ$120 million from their KiwiSaver accounts to assist with their first home purchase in the year to March 2013. In addition, nearly 5,000 subsidies worth more than NZ$15 million were provided in the year to May 2013.
While it’s likely some KiwiSaver members have simply taken advantage of the availability of these benefits, for many young people they will have been vital to helping them achieve their goal of home ownership.
It could be argued that allowing withdrawals from KiwiSaver accounts defeats the purpose of retirement savings. While we know that the earlier you start saving the better, the reality is losing three to five years’ worth of contributions at a relatively young age will not be a disaster – and the retention of the government contributions means the member does not go back to square one as a result of the withdrawal.
Helping young people to help in retirement
While the lifetime benefits of renting versus home ownership continue to be debated, the <a href="https://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201333/RetExpBudget_Report_Aug2013.pdf">New Zealand Retirement Expenditure Guidelines</a> identified the financial benefits for retirees who own their own unencumbered home, compared to those who are renting. This suggests assisting young people to make their first home purchase will provide benefits for them in the long-term, and improve their retirement prospects.
Another reason to support home ownership is that it provides more secure accommodation for families, compared to renting. Fundamental changes to the property rental market in New Zealand would be needed to change this.
However, there is a large difference between a 25-year old withdrawing three years of contributions and a 50-year old withdrawing 10 years of contributions –the latter will be significantly disadvantaged in terms of retirement income. To counter this it would be sensible to restrict the withdrawal amount or the age at which withdrawals can be made from the scheme.
While the ability to use KiwiSaver savings to achieve a greater level of home ownership has been a successful policy in New Zealand, there is a strong case for introducing some limits to protect its underlying focus on retirement.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/29950/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="line-height: 1.3em;">
Claire Matthews is director of academic programmes at <a href="https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/home.cfm" target="_blank">Massey University</a>.
Claire Matthews has received funding from Finsia. She is affiliated with the Fin-Ed Centre, NZCU Baywide and the New Zealand Association of Credit Unions.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

cmatthews-j6ptUweXhR

New Zealand's experience shows that tapping super is unlikely to improve affordability

