Not all apartment amenities are immediately visible.

Swimming pools, gyms, rooftop terraces and residents' lounges have long featured on buyers' wishlists, but as the way Australians live has changed, so too have the features that make apartment living more convenient.

Increasingly, buyers are placing value on the practical aspects of day-to-day life. Fast internet, EV charging, secure bike storage, flexible workspaces and parcel management are becoming just as relevant as lifestyle amenities, reflecting changing habits and expectations.

Online shopping has been one of the biggest drivers of that shift.

Australians spent a record $82.6 billion shopping online in 2025, with almost one in every four retail dollars now spent digitally, making parcel deliveries a routine part of everyday life rather than an occasional convenience.

For apartment residents, however, receiving those deliveries isn't always straightforward.

Without someone home to accept a parcel, deliveries can be redirected to a nearby Post Office, left in building foyers or common areas, or require building management to temporarily store packages. As apartment living continues to grow across Australia's cities, parcel management has become an increasingly important consideration for both residents and developers.

Australia Post's Parcel Locker network is one response to that shift.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KPZ9j5FRdsQ?si=Qztc1dNP3ZvEIUhb" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Rather than relying on home delivery, eligible parcels can be directed to a nominated Parcel Locker, where they're securely stored until collected. Once a parcel arrives, residents receive a notification through the AusPost app or SMS and can retrieve it using a one-time code or QR code at a time that suits them.

The network has expanded to more than 1,500 locations nationwide, with Parcel Lockers positioned at Post Offices, shopping centres, supermarkets, transport hubs and, increasingly, within or alongside residential developments.

That growing presence reflects a broader change in how apartment buildings are being planned.

Developers are increasingly considering the operational side of apartment living alongside traditional lifestyle amenities. Just as secure mailrooms, bicycle storage and EV charging have become more common inclusions, parcel management is emerging as another feature that supports everyday convenience.

It also helps preserve the arrival experience within a building. Carefully designed lobbies and communal spaces can quickly become cluttered when deliveries accumulate, while secure parcel solutions reduce the likelihood of missed deliveries or parcels being left unattended.

For buyers comparing apartments, these everyday details are becoming part of the decision-making process.

Location, floorplans and finishes remain fundamental, but the features that simplify daily life are carrying greater weight than they once did. As online shopping continues to shape consumer behaviour, secure parcel delivery is increasingly becoming another amenity worth looking for.

Joel Robinson

Parcel delivery is joining the apartment amenity checklist

Inca Property Group has lodged a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for Dawn, a 53-apartment oceanfront development overlooking Mona Vale Beach.

The proposal, at 35-39 Darley Street East, would replace an existing 18-apartment strata building with a new owner-occupier-focused development comprising 53 two and three-bedroom apartments, including nine affordable built-to-rent residences delivered under the State's infill affordable housing scheme.

Positioned on a 2,679 sqm elevated site around 280 metres from Mona Vale Beach, the development has been designed to maximise panoramic ocean views while responding to the site's sloping topography.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/inca-property-group">Inca Property Group</a> Managing Director Josh Thompson said the State Significant pathway provided greater certainty for projects of this scale.

"This State Significant pathway gives the team real certainty to progress <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/dawn-35-39-darley-street-east-mona-vale-nsw-2103">Dawn</a> through to completion," Thompson said.

"It allows us to acquire a one-off site, design it carefully and deliver the right offering for the suburb, assessed by the NSW Government's planning department."

The project is one of the first developments in the area to be assessed under the NSW Government's Low and Mid-Rise Housing policy, with the site sitting on the edge of the policy's designated inner area.

The proposal includes three basement levels providing 124 car spaces, alongside a range of resident amenities including a swimming pool, gym, sauna, wellness facilities and private plunge pools for selected ground-floor and penthouse apartments.

<img alt="Dawn" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fc1a1daf-0ce4-4f12-9076-b1fa553c7a91" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-07-21%20at%208.42.11%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=4GZ9h.gpNkTljbxyAET8Jfhv51XUamDm" />

Thompson said Dawn had been designed specifically for owner-occupiers and downsizers, a buyer profile that has driven demand across Inca's recent Upper North Shore developments.

"The majority of buyers in our recent North Shore projects have been downsizers, and we are learning exactly what this market is looking for. Beyond the location itself, we have included resort-style amenities to deliver a genuine lifestyle offering," Thompson said.

Located within walking distance of Mona Vale Beach, the town centre, Mona Vale Golf Club and the Royal Motor Yacht Club, Dawn represents Inca's first Northern Beaches project following the sell-out of Tara on Park in Waitara and Ellis Residences, currently under construction in St Ives.

Construction will be undertaken by Inca's in-house construction arm, GOP Constructions.

Dawn is the latest major apartment proposal for Mona Vale, with the suburb emerging as one of the key beneficiaries of the NSW Government's new Low and Mid-Rise Housing policy.

New developer One Living, led by industry veteran Joseph Scuderi, recently secured a site on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, where it is planning around 140 apartments.

IPM is also planning its third project in Mona Vale, significantly increasing the scale of its previous developments with an 82-apartment proposal at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/159-167-darley-street-west-mona-vale-nsw-2103">159-167 Darley Street West</a>, opposite Bayview Golf Course and less than 800 metres from Mona Vale town centre.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/one-living-enters-sydneys-new-apartment-market-with-northern-beaches-site-acquisition">One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition</a>

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-ipm-plans-third-mona-vale-project">First look: IPM plans third Mona Vale project</a>

First look: Inca eyes Mona Vale with State Significant DA for Dawn apartments

Seasoned Victorian apartment developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/central-equity">Central Equity</a> has logged more than $400 million in sales in its luxury apartment project Palmera Residences at Northcliffe on the Gold Coast.&nbsp;

Central Equity Director Karl Kutner said the sales result reflected a combination of location, product quality and delivery certainty with the project already under construction by building powerhouse Multiplex.&nbsp;

"Surpassing $400 million in sales since launch is a significant milestone and an outstanding endorsement of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/palmera-residences-gold-coast-18-garfield-terrace-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Palmera Residences</a>,” he said.&nbsp;

"We believe one of the key reasons for this strong result is the confidence purchasers have in knowing the project is under construction with Multiplex. Buyers are increasingly looking for certainty. They want to know that the project they commit to today will be delivered by an experienced team with a proven track record."&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365782]

Kutner said it was clear there was still high demand for luxury projects that offered certainty of delivery.&nbsp;

“We are in a market where many residential developments have faced delays due to rising construction costs, labour shortages and financing challenges,” said Kutner.&nbsp;

"But having construction underway has provided our buyers with resounding confidence backed by more than 40 years of development delivery by Central Equity combined with construction by one of Australia's most respected construction companies."&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365785]

Central Equity is one of Australia's most experienced privately-owned property developers. Over more than four decades, the company has delivered in excess of 85 residential developments including 10,000 apartments and many thousands of stand alone homes.&nbsp;

Located on Garfield Terrace at Northcliffe, between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach, Palmera Residences occupies one of the Gold Coast's most sought after beachside locations. The development has been designed to appeal to owner occupiers seeking premium residences that combine generous living spaces and resort style amenities.&nbsp;

Palmera Residences will feature an exceptional collection of resort style amenities, including two swimming pools: a generously sized family pool with safe shallow zones for relaxed recreation, and a 20 metre lap pool positioned to maximise all day sunlight.&nbsp;

Residents will also enjoy exclusive access to wellness and recreational facilities including a magnesium pool, sauna, yoga studio, expansive fitted gymnasium, resident lounge, outdoor BBQ’s&nbsp;and indoor and outdoor dining areas, together with a dedicated concierge and luxurious hotel inspired entrance foyer.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365767]

A unique feature at Palmera Residences has been designed to enhance the Gold Coast lifestyle which includes both indoor and outdoor gymnasium facilities, together with thoughtfully designed indoor and outdoor dining and entertaining areas. A corner café has also been incorporated to provide residents with a destination for their everyday needs.&nbsp;

Kutner said buyer demand had been broad based with purchasers attracted from interstate as well as throughout South East Queensland.&nbsp;

"We're seeing strong interest from owner occupiers, lifestyle buyers and people relocating to the Gold Coast. Many purchasers have been searching for a premium beachside residence where quality, design and delivery are equally important."&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365771]

Kutner said the sales milestone was an important achievement, but the focus remained firmly on delivering an exceptional development.&nbsp;

"While reaching $400 million in sales is an important milestone, our priority remains delivering a project that exceeds purchaser expectations,” he said.&nbsp;

"Palmera Residences has been designed to become one of the Gold Coast's landmark residential addresses, and we look forward to welcoming our purchasers to their new homes."&nbsp;

There are a limited number of residences remaining in selected configurations with pricing from $2,950,000 to $8,950,000. Palmera Residences is also crowned by expansive penthouses with wrap around views.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=108274]

Construction certainty and strong buyer demand drive major sales result for luxury Gold Coast development

Palmera Residences fly out the door as sales pass $400 million

National property developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/goldfields-group">Goldfields</a> has appointed BINAH as its construction partner for Quartet, its new Brisbane apartment development in the undersupplied suburb of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/milton-qld-4064">Milton</a>.

