Policy

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Globally, interest in national urban policy peaked in the late 1970s and declined sharply thereafter. The trend held true for Australia, peaking under the Whitlam government.
The decades after the Whitlam government produced a variety of federal housing and other urban policies. None had the scope of a national urban policy.
Not until 2011, with Labor’s Our Cities, Our Future, was a national urban policy launched. This did not mirror a similar resurgent interest in Western countries. These countries promote intergovernmental decentralisation, while Australia has increased centralisation.
Australian exceptionalism – both its “unique model of metropolitan governance” and its extreme <a href="https://theconversation.com/renewing-federalism-what-are-the-solutions-to-vertical-fiscal-imbalance-31422">vertical fiscal imbalance</a> (VFI) – provides the setting for federal policy that assumes the prerogatives of state and metropolitan urban policy.
<h2>Commonwealth role rarely challenged</h2>
Urban academics and professional organisations such as the Planning Institute of Australia celebrated Our Cities, Our Future – perhaps due to the increased prominence accorded urban affairs.
Few questioned the rationale for federal engagement in matters such as metropolitan strategic planning, infrastructure investment and housing. No significant urban outcomes can be attributed to Our Cities, Our Future.
Yet the policy environment at the time did have a legacy, following the creation in 2008 of Infrastructure Australia. In a context of VFI, then-prime minister Kevin Rudd sought to rationalise federal infrastructure funding based on the “business case” for projects. He tasked the COAG Reform Council with preparing guidelines for capital city strategic planning systems that would provide an “evidence base” for federal decision-making.
In 2014, the remit of Infrastructure Australia was expanded. It was to undertake an Australian Infrastructure Audit and prepare an Australian Infrastructure Plan. The plan, finalised in 2016, holds that:
The Australian government should drive change in the planning and operation of Australia’s cities through the use of Infrastructure Reform Incentives.
This approach would:
 …tie the provision of additional funding for infrastructure to the delivery of a range of city-based reforms, focused on improving the quality of planning, development and infrastructure across Australia’s cities.
This is an extraordinary assertion of power over planning for, and infrastructure investment in, cities. It has no constitutional foundation. VFI, however, frees the pens of the drafters of urban policy and the presumptions of their political masters.
Lest we forget, at the time the plan was being finalised, for 99 days there was a minister for cities and the built environment. Again, responding to the attention given to urban affairs, urban academics and professionals feted the creation of this position. No significant urban outcomes can be attributed to the ministry.
Following Jamie Briggs’ misadventure and the appointment of Angus Taylor as assistant minister for cities and digital transformation, the Smart Cities Plan was launched. Its potential significance is huge. Its ambition is to “rethink the way our cities are planned, built and managed”, with the Commonwealth to lead the rethinking.
<h2>So what’s in the latest plan?</h2>
The plan contains much that is interesting, but little that is substantial. It has the appearance more of a think-piece than a substantive policy document. Some prominent ideas are plugged in, then ignored.
An example is the “30-minute city”. It gets headlines, but it is difficult to identify what this adds to the urban agenda once the actual commitment to public transport is considered.