<html><body>
Nick Xenophon (along with other groups, such as the <a href="https://reia.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Super_Homes.pdf">REIA</a>), is advocating a policy that will be responsible for making housing affordability worse. 
He is using the Canadian "Home Buyer Plan" as an example to promote a similar idea in Australia. That is - allowing first home buyers to raid their <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia" target="_blank">superannuation</a> account – sold under the pretext of ‘helping them get onto the property ladder’. 
The theory goes that to progress up this mythological ladder, buyers must bet their income and in this case, future savings, on a speculative process that translates into higher house prices, without thought for the next generation of required ‘property ladder’ participants, who will no doubt fall dependant on similar schemes, to keep the tide rising.
The procedure in Canada allows eligible buyers to withdraw up to C$25,000 tax-free from their <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_Retirement_Savings_Plan">retirement fund</a>, on the condition that they pay it back over a 15-year period.
If they fail to do this, the amount withdrawn will be taxed as per the income earner's tax bracket. Currently, 35% of Canadians fall into this category however, according to the <a href="https://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/menu-eng">CRA</a>, roughly one out of two – that is, 47% – contributed less than the required repayment amount over the 2011 tax year. 
These means, while the government picks up the added income revenue windfall, buyers, buoyed on by a rent seeking culture that fools the public into believing such policies are designed to be ‘helpful’, overstretch their budget and in weak economic conditions are left to carry the can.
In short - you borrow money from yourself at 0% interest and in doing so; lose 15 years of compounding 'tax free' interest with average returns in the order of 7%. 
It’s notable that many low to middle-income individuals have inadequate funds to draw upon, therefore even assuming the scheme were to be effective, it’s limited in the difference it can make.
But the real ‘nub’ of the issue, which Nick Xenophon has failed to acknowledge, is that the Canadian Home Buyer Plan was never intended to aid affordability. 
It was <a href="https://annualreport.crea.ca/2012/advocacy.php">promoted by the real estate industry</a> as a temporary measure, following the recession in the late 1980s, to stimulate land values and benefit the FIRE sector, along with it's economic offshoots - renovations, furniture, appliances, moving costs, tax revenue to government and so forth.
The FIRE sector has lobbied to keep in place ever since and also pushed for the threshold to be raised.
This is because most Western economies have constructed their tax and supply policies to reward real estate speculation over and above productive enterprise.
The process is assisted and abetted by a banking industry that seeks to lend against land as collateral, favouring the extraction of economic rent, over and above extending loans for the purpose of productive enterprise 
<img src="/images/2014/08/06/cashmore%20aug%206%20one.png" alt="">
Canadian residential real estate tripled from an estimated C$1.3 Trillion in 2000, to <a href="https://in.reuters.com/article/2014/06/19/canada-economy-debt-idINL2N0P00FG20140619" target="_blank">C$3.8 trillion in 2014</a>, however, only C$550 billion of this was for renovation projects or new home building - the rest was pure inflation.
By the end of 2011, the Home Buyer plan had been used <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/retirement-rrsps/why-the-home-buyers-plan-should-be-wound-down/article8211010/">2.6 million times</a>, with total withdrawals adding up to around $27.9-billion – that’s $27.9 billion of additional credit, feeding into existing house prices.
Between 2005 and 2011, Canadian house prices rose 58%, while average income for 25-34 year olds, increased by just 6%.
The <a href="https://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-housing/house-november2013.pdf" target="_blank">Royal Bank of Canada</a> reports that detached housing now requires more than 80% of the median household income for mortgage payments in some of the country’s major cities.
Household debt to disposable income in Canada is currently 163.2%, up from 129% at the peak of the boom in 2006 and sitting only a few degrees lower than the recorded level in Australia. 
SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD DEBT COMPARED WITH ANNUAL INCOME in Australia, Canada, France and Italy. (ABS)   <img src="/images/2014/08/06/cashmore%20aug%206%20two.png" alt="">
Mainstream economists like to focus on government debt as a barometer of the heath of the economy. However, high and rising levels of private debt, as a consequence of such policies, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.amazon.com/The-Next-Economic-Disaster-Coming/dp/0812247043">constrain demand</a> and eventually exceed the income and economic activity they helped create.
Nick Xenophon cites the <a href="https://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf" target="_blank">Demographica Housing Affordability Report</a> in his press release, however it’s clear he has not read it. 
If he had, he would know that like Australia, Canada's largest major markets are also rated as “severely unaffordable” – and by studying the ‘affordable markets’ such as <a href="https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/04/australian-property-through-foreign-eyes/">Texas</a>, or areas of <a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2014/07/28/pittsburgh-recovers-from-recession-better-than">Pittsburgh</a> for example, Mr Xenophon would have a better understanding why these states avoided the harsh consequence of the GFC, and continue to generate healthy levels of economic growth. 
Significantly, both cities have land tax and liberal supply policies that deter speculation – helping to keep real estate affordable, while investment is channelled into other areas of the local economy.
While, Australia rewards speculation, allowing the geo-rent (the unearned gains) from rising land values to capitalise into the land price, year upon year, taxing income earners, instead of resource rents, which by design, distorts economic activity, housing supply policy, and subverts social justice.
<img src="/images/2014/08/11/cashmore%20aug%2011%20one.png" alt="">
(90% of taxation revenue has distortionary effects, pushing up prices 23% higher than need be, while economic rents from land and natural resources have no such deadweight loss.)
Never, throughout the course of history, has such a policy been sustainable. 
At some point the productive capacity of the economy can no longer support the boom and the consequences, particularly for first home buyers, can be particularly severe, as <a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/Bubble_Economics_Egan_Soos.pdf" target="_blank">Australia’s history of land induced financial crises reveal</a>.
However, when you appreciate how <a href="https://blog.australiaboomtobust.com/2014/08/propertied-federal-political-class/" target="_blank">lucrative</a> and wide spread this activity can be, it is very easy to see how policy fails us, and it’s additionally easy to see why a country with a plentiful supply of land like Australia, submits its younger generation to a life time worth of debt slavery, just to get onto the ‘property ladder’.
</body></html>

