Property developer One Living, backed by former Macquarie banker turned investment manager Chris Green’s investment firm, has unveiled plans to bring more institutional capital into housing to help address the national supply crisis.

The New York-based investor has focused his firm, GreenPoint Partners, on addressing the supply shortage hitting middle market housing in Australia.

It is backing the new One Living business to develop more than 1000 units along the eastern seaboard. The new firm is starting with a development on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, in Sydney’s Northern Beaches, with around 140 apartments planned. They are eyeing off more sites across the city.

With cost pressures rising in the industry, One Living’s model is to be a vertically integrated developer-builder, so it can respond directly to the housing gap by removing the cost inefficiencies embedded in traditional residential delivery.

“We are building a platform designed to operate at scale and starting in a market where there’s a clear need for quality, attainable housing,” One Living joint managing director Joseph Scuderi said.

“It’s that missing middle – it’s that attainable end of housing… that’s what most Australians invest into and what Australians can actually afford.”

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="798dfa93-4941-4db6-a696-31e9dc18e81c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.31.50%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=mKBqi5C_DmeiXS.AtJkcR8LQIxqCqmFi" />

GreenPoint Partners brings years of experience assembling and scaling real estate operating businesses across major markets. And Green sees a big opportunity in Australia.

“For its size, sophistication and importance to the community, Australia’s living sector has remained largely under-institutionalised, which represents significant opportunity,” Green said. “GreenPoint identified that gap, assembled the right team, and is backing One Living to build a platform that is aligned to market needs.”

Green said being a builder-developer would give the company the capacity and flexibility it required to deliver reasonably-priced homes.

“We want it to be at that attainable level; not super high end luxury but at that attainable level,” he said.

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="74a5344a-4b26-4d4a-ada3-056b1220be77" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.32.15%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=vY8hXHO4reBMdO8ZXMWCNtGZJofUPQ3j" />

&nbsp;

One Living will undertake a component of affordable housing in its schemes, which it will own and operate, and it could also run build-to-rent on some sites.

Green praised local policy settings.

“The NSW government is being very supportive, strategic and pragmatic in terms of how do we generate more supply of housing,” he said. “We think it’s actually positive for development and the bit that’s been lacking at that attainable level is that it’s lots of relatively small private developers, whereas we want to create an institutional platform.”

One Living is also&nbsp;looking at high-density projects and could take on more institutional funding in the future.

“The way we will be able to achieve economies of scale is through size,” Green added.

Joel Robinson

One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition

It's been several years since there's been an opportunity to buy a brand new townhome in Melbourne's coastal suburb of Mordialloc. Even apartment developments in recent times have been few and far between in the area.

Local developer LDS Property identified the gap in new housing, securing a site on White Street, directly opposite&nbsp;Woodlands Golf Club Mordialloc. They've recently launched&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-townhouses/wm-residences-mordialloc-102-white-street-mordialloc-vic-3195">WM Residences</a>, just 13 townhouses which they have already started building.

Projects by Buxton Director Heath Thompson, who is selling WM Residences, says the townhouses x that perfect middle ground be

"Mordialloc residents have had limited options to downsize within the suburb, often forcing them to look elsewhere despite long-standing ties to the area," Thompson says.

"With very little comparable new supply coming to market, projects like WM Residences are well placed, particularly as buyers look to capitalise on current conditions amid constrained supply."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6109]

The development, designed by regarded architecture firm&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/ewert-leaf">Ewert Leaf</a>,&nbsp;adopts a deliberately restrained architectural approach, focusing on simplicity, durability and liveability rather than overt design gestures.

The boutique scale is central to the offering. With only 13 three-bedroom residences, each home is configured to prioritise functional layouts and everyday use, supported by private terraces and secure two-car garages.

Ewert Leaf’s design response leans into a calm, neutral material palette. Interiors are defined by oak flooring, white walls and soft finishes, creating a consistent and understated backdrop. The approach avoids trend-driven detailing in favour of longevity, with an emphasis on natural light and spatial clarity.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6110]

Beyond aesthetics, the homes are designed to meet contemporary performance expectations. Each residence targets a minimum 6-star energy rating, incorporating double glazing, comprehensive insulation and all-electric Bosch appliances.

The project’s location supports a walkable coastal lifestyle, sitting within close proximity to Mordialloc’s foreshore, Main Street retail strip and the train station. Local cafés and dining venues, including Suburbia Deli and Hendriks Café, are within a short walk, reinforcing the area’s established neighbourhood character.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6116]

While <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/mordialloc-vic-3195">Mordialloc</a> is often defined by its beach and pier, the project taps into other areas of day to day living, offering easy access to local food, casual dining and transport, rather than positioning itself purely as a lifestyle retreat.

WM Residences reflects a continued trend across Melbourne’s coastal suburbs towards smaller-scale, design-led townhouse developments, particularly on infill sites where proximity to amenity is already established.

With construction commenced prior to its market entry, the project aligns with a growing preference among buyers for developments with visible progress and defined delivery timeframes.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=134646]

WM Residences fills gap in Mordialloc townhouse market

&nbsp;

Developer GURNER™ Group has revealed $1.65 billion in residential sales nationally across the 12 months to December 2025, driven largely by the continued momentum of its Docklands wellness-focused precinct, Elysium Fields.

The sales result was generated across seven projects in Victoria and New South Wales, headlined by Elysium Fields, GURNER™’s $2.75 billion mixed-use precinct planned for Harbour Esplanade in Docklands.

The project has recorded more than $500 million in sales across the first three towers, equating to around 580 apartments sold.

The first tower, Helios, has now sold out of its 240 private residences, with GURNER™ preparing to release a premium penthouse collection comprising 15 three-bedroom penthouses in coming weeks.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370975]

Elysium Fields is being developed on the long-held 20,000 sqm Docklands site at 208-226 Harbour Esplanade, which had remained undeveloped for more than two decades prior to GURNER™ taking over the project around four years ago.

Construction has now commenced across four towers ranging between 18 and 30 storeys, with Hamilton Marino and Maxcon appointed as builders.

Once complete, the precinct is expected to comprise around 1,100 residences, alongside retail, hospitality and public realm uses integrated throughout the site.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370981]

Designed by Fraser &amp; Partners in collaboration with GURNER™ Design House, the project has been positioned around the developer’s broader focus on wellness-led residential living.

“We don’t sell apartments. We create a true luxury lifestyle that simply doesn’t exist elsewhere in the market today,” Founder and Executive Chairman Tim Gurner said.

“To deliver that requires an extraordinary level of detail, coordination and discipline across multiple verticals, from design and hospitality through to wellness and service.”

“We’ve always believed that living extends far beyond the physical residence. It’s about how you feel the moment you arrive, how you live day-to-day, and the ecosystem that supports that.” 
[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370977]

The project’s design places a heavy focus on landscaping, wellness amenities and biophilic design principles.

Plans include around 3,700 sqm of landscaped gardens and open space throughout the precinct, alongside a retail and dining offering spanning approximately 5,000 sqm.

The broader public realm strategy centres around what GURNER™ describes as the “Path of Life”, an urban forest and landscaped pedestrian environment intended to connect the various buildings and wellness spaces across the precinct.

The apartments themselves will incorporate a range of wellness-focused inclusions, including purified air and water systems, circadian lighting, antimicrobial surfaces, and optional in-home wellness upgrades.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370980]

Gurner said the company’s experience through its Saint Haven wellness clubs had directly informed the residential offering now being incorporated into Elysium Fields.

“We’re seeing a clear global shift toward longevity, performance and proactive health,” Gurner said.

“Our role is to deliver that in a way that feels seamless, highly private and beautifully resolved within the environments we create.”

A large component of the wellness offering is planned through the resident amenity and health facilities proposed within the precinct.

That includes plans for bathing and recovery facilities spread throughout the towers, incorporating mineral pools, saunas, steam rooms, flotation therapy, red light therapy and wellness lounges.

The developer is also seeking approvals for what it describes as a “reverse ageing medical clinic” within the precinct.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370978]

According to project information released by the group, the proposed facility would include cryotherapy, IV infusion therapy, infrared and dry saunas, PEMF beds, MRIs, DEXA scans, brain scans and blood analysis services.

Within the first tower, Helios, residents will also have access to a dedicated amenity offering known as the Sky Private Club.