Located just two kilometres from the Brisbane CBD and moments from key 2032 Olympic precincts, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/quartet-milton-33-manning-street-milton-qld-4064">Quartet</a> will deliver 131 one, two, three, and four-bedroom apartments priced from $1 million to $4.2 million, combining elevated design with a wellness-focused lifestyle offering.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108736 project_image_fid=368000]

Goldfields’ Chief Executive Officer, Lachlan Thompson, said the appointment of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/builders/binah-constructions">BINAH</a> marked an important milestone for the project.&nbsp;

“Bringing BINAH on board as our construction partner will allow us to bring our vision for Quartet forward with a team that has a proven track record of delivering high-quality residential projects,” Thompson said.&nbsp;

“We’ve taken a considered approach to progressing the site because we wanted to deliver the whole package. Buyers ultimately back great developers, great projects and great builders, and with Quartet, we’ve made sure all three line up.

“People want certainty, they want to know the project will be built, that the homes will be delivered as promised, and that the developer stands behind the quality of what they create. That’s something Goldfields has built its reputation on over many years.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108736 project_image_fid=367993]

BINAH’s Managing Director, Khalil Hafza, said the company was proud to be partnering with Goldfields to deliver Quartet.&nbsp;

“Quartet is an exciting project to bring to life, particularly given the level of detail in the residences and the extensive rooftop amenity planned for the building,” Mr Hafza said.&nbsp;

“Our focus is on delivering a high-quality build that brings that design vision to life and creates homes residents will enjoy for many years.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108736 project_image_fid=367999]

The facilities at Quartet have been feared towards the roof, with a&nbsp;25 metre lap pool, spa, sauna and cold plunge, and a communal barbecue area and alfresco.

Town planning was designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/rothelowman">Rothelowman</a> and brought to life by Melbourne-based architecture firm Cera Stribley.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/cera-stribley">Cera Stribley</a> Co-Founder and Managing Principal, Dom Cerantonio, said the project responds to both its riverside setting and Brisbane’s evolving urban character.&nbsp;

“Quartet has been designed to sit comfortably within its riverside context, offering a refined take on urban living through well-planned, generously proportioned residences that will stand the test of time,” Mr Cerantonio said.&nbsp;

“An emphasis on natural light, natural textures and carefully selected finishes from timber and marble to premium appliances, creates calm, considered interiors designed for comfort and long-term liveability.”&nbsp;

Construction of Quartet will commence in July 2026, with completion anticipated in Q4 2028.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=108736]

Construction to commence on 131-residence tower designed around wellness-focused living

Goldfields appoints BINAH for Quartet apartments in Milton

The first partnership between national developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/fortis">Fortis</a> and Adelaide-based developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/otello">Otello</a> has made a strong start, with the pair securing $21 million in unconditional sales at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/one-four-four-hutt-adelaide-144-hutt-street-adelaide-sa-5000">One Four Four Hutt</a>&nbsp;on the edge of the Adelaide CBD.

Over a third of apartments have been snapped up in the boutique 44-apartment project on the corner of Hutt Stret and Wakefield Road. Local downsizers and owner-occupiers wanting to remain in Adelaide's tightly-held southeast quarter have been the most prominent purchasers.

The DKO-designed, mixed-use development is one of the few new apartment projects in the precinct, an area where new housing supply has remained limited despite continued demand from buyers wanting to stay close to the CBD, Victoria Park and Adelaide's established east-end amenities.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=151233 project_image_fid=375378]

Fortis Head of Development SA Arthur Dendrinos said the early sales reflected both the strength of the local owner-occupier market and confidence in the Hutt Street location.

"The level of early commitment reflects the confidence local buyers have in the Hutt Street precinct," Dendrinos said.

"Many purchasers are long-term east-end residents who love the area and want to stay connected to the neighbourhood. They recognise the value of a well-designed, well-located development.

"Our partnership with Otello has been central to this success, and the number of unconditional sales at this stage only strengthens our confidence in the South Australian market."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=151233 project_image_fid=375379]

Otello Director Daniel Harris said the sales result also highlighted the lack of new apartment opportunities within the Hutt Street precinct.

"One Four Four Hutt has clearly resonated with buyers, with strong early sales reflecting both the appeal of the Hutt Street corridor and the lifestyle on offer," Harris said.

"The activated ground-floor retail has also been a key drawcard, with purchasers responding to the vision of a more vibrant and connected streetscape, not just the residences themselves."

One Four Four Hutt will deliver 44 one, two and three-bedroom apartments, alongside a collection of penthouses, above a ground-floor retail offering designed to further activate the Hutt Street precinct.

Construction is scheduled to commence in the third quarter of this year, with completion anticipated in 2028.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=151233]

Fortis Head of Development SA Arthur Dendrinos said the early sales reflected both the strength of the local owner-occupier market and confidence in the Hutt Street location.

Fortis makes Adelaide debut with Otello as One Four Four Hutt records strong early sales