Not a super idea: Raiding superannuation accounts will make affordability worse

<html><body>
Senator Nick Xenophon's proposed legislative changes to allow first home buyers to access their superannuation funds for a deposit on their first homes have seen many different reactions from property experts.
“With more and more Australians finding it difficult to break into home ownership, adopting the Canadian scheme would make a difference to many thousands of Australians each year,” said Xenophon.
The Canadian scheme allows first home buyers to extract C$25,000 for the purchase of their first home, which must be repaid into the fund within 15 years.
The scheme has been supported by some industry groups and businesses and derided by others.
Property Observer took the question to the experts: Should first home buyers be allowed to access their superannuation to fund the deposit on their first home?
Catherine Cashmore: market analyst <img src="/images/authors/fullbody/Catherine-Cashmore.png" alt="" align="right">
Nick Xenophon, along with other groups, such as the REIA, is advocating a policy that will be responsible for making housing affordability worse.   The procedure in Canada allows eligible buyers to withdraw up to C$25,000 tax-free from their retirement fund, on the condition that they pay it back over a 15-year period.   
If they fail to do this, the amount withdrawn will be taxed as per the income earner's tax bracket. Currently, 35 per cent of Canadians fall into this category. However, according to the CRA, roughly one out of two (47%) contributed less than the required repayment amount over the 2011 tax year.    The Government picks up the added income revenue windfall.
Buyers, buoyed by a rent seeking culture that fools the public into believing such policies are designed to be ‘helpful’, over stretch their budget and are left to carry the can in weak economic conditions.   In short - you borrow money from yourself at 0% interest and in doing so lose 15 years of compounding 'tax free' interest with average returns in the order of 7%.    
Many low to middle-income individuals have inadequate funds to draw upon. So even assuming the scheme were to be effective, the difference it can make to those that need the help is limited.   
But the real ‘nub’ of the issue, which Nick Xenophon has failed to acknowledge, is that the Canadian Home Buyer Plan was never intended to aid affordability.    It was promoted by the real estate industry following the 1990s recession to stimulate land values and benefit the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector, along with its economic offshoots - renovations, furniture and appliances, moving costs, tax revenue to government and so forth. The FIRE sector has lobbied to keep in place ever since and also pushed for the threshold to be raised.
Craig MacKenzie: RP Data executive general manager commercial, with research analyst Cameron Kusher<img src="/images/2014/08/06/CraigMackenzie.jpg" width="150" height="225" style="float: right;">
Pros:
<ul>
<li>Buyers need genuine savings given the price of housing in cities Sydney and Melbourne and the cost of renting saving deposit is extremely difficult, accessing superannuation would make it easier</li>
<li>Genworth reports that 1 in 4 first home buyers need assistance from their parents to enter the market, by accessing superannuation they remove the burden from the parents</li>
<li>In some instances tapping superannuation would mean that the purchaser doesn’t have to pay LMI on their purchase which would reduce the cost of purchase</li>
<li>The retirement savings pool is one of the largest in the world unlocking a portion of it would enable first home buyers to access one of the most basic human need, shelter</li>
<li>Superannuation is about forced saving for retirement, a home for owner occupation is a long-term investment so the horizons are aligned.</li>
<li>Ultimately the position is neutral with the Canadian scheme seeing the amount withdrawn from Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Plan’s (RRSPs) repaid over 15 years.</li>
</ul>
Cons:
<ul>
<li>Accessing Superannuation doesn’t address the key reason why FHB can’t purchase a home, that is that it is too expensive in many areas particularly those areas close to city centres and around major working nodes. </li>
<li>By accessing Super to purchase a home it would potentially increase home values further, much like the First Home Owners Grant has</li>
<li>Utilising Superannuation would allow FHB to buy in a location they otherwise couldn’t afford to, is this really a good policy given buyers should by in a location which is aligned with their current means to repay a mortgage.</li>
<li>The Canadian scheme doesn’t appear to have any penalty or interest associated with withdrawing that money.  The amount is paid back over 15 years however, that is 15 years over which that money could have compounded if invested elsewhere.</li>
</ul>
It should be noted that Canadian RRSPs are somewhat different from Superannuation as they are set up by individuals and in most instances employers don’t contribute to the plan.  It is about saving for retirement however, there are no compulsory contributions from the employer rather an RRSP is set up by the employee to save for retirement.
 
