The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Joel Robinson

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

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

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

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

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

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

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

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

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

<html><body>
As if the negative gearing debate wasn't enough before the election, on July 1, there is another shocker waiting for real estate agents and property owners around Australia trying to transact in property exceeding $2 million.
According to a new ATO rule that comes into effect July 1, all Australian sellers of $2 million-plus properties will be classified as overseas investors unless they get a special tax clearance. That means that all buyers of $2 million-plus properties must deduct 10 per cent from the purchase price and pay that amount to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) unless the seller can furnish a tax clearance, according to a recent report in The Australian. 
While the move will affect everyone, including Australians, Chinese investors will be impacted more, especially when taken together with steps taken to squeeze Chinese buying in residential property. 
Chinese and Asian buying of Sydney apartments has already fallen 50 per cent in recent weeks and the trend is spreading to other markets, particularly Melbourne. 
The current measure can be traced back to the days when former treasurer Joe Hockey caved into pressures to curb Chinese investment in Australian residential property in 2015. In the process, the treasurer was convinced by the Australian Taxation Office to widen the net to cover local residents, says the report in The Australian.
According to an ATO fact sheet, in May 2013, the government announced that it would introduce a 10% non-final withholding tax on payments made to foreign residents who dispose of certain taxable Australian property with a market value above a specified threshold. The new legislation for this measure became law in February 2016.
The $2 million rule applies to vacant land, buildings, residential and commercial property, leaseholds and strata title schemes.
The ATO website says, "The government is strengthening our foreign resident capital gains tax (CGT) regime to assist in the collection of foreign residents' liabilities."
The definition of property is very wide and includes leaseholds but does not include stock exchange investments. A purchaser who does not receive a “clearance certificate” from the vendor and does not send 10 per cent of the purchase price off to the ATO will still be liable to pay that 10 per cent to the ATO plus, almost certainly, will have to pay severe additional penalties and interest. The economics of buying the property will be severely damaged, says the media report.
It suggests that real estate agents selling $2 million plus properties should study how this new tax regime would impact their business.
For example, banks and other financiers may be affected where their secured debt exceeds 90 per cent of the value of the selling price. In a situation where the owner is being forced to sell, the banks will be better to take possession and sell themselves rather than being caught in the “tax clearance” delays.
In the majority of cases, local resident vendors will have no problem obtaining a clearance certificate, but it might increase the risk of a tax audit for property sellers who:
<ul>
<li>Have not filed tax returns for many years;</li>
<li>Have filed tax returns, which would indicate they could not afford such a property;</li>
<li>Are selling their residential house at the same time as their neighbours to a single developer, which may give rise to a profit making scheme (such that the principal residence capital gains tax exemption may not apply to the value uplift generated by selling the properties together); or</li>
<li>Where the ATO has gathered information that indicates the vendor is in the business of developing property, which means that the principal residence capital gains tax exemption may not apply.</li>
</ul>
The post by Robert Gottliebsen says this might lead to a rush to sell before July 1 and might create some property bargains for buyers.
Another implication is that as property prices rise, more vendors will fall into the $2 million plus category. Over time, the ATO may shift their audit target identification processes to $2 million-plus property vendors and away from other areas.
Additionally, if the vendor has a tax debt, the application for a “clearance certificate” may in some circumstances involve the ATO seeking to recover some or all of that tax debt from the purchaser by way of a garnishee notice. 
While the report argues that the ATO's new rule will only help recover tax legitimately owed, the danger is in the complexity. 
The legislation is yet another blow for Asian investors in Australian property. Banks have already imposed a credit squeeze on Chinese property buyers.
On July 1, the Victorian state government is set to raise the levy on foreign purchases of apartments from 3 percent to 7 percent 
For a Chinese investor, getting a tax clearance would be tough, or else they would have to give off 10 percent off the transaction price.
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

New ATO rule on property deals over $2 million will hurt Chinese buyers even more