Federal Election

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVERS
Industrial relations is in the DNA of Australian politics: it is the defining policy issue that has traditionally distinguished Labor from the Coalition.
Industrial relations issues have featured prominently in recent election campaigns, with <a href="https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/rights-and-obligations/enterprise-bargaining" target="_blank">Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs)</a>, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-16/jericho-10-years-on,-the-spirit-of-workchoices-still-lives/7248368" target="_blank">WorkChoices</a> and union governance being the subject of fierce contestation between the major parties. However, this election the policy contrast is especially evident.
While the policies of the major parties have always differed, over the past 30 years there was a neoliberal consensus on economic policy that in some respects extended to industrial relations.
For instance, the <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/" target="_blank">Fair Work Act</a> implemented by the Rudd government reversed some but not all elements of Howard-era industrial relations policies. It largely maintained constraints on trade union power.
But this consensus is fracturing, as reflected in the policy settings of the two major parties. The Coalition has held steadfast to the idea that industrial relations and labour market issues are best left to the logic of the market. From this perspective, a strong economy enabled by low taxation and minimal government intervention results in employment and wage growth.
In contrast, and in light of the evident decoupling of economic growth and wages growth, the ALP has taken a more interventionist stance. This reflects less confidence in market mechanisms alone to solve persistent issues such as gender inequality, low pay and the proliferation of precarious work.
<h2>The Coalition’s commitments</h2>
Much of the Liberal and National parties’ policy platform focuses on what the Coalition has achieved in office. Most prominent is the focus on the <a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/economy" target="_blank">Coalition’s job record</a>, particularly its claim to have created 1.3 million jobs since it was first elected in September 2013.
The Coalition highlights recent job growth among younger workers, increased workforce participation among women and the creation of full-time jobs. This is despite persistent challenges relating to gender equality at work, unemployment and under-employment among young workers and a prevalence of insecure and non-standard work arrangements.
Very little is said explicitly about wages, job security and other “core” industrial relations issues. One explanation for this could be memories of the “WorkChoices election” of 2007 when the Howard government’s weakening of worker protections led to its removal from office.
Or it could be because of an ideological view that removing market constraints, particularly for small business, will lead to improved conditions for workers. This is a strong theme in the Coalition’s platform: it claims that lower taxes are “a critical part of our plan to deliver a strong economy and record job creation”.
The Coalition also points to its record in “tackling union lawlessness”, particularly through the establishment of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/restoring-the-construction-watchdog-abcc-experts-respond-69643" target="_blank">Australian Building and Construction Commission</a>. A key aspect of the Coalition’s policy platform is to highlight Labor’s perceived weaknesses through its links with the union movement and also the potential impact of climate change policies on employment in carbon-intensive industries.
But it’s hard to see this resonating much among voters, who for the past two decades have seen unions are having much less power than big business (see below).
Voters’ perceptions of the power of trade unions and big business, Australia, 1967-2016
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272427/original/file-20190503-103053-t25lnp.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/272427/original/file-20190503-103053-t25lnp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Australian National University, Australian Electoral Study 1987–2016
<h2>Labor’s commitments</h2>
Reflecting a renewed enthusiasm for policy aimed at challenging the free rein of the market, the Labor Party has announced a suite of interventionist measures. Some appear aimed squarely at amending the Fair Work Act – for example, legislating to prevent employers using agreement termination to revert to award wages and conditions, and to impose higher penalties for wage theft.
However, the bulk of Labor’s announcements relate to three themes: the problems of ongoing wage stagnation and income inequality, job insecurity and gender equity at work.
Key to the ALP’s wages policies is a commitment to develop a “<a href="https://theconversation.com/shorten-to-announce-labors-living-wage-plan-but-without-an-amount-or-timing-114225" target="_blank">living wage</a>” to keep working people out of poverty. Details of how this will be calculated will likely be left to the Fair Work Commission.
Another <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/employers-wary-as-bill-shorten-promises-2-6m-casual-workers-the-right-to-convert-20190423-p51gi1" target="_blank">headline announcement by the ALP</a>, easier conversion from casual to permanent work, draws a connection between the prevalence of insecure forms of work and historically low wage growth.
Commitments to ensure labour hire workers receive the same pay as those who are directly employed and an <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/labors-plan-for-secure-jobs/" target="_blank">undertaking</a> to “make sure workers in the gig economy are paid properly and not used to undermine Australian wages, including by changing the legal test for sham contracting” suggest enthusiasm for a recalibration of labour market regulation away from free-market logic.
This is reinforced by a broader set of policies focusing on the eradication of <a href="https://theconversation.com/at-last-australia-has-a-modern-slavery-act-heres-what-youll-need-to-know-107885" target="_blank">modern slavery</a>, the inclusion of superannuation in the <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/labors-plan-to-save-workers-super-from-dodgy-bosses/" target="_blank">National Employment Standards</a> and <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/labors-plan-for-pay-transparency-for-large-company-ceos/" target="_blank">reporting requirements</a> for CEO pay in listed companies.
<a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/labors-plan-to-help-close-the-gender-pay-gap/" target="_blank">Gender equity</a> at work policy provides a stark area of contrast between the two main parties. The ALP has pledged A$400 million towards closing the gender superannuation gap, a 20% <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/labor-s-childcare-wages-plan-to-cost-at-least-1-6-billion-a-year-20190501-p51j1n" target="_blank">increase in pay for early childhood educators</a> and prioritising gender equity in the Fair Work Act and in the work of the Fair Work Commission.
Linking gender equity to wage stagnation, Labor has announced it will <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/01/shorten-promises-to-restore-penalty-rates-and-spend-6bn-on-sydney-rail" target="_blank">reinstate penalty rates</a>, the loss of which has had a disproportionate impact on female-dominated industries such retail services and hospitality.
<h2>Comparing apples and oranges</h2>
The small-target approach of the Coalition to industrial relations during this election campaign is very difficult to compare to the comprehensive suite of policies released by the ALP. This is partly a result of the inherent nature of election campaigns – the incumbent seeks to defend its record and the challenger to present a convincing agenda for change.
What the industrial relations policies of the major parties most starkly reveal is a Coalition that maintains its conviction that fiscal measures such as tax cuts are the best way to “regulate” the labour market, and a Labor Party that’s looking to curb market excesses and redress what it sees as market failures.
This provides a stark choice for voters.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116256/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/sarah-kaine-19347" target="_blank">Sarah Kaine</a>, Associate Professor UTS Centre for Business and Social Innovation, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936" target="_blank">University of Technology Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chris-f-wright-9738" target="_blank">Chris F. Wright</a>, Senior Lecturer, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of 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/how-the-major-parties-stack-up-on-industrial-relations-policy-116256" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

How the major parties stack up on industrial relations policy

<html><body>
There’s something about any holiday break.
It allows people with downtime to pause, reflect, seek feedback from friends and family and then react - and it certainly applies to property market sentiment.
Traditionally everyone returns from their summer break, tanned and feeling refresh, brimming with new-found optimism.
Hence most years – including 2019 – begin with stronger auction success rates than those that had seriously tailed off in the overburden exhaustion and distractions of December.
I can only recall one Christmas break that didn't then see a stronger start for the property market.
Easter is another pause in the sales marketing calendar, which allows the potential buyers and sellers time to reflect.
But that’s where Easter’s similarity to Christmas ends.
It tends to present itself as a rather more unwelcome interruption to marketing campaigns. 
This year's timing was later than many years, so vendors had plenty of opportunity to list ahead.
But there wasn't the typical rush to have properties sold before Easter – no super Saturday – and that might have also been partly because it overlayed with the NSW school holidays meaning vendors and their agent deemed many buyers to be otherwise preoccupied.
The listing market wasn't helped by the encroaching election and the nervousness as to its outcome.
The election will do more than just push listings to Saturdays on either side of election day, May 18.
Many agents reckon what happens after Easter sets the tone for the rest of the year, but this year it will be what happens post-election.
Estate agents have been increasingly complaining of a shortage of stock, but what they really mean is new sellable listings.
After all unsold private treaty stock sits at 26,000 plus houses and apartments, according to CoreLogic.
The consensus is that given that new listings remain a little light on, there’s a good chance of the auction clearance rate remaining at the current level or higher through winter.
But things are very fragile.
Prices are of course down, especially for stale stock, and this pricing revision has finally resonated through to vendor consciousness. Well slightly more than half of them, who are selling under the hammer.
Sydney currently ranks as the nation's strongest capital city auction market, a position it has held since mid February when it took the mantle from Adelaide.
Sydney's preliminary clearance rate also sits higher than this time last year.
But CoreLogic calculates Sydney prices are off in Sydney by close to 14 percent for their peak. That's almost double the national decline, but Sydney did rise by the highest level during the boom, up by around 75 percent. Sydney values are down $125,000. In regional NSW, values have declined by four percent or around $18,000.
And so given the choice many would-be vendors have understandably decided not to list, or do so publicly.
Therefore buyers face limited fresh choices and accordingly auctions prices can still sell at higher that the pre-auction marketing campaign estimate for quality property.
But there are plenty of losers. 
Cameron Kusher at CoreLogic expects the declines to continue over the coming months.
"With advertised stock levels remaining high and mortgage rates tracking around the lowest level since the 1960s (and potentially moving even lower later this year), active buyers are back in the driver’s seat to take advantage of improved housing affordability and the low cost of debt," he says.
 