Turn over page for more responses, from Philip Soos, Helen Hodgson and Peter Bushby.
 
 
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
 
Philip Soos: economist, author and Deakin University PhD candidate<img src="/images/2014/08/06/soos-profile.jpg" width="150" height="180" style="float: right;">
<div>I staunchly oppose the suggested policy advocated by Senator Nick Xenophon, which allows potential first home buyers to access their superannuation to finance a deposit. Simply put, it acts likely a privately-financed First Home Owners Grant/Boost, which has the intended effect of distorting (and increasing) housing prices.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One of the most popular interventions in the housing market has been the use of federal government homeowner cash grants, in one form or another. They are implemented on the pretext of helping Australians realise the so-called dream of home ownership. This is false, however, as housing prices outpace the amount of the FHOG/B by a considerable multiple due to the additional leverage bank credit enables.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Put another way, the FHOG/B is rendered null and void, as it is simply capitalised into higher prices from the moment of its availability. The FHOG has the effect of pulling forward demand for housing into the present, with first home buyers stampeding into the housing market.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The pretext for superannuation is to help retirees, but in reality is designed as a pork barrel for the financial sector, which creams off approximately $19 billion in fees annually. Bankers already benefit from regulations allowing homeowners facing foreclosure to raid their super.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Xenophon’s policy makes it doubly worse – another gift to bankers through higher housing prices, larger loan portfolios, and rising net interest income. This senator owns eight properties; it is clear he advocates this policy out of self-interest, not out of any concern for first home owners. It is designed to increase home prices, not home ownership.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
Helen Hodgson: associate professor, Department of Taxation at Curtin Business School, Curtin University <img src="/images/2014/08/06/Helen.Hodgson.png" width="150" height="167" style="float: right;">
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Secure housing is important to wellbeing in retirement, but as the superannuation guarantee increases to 12% first home buyers hoping to enter the market will find it increasingly difficult to save a deposit. There are three major hurdles to the proposal to allow access to superannuation: 1. Increased demand increases house prices in the relevant price range: as Saul Eslake notes, first homebuyer grants end up in the pockets of vendors. Stamp Duty concessions have been scaled back with some states limiting them to new construction to stimulate housing supply. A similar strategy here could limit house price rises due to increased first home buyer activity. 2. Superannuation is a tax preferred investment, and allowing superannuation withdrawals would exploit this tax advantage. The accumulated superannuation balance is higher than other investments, and a salary sacrifice strategy could take advantage of this. This could be counteracted by taxing withdrawals at the marginal tax rate, less the tax paid by the fund. 3. The funds must be used to acquire and continue to use the property as a residence. There should be a requirement that if the person moves out of the property the funds must be repaid, coupled with compliance measures.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This article continues on the next page with thoughts from Peter Bushby and Terry Ryder. </div>
<div><hr class="system-pagebreak"></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
Peter Bushby, Real Estate Institute of Australia president <img src="/images/2014/08/06/bushby-profile.png" width="150" height="200" style="float: right;">
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It's been part of our (the REIA's) policy for many years now that it should be considered as a possibility, as long as it's packaged correctly, and as long as it doesn't harm, or have a negative effect on superannuation funds, and [first home buyers] would be paying it back in the longer term. We certainly believe it would be a tool to assist first home buyers., It would actually allow a lot of people to take advantage of and enjoy the benefits of home ownership that they can't quite get at the moment. They might be able to get the money at the end of the day, but if they got it earlier, it could be far more valuable to them, rather than renting and paying off someone else's mortgage. We believe that it is a viable option. Of course you'll get a negative reaction from the super funds and so on, but we believe that as long as it's operated properly, it could be very valuable. There are a couple of schemes that operate well around the world. We've identified Canadian and Singaporean schemes that could be translated, though obviously it would work differently here. But the Canadian scheme in particular could be useful to look at. It's about looking at the elements of it that would work best in our market without damaging existing super funds.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Terry Ryder, founder of hotspotting.com.au <img src="/images/authors/fullbody/Terry-Ryder.png" width="135" height="186" style="float: right;"></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nick Xenophon is suggesting a solution to a problem that does not exist. And, in the process, weakening the solution to a problem that does exist.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Xenophon's proposal is based on the premise that we have an affordability problem in Australia. All the evidence suggests that we do not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Before we start implementing solutions, we need to properly understand the "problem". It is assumed that, because first-home buyers are apparently less active than before, there can be only one explanation - that they cannot afford to buy. The evidence suggests another reason: that young adults are not interested in buying. They have other priorities. Their parents were married with kids and a mortgage before the age of 30, and today's generation doesn't want that. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So we don't need Xenophon's solution which, while addressing a non-existent problem, would weaken the solution to a very real existing problem. And that is the rapidly ageing population and the need for people to fund their retirement - for which superannuation is critical. Superannuation funds should be sacrosanct.</div>
</div>
  