The upper 15 levels of the building will include private lounges, dining spaces, rooftop amenities and optional private wellness studios integrated within residences.

The Helios tower itself comprises 260 apartments ranging between 60 sqm and 300 sqm, including a collection of penthouses.

That includes a planned two-storey penthouse spanning around 600 sqm with uninterrupted bay views.

The Elysium Fields precinct is being delivered in partnership with Digital Harbour Holdings, a consortium that includes the Liberman family, which controls the development rights across the Docklands site.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370979]

The sales result comes as GURNER™ continues expanding its national development pipeline beyond Victoria.

“We have a strong pipeline across Australia and are now focused on scaling into key markets including New South Wales and Queensland, while continuing to build on our Melbourne base,” Gurner said.

“We currently have more than $3 billion in the market, growing to over $5 billion by October, and expect to materially outperform last year in the 2026 calendar year.”

The result also reflects the continued strength of the upper-end apartment market in Melbourne, particularly for owner-occupier-focused product with large-scale amenity and lifestyle offerings.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=144441]

Record result anchored by the Group’s “utopian” Elysium Fields precinct – defying market headwinds in Docklands.

Elysium Fields drive Gurner to $1.65 billion in apartment sales over 2025

National Australia Bank (NAB) will fund <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/palmera-residences-gold-coast-18-garfield-terrace-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Palmera</a>, a $1 billion, 52-level luxury residential tower being developed by Central Equity in one of the Gold Coast’s most tightly held coastal locations at Northcliffe.

The project, launched recently by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/central-equity">Central Equity</a>, one of Victoria’s largest private residential developers, comes at a time when construction funding for large residential developments has become increasingly competitive as lenders tighten exposure to the sector.

Multiplex has been appointed the builder, and construction is now underway.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365784]

Since its first project, Central Equity has delivered more than 85 residential developments with a combined end value exceeding $8 billion.

Palmera reflects Central Equity’s growing focus on the Gold Coast luxury apartment market and continues a relationship between Central Equity and NAB that dates back to the late 1980s, when the bank funded one of Melbourne’s earliest inner-city residential towers at a time when high-rise apartment living in the CBD was largely unproven.

“NAB’s funding of Central Equity’s $36 million CBD development in the late 1980’s to the financing of the billion-dollar tower today highlights the long-term relationship between the two organisations in delivering major residential projects” said Central Equity Founder and Chairman Eddie Kutner.

He said NAB’s early support was instrumental in helping establish the company’s development model.

“When we commenced our first residential tower in the late 1980s the concept of funding off-the-plan apartments was still largely untested in Australia,” Kutner said.

“NAB recognised the opportunity early and supported the project when others were uncertain. That relationship has now continued for more than 37 years across many developments.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365771]

Central Equity was established in 1987 when Melbourne’s CBD and Southbank precinct were still dominated by warehouses and commercial buildings. Fewer than 100 residents lived in Southbank at the time, and large-scale residential development in the inner city was not widely considered.

Recognising changing demographics and lifestyle preferences, the company began developing high-rise residential projects designed to bring permanent residents into the city centre.

Central Equity has provided accommodation for approximately 40,000 residents across Melbourne’s CBD and Southbank, while also incorporating supporting infrastructure including essential lifestyle facilities like retail spaces, childcare facilities and neighbourhood activity centres.

Central Equity has spent many years assembling the Palmera development site on the corner of Garfield Terrace and Frederick Street in Northcliffe, creating a supersite of around 3,300 sqm.

The developer said the Palmera apartment tower reflects its long-term view of the Gold Coast as a growing and increasingly diversified economy.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365768]

Supported by infrastructure including the light rail network, major road upgrades expanded education, hospital and medical facilities and continued expansion at the Gold Coast Airport with more international and domestic flights.

Positioned in the tightly held Northcliffe precinct, the 52-level tower will deliver 347 apartments, targeting buyers seeking a high-end coastal lifestyle, from downsizers to interstate investors.

Designed by Marchese Partners with interiors by DBI, Palmera has been conceived as a next-generation residential offering, featuring a collection of oversized apartments, with premium three-bedroom residences offering sweeping northern views stretching from Surfers Paradise through to Burleigh Heads.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=108274]

NAB funds $1 billion Surfers Paradise apartment development, Palmera

Two years after completing one of the newest developments in North Sydney, developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/aqualand-australia">Aqualand</a> is turning its attention to the rapidly evolving St Leonards apartment market.

The developer, which completed AURA by Aqualand on North Sydney's Walker Street, has lodged plans for a 5,918 sqm site at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/33-37-herbert-street-st-leonards-nsw-2065">33-37 Herbert Street, St Leonards,</a> seeking approval for a pair of residential towers rising above a shared podium opposite Royal North Shore Hospital.

The proposal forms part of the broader transformation underway across the St Leonards-Crows Nest precinct, where former industrial and commercial sites are increasingly being redeveloped into high-density mixed-use projects tied to major transport infrastructure.

<img alt="Aqualand" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2cc428cf-fe70-4cac-9cd5-264ad53af62c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.51.56%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=otKSnHtbjAvAddOnovyXQMgcAwE6DMe1" />

According to the planning documents, the site sits “within the St Leonards–Crows Nest Strategic Centre, identified by the NSW Government as a key area for accommodating future jobs and housing across Sydney.”

The proposal has been designed by fjcstudio, formerly FJMT Studio, and is being progressed through the State Significant Development pathway due to its scale and affordable housing provision.

The scheme would comprise 413 apartments, including 46 affordable housing units, alongside retail and commercial uses fronting Herbert Street. The project would also include communal open space, landscaping, a swimming pool, gymnasium, children’s play areas and podium-level resident amenities.

Planning documents show the development would consist of a part-13, part-39 storey tower form positioned above a four-storey podium.

“The development comprises a unified podium that activates the street interface, and two setback towers to accommodate new housing supply while maintaining an appropriate human scale at ground level,” fjcstudio noted in its Design Report.

The northern and southern towers have been shaped to respond to the surrounding skyline while also limiting overshadowing impacts to nearby public open space, particularly Talus Reserve.

The design report said the differing tower heights were intended to “contribute to a varied skyline while responding to the surrounding built form context and solar access considerations.”

<img alt="Aqualand" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="36da62dc-ff9e-41f2-a7e3-7be38373751c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.51.45%E2%80%AFAM_0.png?VersionId=Mo6Rp2r.XRLTzIfg_PEEpw8NepDH8UBs" />

The site sits directly opposite Royal North Shore Hospital and within walking distance of both St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

While the site itself sits just outside the formal Crows Nest Transport Oriented Development boundary, the planning documents repeatedly reference its alignment with the broader TOD objectives reshaping the Lower North Shore.

“The site is located adjacent to St Leonards Station and in close proximity to Crows Nest Metro which is within the Crows Nest Transit Orientated Development Accelerated Precinct which has been identified by the NSW Government to support housing delivery,” the Design Verification Statement noted.

According to fjcstudio, the project has been designed to respond to the broader transition occurring across St Leonards, where increasing residential density is being concentrated around transport infrastructure and employment hubs.

“The broader precinct is undergoing significant change, with a mix of existing mid-rise buildings and newer high-density developments,” the report stated.

“Recent and approved projects indicate a consistent shift toward taller built form, typically organised as tower-and-podium typologies with more active ground levels.”

The proposal includes close to 6,000 sqm of retail and commercial space across the ground floor and podium levels, designed to create a more activated street edge along Herbert Street.

Aqualand’s plans would also introduce a landscaped podium shared between the two towers, with communal open space in the form of a podium rooftop designed to support resident interaction and improve urban greening outcomes. The scheme would also introduce pocket parks at the northern and southern ends of the site, including a landscaped area at the corner of Herbert and Ella streets designed to improve pedestrian amenity and soften the streetscape.

&nbsp;

The proposal is being progressed through the NSW Government’s Housing Delivery Authority pathway, which was introduced to accelerate housing supply across the state. The application was declared State Significant Development in April 2025 following an expression of interest process.

<img alt="Aqualand" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="faf6d97d-2671-454f-b85a-fe1c6a7be608" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.51.49%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=diVd28OBVr5.YV.7prrOz.uAanwwwm7a" />

St Leonards has been particularly active with new developments in recent weeks. Developer SP Setia’s <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-sp-setia-targets-st-leonards-skyline-with-40-storey-tod-tower">plans for a new 42-storey tower</a> recently went on exhibition through the same pathway, while <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">Stockland’s 52-storey tower proposal</a> was also recently unveiled.