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

The election result will set the scene for the remaining 2019 property outlook 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Immigration policy will be a major issue in the 2019 federal election. We know this because immigration has featured significantly at every Australian election since the 2001 “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair" target="_blank">children overboard</a>” election.
David Marr and Marian Wilkinson argued in their 2003 book, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/dark-victory-20030329-gdgiaw" target="_blank">Dark Victory</a>, that willingness to play the race card in relation to boat people was a decisive factor in John Howard’s election victory. For Tony Abbott, “Stop the boats” was a major campaign theme when the Coalition won back government in the 2013 election. The current prime minister, Scott Morrison, rose to prominence as Abbott’s unyielding immigration minister who stopped the boats.
While the <a href="https://theconversation.com/christchurch-attacks-strike-at-the-heart-of-muslims-safe-places-from-islamophobia-113922" target="_blank">events of Christchurch</a> may have cramped the opportunity for the Coalition to run hard on fear, promising to be tough on borders and tough on (Muslim) terrorism, the dog-whistle politics on the issue of refugees and asylum seekers will be there for those wanting to hear it.
For Labor these policy issues have been difficult. It was Kevin Rudd who as PM <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-more-asylum-in-australia-for-those-arriving-by-boat-rudd-16238" target="_blank">declared that those arriving by boat would never be settled in Australia</a>, irrespective of the validity of their claims for protection under the UN <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-lk/1951-refugee-convention" target="_blank">Refugee Convention</a>. Labor supported efforts to get children out of detention on Manus Island, but doesn’t want to give the conservatives too much space to convincingly advance a “Labor weak on border security” line.
Humanitarian intake is growing
The Coalition governments of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison have in fact increased Australia’s annual humanitarian intake significantly. The number has <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201516/Migration" target="_blank">risen from just over 13,750 to more than 18,000</a> – though the government has not loudly broadcast this fact.
In addition, Abbott in 2015 announced a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-ups-its-syrian-refugee-intake-but-what-about-its-own-backyard-47160" target="_blank">one-off intake of 12,000 Syrian conflict refugees</a>. Most of them arrived in 2017, effectively doubling the annual refugee intake in that year.
Australia – and the refugees – coped well, demonstrating the nation’s capacity to significantly increase refugee intakes. <a href="https://theconversation.com/refugees-are-integrating-just-fine-in-regional-australia-101188" target="_blank">Our research</a> with newly arrived Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan refugee families suggests they are settling well in Australia, receiving a warm welcome from locals in the cities and regional centres. Employment and family reunification are their key worries.
Labor’s shadow immigration minister, Shayne Neumann, has flagged a new <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/punjabi/en/article/2019/02/12/labor-government-will-replace-new-sponsored-parent-visa" target="_blank">temporary sponsored visa for the parents of migrants</a>. Unlike the current visa, it does not have a cap and it might assist refugees to get their parents to Australia.
Labor has <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/asylumseekers" target="_blank">announced it will increase the annual humanitarian intake</a> of refugees to 27,000 by 2025. It will also abolish <a href="https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/temporary-protection-785" target="_blank">Temporary Protection Visas</a> (TPVs). These visas provide boat arrivals who are found to be refugees the right to stay for only three years with work and study rights and access to Centrelink payments. As Labor argues, this places them “in a permanent state of limbo”.
The Coalition parties have not announced their policy intentions in relation to humanitarian intakes or the rights of asylum seekers, including those who arrived by boat.
At a time when Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton scans the horizon for new boat arrivals, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/worst-ever-immigration-minister-asylum-seekers-jet-in-under-dutton-s-nose-20190302-p511d8" target="_blank">record number of asylum seekers are arriving by plane</a> under tourist visas. In 2013-14, there were 18,718 asylum applications, including 9,072 boat arrivals. This had increased to <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/12/09/record-number-asylum-seekers-peter-dutton/" target="_blank">27,931 asylum applications, with no boat arrivals, by 2017-18</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267995/original/file-20190408-2931-1sgmyyr.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/267995/original/file-20190408-2931-1sgmyyr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Department of Home Affairs
Each year the Australia government sets the permanent immigration targets. Until recently this was set at 190,00. In practice just <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/report-migration-program-2017-18.pdf" target="_blank">162,000 immigrants have been admitted</a> over the past year or so.
A token cut and 2 new visas
In this context Prime Minister Morrison’s announcement that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/slimmed-down-migration-program-has-regional-focus-113847" target="_blank">permanent immigration target will be cut to 160,000</a> is really no change in immigration policy. There is nothing to see here if you dismiss the need to be loudly anti-immigration in the current populist political climate.
The announcement is linked to congestion-busting in the major cities of Sydney and Melbourne. It is accompanied by the <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/immigration-cuts-and-regional-visas-to-ease-strain-on-sydney-and-melbourne/news-story/da7de88690966d4c202ab0d372a5b253" target="_blank">introduction of two new visa pathways</a> – the Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) Visa and the Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (Provisional) Visa – for skilled migrants to live and work in regional areas for five years.
These visas offer the carrot of permanent residency at the end of three years to attract new immigrants to regional Australia. In addition, the budget announced that scholarships to the tune of $94 million over four years would be available to domestic and international students who study there.
Temporary migrants exploited
Most immigration policy debates centre on permanent immigration intakes, particularly of humanitarian immigrants and asylum seekers. Yet annual temporary migrant intakes – international students, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/WorkingHoliday" target="_blank">working holidaymakers</a> and temporary skilled workers – are <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/MigrationStatistics#_Table_2:_Temporary%20_and%20214,583%20Working%20Holiday%20Makers%20on%20417%20and%20462%20Visas" target="_blank">three times greater</a> than the permanent intake. <a href="https://docs.jobs.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/mwt_final_report.pdf" target="_blank">Over 800,000 temporary migrants</a> were in Australia in June 2018.
One key policy issue is the exploitation of temporary migrant workers. The Turnbull government abolished the 457 temporary skilled migration visa because of increasing <a href="https://theconversation.com/457-visa-changes-wont-impact-on-wider-temporary-education-workforce-and-maybe-thats-deliberate-76579" target="_blank">reports of abuse and exploitation by employers</a>.
One <a href="https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017/11/apo-nid120406-1162971.pdf" target="_blank">recent survey</a> of 4,332 temporary migrant workers found “increasing evidence of widespread exploitation of temporary migrant workers, including wage theft”. <a href="https://www.mwji.org/highlights/2017/11/14/report-released-wage-theft-in-australia-findings-of-the-national-temporary-migrant-work-survey%20and%20other%20abuses%20of%20workers%20rights" target="_blank">Half of all temporary migrant workers may be underpaid</a>. About one in three international students and backpackers earned $12 an hour or less – about half the minimum wage.
This issue goes not just to the ethics of maintaining a temporary migration program largely premised on migrant worker exploitation. It also resonates with Labor’s <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-05/labors-budget-reply-was-a-careful-pitch-to-voters/10973572" target="_blank">campaign for a living wage and the restoration of penalty rates</a> for workers in response to the low rate of real wage growth in Australia, which constrains consumer demand.
The 2019-20 federal budget allocated extra funding to the Fair Work Ombudsman to bolster enforcement action against employers who exploit vulnerable workers and announced the National Labour Hire Registration Scheme to <a href="https://www.jobs.gov.au/migrant-workers-taskforce" target="_blank">target rogue operators in the labour hire industry</a>. However, the research suggests wage theft is widespread in the small business sector, a key target for tax relief in the budget. It is an area of immigration policy that requires considerably more resources and punch.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113557/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;">
Jock Collins, Professor of Social Economics, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney
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/dog-whistles-regional-visas-and-wage-theft-immigration-policy-is-again-an-election-issue-113557" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Dog whistles, regional visas and wage theft – immigration policy is again an election issue

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Among the many recommendations of the banking Royal Commission was a <a href="https://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/reports.aspx#final" target="_blank">Board of Oversight</a> for the two regulators in charge of financial institutions; the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority: ASIC and APRA.
Since then APRA’s own internal review conducted by deputy chairman John Lonsdale and NSW Supreme Court Judge Robert Austin, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission commissioner Sarah Court and UNSW professor Dimity Kingsford-Smith has found APRA to be soft on enforcement and <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/sites/default/files/apra_enforcement_strategy_review_-_final_report_web.pdf" target="_blank">timid by comparison to its international peers</a>.
Nonetheless, and to demonstrate that APRA still doesn’t get what it doesn’t get, its chairman used Tuesday’s <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/enforcement" target="_blank">release of the review</a> to announce a new mantra. From now on, APRA is to be: “<a href="https://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/apra-to-up-the-ante-135451581" target="_blank">constructively tough</a>”.
‘Constructively tough’?
It sounds like “tough but flexible”, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. Despite its Royal Commission hammering, APRA still seems not to have internalised the message: fraud and theft are not up for negotiated settlement.
This is why a board of oversight is so necessary.
I have frequently argued in favour of such a reform: a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-financial-regulators-need-policing-91396;%20https://theconversation.com/to-clean-up-the-financial-system-we-need-to-watch-the-watchers-38359" target="_blank">regulator to regulate the regulators</a>. Along with colleagues Karen Fairweather and John Tarrant, I was invited to make a submission to the Royal Commission detailing egregious examples of regulator inefficacy, and capture by, and subornation to, the industries they are meant to regulate. Included was a body of theoretical and empirical international scholarship suggesting that financial sector regulators are more susceptible to capture than regulators of other industries.
We argued that the gravity of the potential harm from crises, superimposed with the frailties – both observable and theoretical – of regulators, required enhanced safety in the form of an overseer to police the corporate police.
So it was encouraging to see our submission reflected in the commission’s recommendation for a board of oversight:
<hr>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269730/original/file-20190417-139084-e0dozd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269730/original/file-20190417-139084-e0dozd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/reports.aspx#final" target="_blank">Final Report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, February 2019</a>
<hr>
Of concern, however, is that the commissioner elected to leave the details of how the board would work to parliament. It is here that the process faces its greatest risk: the risk of clumsy albeit well-intentioned implementation, all the way to purposefully bad implementation, fully intended to undermine the fundamental goals of the whole endeavour, and facilitated by equally captured and suborned politicians.
Politicians have a history of backing down
It has happened before. The 1991 report of the The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration entitled “<a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_representatives_Committees?url=reports/1991/1991_pp290report.htm" target="_blank">Pocket Full of Change</a>” recommended a banking code of practice, which was ditched at the last minute to be replaced by a different code written by the Australian Bankers’ Association. The result was a code that protected banks against their customers, while allowing them to virtue signal.
So far Treasurer Frydenberg has refused to commit to one of the single most necessary powers that such a board can possess: the power of public opprobrium. As far back as the late 1860s Charles Francis Adams Jr wrote of the need to subject captured and corrupted railroad commissions to the disinfecting power of sunlight; what Thomas McCraw, writing in the mid-1980s referred to as a <a href="https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Charles_Francis_Adams,_Jr." target="_blank">Sunshine Commission</a>.
The anti-viral power of public exposure has been amply demonstrated by the banking royal commission already. Heads have rolled: the chair, chief executive and group counsel at AMP. The chair and chief executive of the National Australian Bank (albeit after significant procrastination). Some entities have self-selected out of their business model. Others have self-selected out of the market entirely. Retail Super funds have haemorrhaged well in excess of one million members, and over <a href="https://www.afr.com/personal-finance/superannuation-and-smsfs/industry-super-funds-win-11b-from-retail-funds-after-hayne-scandals-20190226-h1bqiq" target="_blank">$11 billion in funds</a>.
But none of this fallout, none of it, is due to post-royal commission enforcement measures. It is all thanks to public opprobrium: sunshine.
Few things are as powerful as the power to shame
So it is of concern that the treasurer hasn’t yet made an unequivocal commitment to make public the board of oversight’s reports into the performance of our regulators, performance which to date has been weak enough, feckless enough, and incompetent enough to more than justify the royal commission.
Speaking to the ABC on February 4 in what might be some sort of Orwellian newspeak, Frydenberg would only say: "this new oversight board will be reporting to government and governments don’t operate in secret."
Sometimes they do, and especially when dealing with banks. APRA reports are routinely withheld form the public, making use of the secrecy provisions of the Banking Act.
Frydenberg should instead be mindful of the extensive protection his government has provided to the banking and retail super industry over the past five years, shielding them from the threat of inquiry by a royal commission up until the point when it was impossible to resist. It will serve no purpose to replace one protection racket with another. And that applies to both banks and super, something Labor’s Chris Bowen should keep in mind should he become treasurer.
Put simply, as we emerge from this dark, decade-long night of the most appalling dishonesty and wickedness in our financial sector, more than anything else, now we must ensure the sun shines.
Andrew Schmulow, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong
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/constructively-tough-neither-side-has-committed-to-fully-adopting-perhaps-the-most-important-recommendation-of-the-banking-royal-commission-111428" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why has neither party backing the banking royal commission's most important recommendation