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

Exclusive: The experts on super access for first home buyers

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
“With more and more Australians finding it difficult to break into home ownership, adopting the Canadian scheme would make a difference to thousands of Australians each year,” <a href="https://www.mortgagebusiness.com.au/breaking-news/7542-xenophon-to-introduce-fhb-changes">Senator Xenaphon said</a>.
“As HomeStart Finance said this week, there’s something strange about being able to access your super fund if you are about to default on your housing loan, but you can’t access it to put a deposit on a home in the first place,” he said.
Australia is in the midst of a <a href="https://housingstressed.org.au/get-the-facts/">chronic housing affordability crisis</a>. Housing price inflation has outstripped both rents and household incomes for over a decade, leading to a residential property market considered unaffordable both historically and internationally. Yet, instead of helping to resolve the crisis, Australia’s political class is apparently determined to maintain world-beating prices with poorly but purposefully designed policies to <a href="https://www.publicresearchinstitute.org/reportfiles/Economic/KeenTheGreatResidentialHousingDebateFinal.pdf">maximise prices</a>.
The public should ask “Are the property holdings of our federal politicians negatively influencing policy and causing them to ignore evidence?” The parliamentary register of members’ interests may help to answer this question, allowing for a summary report of real estate holdings for each Australian federal politician (which may be jointly owned with their spouse).
It is evident that politicians are heavily invested in the property game, with the 226 members in both houses of parliament with an ownership stake in a total of 563 properties – an average of 2.5 properties per member, conservatively estimated at around $300 million (563 multiplied by the median dwelling price of $530,000 as of <a href="https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/RP-Data-Rismark-Home-Value-Index-1-August-2014-FINALMK.pdf">July 2014</a>).
The real total is probably higher considering well-off politicians are likely to purchase real estate in prime suburban and coastal areas above the median (and not all property holdings are residential such as farmland and commercial properties). Property investment is popular across the political spectrum and is a common thread binding the normally divided and bickering politicians together.
<img src="/images/2014/08/06/Table1-1.png" alt="">
 