Aside from the St Leonards project, which is expected to take around nine months to move through the approvals process ahead of a potential 2027 launch, Aqualand is also preparing to launch Boronia, a new apartment project in Roseville comprising around 111 apartments on Larkin Street.

The developer also has approvals in place for the next stage of the Barangaroo precinct, which will feature new residential, retail, hospitality and community uses, alongside a new metro entry across the five-hectare site.

More than 50 new retail destinations are planned for Central Barangaroo, alongside a 270-metre-long boulevard connecting Hickson Park to Nawi Cove. Together with Harbour Park, more than 50 per cent of the precinct will comprise public open space and parkland.

First look: Aqualand joins St Leonards apartment party

Federal Budget

<html><body>
The Real Estate Institute of Australia have provided five key recommendations to the Federal Government in the lead up to the October 6 budget.
REIA President Adrian Kelly said in the mid-COVID19 world, policies to assist first home buyers into the market-place, and providing a boost to the economy through property, were at the forefront of REIA’s considerations.
“Agents, renters, investors and those looking to enter the market for the first time are all facing difficulties,” said Kelly.
The recommendations to the Treasury targeted key areas for the Government to generate economic activity that supports agents and their clients, with a focus on market entry for first home buyers.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/Screen%20Shot%202020-08-28%20at%2010.55.13%20am.png" alt="">
The recommendations are based on industry-led research and proven international models for the use of retirement savings to purchase property come from Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand.
REIA seeks the expansion of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme to include all first home buyers and an extension of the First Home Super Saver to allow access to pre-July 2017 voluntary contributions and earnings.
“For home renovators, we continue to support the HomeBuilder initiative by recommending a lowering of the program limits. This will encourage increased uptake of the program across the board for all Australians”, Kelly said.
“Lastly, for renters and property owners, for those working in the property sector and other industries that will take longer to recover, we support the extension of JobKeeper, JobSeeker and the rental support scheme, where needed.”
REIA suggested that the successful implementation of these policies could ensure Australia’s property agents continued support to renters and home buyers, and contribute to Australia’s long-term economic resilience.
 
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Home ownership for first home buyers critical to the 2020 budget: REIA

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Election season means transport season: just as the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-nsw-election-promises-on-transport-add-up-112531" target="_blank">New South Wales</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-will-voters-pay-for-an-early-christmas-eight-charts-that-explain-victorias-transport-election-106782" target="_blank">Victorian</a> elections gave us massive new transport promises, so too is the federal government relying on the enduring popularity of new roads and rail. But look beyond the rhetoric and the past three years have been largely business as usual. That leaves plenty of room for the next government, of whatever colour, to take a fresh look at how transport promises are made – and plenty of room to improve.
Last week’s federal budget committed to transport expenditure of <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1_final.pdf" target="_blank">A$7.4 billion in 2019-20</a>, and A$33 billion over the four-year forward estimates period.
The government claims it’s spending a <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/community.htm#transport" target="_blank">record A$100 billion</a> over a decade. Yet the <a href="https://www.billshorten.com.au/2018_budget_reply_canberra_thursday_10_may_2018" target="_blank">opposition claims</a>: “Across the four years of this budget, Commonwealth investment in infrastructure actually falls, from A$8 billion to A$4.5 billion.” And <a href="https://www.afr.com/business/infrastructure/coalition-needs-to-fill-infrastructure-shortfall-20190329-p518u0" target="_blank">Infrastructure Partnerships Australia says</a> recent budgets are down on the long-term average by about A$11 billion over the forward estimates.
How much is the government actually spending?
With such polarised views, who are we to believe?
In reality, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-transport-spending-is-about-par-for-the-course-but-the-pattern-is-unusual-114597" target="_blank">expenditure for 2019-20</a> is absolutely normal. At 0.37% of GDP, it’s close to the midpoint of spending on transport under treasurers Scott Morrison, Joe Hockey and Wayne Swan. In each of the past ten budgets, annual transport spending in the year following the budget has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-transport-spending-is-about-par-for-the-course-but-the-pattern-is-unusual-114597" target="_blank">0.26-0.53% of GDP</a>.
What is different is the extent of promises that lie beyond the forward estimates period. The move to a <a href="https://buildingourfuture.gov.au/assets/documents/10_Year_Infrastructure_Pipeline.pdf" target="_blank">ten-year pipeline of promises</a> might be fine in theory, but an interested elector can rely only on what’s in the budget papers. And from that they would conclude there’s nothing unusual to see here.
A new enthusiasm for equity investments
All these figures concern grants to state governments, which are responsible for transport networks. But, in addition to these grants, the federal government has developed an enthusiasm for funding projects “off-budget”. In the past two years, the Commonwealth made <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/ministerial-statements/2018-19-regional-ministerial-budget-statement.pdf" target="_blank">equity investments</a> of A$9.3 billion in <a href="https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/" target="_blank">Inland Rail</a> and A$5.3 billion in <a href="https://westernsydneyairport.gov.au/" target="_blank">Western Sydney Airport</a>.
The <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/charter-of-budget-honesty-policy-costing-guidelines__trashed/appendix-a-costing-of-measures-and-updating-estimates__trashed" target="_blank">Charter of Budget Honesty</a> states that an investment can be treated as an off-budget equity injection only if the government has a “reasonable expectation” of recovering the investment. In other words, the entity must be expected to make a positive return over time.
But this gives governments a lot of latitude. A positive rate of return is not the same as a commercial one. And there seems little likelihood of commercial returns in either case.
For Inland Rail, it’s no secret that the Australian Rail Track Corporation will <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/economy/barnaby-joyces-inland-rail-revenues-wont-cover-capital-cost-artc-ceo-says-20180219-h0wbvw" target="_blank">never be asked to repay the A$9.3 billion</a>, even when project revenues start to flow in 2025. Let’s hope the finance minister is right to insist there’s no prospect the project will need even more taxpayer support, despite the risks identified in the <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/bp1/bp1.pdf" target="_blank">budget papers themselves</a> and by the Commonwealth <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2017-2018_9.pdf" target="_blank">Auditor-General</a>. With no expectation of repayment, there is no practical difference between this “equity investment” and a grant.
For Western Sydney Airport, the government decided to build the airport itself after Sydney Airport Corporation declined its right to build it. The airport operator said the offer as it stood was “<a href="https://www.afr.com/business/infrastructure/airports/badgerys-creek-deeply-uneconomic-sydney-airport-ceo-kerrie-mather-20170216-gueiq6" target="_blank">deeply uneconomic</a>”. It cited operational, traffic, financial and political risks.
So it’s hard to share the confidence of the then treasurer (and now prime minister), Scott Morrison, when <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/govt-set-to-build-airport-rail-link-with-good-debt-20170427-gvtcmy">he said</a> the new airport will “generate an income stream that’s going to pay for itself”.
In both cases, if a future government ends up writing down the fair value of these assets, this will appear on the balance sheet as a change to “other economic flows”. It won’t be separately identified. Nor will the write-down show up in the underlying cash balance figure that the media spotlight highlights on budget night.
The unavoidable conclusion is that pushing transport spending off-budget seriously diminishes not only the discipline that comes from competing for funds through the budget process, but also transparency in how public money is being spent.
A foray into road pricing is stillborn
In November 2016 the government took an unusually bold step: <a href="https://transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/files/Australian_Government_Response_to_Australian_Infrastructure_Plan_November_2016.pdf" target="_blank">it committed</a> to holding an inquiry into road-user charging. The then minister for urban infrastructure, Paul Fletcher, was in good company. His commitment to commission a review led by an eminent Australian was in response to a <a href="https://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/Australian_Infrastructure_Plan.pdf" target="_blank">2016 recommendation</a> from Infrastructure Australia, which invoked a similar <a href="http://competitionpolicyreview.gov.au/files/2015/03/Competition-policy-review-report_online.pdf" target="_blank">recommendation in the 2015 Harper Review</a> of competition policy, which in turn referred to a <a href="/news">2014 Productivity Commission recommendation</a>. And the backdrop to all these reports was a <a href="http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report_part_1/00_afts_final_report_consolidated.pdf" target="_blank">recommendation of the 2010 Henry Tax Review</a>.
But time passed and no eminent person was appointed. More time passed, ministers moved portfolio, and no eminent person was appointed. Finally, in October 2018, current minister Michael McCormack <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/deputy-pm-michael-mccormack-shelves-inquiry-into-road-pricing-20181004-h1688d" target="_blank">declined to commit</a> to the inquiry.
An inquiry is no more than an inquiry, but a non-inquiry is a commitment to the status quo. Roads funding and roads investment are serious topics, and many <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/news-media/speeches/infrastructure-pricing-reform/infrastructure-pricing-reform.pdf" target="_blank">commentators have argued</a> that they are the laggards of regulatory reform.
A change to how road use is funded could significantly alter which roads are funded, what maintenance is done, and how networks are managed. It appears to have been all too much for this government. This task awaits a future government.
The alternative government’s most important promises aren’t the sexy ones about electric vehicles. They are <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/media/1539/2018_alp_national_platform_constitution.pdf" target="_blank">Labor’s promises</a> that Infrastructure Australia should assess projects before the decision to invest, and to release assessed business cases. These promises may sound worthy and a little dull, but in reality they are big and welcome commitments.
Less obvious is how to square them with federal Labor’s promise to advance high-speed rail, or the promise to <a href="https://www.billshorten.com.au/getting_melbourne_s_suburban_rail_loop_on_a_faster_track_sunday_14_october_2018" target="_blank">work with the Victorian premier “to deliver the visionary Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop”</a>. Both of these are massively expensive projects with nothing approaching an assessed and publicly available business case.
It would be a significant improvement if whichever party wins government next month were to commit to, and follow through on, careful assessment of transport gaps and problems, consideration of the various feasible solutions, and rigorous evaluation of the preferred approach. And it’s not enough just to do this; it should be done in public.
Let’s hope.
Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/business-as-usual-record-on-transport-leaves-next-government-plenty-of-room-to-improve-113571" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Business-as-usual record on transport leaves next government plenty of room to improve