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Labor’s bold <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing" target="_blank">stance on housing tax reform and investment</a> makes this one of the likely policy flashpoints in the coming election campaign. How does the Coalition government’s housing record stand up to scrutiny? What would be in prospect in a third Liberal-National term? And exactly what is Labor’s alternative pitch?
The Coalition record
Under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments we’ve seen a housing market featuring both rampant inflation and damaging volatility. Despite recent falls in some cities, late 2018 prices remained <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.nsf/log?openagent&amp;641601.xls&amp;6416.0&amp;Time%20Series%20Spreadsheet&amp;1D907630FB3718CACA2583C1000F691C&amp;0&amp;Dec%202018&amp;19.03.2019&amp;Latest" target="_blank">29% up on 2013</a> across the country – 42% in Sydney.
While first home buyer numbers <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.nsf/log?openagent&amp;560112.xls&amp;5601.0&amp;Time%20Series%20Spreadsheet&amp;55292123715E3E73CA2583B90076B373&amp;0&amp;Jan%202019&amp;12.03.2019&amp;Latest" target="_blank">grew in 2018</a>, the total remained well below 2007 (pre-GFC) levels. Unless this changes the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/901-Housing-affordability.pdf" target="_blank">rate of young adult home ownership</a> is likely to drift still lower.
During this term of government, official action to moderate housing market instability has been left almost entirely to the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, through their influence on the cost and accessibility of housing finance.
The government has mostly turned a blind eye to more far-reaching reforms that could squarely address Australia’s boom-and-bust housing dynamic. The prime source of recent volatility has been the erratic behaviour of landlord investors, as the chart below shows. They are responsible for <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5601.0Jan%202019?OpenDocument" target="_blank">around 35% of residential transactions</a> across the country.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268262/original/file-20190409-2912-o4xj7z.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/268262/original/file-20190409-2912-o4xj7z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5601.0" target="_blank">ABS Cat 5601.0</a>, Author provided
Australia’s unusually favourable tax settings on negative gearing and capital gains tax discount compound investors’ speculative instincts. Calls for reform have been growing, from sources as diverse as a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nsw-planning-minister-rob-stokes-lashes-out-at-negative-gearing-20161124-gswtrz" target="_blank">Liberal state government minister</a> and the <a href="http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/submissions/housing-and-housing-finance/inquiry-into-home-ownership/pdf/inquiry-into-home-ownership.pdf" target="_blank">Reserve Bank</a>. And the annual cost to the public purse has been rising – most recently estimated at <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/hot-property/" target="_blank">A$11.7 billion</a>. Despite this, federal Coalition ministers have resisted any paring back of these concessions.
The Labor alternative
The ALP enters this election campaign restating its 2016 policy to restrict current negative gearing to newly built properties and to halve the CGT discount for all newly purchased rental homes.
While sectional interests have echoed government claims of <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/inviting-a-crash-pm-issues-ominous-warning-as-he-defends-governments-housing-policies/news-story/4c7005bf1208054b4569eabecc78dfe2" target="_blank">damaging market impacts</a>, mainstream economists view the policy as <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/negative-gearing-changes-will-affect-us-all-mostly-for-the-better-20190208-p50wjn" target="_blank">a necessary structural reform</a> that will slightly moderate house price inflation over the longer term. However, with all existing investments exempt from proposed changes, the budgetary pay-off would be modest at first.
Labor also advocates rebalancing the <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/media/1657/190328_factsheet_housing.pdf" target="_blank">tax treatment of large-scale institutional investment</a> in rental housing. According to industry proponents, resulting “build to rent” development could help <a href="http://blogs.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/blog/2017/05/can-institutional-funding-be-channelled-into-rental-housing/" target="_blank">to diversify the housing market and provide a better quality tenancy offer</a>. It would also have the benefit of introducing a counter-cyclical component to residential construction.
Housing stress on the rise
The Coalition government has also presided over intensifying stress at the lower end of the housing market since 2013. Homelessness has been <a href="https://www.launchhousing.org.au/site/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/LaunchHousing_AHM2018_Report.pdf" target="_blank">increasing by 2.8% a year</a>. The proportion of low-income tenants facing unaffordable rents <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/SUBSCRIBER.NSF/log?openagent&amp;41300_table22_2015-16.xls&amp;4130.0&amp;Data%20Cubes&amp;A58C0970758A300FCA2581B700185D9E&amp;0&amp;2015-16&amp;13.10.2017&amp;Latest" target="_blank">rose by four percentage points</a> in the four years to 2015-16.
At least in part, these trends reflect Coalition government disinterest. While slightly moderated under the Turnbull-Morrison administrations, the die was cast with the incoming government’s 2013 decision to abolish the post of housing minister and by the Abbott inclination to re-emphasise <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://apo.org.au/node/56122" target="_blank">a minimalist vision of Federal government responsibilities</a>. The new government was quick to abandon <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/homelessness/4764790" target="_blank">Kevin Rudd’s 2008 commitment to halve homelessness by 2020</a>.
To the credit of the Turnbull-Morrison governments, a project begun in 2016, when Morrison was treasurer, has created a <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-guarantee-opens-investment-highway-to-affordable-housing-88549" target="_blank">new institution</a> to open up access to cheaper, longer-term finance for community housing providers.
Through <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/news-and-media/news/national-housing-finance-and-investment-corporation-issues-first-bond-to-community-housing-providers" target="_blank">its first bond, issued only last month</a>, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) has enabled six of these providers to secure debt finance on much-improved terms. This will boost recipient organisations’ financial “headroom”. A worthwhile – but modest and one-time-only – addition to affordable housing stock may result.
Subsidies needed to restore supply
Importantly, though, the cheaper debt finance made available through the NHFIC only narrows – rather than bridges – the gap between the cost of delivering social housing and the rents that low-income Australians can afford.
A major social housing investment program will require <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/306" target="_blank">a complementary government subsidy</a>. The treasurer’s own <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/C2016-050_Final_report.pdf" target="_blank">advisory working group has unambiguously stated the need</a> for such provision.
Curiously, the government has yet to give any sign it intends to finish what it started here. Without the necessary gap-filling subsidy, there must be a danger that – perhaps after exhausting the potential for refinancing community housing providers – the NHFIC could become a white elephant.
Indeed, the Coalition’s most significant action on affordable rental housing supply was its 2014 cancellation of the Rudd government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme. Mainly targeted at low-income workers, the NRAS generated 38,000 discount-to-market rental units (against an original target of 50,000).
The ALP is now promising to re-establish a large-scale supply program. As well as restricting landlord investor tax concessions to new-build properties, Labor’s 2019 pitch includes <a href="http://blogs.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/blog/2018/12/shorten-places-housing-at-the-centre-of-the-2019-election/" target="_blank">a program similar to NRAS</a> with the aim of generating 250,000 new affordable rental homes over a decade. A shorter-term target of 20,000 dwellings during the next term of government would equal the Rudd government’s 2009-12 social housing stimulus, which helped to stave off the GFC.
Supported through subsidy in the form of annual investor incentive payments of $8,500 for 15 years, the program would be mainly targeted at <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=4&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjKh4HTiaPhAhUs0oMKHVmNCh0QFjADegQIAhAC&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alp.org.au%2Fmedia%2F1506%2F181216_affordable_housing_for_renters_fact_sheet.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw0VTUS5Phui2MZch0wiSeK6" target="_blank">“key workers” and “lower-income families”</a>. Tenants would pay rents of 20-25% below market levels. Beyond this, the program could help more disadvantaged Australians, but only with matching financial assistance or other subsidies from states and territories, which would enable rents to be even lower.
The Coalition’s current offer
Other than its push-back on Labor proposals, the Coalition has – as yet – said little about its election policy on housing. Last week’s budget offered nothing to suggest that, beyond a defence of the policy status quo, housing initiatives are front of mind for the Treasurer or Prime Minister.
The government will maintain the NHFIC, one of its really positive recent moves. The complementary – and overdue – <a href="http://www.nrsch.gov.au/news_and_events/nrsch-review-discussion-paper" target="_blank">review of social housing regulation</a> will also continue. We can probably expect more City Deals, which may even, as in the recent <a href="https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/tudge/releases/2019/february/at016_2019.aspx" target="_blank">Hobart announcement</a>, include some provision for affordable housing.
The budget’s infrastructure program, including fast urban rail, might have implications for housing accessibility and affordability. But, if so, these aspects don’t feature prominently in the announcements.
But beyond continuing existing policy directions, nothing much seems likely to be added to the Coalition’s 2019-22 offer on housing. It isn’t proposing any action on the imbalanced tax settings that fuel housing market volatility, let alone any policy to boost affordable housing supply directly. Neither is there any sign of support for the build-to-rent sector, which promises much but appears as yet still-born.
It seems fear of change continues to dominate Coalition thinking on housing. The overriding priority remains to support existing property values, rather than to act on unaffordability – a Boomer protection racket par excellence! Recent ministerial statements offer little indication that a re-elected Coalition government would make a serious effort to fix Australia’s increasingly under-performing housing system.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113556/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;">
Hal Pawson, Associate Director - City Futures - Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW and Bill Randolph, Director, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW
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/on-housing-theres-clear-blue-water-between-the-main-parties-113556" target="_blank">original article</a>.
This article has been updated to clarify Labor’s policy on negative gearing and capital gains tax and to correct the number of community housing providers financed by the NHFIC.
</body></html>

