Policy

<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>
GUEST OBSERVER
Amidst a global pandemic, some people are starting to dream big about infrastructure projects to help get Australia moving again. The decades-old dream of an Australian fast train is <a href="https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-backs-economic-game-changer-high-speed-rail-as-part-of-pandemic-recovery-20200418-p54l24">back in the headlines</a>. But, as alluring as it sounds, the federal opposition’s idea for a bullet train from Melbourne to Brisbane is not a good use of a generation’s worth of infrastructure spending.
After the coronavirus crisis, there may be good reasons to fast-track infrastructure to create jobs and stimulate the economy. But it remains as important as ever that funding go only to worthy projects. A bullet train does not fit the bill.
No silver bullet
Federal Labor <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-backs-economic-game-changer-high-speed-rail-as-part-of-pandemic-recovery-20200418-p54l24">claims</a> the train would be an “economic game-changer” for the regions in its path. But a <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/publications/high-speed-rail-study-reports/files/HSR_Phase_2-Main_Report_Low_Res.pdf">study</a> into the train, commissioned by Labor itself in government in 2010, found no evidence for this.
Any regional development was too uncertain, the authors concluded, to be considered in their cost-benefit analysis. In fact, they found the project could damage towns along the route:
The history of the impact of transport improvement in Australian towns is that they concentrate activity in the larger centres and create commuter towns lacking in higher level services. Without concerted efforts to the contrary, this is also a likely outcome of the introduction of HSR [high-speed rail].
Of course, as advocates will be quick to point out, the study did conclude total benefits would outweigh costs by a considerable margin: $2.30 in benefit for every $1 of cost. But this rosy calculation was based on a series of assumptions that are either outdated or inappropriate. As our upcoming report on fast rail will explain in more detail, it’s unlikely the train’s benefits would exceed its costs if a rigorous independent assessment were carried out today.
The benefits are also narrowly concentrated. The biggest winners would be business travellers between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Wider benefits to society accounted for only 3% of the total, and the effect on economic growth was expected to be minimal.
That’s because the train would take a very long time to build. According to the study, the project would only be “shovel ready” 15 years after funding was committed. This makes it completely ineffective as a timely stimulus during a downturn.
Advocates also argue the train would reduce emissions by taking high-emitting planes out of the sky. But a net reduction won’t be achieved for many years – maybe decades – because constructing the line would create so many emissions.
If built, this train would be the most expensive infrastructure project in Australian history. The study estimated the price tag at A$114 billion – A$130 billion in today’s dollars. As our chart shows, this is enough to pay for an entire generation’s worth of infrastructure.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330286/original/file-20200424-126800-jhqvr2.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/330286/original/file-20200424-126800-jhqvr2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 Projects are not presented as an alternative to the train but provide a point of reference for the scale of spending required for the high-speed rail project. Projects in yellow have active government funding commitments. Figures indicate total project funding costs, including private contributions. Figure for the fast train is in 2019 dollars. Source: Based on most recent figures from Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, Infrastructure Australia, NSW, Victorian and Queensland governments, Brisbane City Council, AECOM, ABS, Author provided
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330891/original/file-20200427-28119-1gi471o.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="" width="335" height="349">
So what should be done?
It is true current low interest rates would make borrowing to pay for such a large project cheaper than ever before, and fast-tracking infrastructure may be justified to aid economic recovery. But that doesn’t give governments a blank cheque to spend on whatever they like. The crisis does not absolve government of its responsibility to scrutinise projects to decide whether they are worthwhile.
A good place to start is by identifying the problem you want to solve.
If regional development is the goal, other options are available to governments that are more likely to be effective than a bullet train. <a href="https://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IV_30_Year_Strategy_WEB_V2.pdf">Infrastructure Victoria</a> and <a href="https://insw-sis.visualise.today/documents/INSW_2018SIS_BuildingMomentum_Summary.pdf">Infrastructure NSW</a> both identify better digital connectivity as a pressing need for regional and rural areas. The <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nbn-urged-to-intervene-as-pandemic-tests-broadband-connections-20200316-p54ain">current strain</a> on the national broadband network as many of us try to work from home is a good reminder of the link between connectivity and productivity.
If governments do want to focus on transport, “smaller picture” projects, though not as glamorous, tend to deliver more bang for buck, as <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/remarkably-adaptive/">previous Grattan work</a> has argued.
Projects that can be fast-tracked to start construction soon are also more likely to support economic recovery. Infrastructure Australia’s <a href="https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-02/current_priority_list_%20february_2020.pdf">priority list</a> suggests a range of transport projects and initiatives that are much further developed, including improving the Sydney-Canberra rail link. And the priority list includes projects that benefit all states and territories, not just the big three on the east coast.
The coronavirus crisis has upended many of our assumptions about “normal operating procedure” for governments. But it doesn’t mean we throw the old rule book out the window. Governments should only spend public money on projects that have clear and tangible benefits to society – not on grand “nation-building” projects that are big on style but low on substance.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136834/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/marion-terrill-169480">Marion Terrill</a>, Transport and Cities Program Director, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tom-crowley-1041697">Tom Crowley</a>, Associate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</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/look-beyond-a-silver-bullet-train-for-stimulus-136834">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Look beyond a silver bullet train for stimulus: Grattan Institute