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Half a billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but that really depends on what you’re spending it on. In Tuesday’s federal budget, the Coalition government announced its <a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-giveaways-in-frydenbergs-back-in-the-black-budget-114177" target="_blank">Commuter Car Park Fund</a>, a A$500 million, 10-year package intended to make it easier for people in the suburbs and regions to drive to their local railway station.
While this is a drop in the ocean compared with the wider transport infrastructure budget, we’re going to use it here as a starting point to run some thought experiments to see if this is the best way to spend our taxes to help people get around.
How much car parking could we buy for $500 million?
The construction cost for a single parking spot can range from <a href="https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/parkride/" target="_blank">A$10,000 for a surface car park to A$68,000 per space in multi-level structures</a>. So, if all the money is spent on surface car parks, the new fund could build 50,000 spaces at railway stations around Australia.
Of course, not all of these spots are going to be in surface parking lots – some will need to be in multi-level parking garages. So, if we built one multi-level space for every five at ground level, the A$500 million earmarked in the budget would buy us 30,000 parking spaces.
Does increased parking increase transit usage?
If these 30,000 park-and-ride spaces at train stations are built, this is unlikely to lead to an increase in transit patronage. It could even <a href="https://humantransit.org/2014/10/basics-the-math-of-park-and-ride" target="_blank">run counter to providing good public transport</a>.
On the day of the 2016 Census, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036" target="_blank">1,225,668 people used public transport to get to work</a>. <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036" target="_blank">Generously assuming</a> that <a href="https://chartingtransport.com/tag/car-occupancy/" target="_blank">a single car has an average of 1.5 passengers</a>, the Commuter Car Park Fund might enable only 45,000 extra people to access the public transport network. That’s a tiny 4% of the current number of people who travel to work by public transport.
But <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/03/how-park-and-ride-encourages-car-use/5034/" target="_blank">studies</a> show that only a small proportion of park-and-riders had previously commuted by car all the way to their destination. Many are existing passengers who used to walk, cycle, bus or drive to a different station but are now opting to drive to the station with new parking places. Non-commuters working or shopping in nearby activity centres also often use park-and-ride spaces.
There are at least 705 train stations in metropolitan Australia, and it is not clear from the budget papers where these extra parking spaces are going to be placed. Sydney has <a href="https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/2017/Train%20Statistics%202014.pdf" target="_blank">176 train stations</a>, Melbourne has 218, Southeast Queensland has 152, Adelaide has 89, and Perth has 70. Even assuming only 300 stations will need extra parking, that provides an average of only 100 new spaces per station.
More bang for your buck
There are cheaper ways to move an extra 45,000 people a day to and from railway stations and around our cities.
Linking a major university campus with a Skytrain station, Vancouver’s 99 B-Line bus service moves <a href="https://public.tableau.com/profile/translink#!/vizhome/2017TSPR-BusSummary/TheWorkbook" target="_blank">56,000 passengers a day</a> at a cost of less than C$14 million (A$14.7 million) a year.
Similarly, in Toronto, the Finch West bus service carries <a href="https://www.ttc.ca/Customer_Service/Corporate_Plan/Appendices/Key_facts_and_figures/index.jsp" target="_blank">44,000 passengers a day</a> to and from the subway. The Toronto urban transit network moves <a href="https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/8bd3-TTC-2018-Op-Budget-Notes-V1.pdf" target="_blank">more than a million people a day with an annual operating subsidy of C$713 million</a>.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267740/original/file-20190405-123431-1f0fvg4.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Passengers transferring from the Metro to a feeder bus in suburban Montreal. Iain Lawrie/University of Melbourne, Author provided
Each of these cities has comparable urban landscapes to suburban Australia, but is able to offer buses to nearby stations every five minutes.
We understand that these costs are not necessarily directly comparable. We provide them though as a point to think about, and so you might begin to ask how our cities could be better configured.
Better land use around train stations?
Alternatives like direct and frequent buses <a href="https://theconversation.com/freeing-up-the-huge-areas-set-aside-for-parking-can-transform-our-cities-85331" target="_blank">could liberate space around our suburban train stations</a>. Around the world, stations are community hubs, and even simple stations can be wonderful, vibrant places for people. The best ones are a pleasure to move through and spend time in, unencumbered by the conflict and noise of space dominated by car traffic.
Building car parks wastes that place potential. Instead, it bakes in the mobility habits and planning prejudices that condemn our public places to being grey deserts, difficult to move through, and keeping out parks, shops, gardens, street life, walkability and human interaction.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267750/original/file-20190405-114908-1qfn7cz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Unsealed car parking at Tarneit station in Melbourne’s western suburbs. Paul Fleckney/University of Melbourne, Author provided
Underpinning the futility of the Commuter Car Park Fund is the fact that “demand” for free parking is fundamentally insatiable. Just like urban road space, building more of the wrong infrastructure simply <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3141/2543-19" target="_blank">induces more use and perpetuates congestion</a>.
Parking policy scholars and practitioners have known for decades now that parking demand can be successfully managed, <a href="https://www.foreground.com.au/planning/car-parking-choking-cities/" target="_blank">including via pricing existing parking supply and improving transport alternatives</a>. Pricing and related policies serve as an effective disincentive to people who don’t need to be driving (and parking), freeing up road space for those who do.
Urban congestion is a problem of the quality and connectivity of our public transport network, not just a parking and road space issue. We have long known the policies and mechanisms to shift higher proportions of people to alternatives (and improve conditions for those who need to drive). We still need the funding and the planning capacity to achieve it.
Australia deserves better transport policy and a clearer, better-informed discussion about how its transport funds are being spent.
Nathan Pittman, PhD Candidate in Transportation Planning, University of Melbourne
Crystal Legacy, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
John Stone, Senior Lecturer in Transport Planning, University of Melbourne
Rebecca Clements, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/500m-for-station-car-parks-other-transport-solutions-could-do-much-more-for-the-money-114908">original article</a>.
Main photo: With more than a million Australians using public transport to get to work each day, demand for car parking at the station is virtually insatiable. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/philipmallis/46402974731/in/photolist-23RbPF2-Gjsh88-2ekmTqK-bEfVA-EDLrAJ-TgfpQc-M5wkF7-HQRQVf-2aX7ext-23zY5e1-PZ8Qfk-RCDnAd-24Lw2wt-RqYRZD-2dUEmhR-Ng589h-2bQ5kHc-RVZuuK-PWm1gP-SA6aE7-2eWmyh4-P6mmSo-D5GjN-dgxvHq-aF3Lb6-bpCRM-KH53p-259W8Ku-aF7wpU-aF7Ah5-4a9Rot-dpDGsV-cwBpZw-9hKnjZ-5sb8ah-91JveF-GLEnUQ-v74pZ4-uadf16-HaSga7-r8ztRk-6Yj2WA-28mpmu2-HTJjNL-23nR3sx-2dGtnJt-BSC48H-RyFCw3-TdcKuw-23NSTS4">Philip Mallis/flickr</a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a>
</body></html>