On housing, there’s clear blue water between the main parties: Hal Pawson

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Some might be forgiven for thinking the wheels have fallen off Australian politics over the past decade with the same number of PM changes as Italy, a fractured Senate and “minority government” at times making sensible visionary long-term policy making hard.
With the May 18 Federal Election offering a starker than normal choice political uncertainty may see another leg up. Polls give Labor a clear lead, albeit it’s narrowed a bit.
There is anecdotal evidence that uncertainty around elections causes households and businesses to put some spending decisions on hold - the longer the campaign the greater the risk.
Fortunately, this time around it’s a relatively short campaign at five weeks. However, hard evidence regarding the impact of elections on economic indicators is mixed and there is no clear evidence that election uncertainty effects economic growth in election years as a whole.
In fact, since 1980 economic growth through election years averaged 3.6% which is greater than average growth of 3.1% over the period as a whole. In terms of the share market, there is some evidence of it tracking sideways in the run up to elections, which may be because investors don’t like the uncertainty associated with the prospect of a change in policies.
The next chart shows Australian share prices from one year prior to six months after federal elections since 1983.
This is shown as an average for all elections (but excludes the 1987 and 2007 elections given the global share crash in late 1987 and the start of the global financial crisis (GFC) in 2007), and the periods around the 1983 and 2007 elections, which saw a change of government to Labor, and the 1996 and 2013 elections, which saw a change of government to the Coalition.
The chart suggests some evidence of a period of flat lining in the run up to elections, possibly reflecting investor uncertainty, followed by a relief rally.
IMG
However, the elections resulting in a change of government have seen a mixed picture. Shares rose sharply after the 1983 Labor victory but fell sharply after the 2007 Labor win, with global developments playing a role in both.
After the 1996 and 2013 Coalition victories shares were flat to down.
So based on historical experience it’s not obvious that a victory by any one party is best for shares in the immediate aftermath, and historically the impact of swings in global shares arguably played a bigger role than the outcomes of federal elections.
The next table shows that 9 out of the 13 elections since 1983 saw shares up 3 months later with an average gain of 4.8%.
IMG
The next chart shows the same analysis for the Australian dollar. In the six months prior to Federal elections there is some evidence the $A experiences a period of softness and choppiness, which is consistent with policy uncertainty, but the magnitude of change is small. On average, the $A has drifted sideways to down slightly after elections
IMG
Political parties and shares
Over the post-war period shares have returned 12.7% pa under Coalition governments and 10.7% pa under Labor governments. It may be argued that the Labor governments led by Whitlam in the 1970s and Rudd and Gillard more recently had the misfortune of severe global bear markets and, if these periods are excluded, the Labor average obviously rises to 15.8% pa, although that may be taking things a bit too far.
But certainly, the Hawke/Keating government defied conventional perceptions that conservative governments are always better for shares. Over the Hawke/Keating period from 1983 to 1996 Australian shares returned 17.3% pa, the strongest pace for any post-war Australian government.
Once in government, political parties are usually forced to adopt sensible macro-economic policies if they wish to ensure rising living standards and arguably there has been broad consensus on both sides of politics in recent decades regarding key macroeconomic fundamentals – eg, low inflation and free markets.
Policy differences starker than since the 1970s However, after narrowing in the 80s and 90s with the rationalist reform oriented agenda kicked off by Hawke and Keating, in recent years the policy differences between the Coalition and Labor have been intensifying again to the point that they are now arguably starker than they have been since the 1970s (when there used to be more of a focus around “class warfare”).
In part this is consistent with rising interest in populist policies globally which in turn reflects angst over low wages growth, widening inequality, globalisation and automation. Each side of politics is now offering very different visions on the role and size of government. And so the policy uncertainty around this election is greater than usual.
The Coalition is focused on containing government spending and encouraging economic growth via infrastructure spending, significant personal tax cuts (to return bracket creep and cap taxation revenue at its long term high of around 24% of GDP) and mild economic reforms.
By contrast Labor is focused on spending more on health and education and in the process allowing the size of the public sector to increase.
This is proposed to be funded by “tax increases” including: 
<ul>
<li>cancelling the Coalition’s middle and upper income personal tax cuts scheduled for next decade and reimposing the 2% Deficit Repair Levy on incomes above $180,000;</li>
<li>restricting negative gearing to new residential property (and no other assets) and halving the capital gains tax discount from January 1 2020; </li>
<li>stopping cash refunds for excess franking credits; and </li>
<li>a 30% tax rate on distributions from discretionary trusts; It’s not proposing to spend all the extra revenue this will raise with some earmarked for higher budget surpluses (ie paying down public debt).</li>
</ul>
It’s also promising a sharp lift in the minimum wage towards being a “living wage”, some labour market re-regulation, far more aggressive climate policy (with a 45% reduction in emissions on 2005 levels by 2030, which is almost double the Coalition’s policy) and in relation to superannuation key changes are likely to include a resumption of the increase in the Super Guarantee, lower non-concessional contributions and a lower income threshold for the application of the 30% tax rate on super contributions.
Intervention in the economy is likely to be higher under a Labor government. Perceptions that a more left leaning Labor government will mean bigger government, more regulation and higher taxes and hence act as a drag on productivity and be less business friendly may contribute to more nervousness in shares and the $A than usual around this election.
More specifically there are a number of risks:
<ul>
<li>There is a danger that relying on tax hikes on the “top end of town” will dampen incentive in that Australia’s top marginal tax rate of 47% is already high – particularly compared to our neighbours: 33% in NZ; 20% in Singapore; and 15% in HK. Australia’s income tax system is already highly progressive: 1% of taxpayers pay 17% of the total personal income tax take (with an average tax rate of 42%) &amp; the top 10% pay 45% of tax compared to the bottom 50% who pay around 12% (with an average tax rate around 11%). </li>
<li>The proposed changes to franking credits even though they only impact around 8% of taxpayers are potentially a negative for stocks with high-franked dividends. </li>
<li>The proposed changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing have been estimated to cause a 5 to 12% decline in home prices &amp; a boost to rents of 7 to 12%. This is risky as the property market is already weak. This could further impact construction/property stocks, banks &amp; retail shares.</li>
<li>Higher minimum wages and some labour market reregulation risk higher unemployment, a less flexible labour market and are a negative for hospitality and retail stocks. </li>
<li>The focus on economic reform needed to boost productivity looks to have fallen by the wayside in the face of populism – eg, why aren’t we considering injecting more competition into the health sector along with spending more on it?</li>
</ul>
That said there are some offsets in relation to ALP policies that investors need to allow for: 
<ul>
<li>Some ALP policies may not pass the Senate, including those around negative gearing and repealing the middle &amp; upper income tax cuts that have already passed into law.</li>
<li>Labor is planning bigger budget surpluses which is positive.</li>
<li>Labor policies encouraging “build to rent/affordable housing” are positive, but it’s unclear how much impact they will have.</li>
<li>Labor policies focussed on greater spending and tax cuts more targeted to lower saving low income earners may provide more of a short-term boost to economic growth.</li>
<li>Labor has a track record of taking sensible advice &amp; responding quickly to help the economy in a crisis (think 1983 and in the GFC). In the short term, this could include a First Home Buyer grant to mute the property downturn.</li>
</ul>
Concluding comment:
The now wider left right divide in Australian politics suggests greater uncertainty going into this election potentially affecting all asset Australian classes. But the bigger concern is the dwindling prospects for productivity enhancing reform, which could be an ongoing dampener on growth in living standards.
DR SHANE OLIVER is the Head of Investment Strategy and Chief Economist for AMP Capital
</body></html>