<html><body>
Negative gearing can't be equated with standard business tax practice, and is not allowed in many countries, says economist Saul Eslake. 
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has recognised this in the past, says Eslake in a recent post in the New Daily.
In a recent interview with the ABC’s Leigh Sales, Turnbull defended negative gearing as “income tax 101”, going on to explain it as  “a fundamental principle of tax law and has been forever that you can deduct from your income the interest expense of money that is borrowed to purchase an income-producing asset”.
This is quite a common proposition put forward by those who wish to defend the practice. It allows individuals who borrow finance the acquisition of an investment asset to offset the excess of interest they pay on those borrowings over the income the investment produces, in any given year, against their other income (for example, from wages and salaries) to reduce the amount of income tax they would otherwise be liable for.
They argue that this simply allows individuals to do what businesses can – offset the costs of ‘doing business’ (including financing costs) against taxable business income.
However, it ignores a very important difference between the tax treatment of companies and individuals. Companies don’t get the 50 per cent tax discount on capital gains which individuals have done since 1999 (nor did they get the CPI inflation adjustment to the cost base of assets which individuals did between 1985 and 1999).
Once upon a time, Turnbull appreciated this difference.
Eslake cites a speech by Turnbull from 2005 to a conference co-sponsored by The Australian newspaper and the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, in which he described negative gearing as a form of ‘tax avoidance’, one of the few open to PAYE and other ‘unincorporated’ taxpayers.
A month earlier in a paper co-authored with the ANU’s Jeromey Temple, Turnbull observed that “Australia’s rules on negative gearing are very generous compared to many other countries”, noting that “the normal deductibility principles do not apply to negatively geared real estate such that the taxpayer is not obliged to demonstrate that the negatively geared property will generate positive cash flow at some point in the distant future”.
People are, of course, entitled to change their minds – especially when, as Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said, the facts change, says Eslake.
But the only relevant fact that appears to have changed between 2005 and today is that Turnbull is heading a Coalition government, rather than being a backbencher in one, and he is confronting an Opposition advocating changes to negative gearing, unlike the Labor Opposition in 2005.
In their 2005 paper, Turnbull and Dr Temple argued “the concessionary taxation of capital gains encourages people to invest in a manner which turns income into capital and, as in the case of negative gearing, allows them to deduct losses at, say, 48.5 per cent and then realise gains and pay tax at effectively half that rate”.
They cited then Reserve Bank Governor Ian Macfarlane and other commentators as claiming “this divergence in the taxation of income and capital coupled with negative gearing has contributed to the asset bubble in residential real estate”.
Ten years on, the things that have changed are that the top tax rate is now effectively 49 per cent, that capital city residential property prices are almost 75 per cent higher than they were then, and that Macfarlane is no longer Governor of the Reserve Bank.
As Turnbull acknowledged, most other countries with personal income tax regimes similar to ours don’t allow negative gearing in the way that we do. The US removed it (for investment properties) as part of a broader package of tax reforms in 1986 – with no apparent adverse consequences for the level of investment in the housing market.
And two of Turnbull’s closest political soulmates – New Zealand’s John Key and Britain’s David Cameron – both recently introduced changes to their countries’ tax regimes explicitly designed to dampen speculative investment in housing.
New Zealand has subjected investment properties bought and sold within two years to income tax at the investor’s full marginal rate, with effect from 1 October last year. And last year’s UK Budget provided that, from 2017 onwards, landlords will no longer be able to deduct the cost of their mortgage interest from their rental income in calculating their taxable income.
In conclusion, Eslake says that Turnbull would do well to follow the example set by these, electorally successful, centre-right Prime Ministers, as well as the inherent logic of his own opinions of a decade ago, rather than regurgitating the self-serving propaganda of parts of the property industry.
Saul Eslake is a leading Australian economist. He worked as the Chief Economist at the ANZ for 14 years and has worked at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch. Between 2009 and 2011, he was the Director of the Productivity Growth Program at the Grattan Institute. <a href="https://www.sauleslake.com.au/">Visit his official website here</a>.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Negative gearing is simply a form of tax avoidance: Saul Eslake