What the 30-minute city concept does do is reveal the extent of federal presumption about city planning. Can one really argue that this is the job of federal government?
Together, the Australian Infrastructure Plan and the Smart Cities Plan amount to a new national urban policy based on metropolitan strategic planning, infrastructure funding and City Deals.
While acknowledging the states' constitutional prerogatives to undertake metropolitan strategic and infrastructure planning and to implement projects, VFI makes federal presumptions possible. The views of a metropolitan community of interests are not a consideration.
The federal commitment is to:
<ul>
<li>
A$50 million for infrastructure planning;
</li>
<li>
establish an infrastructure financing unit; and
</li>
<li>
invite state and territory governments to partner the Commonwealth on City Deals.
</li>
</ul>
Any federal discussion about financing infrastructure in Australia’s cities is interesting and the Smart Cities Plan does appear to presage innovative public and private financing opportunities.
As for City Deals, these are to be based on federal and state/territory partnerships to “drive national priorities tailored to local needs”. So, at the local level, national priorities prevail. The federal government knows best.
In the UK, City Deals are premised on “devolution” and the creation of metropolitan governments. Deals are negotiated with local and metropolitan governments and business leaders, with reference to civil society as well. Metropolitan governments are seen as desirable because it is believed the economic growth of cities is best promoted by city leadership.
However, neither Labor nor Coalition conceptions of national urban policy envisage city leadership serving a metropolitan constituency. Representative, revenue-generating metropolitan government, which can enter the infrastructure finance market, would threaten federal and state power and influence.
<h2>How can federal policy make a difference?</h2>
There are two preconditions for effective federal engagement in urban policy.
The first is a policy that survives the next election. Because the Labor and Coalition approaches incorporate urban issues from local to federal, they are essentially political treatises. Long-lived policies are unlikely.
The second precondition is to recognise that most policies are urban in a country that is 90% urban. The unintended urban consequences of federal policies have outweighed those of policies having urban intent. Examples include negative gearing, immigration and climate-change policies. The criterion of urban consequences should be integral to federal policy formation.
A federal concern with urban policy requires locating responsibility and funding for policies to the level of government where they are most effectively addressed. Often this will be at a metro scale. It is then best undertaken by metropolitan government.
Rather than tied infrastructure and social grants, untied fiscal decentralisation is desirable. Australia should welcome policy and expenditure differences, experimentation and mutual learning among metros.
The way forward is to consider what level of government is best placed to resolve contested urban issues, in partnership with the private sector and civil society.
A federal urban policy should be limited to issues that explicitly require federal intervention. The determination of these issues will be subject to debate. But the operating assumption should be federal policy modesty in relation to states and cities, devolution of responsibilities, and fiscal decentralisation.
Richard Tomlinson is professor of Urban Planning, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-tomlinson-10016" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