soliver-smf6LQXgW9

The 2019 Australian Federal election and investors: Shane Oliver

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The federal election must focus on the need to drive more housing growth in Australian cities with appropriate infrastructure. It will need to focus, more than ever before, on managing growth in Australia’s cities.
The housing market is collapsing in Sydney and Melbourne, with growing negative attitudes about the change occurring to the character of these cities. The recent swing to more urban living in apartments as an affordable way for younger people and retirees to live must continue despite concerns from suburban house dwellers.
This election is to some extent a debate about how Australian’s will live as our cities grow, and this inevitably raises issues about high density living, congestion, infrastructure provision and housing affordability.
The reality is that the suburban model works for cities up to around 4 million people, however, as Sydney and Melbourne are heading for 8 million people, strong political leadership is required on how to best manage the switch to more urban living that can co-exist with the suburbs.
The Urban Taskforce believes the federal government must help the states and councils manage the evolution of Australia’s cities into more urban structures. This is even more important now that the housing industry is going through a major contraction phase in terms of the supply of new homes.
The Urban Taskforce calls on all parties to support the following policy commitments:
1. HOUSING SUPPLY MUST BE REBOOTED The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) indicates a dramatic fall in housing approvals across Australia, as does the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). The result of this slowdown will be a loss of jobs in the industry, and a reduced supply chain of new homes in future years. The federal government must look at policy levers that can reactivate the supply of new homes.
2. FREE UP CREDIT RESTRICTIONS ON HOUSING LOANS Many ordinary Australians are finding it impossible to get a loan to purchase a new or existing home. The builders of new homes are also finding it more difficult to secure Page 2 of 2 finance for new projects due to credit restrictions. The federal government must not instigate policies that make credit harder to get, but must work to free up the flow of loans into the housing industry.
3. SUPPORT A ROBUST IMMIGRATION PROGRAM Recent concerns about the changing character of our cities has led to knee-jerk reactions that big reductions in immigration can keep Australian cities from changing. But with the large number of baby boomers moving into retirement Australia needs young, skilled, income earning tax payers to fund government programs. This population growth will maintain Australia’s competiveness economically and the shape of our cities can be managed in a way that supports diverse living styles.
4. PROVIDE STRONG LEADERSHIP IN SHAPING OUR URBAN CITIES Rather than fuelling community concerns about change, Australia’s politicians must take a lead role to help shape the future of our cities. Global cities that contribute to the world’s economy will grow and can do this in a positive way with political leadership.
5. REDUCE EXCESSIVE TAXES ON NEW HOUSING All levels of government seem to want to add taxes to new housing to cover the cost of infrastructure, affordable housing and public transport. This feeding frenzy of governments desperate for funds is increasing housing costs to excessive levels. The Federal Government must ensure that taxes on housing do not drive unaffordability for ordinary Australians.
6. SUPPORT URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTICULARLY METRO RAIL The Federal Government has a specific role in funding major infrastructure projects. The most important ‘game changer’ for Australian cities is the roll out of metro rail projects. The federal government must be a major funder of these projects and they must require bold densities for development next to metro rail stations.
7. ENCOURAGE LONG TERM RENTAL HOUSING While home ownership has long been an aspiration of Australians, it is clear that there are a growing number of people who prefer to rent. This requires an investment market to provide rental homes, and the federal government must support this investment - including long term rental in the Build-to-Rent model.
8. REQUIRE EFFICIENT PLANNING SYSTEMS ACROSS AUSTRALIA Many state planning systems are overly complex and slow. This is having a negative impact on the productivity of the property development industry and this adds costs to the end product. Australia’s planning systems must support the swing to a mixed use, cosmopolitan lifestyle that is preferred by many people. A national review that drives a more up to date planning system, particularly for cities, is needed.
CHRIS JOHNSON is the Urban Taskforce CEO 
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

Federal Election must focus on housing growth and infrastructure: Urban Taskforce's Chris Johnson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Populism is driven by the view that everyday people are suffering economic hardship as the corporate and political elites prosper. A sense of rising inequality and injustice is the foundation stone of populist rhetoric.
In Australia, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/banking-royal-commission-no-commissions-no-exemptions-no-fees-without-permission-hayne-gets-the-government-to-do-a-u-turn-110974" target="_blank">financial services royal commission</a> has lent credence to these concerns across a large part of the Australian community. Its hearings and reports give weight to the view that Australia’s middle and working classes have been systematically ripped off by their financial service providers.
What is of concern for us here in Australia is not so much the lightning rod that has been the findings of the royal commission, but the prospect of much harder economic times ahead.
Australia is not used to tough economic times. It has been 27 years since our last major recession. In the past 26 years, the annual average unemployment rate has climbed on only five occasions. It has been steady or fallen in 21 of the past 26 years.
The economic tide could well turn against us over the next three years. This, as much as anything, will give vigour to the kinds of populist voices that are wreaking so much havoc in other Western societies right now.
Populism is toxic to democratic societies. It preys on people’s worst fears and appeals to their darker instincts. Populism brings poor policy decisions and entrenches political dysfunction.
We are already seeing the effects that growing discontent with the major parties has on our political system. A surge of support for populist candidates and parties will magnify these problems.
Australian populism
Defining the concerns of populism is a tricky business. The most common is that economic and political elites benefit at the expense of the public, whether that be because the system is rigged against them or because those elites break social convention and even the laws to extract from the rest.
An extension of this perennial theme is that the elites, particularly in the business world, get away with it. The authorities do not pursue them and they are rarely held to account by the law.
Populism tends to be cultivated in an environment of poor economic performance and is exacerbated by growing inequality, real or perceived.
Australia’s democracy has a long history of stable centrist parties dominating the parliament and public policy. Since our Federation in 1901, the two or three major parties at the time of each federal election have averaged about 90% of the primary vote.
These moderate tendencies are regarded as a hallmark of our nation, and key to the resilience of Australia as a society. But, as the accompanying chart shows, there have been periods when voters have drifted away from the major parties with considerable enthusiasm.
<hr>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260588/original/file-20190224-195864-iwn6wt.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260588/original/file-20190224-195864-iwn6wt.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<hr>
For the first 30 years of our federal parliament, minor parties and independent candidates captured just 5% of the vote on average. The peripheral candidates were just that; peripheral and insignificant. That all changed in the 1931 election with the onset of The Great Depression and lasted right through to the second world war.
We experienced another extended period of major party dominance in the 1950s and the 1960s. In the 1970s a rising share of the vote started going outside the major parties and this has continued to this day. We now are in a situation where minor party and independent support is near the levels seen at the height of the Great Depression.
There also appears to be a greater polarisation within the major parties, particularly when they are in government. Not a single prime minister elected in the past decade has survived his or her first term of office – an unattractive milestone for a relatively young democracy.
Populism is always lurking below the surface of Australian society. It rears its head from time to time, but the broader community is pretty good at resisting its urges. A strong economy and low unemployment are critical ingredients in this success.
It could be argued that Australia is less susceptible to populism than other Western democracies. Just look at the contrast between what has happened here in the past ten years and the experiences of the United States or Europe.
Sure, the minor party vote has increased and some of that has been to candidates pushing a populist agenda. But these forces have largely operated at the margins of Australia’s policy agenda.
Complacency is dangerous
The once-in-a-century commodity boom supported our economy through both the global financial crisis and its destructive aftermath. It was a luxury not afforded the US or Europe.
The end of the mining boom was greeted by a residential construction boom. That too looks like concluding. The forces of weak income growth, high debt levels and sluggish economic activity are upon us.
Income and output growth are going to be much harder to come by in Australia in the years ahead. We cannot assume that just because we have avoided a significant recession for 27 years, we will avoid another one.
The last thing the Australian economy needs in this environment is greater political discord.
The major parties’ share of the vote is already at post-war lows. A new wave of populism that takes the vote of “others” to further heights could have serious consequences for effective management of our economy.
We have an open economy heavily burdened with debt and reliant on immigration and trade to provide a healthy underpinning to future economic growth. We don’t know how our economy would cope with a reversal of these key pillars of our modern prosperity.
Curtailing populist anger is a priority
Whether we like it or not, the evidence of misconduct in the financial services industry has become a flashpoint for popular discontent within Australia.
The financial services industry most certainly is not the root of all economic evil in our society, but that is irrelevant to the public mood and those who seek to take advantage of it.
The fact that the royal commission has laid bare such widespread abuse of market power means that right now the banking industry is the prime example of elites taking advantage of everyday people. Its extraordinary revelations have left Australians in a state of shock.
The broader community wants action, not just to prevent what was uncovered happening again, but to make sure that the people responsible are held accountable for the damage done.
Real or imagined, a lack of genuine accountability will mean people lose faith in the capacity of mainstream political forces and institutions to serve the broader community.
What is to be done?
If the moderate forces that operate in our parliament and government institutions are not seen to be delivering for the broader community, people will justifiably look elsewhere.
The immediate priority is to act following the final report from the royal commission. Commissioner Kenneth Hayne has made it perfectly clear that it is the role of the regulators, specifically the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
There is every likelihood that more dangerous economic waters lie ahead. Policymakers will need to be both decisive and agile to deal with the malaise, whatever form it takes.
We are not facing a new financial crisis, at least we hope we are not. We don’t need to throw the kitchen sink at the economy right now. But the government we elect will have to work closely with the parliament and our key economic institutions to guide the country through new and uncertain economic times.
An effective parliament will be more important than ever.
Warren Hogan, Industry Professor, University of Technology Sydney
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/australias-populist-moment-has-arrived-111491" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Australia’s populist moment has arrived: Warren Hogan