$500 million for station car parks? Other transport solutions could do much more for the money

<html><body>
There’s relief coming for workers who have been driven mad by the bumper to bumper.
The budget seeks to encourage the workforce to instead park and ride on the train.
The first funds will be spent at Hurstville, Panania, Gosford and Woy Woy.
The $500 million national program has been dubbed the Commuter Car Park Fund.
It is aimed at providing carparking for the workers wishing to commute to work rather than drive into the increasingly congested CBD.
The bulk will be spent at Gosford which will get a $30 million car park. Panania and Hurtsville gets a $7.5 million allocation with $5 in Woy Woy.
“The Commuter Car Park Fund will allow more people to park and ride, taking tens of thousands of cars off our major roads per day,” the budget papers noted.
“This fund will focus on immediate, practical measures to cut travel times within our cities.
"Removing bottlenecks and improving travel corridors,” the Treasurer said.
It will include a $500 million Commuter Car Park Fund that will improve access to public transport hubs and take tens of thousands of cars off our roads.
NSW is budgeted to get a $50 million car park building allocation which comes under the $4 billion Urban Congestion Fund, which has been boosted by $3 billion.
It comes as Sydney residents have been increasingly frustrated by the unavailability of carparking at railway stations, and also annoyed at the increased road congestion.
</body></html>

Car park construction spree for select railway stations 

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Introduction
The 2019-20 Budget had three aims: to cement the Government’s fiscal credentials by delivering the long-awaited return to budget surplus; to provide fiscal stimulus to an ailing economy; and to help get the Government re-elected. It looks on track for the first thanks to a revenue windfall, this has provided room for fiscal stimulus and of course time will tell whether it makes a difference in the May election. Of course, while whoever wins the election will provide stimulus next financial year its timing and precise makeup won’t really be known for some time which makes the Budget a bit academic.
Key budget measures
The goodies include:
<ul>
<li>
Income tax cuts from July focussed on low to middle income earners of an additional $10 a week (following last year’s announced tax cut of around $10/week) which is mainly achieved by doubling the Low &amp; Middle Income Tax Offset.
</li>
<li>
More generous tax stimulus in later years especially for higher income earners (which builds on the tax changes announced in last year’s budget), starting in 2022 with an expansion in the 19% rate tax bracket and a reduction in the 32.5% rate to 30% in 2024.
</li>
<li>
Expansion of the small business instant asset write off by $5,000 to $30,000 until 2020 (which is also now extended to medium-sized businesses) and a drop in small business company tax to 25% earlier than expected.
</li>
<li>
A $75 to $125 cash payment to 3.9 million pensioners and other welfare recipients.
</li>
<li>
Greater flexibility for 65 &amp; 66 year olds to top up their super.
</li>
<li>Spending on energy efficiency measures including an equity injection of $1.4bn on the Snowy Hydro project.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>An extra $25bn in infrastructure spending over the next decade including $2bn for a rail from Geelong to Melbourne, and a large allocation to NSW transport projects.</li>
</ul>
Stronger revenue, but tax cuts
Thanks to stronger corporate revenue, better personal tax revenue thanks to higher employment and reduced spending the 2018-19 budget deficit is projected to come in at $4.2bn compared to $5.2bn in the Mid-Year review. The Government has assumed that this revenue boost is only temporary (see the “parameter changes” line in the table below) and has only used some of it to fund tax cuts and other measures. The net result is that the budget is projected to continue to reach a surplus in the next financial year, albeit its still only small at $7.1bn or 0.4% of GDP. The move to higher surpluses is slowed slightly by the fiscal easing from policy changes (predominately tax cuts).
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
However, note that the fiscal stimulus proposed for 2019-20 is actually bigger than that shown in the table below under “policy changes” as $3bn in tax cuts were already allowed for in the Mid-Year Review and if the already legislated tax cuts are allowed for in total its around $9bn or 0.5% of GDP. That said this is still relatively small and not enough to offset low wages growth and the negative wealth effect from falling house prices.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/4/3/AMP%201.jpg" alt="">
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The already legislated tax cuts for higher income earners next decade are designed to satisfy the Government’s commitment from the 2014 Budget to cap tax revenue at 23.9% of GDP (or total revenue with dividends at 25.4% of GDP) on the grounds that this is around the historic highs. This cap is now projected to be reached in 2021-22.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/4/3/AMP%202%20.png" alt="">
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Economic assumptions
The Government’s growth forecasts look a little bit on the optimistic side, particularly the assumptions for wages growth. It remains hard to see wages growth rising significantly over the next few years given unemployment is not expected to fall and on our forecasts is expected to rise to 5.5%.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/4/3/AMP%203.png" alt="">
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Assessment and risks
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Like last year’s this is an upbeat Budget. First the near-term tax cuts for low to middle income earners will help households at a time of soft wages growth, falling home prices and tightening lending standards. But while roughly two times bigger than planned a year ago, this will still be relatively small though at around $20 a week (enough for 3 rounds of coffee and a muffin!). Second, the Budget continues to recognise that we cannot rely on bracket creep to cut public debt. The Australian tax system is already highly progressive and is becoming more so with the top 10% of earners accounting for roughly 45% of income tax revenue, up from 36% two decades ago. Compared to other comparable countries the top marginal tax rate is both relatively high and kicks in at a relatively low multiple of average earnings. In fact only the top 20% of income earners pay more tax than they receive in government benefits. If this is not limited it risks dampening incentive and productivity. Third, the continuing focus on infrastructure is good for short term growth, productivity and “crowding in” private investment. It will help to keep the economy growing.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
 <img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/4/3/AMP%204%20.jpg" alt="">
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Finally, thanks to constrained spending growth and the surge in revenue in recent years the outlook for surpluses is positive.
 <img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/4/3/AMP%205.jpg" alt="">
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
However, we have still seen a record run of 11 years of budget deficits. While our net public debt to GDP ratio is low at 19% compared to 78% in the US, 70% in the Eurozone and 156% in Japan, comparing ourselves to a bad bunch is dangerous. The run of deficits swamps those of the 1980s and 1990s and this was without a deep recession! Rather we have achieved this thanks to a combination of ramping up spending at the time of the GFC and then not reining it in again. Unlike prior to the GFC we have nothing put aside for a rainy day and there is a risk that the revenue surprise will prove temporary if global growth slows or more likely Australian growth and employment disappoints.
While the Government’s revenue growth assumptions for the years ahead are modest partly due to tax cuts and they are relatively conservative in assuming that the iron ore price falls back to $US55 a tonne, a big risk remains that wages don’t accelerate as assumed leading to a resumption of poor personal tax collections.
Finally, the budget strategy and fiscal stimulus comes with greater than normal uncertainty given the coming election in May and whether the tax measures pass parliament. A Labor Government would likely also undertake a similar sized stimulus but there may be a greater focus on government spending and the timing may be delayed as a new government would likely have a mini-budget in the second half of the year.
Implications for the RBA
While this Budget should provide some boost to household finances and confidence – the fiscal boost to the economy and household income is still relatively modest and uncertainty around its timing and details may dampen any positive announcement effect. So while it will help the economy it’s not enough to change our view that the RBA will cut interest rates twice by year end taking the cash rate to 1%.
Implications for Australian assets
Cash and term deposits – with interest rates set to fall, returns from cash and bank term deposits will remain low.
Bonds – a major impact on the bond market from the Budget is unlikely. With Australian five-year bond yields at 1.4%, it’s hard to see great returns from bonds over the next few years albeit Australian bonds will likely outperform US/global bonds.
Shares – the boost to household spending power could be a small positive for the Australian share market (via consumer stocks) and there is an ongoing boost for construction companies. But it’s hard to see much impact on shares.
Property – the Budget is unlikely to have much impact on the property market. We expect Sydney and Melbourne home prices to fall further.
Infrastructure – continuing strong infrastructure spending should in time provide more opportunities for private investors as many of the resultant assets are ultimately privatised.
The $A – the Budget alone won’t have much impact on the $A. With the interest rate differential in favour of Australia continuing to narrow the downtrend in the $A has further to go.
Concluding comments
The 2019-20 Budget has a sensible focus on providing support to households at the same time as returning the budget to surplus. However, the actual fiscal stimulus is pretty modest - particularly for a pre-election budget - and comes with greater than normal uncertainty given the upcoming election.
Dr Shane Oliver Head of Investment Strategy and Chief Economist AMP Capital
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

soliver-smf6LQXgW9

The 2019-20 Australian Budget – the long-awaited surplus and the promise of more tax cuts ahead of the election: Shane Oliver 