New name, new look for latest national urban policy, but same old problem

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Negative gearing and capital gains tax are a looming battleground in the federal election.
The debate was heightened last month by the release of modelling by consultants BIS Shrapnel purporting to show that reforms would lead to rent increases of between 4 percent and 10 percent. If correct, this would scare any political party.
An article in The Australian on Tuesday revealed that the ALP had seen this modelling before it released its policy to wind back the tax breaks on negative gearing and capital gains,
The ALP should be applauded for proceeding nevertheless. The report was clearly going to be inconvenient. But it was also not worth the paper on which it was printed.
The report implied that a<a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/a-low-cost-way-to-derail-the-housing-debate/"> </a>$2 billion increase in tax would reduce economic activity by $19 billion a year. The report’s model also suggested that every additional house or apartment would increase the size of the Australian economy by $2.6 million.
None of this is remotely plausible, and consequently, it is difficult to believe anything else that the modelling or the report has to say.
Nonetheless, this report is still being discussed a month later – so it clearly needs some more critical analysis.
Tax changes will clearly reduce the after tax benefits for property investors. The key question is whether the market responds by reducing the price of housing, or by increasing rents, or by absorbing a reduction in returns.
Most likely, the price of housing will fall somewhat, investor returns will reduce a little, and rents will barely move. This is why.
Changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will increase taxes for investors and lower their returns. Normally this would lead to lower asset prices.
But the outlook for home-buyers is different. The benefits for a home-buyer (of living in the home) won’t change. The price of the home will be a little lower due to the changes in negative gearing and capital gains tax. Therefore the return on assets (the benefits divided by the price) will be a little higher for home-buyers.
Combining the effects of the changes for investors and home-owners leads to an average after tax return on housing that is about the same as today. There will be more home-owners and correspondingly fewer investors – but higher rates of home ownership are the political goal.
The outcome might be different if the supply of new housing dried up. If there were fewer incentives to develop new homes, then eventually rents would increase.
However, our best guess is that tax changes will have little effect on housing construction. The supply of new housing is mainly restricted by planning rules rather than a lack of returns. In any case, reforms to negative gearing are likely to reduce the price of developable land, but they won’t change the returns on development.
BIS Shrapnel assume otherwise. They believe that changes to negative gearing rules will reduce the price and therefore the profitability of property developments, but not the price of developable land. And so they assert that tax changes will lead to less residential development, and therefore higher rents in the long run. Their report assumed that the price of developable land wouldn’t change based on three claims.
First claim: if the price of developable housing land fell, sites would instead be used for commercial purposes. But as a firm that advises clients on property development, BIS Shrapnel should know that in most localities land provides a much higher return per square metre when turned into residences than when used for commercial purposes. Indeed, there are concerns that too much of the Melbourne and Sydney CBDs is being converted to residential rather than commercial uses. There isn’t much evidence of enormous pent-up demand for commercial development.
Second claim: landholders will be reluctant to sell at lower prices. This is simply wishful thinking. Prices don’t rise just because sellers would like them to do so.
Third claim: it will be more expensive to aggregate sites for development. But lower prices as a result of negative gearing reform will affect all residential properties, irrespective of whether they have already been developed, or have potential to be aggregated further.
Instead of assuming that tax changes will only affect the price of development, it is much more plausible that changes in after tax returns to investors will primarily lead to lower land prices. This won’t hurt the profitability of development, the supply of rental property will continue, and the impacts on rents will be minimal.
Even if tax changes did affect the profitability of development, it’s all small beer. Quick sanity checks (the kind of things that property developers do to ensure that their modellers don’t lose them a fortune) show that the effect of negative gearing changes on property prices will be less than 2 per cent across the Australian market.
One way to think about it is that negative gearing and capital gains tax provide investors in real estate with a tax benefit of about $3 billion a year; that annual benefit converts to an asset value of about $55 billion; and all Australian residential property is worth a little over $5 trillion. If negative gearing were abolished entirely the lost value would be $55 billion, just over 1 per cent of $5 trillion of property value.
Another way to crunch the numbers shows that negative gearing and capital gains tax changes would reduce the after tax returns on real estate investment assets by about 7 percent. But this wouldn’t affect all housing assets – only 30 percent are investment properties, and the rest are owner occupied. So across the market, return on assets – and therefore asset values –would fall by about 2 percent. Or in the unlikely event that investors succeed in passing on tax costs, rents would rise by at most 2 percent.
BIS Shrapnel presented the ALP with a claim that tax changes would increase rents by 4 to 10 percent. But that claim was several times larger than fundamentals would suggest. It used a model that was not publicly available. It was allied with a series of manifestly ridiculous economic results. And it all rested on an unjustifiable assumption that tax changes won’t affect land prices.
The ALP was right to ignore such flawed analysis. It is a relief to discover that – sometimes – a political party’s policy cannot be bought off just by commissioning a flawed report with scary numbers.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" rel="author">John Daley </a>is chief executive officer, Grattan Institute and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Why it is good policy, not bad politics, to ignore bad modelling on negative gearing