<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>

Cash handout of $750 for 6.5 million pensioners and more

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
No Australian government has ever spent A$130 billion so quickly.
Last Tuesday, when the Prime Minister announced the government would subsidise six million jobs for six months to the tune of $1,500 a fortnight, the nation’s economists were left speechless.
Today, the government unveiled <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/labor-to-support-jobkeeper-package-despite-ineligibility-of-1m-casuals">the legislation</a> to be considered by the parliament tomorrow.
In ordinary times, there wouldn’t be a lot of support for a $130 billion wage subsidy. But these aren’t ordinary times.
Whole sectors of the economy have shut down, either directly as part of the health response to the pandemic, or indirectly as part of a wave of knock-on effects.
The JobKeeper wage subsidies will give <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-04/Fact_sheet_supporting_businesses_0.pdf">direct support</a> to the worst-affected businesses and jobs, helping to keep the economic damage to a minimum. The package isn’t perfect. But it’s a far better response than had been feared.
It will help keep the Australian economy afloat over the next six months, putting it in a position to bounce back when health officials deem it safe to reopen parts of the economy for business.
It has three key features:
<ul>
<li>
businesses get $1,500 per fortnight per worker (only for those workers who were employed on March 1. Short-term casuals with the business and some visa holders are excluded)
</li>
<li>
the employer has to keep those workers on the books and pay them at least $1,500 per fortnight
</li>
<li>
it only applies to businesses whose revenue has collapsed by at least 30% (15% for charities and not-for-profits, 50% for the largest businesses, with banks excluded).
</li>
</ul>
To be effective, it has to deliver on three goals:
<ul>
<li>
to support workers’ incomes through the crisis
</li>
<li>
to keep workers attached to firms, preserving as many job-specific skills and as much know-how as possible
</li>
<li>
to prevent wide-scale business failures which could turn a short and sharp recession into a long and painful depression.
</li>
</ul>
Importantly, this means if it’s working well, both workers and employers will get something out of the deal.
At firms that would otherwise have shut down, workers will benefit considerably.
Many workers will get paid more
The $1,500 payment will give them much more than the Newstart payment they would have received if laid off, even the doubled Newstart (now called JobSeeker) which for six months has been paired with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/scalable-without-limit-how-the-government-plans-to-get-coronavirus-support-into-our-hands-quickly-134353">Coronavirus supplement</a> lifting it from $565.70 to $1,115.60 per fortnight.
And for the one third of workers otherwise earning less than $1,500 per fortnight, the JobKeeper payment will be a pay rise. If the subsidy keeps their firm afloat, they’ll keep their job and be paid even more than before for the next six months.
It’s possible those earning more than $1,500 per fortnight will earn less than they did before in pay and benefits, depending on what the government does with the Fair Work Act.
 