<html><body>
The accompanying material to the Federal Budget highlighted the importance of the country’s property market, an addition welcomed by the industry.
The 2019/20 Budget provides a fiscal stimulus by increasing infrastructure spending and delivering higher disposable incomes to 10 million low to middle income earners, according to the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA).
“Whilst there were no major surprises in the Budget, the measures will lift the brake of economic activity," REIA President Adrian Kelly said. 
“The Budget papers forecast private investment to fall by 7% in 2020/21 and a further 4% in 2021/22.
“The Papers highlighted the importance of the housing sector to economic wellbeing pointing out that a 10% drop in housing prices reduces real GDP by about 0.5%.
“Given the recent falls in house prices and the possibility of further falls, which will be exacerbated if the Opposition’s housing taxation proposals are implemented, it is timely to see the importance of the housing sector to Australia’s economy illustrated.
“With the Government’s commitment to not altering taxation arrangements for future property investors this means that the increased disposable incomes of low to middle income earners can be spent on goods and services and keep the economy ticking over rather than higher rents and worrying about decreasing equity.”
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Budget notes importance of housing market to economy: REIA

<html><body>
Builders around the country have backed the key initiatives in the Federal Budget that will help promote economic growth across the country. 
Denita Wawn, CEO of Master Builders Australia, welcomed the Government’s announcements on new investment in skills, infrastructure and small business because they are targeted at what’s needed to strengthen the economy. 
“While there was good economic news in this budget, Master Builders is concerned that Treasury, in line with Master Builders forecasts, predicts a seven percent decline in housing investment. This reinforces the need to ensure that all housing investment incentives remain intact,” Denita Wawn said.
The Budget speech, by the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg acknowledged housing affordability was an issue for Australians.
<div class="story-content">
“Affordable housing is a priority for the government,” but for the second consecutive year the Budget failed to address issues either short-term or structural.
There was funding for affordable housing for community and social housing, but the Federal Budget fails to offer any new affordable housing initiatives, says an industry body.
</div>
While the previous year’s budget places affordable housing as a central plank, this year’s marks a significant contrast, says Nicholas Proud, CEO of PowerHousing Australia, which represents scale-growth community housing providers.
 “The nation built the most significant social bond and National Housing Finance Investment Corporation in the two years since Budget 2017, and further work around this infrastructure boost will be needed to tackle affordable housing deficits across the nation,” Proud said.
“It was terrific to see the Treasurer referencing NHFIC’s work in tonight’s budget speech.
“Their support will enable our members to scale up and deliver the affordable housing at scale that Australians need.”
Proud welcomed the 2019-20 Federal Budget’s increase in infrastructure spend, which is set to hit $100 billion over a decade.
“The infrastructure investments announced tonight complement these prior investments by helping to reduce congestion and make it easier for Australians, including key workers and those on low and middle incomes, to more easily get to and from work.
“Australia is heading for a slowdown in new housing delivery at rates never seen before which will place a handbrake on jobs, see less taxes collected, state economies decline and supply contract which only serves to place upward pressure on pricing.
“Whilst there is a federal election campaign just days away, the innovative leadership of the 2017-18 Budget should not be a one-off, particularly as we are heading to declines in future year building approvals of up to 50,000 dwellings compared to the levels experienced in the year up to March 2018.
“There are tens of thousands of families who, over the next five years, are set to see the loss of the NRAS One incentives which started to lapse in December 2018. A response to non-CHP managed NRAS homes is critical.
“We warmly welcome this budget’s record investment in women’s safety, including $78.4 million to provide safe places for people impacted by domestic and family violence.
“These Australians will also benefit from the additional tax cuts included in this year’s budget, which had a strong focus on cost of living – something that remains top of mind for so many people."
Ray White managing director Dan White congratulated Treasurer Josh Frydenberg on his first Federal Budget which he called a welcome ‘shot in the arm’ confidence boost for all Australians.
Some 10 million Australians will be showered with $158 billion in tax cuts,  with the average earner saving $10,000 over six years.
The pre-election Budget supercharges rewards for workers, small business, older Australians, women and the youth plus a promised $100 billion infrastructure spending spree.
“The Coalition’s tax relief promises are welcome and will be a shot in the arm to every household in Australia,” Mr White said.
“A strong economy needs ongoing investment and we are delighted to see the Coalition boost its infrastructure spending to unlock our regions and help ease congestion in our cities.
“This Federal Budget and its growth projections are heavily reliant on our already softer housing market holding up.
“But no-one in Treasury has a calculator that can accurately predict house prices. "That is the great unknown in this budget and easing house prices are clearly Treasury’s economic wildcard.
“Ray White remains optimistic about the Australian housing market but we hope the Government keeps its focus on the housing sector and is ready with a contingency plan if their assumptions and  forecasts aren’t met."
The Budget papers highlight the downside risk of a further deterioration in housing prices on dwelling investment and household consumption, noting that if consumption dropped one per cent as a result, this would shave a quarter of a per cent from GDP growth.
Treasury says new dwelling investment will only grow 0.5 per cent this year, before dropping by 7 per cent in 2019-20 and a further 4 per cent in 2020-21 as existing projects are completed.
</body></html>