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Until now, student debt in Australia has been relatively modest, with low repayment rates, low indexation and high repayment thresholds. This won’t be the case if the government proceeds with changes mooted in the recent budget, including higher fees and higher interest on debts. Australia will move to a student debt model similar to the US, so this is a good place to look at the effects that large levels of debt have on young graduates.
<a href="https://www.demos.org/what-cost-how-student-debt-reduces-lifetime-wealth" target="_blank">Much recent research</a> from the United States shows that student debt is having profound and negative effects, both at the individual and at the national level.
Graduates living with debt
Purdue University is a public university in South Bend, Indiana. President Mitch Daniels commissioned a large, evidence-based study of the impact of student debt on university graduates. <a href="https://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/168791/gallup-purdue-index-inaugural-national-report.aspx">The results</a>, based on a survey of 30,000 graduates, were recently released.
The <a href="https://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/purdues-mitch-daniels-talks-college-costs/Content?oid=2837651#.U4KfSPmSyPY" target="_blank">findings of the study</a> are sobering, on two fronts.
First, student debts weigh heavily on students’ later wellbeing. Wellbeing was measured along five dimensions: life purpose, social engagement, community engagement, financial satisfaction and physical health. Graduates without student debt were seven times more likely to report themselves to be “thriving” along all of these dimensions than graduates (or indeed dropouts) with more than $40,000 in debt.
This finding tends to confirm the results of a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735813001256">major meta-analysis</a> of evidence from the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The findings suggest that higher levels of debt while a student are significant predictors of stress and secondary negative health consequences. This study also points to other evidence of serious consequences more generally. Higher levels of debt have serious long-term consequences, including mental, neurotic or psychotic disorders, depression, suicide attempts (or suicide completion), problem drinking and drug dependence.
Secondly, large debt burdens influence choices related to work, careers and lives. Graduates with higher debts are less likely to be entrepreneurial and start new businesses. This is to be expected, as student debt repayments tend to constrain the capacity to borrow for other productive purposes.
In the robust free-market economy of the US, such entrepreneurial timidity among the best and brightest is a source of real and valid concern for policy makers.
Other <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272710001337" target="_blank">recent research</a> has shown that students with higher debts tend to pursue higher-paying careers, not pursuing “public interest” jobs in areas like teaching and community services. Over time, this means that public institutions like schools will have to pay higher wages to attract the best and brightest, indirectly shifting some of the cost of student debt back to the taxpayer in the form of higher public sector salaries.
Large student debts <a href="https://www.learnvest.com/2012/10/real-women-speak-out-how-student-loans-have-affected-me/" target="_blank">have also been shown</a> to lead to delays in home purchases and having children.
Debt ain’t free
Shifting more of the burden for higher education back on to students, and saddling them with huge debts, may seem like a good idea for policy makers, but it will have serious long-term consequences for those students and thus the wider Australian community.
In the United States, the average student graduated with around $30,000 of student debt in 2013. Currently, Australian graduates of three-year business degrees have debt of a similar level.
If the proposed changes lead to higher fees, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-student-debt-will-you-be-facing-post-budget-26712" target="_blank">as most analysts expect</a>, it would be reasonable to anticipate the graduates of 2018 completing their three-year degrees with debt of around $50,000.
It would be naïve to think debts of this level won’t have far-reaching consequences for graduates’ well-being and the work and economic choices they make in their lives. These choices will have serious consequences for our economy and society.
John Rice is associate professor in strategic management at Griffith University.
John Rice works for Griffith University, a public university. His most recent previous role was Chief Researcher at the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, a ministerial company owned by the Commonwealth and State education ministers. He has received grant funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a current member of the Australian Labor Party and the National Tertiary Education Union.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
Photo courtesy of <a href="https://taxrebate.org.uk/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" data-rapid_p="22">TaxRebate.org.uk</a> / <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons</a>.
</body></html>

jake-cSmGT7VXVf

How will rising student debt affect first home buyers?

<html><body>
RE/MAX Western Australia’s managing director Geoff Baldwin has spoken out against potential changes to current stamp duty dispensations for first home buyers, saying that if the relief was decreased or abolished there would be dire effects across the market.
 “The negative affect the ceasing of stamp duty relief for first home buyers would be extremely damaging however, when this segment of the market stagnates it ripples up through all price ranges and the effect would be crippling”, said Baldwin.
“If you take a line through New South Wales and Victoria where subsidies have been abolished, first home buyer activity has dropped to 8% and 12% respectively, compared to the current 22% in Western Australia (RP Data).
“Historically, in a healthy market, first home buyers account for around 25 to 30% of all buyers.
“The established home market has already taken a massive hit through the government’s recent actions in changing the First Home Owner Grant whereby those building new homes receive $7,000 and people buying established only $3,000.
“To abolish first home owner stamp duty concessions would be extremely short sighted as it will a negative impact the whole market and hence the Industry, just at a time where we are again experiencing some prosperity in the property sector.”
 