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Hard-pressed ratepayers in New South Wales and Queensland need no reminding of the perils of municipal amalgamation. 
NSW experienced a sharp dose of forced mergers in 2004. Queenslanders underwent draconian council consolidation under the Beattie government in 2008.
NSW is now on the cusp of a further round of mergers being inflicted on unwilling councils.
In all three cases, the architects of compulsory amalgamation have been under the sway of the dogma that “bigger is better” in local government. Ratepayers are told amalgamation will herald a new dawn of lower rates, cheaper services, improved service quality, enhanced financial viability and superior administration and planning.
In NSW, the Baird government has especially emphasised the financial advantages of municipal amalgamation. These claims are typically presented as the outcome of careful research and deliberation.
Mergers tested in a real-world experiment
Are these claims consistent with the empirical evidence? My colleagues Brian Bell and Joseph Drew and I investigated this question for NSW’s 2004 forced amalgamations.
We took advantage of being able to use 2014 data to compare the performance of merged councils with their unmerged counterparts over ten years.
We compared amalgamated “general purpose” councils with their un-amalgamated peer councils in the same local government classification. We thus had the benefit of a “natural experiment”, being able to compare the two groups of “like” councils against a common set of performance indicators.
Our peer-reviewed research paper will be published shortl<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://esa.snapdev.com.au/news/15991">y</a>.
The criteria we used for this comparison included four the Baird government is using under its “Fit for the Future” program – operating performance, own-source revenue, building and infrastructure renewal, and asset maintenance ratios – as well as council employees per capita.
We found no statistically significant differences in the performance of the two groups of councils against these criteria. This falsifies past claims by the Carr Labor government that its forced amalgamations would substantially improve NSW local government financial performance. It also undermines the Baird Coalition government’s claims for its proposed mergers.
Evidence mounts against ‘bigger is better’
Other research provides additional damning evidence. For example, Joseph Drew, Mike Kortt and I examined the outcomes of forced amalgamations in Queensland in 2008. These reduced the number of councils from 157 to just 73.
Our research demonstrated that this resulted in a greater proportion of councils exhibiting diseconomies of scale. That is, mergers created entities that were simply too large to be run efficiently.
Furthermore, of the 31 new councils the mergers created, 58% exhibit decreasing returns to scale. Comparing their efficiency through time, we found merged councils performed worse than unmerged councils.
Finally, Elizabeth Sinnewe, Mike Kortt and I recently tested the claim that “bigger is better” by examining the financial performance of Australia’s largest council by population, Brisbane City. In our recently published analysis, we compared Brisbane City Council to Sydney City Council, the average of six southeast Queensland councils and the average of ten metropolitan NSW councils.
We did so using four measures of financial performance – financial flexibility, liquidity, debt service capacity and asset management. Between 2008 and 2011, the three comparator groups outperformed Brisbane Council in financial flexibility, liquidity and debt-servicing ability.
Taken together, these three papers cast doubt over the continuing dogma that “bigger is better”. They also add to the empirical literature on municipal mergers by demonstrating that “biggest is not best” either.
In particular, the financial performance of local authorities does not improve as advocates of amalgamation contend. On the contrary, amalgamated municipalities often perform worse than their unmerged counterparts.
Amid the controversy over the Baird government’s compulsory council consolidation program, our findings underline the foolishness of making public policy in an “evidence-free” manner.
If forced amalgamations proceed, we may well see hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer and ratepayer funds squandered simply because policymakers preferred dogma to empirical evidence.
Brian Dollery is professor of economics and director of the Centre for Local Government, University of New England and author for The Conversation. He can be <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-dollery-162945" target="_blank">contacted here</a>.
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Do mergers make for better councils? The evidence is against ‘bigger is better’ for local government

<html><body>
Hi Margaret,
We have a 1 acre or 4000 sq metre block of land , zoned farming in country Victoria. We bought it in July 2014 as an investment to develop it as a future home site.
If I sell a block of land with contract of sale dated in 2017 financial year, but settlement is in 2018 financial year, is CGT based on contract of sale date or on settlement date? It will make a difference as we will be retired in 2018 financial year and will be in  a different tax bracket.
The block of land, zoned farming, did not have a planning permit to build a dwelling or shed and has generated no income while we have owned it but we have made improvements. Are the cost of the improvements deductible? We have planted 600 trees at a cost of $1100.
We have drawn up a set of house plans and successfully applied for a planning permit to build a dwelling and shed at a cost of $1400. Are maintenance costs deductible?
E.g. 100 trips to the block of land to mow lawns, water trees, earth moving costs to remove dead trees, loan costs and purchase costs and selling cost.
Can we deduct stamp duty on purchase? Legal costs on purchase? Loan borrowing costs? Loan interest from date of purchase to date of sale? Loan discharge costs? Legal costs on sale of land? Council rates from purchase date to sale date? Break fees on a fixed loan for the land purchase if I sell before the 4 year fixed term is completed?
Thanks for your suggestions
Regards
Kevin
 