<html><body>
The Federal Government may yet tinker with negative gearing in next month's budget. 
The most likely scenario would see the introduction of a limit of say two claimable investment properties or alternatively a dollar value cap on how much can be negatively geared by investors. 
There are now a record 2.05 million taxpayer individuals with an ownership interest in a rental property in Australia.
This represents a jump of 348,000 investors over six years, increasing at around 1000 every week.
The latest release of ATO data for 2014-15 tax year show the number of individuals with just the one investment property stands at a record 1.468 million.
Some 383,000 eventually get to two investment properties. 
There are therefore just 10 percent who own three or more.
Less than one percent of investors, or just 19,198, become potential headlines for their triumph by owning six or more property.
Preventing negative gearing from the third property onwards would be consistent with Treasurer Scott Morrison's view that changes to the housing market ought be done in a "surgical" role rather than involving a "chainsaw".
The data release prompts two questions in my mind: Why do Australians typically stop at just the one? How many investment properties do you need?
I have a theory that many Australians are almost accidental investors rather than professional investors.
That is they do so in a rather relaxed way, keeping up with the Joneses, heard it was a god nest egg, but with no intention of getting around to ratcheting it up beyond the one.
These investors often do so after little research, minimal financial services advice, and in their near neighbourhood and often for the use of the extended family as required.
One or two properties is definitely not enough to fully fund your retirement. 
Estate agent John McGrath suggested it could be argued that even six won’t be enough to fund your retirement if you want a good lifestyle.
He recently offered some tips to help figure out how many investments you’re going to need to achieve your goals, by saying the best idea is to work backwards.
"Say you want to fully fund your retirement with $100,000 in passive income.
"Would five properties returning $20,000 per year would work?
"Actually, no. You'll need to pay tax on that income and even if you owned all five debt-free, they’re still going to cost money to maintain."
He pointed out strata levies on five two bedroom apartments in Sydney could easily add up to $20,000 per year.
McGrath noted if you're aiming to fund your retirement, it's critical that your properties achieve solid capital growth.
He said a common strategy was selling half your portfolio to pay off the remaining assets; and you live off the income from those that are left.
This article was first published in the Sunday Telegraph.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

How many investment properties is enough for retirement?

<html><body>
Author Ross Guest - Professor of Economics and National Senior Teaching Fellow, Griffith University
Australia’s AAA credit rating was under pressure even before the election and is now looking decidedly shaky. Ratings agency Standard &amp; Poors has moved Australia’s rating outlook from “stable” to “negative”, due to debt and a poor chance of budget repair.
This follows warnings from the other major credit rating agencies – Moody’s and Fitch Ratings. The problem is budget repair will only become harder over the coming years, whatever the final numbers in the parliament.
On the parties' approach to budget repair, the Coalition and Labor are virtually indistinguishable as far as the credit agencies are concerned. The May budget projected a deficit (in underlying cash terms) of A$37 billion in 2016-17, gradually falling to $6 billion over the four-year forward estimates.
Labor’s plan is to reduce the deficit from $39 billion to $11 billion over that time. Both Coalition and Labor forecast a return to surplus over the subsequent years and indeed quite large surpluses ten years from now. Budget repair on this scale was utterly implausible before the election and is fiction now.
The government’s so-called “zombie” budget measures were baked into its projections over the forward estimate period. These were mainly the cuts to university funding, family payments and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. None of these had any prospect of being legislated with the past Senate, never mind with a larger, more powerful set of crossbench senators.
The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates these “zombie” measures to be worth $8 billion in total over the forward estimates. This accounts for roughly half of the difference between the total projected deficits of Coalition and Labor over the same period.
In short, there is little or no prospect of achieving the budget repair that is a pre-requisite for maintaining Australia’s AAA credit rating. Both sides of politics need to spell out to all Australians what this means. The effect of a credit downgrade is like an income cut to households, businesses and government.
It’s similar to the effect of a decline in the terms of trade (relative prices of our exports), and also similar to a loss of national productivity. All of these things effectively reduce our national disposable income. We become poorer as a nation.
Foreign lenders use Australia’s credit rating to set the interest rates that they charge Australian borrowers, mainly governments and businesses. A lower credit rating triggers a larger foreign risk premium in the interest rate that they charge borrowers.
This flows through to the general level of interest rates in the economy, so all firms and households with debts face higher borrowing costs. This can lead to less spending and hiring of workers by firms, and less disposable income for those households.
The major credit agencies are huge private organisations entrusted with capital of shareholders. They make calls about credit ratings not for political purposes but on the basis of what is in the best interests of investors.
The credit agencies are simply making rational assessments. The probability of Australia eventually defaulting on its debt is extremely low, but it is not zero and it is rising, which is important.
The slightly higher risk of default would result in a small downgrade from AAA, as occurred in the 1980s, by the major credit agencies. In turn this would imply higher interest rates, as it did back in the 1980s.
Higher interest rates are definitely bad news for those borrowing. It’s not necessarily good news for those saving either because rates on saving do not increase as much as rates on borrowing.
Also, when rates on overseas borrowing go up because of a larger foreign risk premium in our interest rates, the Australian dollar is likely to fall, as it did dramatically in the 1980s, from US 72 cents to 60 cents in the space of three months. When the Australian dollar falls for this reason our international purchasing power is reduced.
This is quite different to what happens when the Reserve Bank raises interest rates through its control over the official interest rate. In that case the Australian dollar is likely to rise, in the short term at least, which increases our international purchasing power – we can buy more from overseas with our income.
The parliament is like the Roman emperor Nero: “fiddling while Rome burns”, an apt analogy since Europe is where we are slowly headed economically and that won’t be pretty.
To read more from The Conversation <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-could-be-about-to-lose-its-aaa-rating-and-heres-why-62039?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%208%202016%20-%205190&amp;utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%208%202016%20-%205190+CID_873f6ecd844c932714a88a74d5931324&amp;utm_source=campaign_monitor&amp;utm_term=Australia%20could%20be%20about%20to%20lose%20its%20AAA%20rating%20and%20heres%20why" target="_blank">click here.</a>
</body></html>

Federal Election

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Federal Election

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News