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

Rumoured cuts to stamp duty relief for first home buyers would be “extremely damaging”: RE/MAX

<html><body>
Investors should expect regulations that allow self-managed superannuation funds to borrow to buy property to come under government scruitiny in the coming months, an expert in the area has said.
In February, Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos ruled out a specific review into limited recourse borrowing arrangements which SMSFs use when taking out loans to buy property.
Macquarie Bank executive director David Shirlow told Property Observer it was unlikely that the government would change its position, despite Senator Sinodinos standing aside and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann taking over as Acting Assistant Treasurer.
“Whilst the prospect of a separate and specific review of the matter is off the policy agenda for the time being, there are still some live policy issues in borrowing through super,” said Shirlow, who specialises in SMSFs and sits on the board of the SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia (SPAA).
He said some stakeholders had argued that it was inappropriate for SMSFs to borrow for property investment at all, and that further constraints on advice provided regarding limited recourse borrowing arrangements and product offerings could be considered.
The arrangements are likely to be examined as part of the Financial System Inquiry, which is due to publish an interim report in mid-2014 and a final report by November.
Numerous submissions to the Inquiry have called for government to review SMSF borrowing and put in place additional consumer protection measures and education for trustees.
Big four accounting firm KPMG noted in its submission that super funds were tax-exempt in the pension phase, which provided incentives for SMSFs to invest in long-term assets such as residential property, and even more so if the property was negatively geared.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia strongly encouraged a review of existing arrangements to ascertain whether borrowing was appropriate and, if it was, to ensure the right legislative and regulatory frameworks were in place.
Mid-tier accounting firm Chan &amp; Naylor called for urgent action to create a dedicated national SMSF educational framework, lead by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), to teach the public about the merits and pitfalls of SMSF investments.
The Reserve Bank of Australia noted that SMSFs borrowing could expose members to greater financial risks (including excessive concentration in a single asset) than they understood they were taking.
CPA Australia raised concerns about the appropriateness of advice received by SMSF trustees and members, and potential misinformation being provided by unlicensed advisers such as real estate agents, mortgage brokers and property developers.
Shirlow said ASIC considered itself to have jurisdiction, under the Corporations Act, over some aspects of property sales people giving advice on limited recourse borrowing arrangements.
“Stakeholders such as SPAA would argue that there should be some more definite consumer protection rules in place to make sure that property spruiking is not going to lead to disaster,” he added.
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia has previously advocated for advice to SMSFs on asset classes such as investment property and limited recourse loans to be provided only through licensed financial planners.
</body></html>

zfielding-GvX3Uq9KTa

Investors should expect SMSF borrowing to come under greater government scrutiny

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER

Urban Taskforce chief executive Tom Forrest has welcomed the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) first flagship report producing five-year projections for housing supply and demand across Australia’s major cities and regional areas.

The report identifies some tough choices for politicians.

The Report identifies some short-term affordability improvements for renters and prospective first home buyers as a consequence of lower population growth coupled with COVID-19 stimulus measures.

However, the report also warns that affordability could deteriorate if supply is not responsive to the rebound in demand once migration returns to earlier levels.  This is the biggest risk for the NSW economy and it falls at the feet of the Planning Department.  This is our dilemma. NSW Planning has responded well to COVID – but as 2020 closes it is yet to progress any significant planning reform and many within it would prefer less housing supply, not more.

Housing supply and population growth through migration cannot be seen as an either/or policy choice. We need both and our political leaders should be capable of developing a policy package which supports both. 

The challenge for Sydney’s economic growth is migration. Sydney’s migration levels must return to pre-COVID-19 levels and above to keep the economy moving and generating the tax receipts that we need to pay for the care of the aging population (the baby boomers) many of whom do not have large superannuation balances.

Simply halting the decline in tax-payers as a proportion of the total population requires migration.

Our economic future, and that of hundreds of thousands of workers in the property and construction sector, depend on population growth. Population growth drives economic growth. 

Without significant migration numbers, the ageing of our population (the baby-boomer phenomenon) will leave us with a lower and lower taxpayer base trying to support a bigger and bigger tax bill.

Governments need to re-open borders to investor immigration, skilled immigration, and the return of foreign students; WHILE still supporting a pipeline of housing supply.