Hi Kevin,
According to the Australian tax office:
When you sell or otherwise dispose of real estate, the time of the event (when you make a capital gain or capital loss) is usually:
<ul>
<li>when you enter into the contract (generally the date on the contract), not when you settle – the fact that a contract is subject to a condition, such as finance approval, generally doesn't affect this date</li>
<li>when the change of ownership occurs if there is no contract (such as when a property passes to a beneficiary), or</li>
<li>if the real estate is compulsorily acquired – the earliest of</li>
<ul>
<li>when you receive compensation from the acquiring entity</li>
<li>when the entity became the property's owner</li>
<li>when the entity enters the property under a power of compulsory acquisition, or</li>
<li>when the entity takes possession under that power.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
In your case this means the event occurs in 2017 and this is the year the tax becomes due and payable.  If you have already lodged your tax return before settlement and the receipt of the proceeds, you would need to request an amendment to the prior year’s return. 
As for the remainder of your questions, you do need specific advice which takes into account all of your circumstances, including the purpose for which you originally bought the property and your intentions at the time.  Generally speaking though, I can tell you that:
1.   If this is not a working farm the zoning should not impact deducibility of any bona fide investment property related deductions.  You will need to get some specific advice around the planting of the trees, though, as they may not be deductible, unless such planting was required for the purposes of earning property related income.  
2.   Improvements to a rental property are deductible as long as the purpose for the block was to build an investment, and not to build future own home. 
3.   Once a property becomes income producing, maintenance costs are deductible.  If your intention was to build a property to rent out but instead you sell, some of your costs may become capital costs, but again this one would have to be determined by your accountant.
4.  You have a large list of other costs and again, their deductibility depends upon the reason you bought the block – if it was for an investment some may be considered capital costs (and so add to your cost base for the purposes of determining capital gains tax) and others, as long as the property was income producing, may be deductible as yearly expenses.  Even some costs which are normally yearly expenses can be added to the cost base in certain circumstances.  
It is critical that you consult with a highly skilled accountant who has experience in this area to be sure that you get the right advice.  Remember, regardless of what any one tells you, the responsibility for making the right claims rests with the tax payer.  Bad advice won’t get you out of trouble if you make an incorrect claim.
 
Have a property question?  <a href="mailto:news@propertyobserver.com.au" target="_blank">Ask Margaret!</a>
</body></html>

mlomas-KC9MUPZ6Ca

Ask Margaret: Is CGT based on contract of sale date or on settlement date?

<html><body>
Stamp duty revenue from home sales have started off 2016 in decline reducing surplus funds available for the NSW State Government's infrastructure spending spree.
Property sales netted $515 million in duties in January this year.
It was lower than the $551 million paid in January 2015.
Transactions were down to 14,800 from 16,400 monthly property sales a year earlier, in the quietest January for three years.
January is typically among the lowest months for revenues, but NSW Office of State Revenue figures indicated the 6.5 percent dip was the first since May 2013 that revenue was down on the same month 12 months prior.
Auction levels are running at less than last year suggesting the January dip may extend further into 2016. 
The latest February auction activity could signal the end of the bonanza enabling the high spending on infrastructure with February auction listings down around 20 percent at 2400 offerings. 
The auction market also ended a five-weekend sequence of above 70 percent clearance rates last weekend, slipping to 68 percent according to CoreLogic RP Data. Fresh Sydney for sale listings - auction and private treaty - are down 6.5 percent over the past four weeks compared to this time last year, CoreLogic noted.
After a slump in auction clearance rates in December to the low 50 percent, agents also blamed the wet mid-summer and an early Easter for contributing to the slowdown in activity.
The early 2015 strength in the Sydney property boom was being especially driven by properties valued over $1.2 million, the last NSW State Budget revealed, but the housing boom longevity was not being assumed by the NSW Treasury.
NSW land tax revenues were forecast to rise at a faster rate than stamp duty revenues, according to the NSW state budget papers when in her first budget, Treasurer Gladys Berejiklian announced a surplus of $2.1 billion for 2014-15 largely to windfall stamp duty receipts.
Stamp duty receipts were predicted to rise from $7.8 billion in 2015-16 to $8.6 billion in 2018-19, while the June budget papers warned that stamp duty is an "inherently volatile" revenue source for the state government.
The stamp duty fee, which remain at percent levels mostly introduced three decades ago, currently sits at a $5.33 billion total after the first seven months of the financial year.
 