Exactly how it works out for workers who get JobKeeper will depend on the labour market. On one hand, they will be more attractive to employers because their employment comes with a big subsidy that new hires don’t bring with them. On the other hand, they might have few alternative employers to turn to. Jobs might be hard to find.
They’ll get to keep their jobs
Regardless, even if their pay is reduced, their situation will be much better than under the renamed Newstart. And to the extent that cutting their pay helps to keep the firm viable, it will secure a job for them on the other side.
Employers will also benefit. If a business stays open, it will get the benefit of its workers’ labour for free or at a big discount. It might look like corporate welfare, but it’s a feature, not a bug.
A key objective of the scheme is to plug the hole in firms’ revenues to prevent them going under. Most would have been viable if it weren’t for the necessary public health measures governments have taken. Allowing them to fail would mean a pointless destruction of valuable resources.
The wage subsidy is somewhat crude and inevitably there will be some waste. Some firms will be given more money than they need, some workers will be given more, some less.
It was never going to be perfect
Given more time, the treasury could have designed something better targeted, less wasteful. It didn’t have it. The economy has never experienced so sudden a collapse.
But there are a few simple things the government could do to make it better.
It could include short-term casuals and visa holders, and it should take care not to weaken the Fair Work Act.
JobKeeper won’t prevent a serious contraction in the Australian economy, but it should give us a very good chance to bounce back on the other side.
<hr>
We would like to thank Jeff Borland for his comments on a draft version of this article.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135195/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/steven-hamilton-155869">Steven Hamilton</a>, Visiting Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bruce-preston-452859">Bruce Preston</a>, Professor of Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chris-edmond-673265">Chris Edmond</a>, Professor of Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</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/jobkeeper-is-quick-dirty-and-effective-there-was-no-time-to-make-it-perfect-135195">original article</a>.
</body></html>

JobKeeper is quick, dirty and effective, there was no time for perfection

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
It's a challenging times for policymakers.
I don't know of a single obsever who believes that the unemployment rate is going to fall to below 5 per cent this year, let alone towards full employment, however low that might prove to be.
There was another soft result from SEEK's job ads series, down by 7 per cent over the year to January, and the labour force update for January was also distinctly underwhelming.
Employment increased by +13,500, as the annual growth in employment to decelerated further to +1.94 per cent.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z-pr9FnAlWM/Xk5YTURc8RI/AAAAAAAA0WE/ZbHyF76etN4mz4xvZnYBnk1g8cdbUJ3MACNcBGAsYHQ/s640/A2.jpg" width="640" height="354" data-original-height="802" data-original-width="1446">
Part-time employment growth (+2.8 per cent) has continued to outstrip the growth in full-time positions (+1.7 per cent).
Employment growth remained solid in Victoria, to be up +91,000 over the year, with Queensland next up at +67,000, but New South Wales (+43,000) has clearly come off the boil, and there's all but nothing meaningful to speak of elsewhere.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kygDR0HIlSI/Xk5YUQYmqXI/AAAAAAAA0WM/nz14Z7lF1pMhBY4Fma_lhsaYOfklLGFaACNcBGAsYHQ/s640/A4.jpg" width="640" height="382" data-original-height="815" data-original-width="1361">
With the participation rate ticking back up a notch, the unemployment rate jumped from 5.09 per cent back up to 5.28 per cent in January, which was disappointing, if unsurprising. \
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NkUsoIMfAIQ/Xk5YTNm-O9I/AAAAAAAA0WA/Zu5CMyJdwJobSntPPkRgM23mRXrz3OArACNcBGAsYHQ/s640/A1.jpg" width="640" height="378" data-original-height="826" data-original-width="1396">
The disruption to the economy in January saw the unemployment rate in Victoria saw spike quickly to 5.4 per cent in seasonally adjusted terms, suggesting that far too much slack remains.
The smoother trend figures plotted below show only New South Wales (4½ per cent) as remotely sitting in the right postcode. 
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wZogq354els/Xk5YTQBPNTI/AAAAAAAA0WI/ZG9AIxfIEmQVF4jjjIFIBE17u6KVJSIXgCNcBGAsYHQ/s640/A3.jpg" width="640" height="380" data-original-height="823" data-original-width="1382">
Finally, the trend result for monthly hours worked was just +1.3 per cent higher year-on-year, which is also a lacklustre read and well below the rate of employment growth.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zrshZf9Zwv4/Xk5YUePWn4I/AAAAAAAA0WQ/aLBqw0rk3gIKEf3QeyEFahyorw5Co8y0QCNcBGAsYHQ/s640/A5.jpg" width="640" height="374" data-original-height="814" data-original-width="1388">
Overall, it wasn't a terrible report, but the widely predicted increase in spare capacity does appear to be playing out, with more of the same likely to be in the post as the Chinese travel ban persists throughout February and beyond. 
PETE WARGENT is the co-founder of AllenWargent property buyers (London, Sydney) and a best-selling author and <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">blogger</a>.
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