The NHFIC report finds the longer term trends of declining affordability are likely to persist, particularly if supply is not responsive to demand when it recovers.

Housing supply also needs to be dramatically increased to create downward pressure on prices. This will mean some tough decisions for Minister Stokes and the Department of Planning.  The local character of suburbs will need to change – or they will change by themselves – as a result of the progressive decay of the city arising from the decline in the economy.
</body></html>

max.kwok_55688

Politicians must “chew gum” and “skip rope”: Urban Taskforce's Tom Forrest

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
A payment of $750 will be made from the end of this month to about 6.5 million people as part of the government’s $17.6 billion stimulus package aimed at keeping Australia out of a recession caused by the impact of the coronavirus.
The one-off tax free payment will go to pensioners and others who receive income support, including those who get the family tax benefit - with pensioners numbering about half the beneficiaries.
The payment will cost $4.8 billion, and go out from March 31. Almost all payments are expected to be made by the middle of April, in an attempt to boost spending for the vital June quarter, which will be hit hard by the fallout from the virus.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/newsletter"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320030/original/file-20200312-116261-a6ugi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=90&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2" alt="Sign up to The Conversation" width="100%"></a>
Putting cash in the hands of lower income earners is considered the fastest way to stimulate the economy, because they are most likely to spend it – although the health scare makes it trickier to predict how much people could save.
The wide-ranging package is skewed to helping small and medium sized businesses, with the government’s priority being to keep people in jobs. Three out of four dollars will be spent on initiatives to assist business.
These include payments of up to $25,000 for small and medium-sized enterprises (costing $6.7 billion), wage subsidies to support apprentices ($1.3 billion), a widening of the instant asset write off ($700 million), and the acceleration of depreciation deductions ($3.2 billion).
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320073/original/file-20200312-111253-lk2w82.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 
A $1 billion fund will be directed to help for severely-affected regions and communities. This will include measures such as the waiver of fees and charges for tourism businesses that operate in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Commonwealth National Parks. There will also be assistance for businesses to identify alternative export markets and supply chains.
To help people who need to access government sickness payments or are thrown out of work and require unemployment benefits, waiting times will be waived.
Scott Morrison highlighted the availability of the existing Commonwealth sickness payment, saying a casual employee who for medical reasons had to self-isolate, or who contracted the virus, and was unable to work, could access it.
Notably, the package does not contain anything for the tertiary education sector, despite it being severely affected by the travel ban on non-Australians from China, which sees tens of thousands of students stranded offshore. The government believes the universities generally have strong enough balance sheets to meet the situation.
The package will amount to 1.2% of GDP. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Treasury estimated the measures will add 1.5% to growth in the June quarter. Some $11 billion will go out before the end of June. The duration of measures is limited.
But Treasury has not yet been able to estimate the likely impact of the virus in the June quarter so, with the March quarter expected to be negative, it is unknown whether the economy will experience two quarters of negative growth, which would put it into recession.
The government now acknowledges the budget will be in deficit for this financial year. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann was blunt. “When you deliver a stimulus package of this size, I think people can add up the numbers. They can add up what it means in terms of the budget surplus. … This is not going to be a surplus year in 2019-20,” he told the ABC.
The package comes as the World Health Organisation declared the coronavirus a pandemic - something the Australian government had anticipated a fortnight ago - and the United States banned travellers arriving from Europe for the next 30 days.
Scott Morrison said the measures were “designed to support cash flow, boost investment and provide immediate demand stimulus to the Australian economy”.
The package has marked similarities to the Rudd government’s $10 billion first tranche stimulus in the global financial crisis, notably with its “cash splash” elements, although it is more targeted to business.
The prime minister will make an “address to the nation” at 7pm on Thursday.
The Australian Industry Group said the stimulus measures “will reduce the risk of a more severe downturn and the much worse budget outcome that it would bring”.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133512/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/michelle-grattan-20316">Michelle Grattan</a>, Professorial Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-canberra-865">University of Canberra</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cash-handout-of-750-for-6-5-million-pensioners-and-others-receiving-government-payments-133512">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Policy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Policy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News