 
</body></html>

NSW stamp duty revenues in decline

<html><body>
Bill Shorten believes there’s an affordability crisis in Australia. He believes he knows how to fix it. But I’m sure he doesn’t believe the tax policy he announced is the solution. What he announced is the smokescreen.
The tragedy for Shorten, the dead man walking of Australian politics, and the Labor Party, is that he is telling Australian households that he is going to force down the value of their homes. And that, in reality, the most likely outcome is that the cost of new housing will rise.
Short-term Shorten and his advisors don’t appear to realise that the high cost of new housing is the key to the affordability situation in Australia. And his policy will probably make it worse.
Firstly, the issue of an affordability crisis. Shorten apparently believes we have one. I believe we don’t.
The Housing Affordability Index shows that national affordability today is considerably better than it was five years ago. Sydney, following three years of big price growth, is the only jurisdiction that doesn’t have a demonstrably better affordability situation that it did in 2010. Everywhere else in Australia does. Even Sydney is marginally better off than in 2010. 
There were improvements in 2015 in many parts of the nation, reinforcing yet again that most of Australia did not have a property boom any time recently.
Jurisdictions which have a better affordability position now than 12 months ago include Perth (11% better than a year ago), Darwin (13.5% better), Hobart (7% better), regional WA (13% better), regional NSW, regional South Australia, regional Tasmania (6% better) and regional NT (10% better).
Affordability is essentially unchanged in Brisbane, regional Queensland and regional Victoria, compared to a year ago.
Sydney’s position is 4.5% less favourable, Melbourne 7.6% less, Canberra’s 9% less and Adelaide 2.6% less. But in each of those locations, affordability remains better than five years ago, even in Sydney (just). 
What we have from Federal Labor is what we got from APRA: over-the-top policy impacting the whole nation to attempt to solve a Sydney problem.
There’s going to be a major backlash against Labor once people realise the essence of Shorten’s proposal on affordability. He’s going into the upcoming federal election telling the electorate that the value of their homes is going to fall.
The essence of the tax policy announced on 12 February is that his proposed changes to negative gearing will somehow make housing more affordable. He’s not proposing to force down interest rates nor to lift average incomes, therefore the only way homes can become more affordable is for home values to fall. This would be seriously unpalatable for voters in the 70% of households that own their homes. It’s the ultimate election loser.
But home-owners need not worry. Shorten’s announced policies won’t cause home values to fall. They won’t make a single home cheaper in Australia because they don’t address the real causes of poor affordability. They have targeted the wrong culprits. 
And I’m quite sure Shorten knows that. Like most politicians, he’s not interested in addressing the real issues. He simply wants to give the appearance that he is. And he has achieved that by taking cheap shots at an easy target.
There are many problems with the announced policy. The first is that it’s based on a false premise - that the 15% or so of property buyers who are negatively-geared investors have a greater influence on property prices than the other 85%. (That 85%, incidentally, includes the biggest and most influential chunk of the buying market – home-buyers other than first-home-buyers – the people who have the numbers, the financial capacity and the motivation to pay high prices for homes).
Shorten says typical houses cost about three times average annual income 30 years ago and now it’s six times. He’s claiming that the small number of buyers who are negatively-geared investors are responsible for that change. He doesn’t provide any evidence to support this outlandish and quite illogical claim. He doesn’t provide it because it doesn’t exist.
He further claims that eliminating the tax claims of 15% of buyers will make housing more affordable. He doesn’t explain how that would happen.
But he is claiming his policy will make prices lower. If he’s right, that would be alarming for most voters. It would be also alarming for the nation, because the family home is the core asset for most Australians and the basis of their ability to provide for their retirement. 
This latter point is crucial. It’s the most important issue in the whole debate about negative gearing but is never mentioned.
Successive governments have told Australians they have to provide for their own retirement, because the Government can’t afford to fund the increasing numbers of retirement age people through pensions. We know that superannuation doesn’t cut it, so Australians need to invest to be self-funded in retirement. Governments need to encourage that. 
Negative gearing is one way to encourage people to invest - keeping in mind that it applies to all forms of investment, not just real estate. 
Eliminating it will stop many from buying real estate. Long-term it will cost the Federal Budget more than it saves - especially as the claimed savings are not great. Shorten’s figures suggest it will save the Budget just $570 million in the first four years, although I doubt he has considered the overall impact through loss of revenue to state and federal budgets – given that people buying investment property pay stamp duty, land tax and capital gains tax.
Shorten thinks that keeping negative gearing on new homes will cause investors to switch to the new product. But many won’t - because new homes are too expensive. On average, they cost $100,000 more than the equivalent existing home. That’s why 90% of investors (and most first-home buyers) buy existing properties rather than new. The negative gearing tax deductions don’t come close to making up for the price differential.
But if he’s right – and investors do switch to buying new homes – it will make new dwellings more expensive. If he’s right that prices are forced up by negatively-geared investors competing with home buyers, then switching all investors to new housing will create massive competition for a finite product and force up prices. Keep in mind that state government grants for first-home buyers are available only to buyers of new homes – and current Federal policy forces foreign investors to buy new properties, not existing.
So, if Shorten succeeds, we will have first-home buyers competing with Australian investors and foreign investors for new properties. Everyone will be trying to buy a finite supply of new homes, given that Australia is in the midst of a period of record creation of new dwellings and doesn’t need more. Shorten’s policy won’t make housing cheaper, it will make it more expensive.
And that brings us to the real issue in the affordability debate - the one that politicians including Short-term Shorten don’t want to talk about: the reality that government taxes and charges are responsible for the high cost of new housing. Multiple research studies have confirmed that more than 40% of the cost of new house-and-land packages are taxes and other government charges. Eliminate those and suddenly new homes are affordable to most buyers. A $400,000 product can be sold for $240,000.
So the real problem is not tax benefits flowing from government to the real estate industry - it’s the money flowing in the opposite direction, the taxes that are ripped out of the real estate industry.
Politicians never discuss this factor. They’re addicted to the massive amount of revenue they rip out of the real estate industry - over $70 billion in a typical year. They would rather blame unpopular minorities - a standard political tactic - than address the real issue.
The Federal Government, after two very long and expensive parliamentary inquiries which achieved little, has decided to make foreign investors the scapegoats. But forcing a small number of foreigners to sell back their mansions won’t make housing cheaper for first-home buyers.
Now the Federal Opposition has decided to make negatively geared Australian investors the scapegoats. It’s dishonest, deceitful and, frankly, disgusting.
Terry Ryder is the founder of <a href="https://www.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://twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter.</a>
</body></html>