Budget criticised for lack of affordable housing initiatives 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Infrastructure spending is one of the central themes of Treasurer Frydenberg’s budget speech. His headline announcement was the promise to increase the ten-year federal infrastructure spend from the A$75 billion announced last year to a target of $100 billion.
Major projects previously announced – like the Melbourne Airport rail link, Western Sydney’s north-south airport rail link and Queensland’s Bruce Highway upgrade – are affirmed. A fast rail connection from Melbourne to Geelong is added. Also added are nation-wide packages of roadworks targeted at reducing congestion and improving regional freight corridors.
So the announcements continue the infrastructure program detailed in the 2018-19 budget, as promoted regularly in the government’s expensive “Building Our Future” advertising campaign that gives prominence to the government’s ten-year “Infrastructure Pipeline”.
Lack of transparency is an issue
It needs saying that analysts have found it difficult to verify what last year’s $75 billion promise actually involved. The claim is the subject of a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201819/Infrastructure" target="_blank">major investigative paper by the Australian Parliamentary Library</a>, with its authors observing:
"The Parliamentary Library has been unable to locate any public document which provides a transparent overview of [the federal government’s] total infrastructure commitments."
One suspects that scrutiny over coming weeks of the $100 billion infrastructure spending promises will be thwarted by a repetition of this lack of transparency.
Why are infrastructure needs so great?
The <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/Population" target="_blank">national population growth story</a> is the key framework for assessing the Coalition’s infrastructure plan. Between 1901 and 1948, the nation grew steadily, but modestly, from a population of 3.8 million to 7.7 million. Then the population surged on the back of a post-war baby boom and an expansion of immigration. The population grew by between 2.0 and 2.5 million people each decade from the 1950s through to the 2000s.
But in the last decade, the nation has added nearly 6 million people, with the east coast cities overwhelmingly hosting the increase. Urban infrastructure planning and spending have lagged. Both quality of life and economic productivity have been affected adversely as a consequence.
The infrastructure spending in this budget responds to community concerns about these declines.
We now know we failed to properly plan for and fund the surge in urban growth that has carried congestion on its back. Instead, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08111146.2016.1235034?casa_token=JZ87b43jKfsAAAAA:4CYq12H1N4Hddq0IxoJ93gfPfvN-YN4Vl5TJsRJL56XcNzX54kOpmkt6H_b85H6py-emtkl_CpfelA" target="_blank">large federal government surpluses from the 1990s were steered into debt paybacks</a>.
The Future Fund was also created to cover public service pension liabilities. That fund is now custodian of over <a href="https://www.futurefund.gov.au/investment/investment-performance/portfolio-updates" target="_blank">$150 billion worth of assets</a>.
Dissolving pension liabilities is wise economic management. Australia’s problem is that this resolution took place at the expense of national capital works spending. Around this time, the state-owned utilities that had taken responsibility for the roll-out of post-war infrastructure – with their regular, predictable annual capital works budgets and their vast in-house planning and delivery offices – were on their last legs.
The loss of committed funding and the erosion of the utilities <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/infrastructure/report" target="_blank">stalled infrastructure delivery</a> at a time in Australian history when it was most needed. The urban infrastructure projects for coping with the acceleration of urban growth are only now coming on stream.
New funding streams have had to be found, led by a new round of state-based asset sell-offs – in New South Wales especially – and new models of private sector delivery, ownership and operation. Pretty much all new urban infrastructure projects in Australia are now some sort of <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8462.2005.00385.x" target="_blank">private public partnership</a>.
But, as this budget confirms, private sector involvement in infrastructure spending and delivery needs to be leveraged on the back of public funding and protected from project risk by a raft of government measures. An important risk amelioration measure involves decision-making technologies.
Here, the growing expertise within the federal government’s Infrastructure Australia unit is increasingly important. Established by the Rudd Labor government a decade ago, IA struggled for legitimacy for many years. Now we can see <a href="https://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/IA18-4005_Priority_List_2019_ACC_L.pdf" target="_blank">Infrastructure Australia’s priority lists</a> – based on its independent assessments – dominating government budget announcements. Indeed, the government’s ten-year <a href="https://buildingourfuture.gov.au/assets/documents/10_Year_Infrastructure_Pipeline.pdf" target="_blank">Infrastructure Investment Pipeline</a> is a very close reproduction of Infrastructure Australia’s national priority listing. Which is a good thing.
Why the focus on roads?
The problem, of course, is that rather than infrastructure steering urban growth, as would have been the case had the Howard Coalition government not dramatically lowered the level of national capital works spending, infrastructure spending now chases urban growth.
Not surprisingly, the Morrison government packages a bundle of roads spending as “urban congestion” measures, acknowledging that transport planning has been inadequate.
The concentration on roads spending also acknowledges that the millennial growth surge in our cities has been geographically perverse. Greenfields residential projects are rarely aligned to public transport systems. And jobs growth has been a mix of CBD obsession and suburban scatter.
The result is congestion of antiquated CBD-centric public transport systems and suburban journey-to-work patterns that make retrofitting of public transport an impossible task.
No doubt there will be criticism of this budget’s apparent obsession with roads spending. The unfortunate reality is that large sections of our cities are stuck with the roads-based configuration that was instilled into their DNA from the get-go. Roads – not rail – are the thoroughfares that define transport options across our new suburban areas into the future.
Getting used to road spending and having constructive things to say about road use are a major challenge.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114598/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Phillip O'Neill, Director, Centre for Western Sydney, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/congestion-busting-infrastructure-plays-catch-up-on-long-neglected-needs-114598" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Congestion-busting infrastructure plays catch-up on long-neglected need

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The tens of thousands of young people who were protesting at the school climate strike two weeks ago know that they are being left a stinking great environmental mess to clean up.
But I suspect that many are yet to appreciate that this is not the only mess they’ll be left with.
Australia’s tax and welfare system is built around an <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/the-wealth-of-generations/" target="_blank">implicit generational bargain</a>. Working-age Australians, as a group, are net contributors to the budget – they pay more in taxes than they receive in either benefits or spending. These contributions support older Australians who take a lot more out in spending and pension payments than they contribute in taxes.
Today’s working-age Australians expect the generation after them to support them in the same way as they age. But this longstanding bargain is under threat.
A bargain betrayed
The number of working-age Australians for every person aged 65 and over fell from 7.4 in the mid-1970s to 4.4 in 2015, and is projected to fall to just <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2015-igr">3.2</a> in 2055.
This could be seen as just bad luck for today’s young people. There are swings and roundabouts we all have to live with.
But what’s less easy to accept is a series of policy decisions that have substantially increased the size of the transfers workers will have to make to older people – expanding their good fortune at the expense of the generations who come out of them.
Let me tell you how.
Budgets have been tilting the scales
First, future pension costs have climbed as a result of deliberate policy decisions to boost the rate and eligibility for the pension. As a share of average weekly earnings it has climbed <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0" target="_blank">from 30% to 37%</a> over the past two decades.
The ever-widening gap between the rate of the pension and Newstart, and the increasing ease with which retirees can get at least some pension, speaks to the political perception that there are deserving and undeserving welfare recipients, “lifters” and “leaners,” in the words used by Treasurer Joe Hockey in the 2014 budget.
Newstart recipients now live on A$40 a day compared to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/5/1/8/20" target="_blank">A$65 for full-rate pensioners</a>.
Second, health spending is climbing. Commonwealth health spending has been climbing by 3% a year over and above inflation for the past decade.
State health spending has climbed 3.7% a year.
The increase has been particularly stark for those in their 70s and 80s – with average health spend per person increasing by over A$4,000 <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/6537.0" target="_blank">in just twelve years</a>.
Most Australians support increased health and pensions spending. They might not, or might not support it as much, if they realised where it was coming from.
A series of tax policy decisions over the past two decades – tax-free superannuation income in retirement, refundable franking credits and special tax offsets for seniors – have meant we now ask older Australians to contribute a lot less than we once did.
Incomes for households over 65 have <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/6537.0" target="_blank">more than doubled</a> over the past 25 years, substantially faster growth than for households under 55.
But households over 65 pay virtually <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/6537.0" target="_blank">no more income tax</a> than people that age did 25 years ago. Indeed, the share of older households paying any tax has fallen from 27% in the mid 1990s to 17% today.
And that has contributed to a tax system where someone’s date of birth is almost as important as someone’s income in determining their tax contribution.
An older household earning A$100,000 a year pays on average less than half the total tax of a working-age household earning the same amount. Considered another way, an older household on A$100,000 pays about the same tax as a working-age household on A$50,000.
And these calculations exclude dividend imputation franking credit refunds that largely benefit older Australians. There is simply no policy justification for this degree of age segregation in the system.
We are facing intergenerational theft
One argument that is sometimes advanced to defend age-based tax breaks is that older Australians have “paid their taxes”. But in a generational sense, this argument does not hold water. Younger households today are underwriting the standard of living of older households to a much greater extent than in the past.
People born in the late 1940s, at the beginning of the baby boom generation, reached their peak contribution to the tax system in their early forties – and at that point they were contributing an average of A$3,200 a year to support older generations in retirement. An average 40-year-old today, born at the tail end of Generation X, is paying an inflation-adjusted <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/6537.0" target="_blank">A$7,300 a year</a>.
That is <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0" target="_blank">more</a> than they are contributing to their own retirement through compulsory superannuation.
Under current policy settings, the child of today’s 40-year-old will need to pay around A$11,400 a year by the time he or she reaches 40 just to sustain the current levels of benefits in retirement.
And ever-bigger budget deficits
In an economy that is growing, it can be sustainable for each generation to take out more than it put in, knowing it will be easier for the next one to put money in, but the sheer size of this growth in payments far exceeds that capacity.
That’s why the treasury produces an <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2015-igr" target="_blank">Intergenerational Report</a> every five years to remind us how ugly business-as-usual looks.
Without policy changes, budget deficits are set to grow ever bigger (even after what will probably be the temporary return to surplus promised in Tuesday’s budget) and net debt will expand to uncomfortable levels.
The unwanted fiscal inheritance will fall on the generation of Australians that have seen its incomes and wealth stagnate – the generation that has missed the property boom and is entering the workforce during a period of flatlining real wages.
So what would a budget that seriously tackles these issues look like?
We could still put things right
First, it would wind back some of the tax concessions for older Australians who can afford to make a contribution. It is simply <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/age-of-entitlement/" target="_blank">no longer sustainable</a> for comfortably off older Australians to opt out of taxes for two or three decades they are in retirement. The obvious place to start would be a <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/super-tax-targeting/" target="_blank">tax on superannuation earnings</a>, and winding back the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/" target="_blank">seniors and pensioners tax offset</a>.
The politics isn’t easy. The reaction to Labor’s franking credit policy gives a sense of what governments face when trying to wind back these transfers. The public hearings for the inquiry into the franking credits policy sometimes looked more like the frontline in a generational war than a staid government inquiry.
Here the contrast with the climate strike is difficult to ignore: while older Australians picket for their franking credits, young people are protesting for their very future.
Second, there would be no decisions that further undermine the structural position of the budget. If there is one lesson to take from the past two decades it is that commodity windfalls come and go. We should not lock in higher recurrent spending, or offer another round of tax cuts, every time revenues surprise on the upside. Nor should we pile uneconomic infrastructure investments off budget. To do so is to further weaken the generational bargain.
What if Tuesday’s budget was a start?
Ahead of tomorrow’s budget I should say that I hope I’m wrong.
I hope this government will use this budget and its election commitments to address our long-term challenges. I hope we can discuss generational fairness without it descending into generational warfare.
I hope none of us would want our legacy to be mortgaging our children’s environment and their economic future.
<hr>
Danielle Wood presented a longer version of this article as part of the <a href="https://esawen.org.au/" target="_blank">Women In Economics</a> federal budget perspectives event at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday March 27, 2019. <a href="https://iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address" target="_blank">Watch the discussion here</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114508/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Danielle Wood, Program Director, Budget Policy and Institutional Reform, Grattan Institute
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/expect-a-budget-that-breaks-the-intergenerational-bargain-like-the-one-before-it-and-before-that-114508" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Expect a budget that breaks the intergenerational bargain, like the one before it, and before that