Australia’s federal political class own an enormous property portfolio, with only 13 of the 226 members (6 per cent) not holding any real estate. In the Senate, 76 members own a total of 202 properties – 2.7 properties per Senator – estimated to be worth around $107 million.
Further, 91 per cent of all Senators own real estate (57 per cent investment/commercial property/vacant land, 41 per cent owner-occupied and 2 per cent recreational), 75 per cent have a mortgage, and the top ten control a colossal 95 properties.
Senator Xenophon maintains an impressive portfolio of eight investment properties, along with Senator Barry O’Sullivan from the National Party who owns an incredible fifty properties (see Table 2). The high concentration of landed gentry in the Senate acts as a vested interest to pass policies which inflates housing (land) prices.
<img src="/images/2014/08/06/Figure1-1.png" alt="">
<img src="/images/2014/08/06/Figure2-1.png" alt="">
The 150 members in the House of Representatives also have substantial property interests. In total, they own 361 properties – 2.41 properties per member – estimated to be worth around $191 million. 
Moreover, 95 per cent of all Representatives own real estate (54 per cent investment/commercial property/vacant land, 43 per cent owner-occupied and 3 per cent recreational), 86 per cent have a mortgage, and the top ten own an astonishing 92 properties. Double-digit property holdings are maintained by David Gillespie (NP, 18 properties), Clive Palmer (PUP, 13 properties), Natasha Griggs (CLP, 12 properties) and Karen Andrews (LIB, 10 properties) (see Table 2).
<img src="/images/2014/08/06/Table2-1.png" alt="">
The trends in the data suggest a sizeable majority of federal politicians have a vested interest in maintaining high housing prices, particularly since most have mortgages over their own investments. A fall in housing prices may cause many politicians to fall into negative equity, providing a strong incentive for politicians to enact legislation which has helped fuel a <a href="https://www.australiaboomtobust.com/">housing bubble</a>, enriching owners.
When the top twenty members of the landed gentry in federal parliament own 191 properties, it is difficult to believe that politicians will address the real causes of housing unaffordability, despite the recommendations from <a href="https://www.propertyoz.com.au/library/A%20good%20house%20is%20hard%20to%20find%20report%20JUNE%202008.pdf">government reports</a>.
If federal senators like Xenophon are <a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/books">looking for solutions</a>, the focus should be on negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions and exemptions, liberalised SMSF and foreign property investment, first home owner grants and boosts, deregulated bank lending, land-banking, town planning, local infrastructure and development levies and the absence of a uniform land value tax.
The property-rich Senate and House of Representatives cannot be trusted to act in good faith on matters concerning real estate. Aversion to evidence-based housing policy has a long and tortured history, owing to federal politicians’ interest in maintaining the value of their collective real estate bounty, and also fearing a voter backlash following any substantive reforms that reduces prices, let alone the corrosive lobbying (legalised bribery) by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_economy">FIRE sector</a>.
Politicians regularly demonstrate flagrant ignorance of policies which lead to more affordable housing, having consistently implemented flawed reforms that actually increase prices. Negligence and indifference has become par for the political course, suggesting the direction of housing policy must be freed from the vested interests of an unrepresentative parliament.
 
<a href="https://www.australiaboomtobust.com/buy-now" target="_blank" title="Australia: Boom to Bust. Buy Now">Click Here</a> to purchase a copy of the book ‘Australia: Boom to Bust’ from your preferred book retailer. 
<a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/books" target="_blank" title="Bubble Economics">Click Here</a> for a copy of Bubble Economics by Philip Soos and Paul Egan.
Lindsay David is a co-founder of clean technology company GreenRigCo and a former strategy &amp; business development consultant. Lindsay holds an MBA from IMD Business School.
Philip Soos is an economist and post graduate candidate at Deakin University. He has recently co-authored <a href="https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/Bubble_Economics_Egan_Soos.pdf" target="_blank">Bubble Economics: Australian Land Speculation 1830-2013 </a>with Paul D Egan.
Paul D. Egan was previously employed as a supervisor and policy officer at the state government level.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

The propertied federal politicians: Pollies and their $300 million property portfolio