terryryder-YECXbqmri2

Bill Shorten's Opposition makes negatively-geared investors the scapegoats: Terry Ryder

<html><body>
Property investments by SMSFs through limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) could come under increased scrutiny of the tax office this year, says major accounting firm H&amp;R Block.
Last year, the ATO had expressed concern at LRBA loans that were not structured correctly, including incorrect registration of the ownership of property bought under an LRBA. It spoke of increasing its focus on the LRBA route.
Given the growth in the SMSF sector and the increasing popularity of strategies such as LRBAs, H&amp;R Block has tipped that property will remain a top priority for the ATO’s compliance work in the SMSF sector this year.
“I know the ATO always keeps a close eye on property investment and especially LRBAs,” H&amp;R Block's director of tax communications, Mark Chapman told SMSF Adviser.
This particularly applies to related party borrowings which may currently be structured on non-commercial terms, with a June 30 deadline to have these structures rectified, it said.
According to the ATO website, an asset purchased by an SMSF trustee through LRBA is held in a separate trust.
If the loan defaults, the lender's rights are limited to the asset held in the separate trust, but not to assets held in the SMSF.
In 2015, an ATO campaign saw 500 postcodes issued with warnings urging holiday home owners to ensure deductions were not made during periods a property was not available for let.
“With property rental a valuable source of extra income for millions of taxpayers, it can be expected that the ATO will follow up with some targeted reviews and audits this year,” Chapman was quoted as saying.
The “sharing economy” – “driven in part by the high levels of non-compliance amongst those driving for Uber or renting rooms through Airbnb,” would also be an area of scrutiny by the ATO, he said. 
</body></html>