Employment growth remains a challenge for policy makers: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The Reserve Bank has released its quarterly Statement on Monetary Policy (SMP). The report rounds out a full week for RBA communication that has also included the Governor’s decision statement following the Board’s February policy meeting, a speech on “the year ahead” and this morning’s semi-annual testimony to Parliament. The key themes throughout have been: a surprisingly confident outlook, notwithstanding a weaker recent performance and near term outlook due to bushfires and the emerging coronavirus shock; relatedly, a more positive view on the housing outlook, most notably around construction; a continued preparedness to cut rates further, particularly if labour markets were to weaken; but with a little more weight in the ‘balance of risks’ assessment being placed on the potential for further rate cuts to drive a renewed increase in household debt.
The SMP provides the fullest account of the RBA’s assessment and risks to the outlook. The central message here is that despite some downward adjustments to near term estimates: “…the medium-term outlook for the Australian economy is broadly unchanged from three months ago.” The bank’s point forecasts have GDP growth of 2% for 2019, 2.7% for 2020 and 3% 2020 (December quarter on December quarter growth rates). That compares to 2.3%, 2.8% and 3.1% in the previous SMP released in November. The medium term ‘central case’ view is of a gradual return to ‘around trend’ this year and rising slightly above trend in 2021. Similarly, the unemployment rate is expected to hold in the 5-5¼% range near term before gradually declining heading into 2021.
As we noted when these new forecasts were first revealed in the Governor’s statement following the Board meeting on Tuesday (see here), it is surprising that the RBA has retained its ‘around trend’ growth forecast for 2020 given the weaker momentum apparent in the September quarter national accounts; developing questions around the global economy; and the softer tone from a range of labour market lead indicators. Westpac’s forecast is considerably more downbeat, with growth now expected to come in at 1.9% this year, factoring in the impact of bushfires (more here) and a preliminary assessment of the impact from the coronavirus (more here). That in turn is expected to see the unemployment rate track higher, drawing a further easing response from the RBA with 25bp cuts forecast in April and August followed by quantitative easing measures.
Note that the RBA’s latest forecasts do include preliminary assessments of the impact of both bushfire and the coronavirus, although the high degree of uncertainty around the latter is stressed. It’s more detailed forecasts show a material downgrade to the first half of 2020 with annual growth of 1.9%yr over the year to June compared to a 2.6%yr forecast back in November. As the largely unchanged calendar year forecasts imply, this is largely offset by a rebound in the second half.
Key to the RBA’s more positive outlook are signs that last year’s policy easing is working to generate a lift in momentum – especially in the housing sector – and a view that this will continue as the ‘long and variable lags’ flow through to other sectors, consumer demand in particular. From the SMP: “The transmission of monetary policy is evident in established housing markets … It is too soon to see any response to this in household spending, but over time the drag on consumption growth from the earlier decline in housing prices and activity should wane.”
The global backdrop is also seen as more positive than a few months ago although here the messaging has been a little uneven. The emphasis in the Governor’s decision statement and speech was that “global growth is expected to be a little stronger this year and next than it was last year”. That jars slightly with the SMP commentary, which notes that “overall growth in Australia’s major trading partners is expected to be a little lower in 2020” – the difference possibly reflecting some late changes to allow for the emerging coronavirus shock.
On the bank’s more detailed forecasts, the 2020 outlook for business investment has been upgraded to 9.3% from 6.2% in November. The text suggests that this is around mining investment, “Growth (in mining investment) is expected to pick up noticeably over 2020 and 2021 as work commences on a number of sustaining and expansionary projects.” The RBA acknowledges that non-mining business investment was (1) weaker than expected in the September quarter, led by equipment spending; and (2) “the capex survey indicates equipment investment is likely to be weaker than previously expected over the remainder of 2019/20”. This had led to “the forecast for non-mining investment has been lowered over the next few quarters” Beyond that, “from late 2020, non-mining business investment growth is expected to increase modestly, in line with the broader pick-up in private demand”.
On household income, it is striking that real household disposable income growth for Dec 2020 has been downgraded to 1.4% from 2.3% previously. The figure for Dec 2019 is as before at 1.6%. The downgrade to consumer spending for Dec 2020 is more modest, 2.4% to 2.0% - suggesting in our minds downside risks given this weak income outlook. In the Overview of the Statement, consumption growth is expected to recover gradually, with “the low level of interest rates, a somewhat faster rate of income growth than in recent years and the recovery in household wealth are all expected to contribute to this turnaround”. The mix implies a significant decline in the household savings rate over the year.
On housing, “the trough in dwelling construction is expected to occur in the second half of 2020, before a recovery in residential construction gets underway through 2021”. The forecast profile for home building activity has been upgraded a little: with the Dec 2019 figure, to -9.8% from -11.3%; the Dec 2020 figure, to -1.9% from -2.6%; while for Dec 2021 the figure is unchanged at 9.2%.
Around the assessment of policy, the Bank clearly remains open to further policy easing. The board again considering the case for additional easing in February with the main concern being: “… the only gradual nature of the progress [towards the inflation target and full employment]” and “ongoing uncertainties” (i.e. around household balance sheet adjustments and from the near terms shocks from bushfires and the coronavirus). More specifically, the Bank is prepared to ease further “if the unemployment rate were to be moving materially higher and there was no further progress being made towards the inflation target.”
However, there has been a notable shift in the way the Board is assessing the case for further easing, which came more to the fore in the Governor’s speech, Parliamentary testimony and in the SMP than in Tuesday’s decision statement. Whereas back in late November the RBA Governor indicated that he was not particularly worried about the resurgence in house prices, the February SMP now explicitly notes that in considering the case for further policy easing “… a balance needs to be struck between the benefits of lower interest rates and the risks associated with having interest rates at very low levels.”, namely that lower rates could “encourage more borrowing by households eager to buy residential property at a time when housing debt is already quite high and there is already a strong upswing in housing prices in place. … [which] could increase the risk of problems down the track.”
Conclusion
Westpac continues to expect that a combination of a more moderate growth outlook and a deterioration in the labour market will require a further policy response. However, the RBA’s surprisingly confident forecasts and uncertainty around what the bank views as temporary shocks impacting near term casts doubt over how they will respond. The case for further policy accommodation will become clear to the RBA as its overly-optimistic expectations are not met. Currently we have April pencilled in for the next cut but recognise that the Governor may need more time to be convinced that further action will be required.
MATTHEW HASSAN is a Senior Economist for Westpac
</body></html>