<html><body>
Prime Minister Morrison and Treasurer Frydenberg will do their best to leave the cupboard bare next Tuesday while still delivering a budget surplus in 2019-20. 
It has been just over three months since the <a href="https://theconversation.com/myefo-reveals-billions-more-in-revenue-9-billion-in-fresh-election-tax-cuts-108889" target="_blank">December budget update</a> but once again the government has been gifted a windfall of unexpected revenues, despite a raft of economic data suggesting the economy has slowed its rate of growth.
This is because the things that really matter to the budget have all done better than was expected by the Treasury just months ago. Strong conditions in commodity markets and lower unemployment mean that in the current financial year the budget bottom line will be about A$3 billion better than had been expected in December, and about A$12 billion better next financial year.
Since the last budget only last May, the outlook for 2018-19 has improved by A$12.3 billion and the outlook for 2019-20 by $13.8 billion.
<h2>Going up</h2>
Rising commodity prices and export volumes have pushed up the profits and tax bills of mining companies.
Iron ore is the standout. Prices have exceeded the Treasury’s December forecast on the back of lower international supply (a result of the tragic dam wall collapse in Brazil) and continued growth in demand from China.
In December, Treasury expected iron ore prices to average US$55 a tonne. But in fact they have averaged about US$75 a tonne. That alone will add about A$2 billion to government revenues in 2018-19 and, if maintained, A$6 billion in 2019-20.
Add in a weaker Australian dollar and the combined effect will account for almost half of the net improvement in the overall budget position this financial year and the next.
Iron ore is only one of our exports.
Coal prices have also exceeded expectations, which should add another A$1 billion to A$1.5 billion to revenue over the next two years.
And there’s more to it than mining. Corporate profits have generally been strong despite some storm clouds forming around the banking industry and the economy more generally.
Another thing driving the better budget starting point is strong jobs growth and a lower than expected unemployment rate, boosting the government’s financial position through lower unemployment benefits and a higher personal tax take. The February employment statistics showed an unemployment rate of 4.9%.
The Treasury had expected the rate to fall more slowly, only getting to 5% by June and then staying there for several years.
If the budget cupboard was untouched, which it won’t be, the budget would have a deficit of next to nothing this financial year and an impressive surplus as high as 1% of gross domestic product next year, a year ahead of the government’s schedule.
<h2>But it mightn’t last</h2>
These upside surprises from the corporate tax take can just as quickly go the other way.
Assuming they will last, as budgets often do, would be to make the same mistake as the Howard-Costello government, which made permanent changes to tax rates and commitments on the back of revenue that prove to be temporary. So did the Gillard-Swan government some years later with its “spreading the benefits of the boom” package.
Corporate profits might struggle to improve in future years in an increasingly difficult economic environment. No one knows what will happen with commodity prices. Right now China is using infrastructure spending to stimulate its economy, but it won’t always do that. Eventually its growth will be less metal-intensive.
But with the government well behind in the polls, I doubt these considerations are getting much attention.
<h2>China drives budgets, the US drives rates</h2>
The US economy sets the global price of money, which in turn determines the environment in which our Reserve Bank sets Australian interest rates and works out how to deal with the bursting of the housing bubble, which was itself in no small part the result of an easy US monetary policy in the wake of the global financial crisis.
China, on the other hand, determines the global price of commodities and trade flows and so helps determine corporate profitability in Australia.
This contrast between the two has never been greater, with the government flush with unexpected revenues while the Reserve Bank walks a knife-edge of low real economic growth, financial stability risks, and already easy monetary policy.
It is best summed up in this chart of real and nominal gross domestic product, which shows annual growth in real GDP (which affects the economy) slowing to 2.3% while growth in nominal GDP (which drives the dollars flowing into the Treasury) growth climbing to more than 5%.
<hr>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265512/original/file-20190325-36276-1r5rog7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265512/original/file-20190325-36276-1r5rog7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""> </a>SOURCE: <a class="source" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5206.0" target="_blank">ABS National Accounts</a>
Looking beyond this budget, the major risk for the Australian economy is a retrenchment of consumer spending on the back of falling house prices and tighter credit conditions.
The national accounts suggest it has already started.
The worry is that domestic spending, which is dominated by consumer spending, will weaken to the point at which it forces businesses to shelve hiring and investment plans, pushing unemployment back up.
A vicious cycle could result in some type of recession.
How can the government and the Reserve Bank try to control these risks?
One way would be to do what they have always done and cut interest rates in an attempt to boost household and business cash flows.
Another would be to take some of the free cash being generated by China and use it to boost domestic demand through temporary arrangements that help the economy ride out the adjustment to lower house prices.
It could be done in many forms including tax cuts and targeted cash injections into low and middle income households.
<h2>Expect extra and earlier tax cuts</h2>
The government has known about the much better revenue position for months.
To date it has displayed incredible restraint in spending it.
New policy announcements since the December update have been limited to about A$500 billion a year, which isn’t bad for a government facing an election wipeout before winter.
But it would be wise not to get too glowing about its restraint.
Instead we should expect a cascade of policy announcements culminating in a major tax cut to be revealed on budget night next Tuesday.
The government has a A$12 billion war chest.
It is most likely to spend it in the form of tax cuts, most likely by bringing forward the second stage of the already announced cuts due to take effect in July 2022.
That would mean lifting the ceiling for the 32.5% tax rate from A$90,000 to A$120,000 and lifting the ceiling for the 19% rate from A$37,000 to A$41,000.
Bringing forward those already legislated tax cuts by three years to July 2019 would cost the budget less than A$10 billion a year and still leave room for a surplus in 2019-20 and room for targeted election pork barrelling.
With the government so far behind in the polls there is virtually zero chance this extra income will be saved for a rainy day. Although the Coalition’s chances of re-election are remote, Prime Minister Scott Morrison is an optimist who might think a surge of generosity and a few lucky breaks could get him over the line.
The more likely possibility of an election loss means Morrison will want to keep the incoming government’s cupboard as bare as he can. This means keeping the budget surpluses small so that if the Labor Party wants to go on a spending spree, it will have to renege on his promised tax cuts.
The good news is that whatever the government does in the budget and no matter what party forms the next government, the budget position is all but back in balance.
It will hold us in good stead should the global economy run into trouble.
It will be all the more needed if the Reserve Bank pushes interest rates below 1% over the coming year, leaving it little room to cut further.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113727/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/warren-hogan-530397" target="_blank">Warren Hogan</a>, Industry Professor, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936" target="_blank">University of Technology Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/expect-tax-cuts-and-an-emptying-of-the-cupboards-in-a-budget-cleanout-as-the-billions-roll-in-113727" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Federal Budget

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Federal Budget

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News