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The draft proposal to allow first home buyers to access up to $25,000 from their superannuation to buy their first home is absolutely ridiculous.
The whole concept of superannuation itself is to provide compulsory savings for people who are working, so they have a fund tofall back on when they retire.
At some stage in the future, Australia will not have a pension. Superannuation is a forced saving scheme, so people who are working now become self-funded retirees.
If first home buyers are able to access their superannuation in the first stage of their working lives - and most of them are under 30 years of age - they'll be taking a large lump sum of money that will take away massive growth from the early stages of their fund's growth.
What's appears to be a little problem now will turn into a catastrophic event when it's time to retire. It will just create another push on affordability, from a different angle.
If the policy goes through and it sees a big take up, we could see house prices go up, through greedy developers.
When there was the full switch over to first home owner grants for only new properties, you saw prices increase overnight for new house and land packages. One day they were $310,000, and the next day they were $330,000.
Superannuation is a very heavily governed industry. So I'm sure the take-up will not be as big, initially, as ASIC oversees the superannuation industry and it will be heavily regulated. But if it does take off, you will definitely see the sharks out there taking advantage and putting prices up.
Rather than dipping into their funds, and trying to outstretch themselves, first home buyers should rethink where they want to buy. If you can't afford to buy in an area, you shouldn't be trying to live there. If you can't afford to save a deposit for a home after paying rent, that also says you probably can't afford to live there.
Instead of taking money out of their super, first home buyers should think about changing their spending behaviours.
As a society, we have people to mow our lawns, we buy a coffee each day, we have our clothes dry cleaned, we're having our cars washed. We even have our dogs washed! 20 years ago, that never happened. It's about getting back to basics.
Every week, when you get paid, you should be putting some money aside. Some say, "that money simply isn't there". If that's the case, you're probably living in an area out of your budget. You should be able to save some money, even if it means you can't live in the most desirable part of Sydney or Melbourne. People are certainly living beyond their means.
You might need to live in the outer suburbs. Sydney is the worst location for affordability, even in the outer suburbs - so it might mean you need to consider moving to Melbourne. On the outskirts of Melbourne, there are plenty of new houses available for $300,000.
When I bought my first property, it was a little one bedder, and certainly not ideal. I saved by bum off to get a deposit together. And there wasn't a first home owners grant either. Homes are a lot more expensive today, but incomes are also a lot higher.
Of course, some industry organisations will support the proposal. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone wants to see a "good" property market. The developers want to sell properties. The real estate agents have to sell properties. They're obviously going to support it. The building associations obviously support it as well.
In reality, first home buyers need to rethink how they save for their first property.
TODD HUNTER is buyer’s agent, director and location researcher for Sydney-based <a href="https://www.wheregroup.com.au/" target="_blank">wHeregroup</a>.
He reached a personal investment portfolio of 50 properties in 2006 and has also started building an SMSF portfolio.
</body></html>

thunter-umjjMzoT8b

Allowing first home buyers access to their super isn't the answer

<html><body>
The Housing Industry Association has said that it’s time to allow young buyers access to their superannuation savings to assist with a deposit in getting into a new home, saying that it would also assist them in retirement.
HIA executive director, industry policy and media, Graham Wolfe, said that superannuation contributions are a form of forced savings to assist in retirement.
“Owning a home delivers the same result, but with the added benefits arising from home ownership throughout their working lives,” said Wolfe.
“Many young people are busy working, renting, repaying their education costs and in many instances, raising a family,” he said.
“Saving for a deposit at the same time is a significant challenge.”
He noted that enabling access to a portion of their superannuation will allow many first home buyers to accumulate a deposit, redirect their rental payments to their own financial security and allow home ownership sooner.
“Accessing superannuation for a home deposit would provide temporary access to their personal savings. Provided it was repaid to their superannuation accounts over a period of time, similar to university HECS repayments, their retirement savings would be assured,” he said.
“HIA urges all stakeholders to support measures aimed at improving access to home ownership for first home buyers, including assistance in breaching the deposit gap.”
Allowing first home buyers access to their superannuation is something that has been previously encouraged by the Real Estate Institute of Australia for some years, including <a href="/news/reia-urges-government-to-allow-fhbs-to-dip-into-superannuation-for-a-home">in their submission to the last government budget</a>.
It would follow <a href="/news/act/australia-could-learn-from-new-zealands-first-home-buyers-super-scheme-reia">New Zealand</a> and <a href="/expert-insights/investing/reia-lobbies-for-canadian-style-first-home-buyer-scheme">Canada</a>, who currently allow this.
However, last time Property Observer<a href="/news/exclusive-should-australia-follow-canadas-home-buyer-plan-the-experts-have-their-say"> surveyed our panel of experts about whether following Canada’s first home buyer schemes would work</a> for Australian first time buyers, most said that there are other fundamental issues that should be addressed before allowing them to tap into their superannuation.
</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