ATO to focus on LRBA route to property investment by SMSFs

<html><body>
There are tax issues for Australians living overseas but who want to buy property back home.
It in important the familiarise themselves with Australian tax obligations to avoid nasty surprises from the ATO.
Among the first things to establish is the tax residency status. They will be treated as tax resident of Australia if they meet certain criteria.
Some of the things that determine residency include nationality, where you were present and for how long, where you have a home, and your economic and business ties with the country. 
If you have stayed in Australia for more than six months of the financial year (1 July to 30 June), you will be a tax resident of Australia.
Then there's the domicile. If your domicile remains in Australia and you do not have a permanent place of residence overseas, you will be treated as an Australian tax resident.
If you are a tax resident of Australia, your worldwide income and capital gains are generally subject to Australian tax.
For non-residents, only income earned in Australia and capital gains on ‘Taxable Australian Property’ are taxable in Australia. Any income or capital gain from a property in Australia will always be treated as having been sourced in Australia, hence taxed.
Also watch out for countries with Double Tax Agreement (DTA) with Australia, where the provisions of the DTA may override the domestic law in both Australia and the other country.
If the other country also taxes the same income or capital gain, Australian tax rules generally provide a foreign income tax offset on any foreign tax paid on the same income or capital gain.
There is no substitute for professional tax advice.
Take the common example of an Australian expatriate who buys a home back in Australia while still resident of another country, including for tax purposes.
The house rented until the expat eventually returns to Australia, when it will become the family’s home.
The capital gains tax (CGT) treatment when the home is eventually sold will be influenced by the length of time when the property was not the expat’s main Australian residence.
An expat’s CGT position after owning the property for 10 years but home for only the final two of those years, would, according to Joe Galea, property tax partner for accountants Deloitte in Sydney, see a fifth of any net capital gain taxable.
</body></html>

Australian expatriates are to watch their tax obligations

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Through ATO ID 2015/27 and ATO ID 2015/28 the ATO seem to have cemented their position in relation to the application of s 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) to related party limited recourse borrowing arrangements (‘LRBAs’). 
Importantly, the ATO has since <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/In-detail/News/Non-arm-s-length-limited-recourse-borrowing-arrangements" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">confirmed</a> that their approach to this issue in future private rulings and litigation will be consistent with their view in ATO ID 2015/27 and ATO ID 2015/28.
In December 2014, DBA Lawyers director Daniel Butler noted that: 
SMSFs that are not benchmarked should consider doing so before any ATO audit activity occurs. Hopefully, the ATO may provide an amnesty to encourage SMSFs to benchmark to arm’s length. The big question here is whether the ATO will require retrospective adjustment.
Well it appears that the hoped-for amnesty has arrived. At a meeting of the Superannuation Industry Relationship Network on 10 November 2015 the ATO confirmed that SMSF trustees should review their LRBAs to determine whether they were established and maintained on terms that are consistent with an arm’s length dealing. While not certain, it also appears that the ATO <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/In-detail/News/Non-arm-s-length-limited-recourse-borrowing-arrangements/" target="_blank">will not require retrospective adjustment</a>, stating that
We will not be selecting an SMSF for review for the 2014-15 year or earlier years purely because the fund has entered into an LRBA.
The ATO is to be commended for this pragmatic and fair approach. Allowing SMSF trustees to review and amend their loan terms seems fair and reasonable, particularly given various uncertainties that existed up until recently regarding related party LRBAs.
The amnesty is not open ended however, with SMSF trustees being encouraged to take the actions suggested before 30 June 2016. From that time:
The Commissioner may allocate compliance resources to review an LRBA of an SMSF for the 2015-16 year or later years.
Further, while the ATO is not dedicating compliance resources to review an LRBA of an SMSF until 1 July 2016, if the ATO come across an SMSF with a non-commercial LRBA via their usual activity in the meantime, the income of the SMSF might be taxed at the non-arm’s length income tax rate of 47% in accordance with s 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). It is clear then that it is in the best interests of SMSF trustees to get their house in order sooner rather than later. 
So what does this mean for SMSF trustees with an LRBA related party loan?
We understand that with a diminishing number of banks willing to lend to SMSFs, related party loans may seem like an appealing option. However SMSF trustees need to be careful to ensure that related party loans are strictly on an arm’s length basis to prevent SMSF income being NALI.
For those looking to enter into a new LRBA with a related party lender, proper benchmarking is crucial. In practical terms this means approaching a number of bank/unrelated lenders and obtaining quotes for the kind of loan terms they would offer to the SMSF in their particular circumstances, and then ensuring that the related party loan mirrors the terms offered by the unrelated lenders. For those who have already entered into an LRBA with a related party lender, now is the time to closely review your LRBA to ensure that it will stand up to ATO scrutiny. 
Favourable loan terms which may suggest that a related party loan is not on an arm’s length basis include:
·         <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=%22AID%2FAID201528%2F00001%22" target="_blank">loans with 0%</a> or low non-commercial interest;
·         <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=%22AID%2FAID201528%2F00001%22" target="_blank">high loan to value ratios</a>; and
·         <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=%22AID%2FAID201527%2F00001%22" target="_blank">single lump sum repayment</a> at the end of the loan term rather than regular periodic repayments.
Further Training and Assistance
Advisers can brush up on the key considerations by signing up for <a href="https://www.dbanetwork.com.au/dbalawyers/seminars3/2712/3722/SMSF-Core-Course" target="_blank">Unit 10: LRBAs in the DBA Lawyers Core Course</a>. DBA Lawyers also offers a <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/smsf-borrowing-alter-terms/" target="_blank">service of altering the terms of an existing LRBA borrowing</a> and also <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/smsf-borrowing-loan-refinance/" target="_blank">prepares documents to refinance an existing LRBA borrowing</a>.
Those who are concerned that the favourable terms of their related party loan may give rise to NALI should seriously consider changing the terms of their loan to ensure that the parties are in the same position they would have been in had they dealt at arm’s length. While the ATO are yet to define a ‘safe harbour’ it is certainly prudent to mitigate the risks by having well-documented ‘benchmark’ evidence to indicate arm’s length terms and conditions.
Philippa Briglia is lawyer and Bryce Figot is director, DBA Lawyers and can be contacted <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

ATO to act soon on related party LRBAs

<html><body>
New South Wales homeowners will have to pay around $160 a year in an emergency services property levy which will be introduced by the Baird government in a tax reform that claims it will actually save people money.
Mike Baird, the New South Wales premier said that he estimated the move could see people save about $250 a year on their current insurance premiums, if they are insured.
Foreshadowed on the front page of the Daily Telegraph under the headline 'Triple-0 Tax', New South Wales treasurer Gladys Berejiklian ­made the announcement today ahead of a tax ­reform meeting of state treasurers, with the Baird government to label it its biggest tax reform in government.
Berejiklian said the new way of collecting the levy would bring NSW in line with other states and hopefully boost the number of people who take out home and contents insurance.
"This fairer model for funding fire and emergency services will reduce the cost of insurance and encourage more people to insure their properties," she said.
The emergency services property levy will replace the emergency services levy which now goes on household insurance bills.
It will fund firefighters and state emergency services workers around the state.
The new tax from its 2017 introduction will remove a similar charge from insurance bills that currently funds firefighters and state emergency services workers.
At present $800 million of the $1 billion a year cost of funding fire and rescue NSW, the rural fire service and the state emergency service is paid for by a tax on insurance companies, passed on to customers via higher premiums for home and contents insurance.
The government will argue that replacing this with the new system will mean the ­majority of householders are better off and that the system will be much fairer.
The government’s argument is that those who are ­insured are paying for services provided for landholders who are not insured and the introduction of the levy will create a fairer system.
They say NSW is the most non-insured state in the country and hope the change will encourage more people to have their property insured, as premiums will come down.
Under the current system, of an average $1000 a year paid in insurance, $200 is paid for the insurance levy.
For a person with that average land value, from July 2017, they will have a $160 a year charge on their council rates instead.
A new insurance pricing watchdog under former ACCC head Allan Fels will be set up to police the companies, who can face fines of up to $10 million for "unreasonable prices" should they not pass on the savings.
All other states have introduced similar levies and it has been estimated 810,000, or 36%, of NSW properties do not have home and contents insurance.
In Victoria, where a similar levy was introduced in 2013, a report by professor Fels found residents paid 18%less for ­insurance than before the reforms.
The ­reform was recommended by the Henry tax ­review and also by the royal commission into the 2009 Victorian bushfires with the goal of reducing the level of underinsurance.
</body></html>

tax

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

tax