Matthew_Hassan-HHWHptmrw4

RBA's surprisingly confident view despite weaker recent performance: Westpac's Matthew Hassan

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The Australian economy grew by a disappointing 0.4% in the September quarter for annual growth of 1.7%.
Of most concern is that this represents the fifth consecutive quarter where private final demand, which declined by 0.3% in September, either contracted or was flat.
Within private final demand the most surprising undershoot was household consumption, which expanded by only 0.1%. Over the last year household consumption has grown by only 1.2%, compared to a trend pace of around 2.8%.
This soft outcome for households is despite a 2.5% lift in household disposable income in the quarter, driven by a solid lift in labour income growth (1.1%); a 6.8% fall in tax paid and a 2.5% fall in interest paid (all these measures are nominal). Consequently there was a substantial lift in the savings ratio from 2.7% in the June quarter to 4.8%.This is convincing evidence that uncertain households chose to “save” the tax and interest rate cuts, and then some.
The contraction in the dwelling construction cycle continued into the September quarter. New dwelling construction contracted by 2.8% to be down by 11.0% over the year. With businesses facing flat demand it is not surprising that new equipment investment fell by 4.5% in the quarter (-2.2% for the year) with overall business investment down 2.0% for the quarter (-1.7% for the year).
Growth continued to be boosted by public demand (+1.7% for the quarter and 5.2% for the year).
The Federal Government and the Reserve Bank will be disappointed with this result. A lift in annual output growth from 1.6% to 1.7% is hardly a “gentle turning point” when private final demand contracted by 0.3% following a 0.1% contraction in the June quarter.
Despite a solid boost to incomes, the cautious consumer has chosen to lift its savings rate and hold spending effectively flat. The lift in savings is over and above the policy stimulus - suggesting heightened risk aversion.
RBA rate cuts have had some impact with house prices lifting nationally by 2.3% (including 3.5% in Sydney and Melbourne) in the September quarter. This turnaround has clearly failed to boost spending in the quarter although any wealth effect is likely to have substantial lags, probably in the order of 12 months.
That consumer caution, along with an uncertain global outlook, has constrained business investment while the contraction in the residential construction cycle continues to unfold.
It seems likely that the Reserve Bank will need to lower its optimistic growth forecast for 2020 of 2.8% given it is underpinned by a lift in consumer spending growth to 2.4% (compared to the current 1.2%) and a 6.2% lift in business investment.
Westpac has long held the view that the RBA’s 2020 growth forecasts were overly optimistic. Our forecast for growth in 2020 has been 2.4% following a 2.3% increase in 2019.
The main areas of difference with the RBA have been around the outlook for business investment growth (2.8% compared to 6.2% for the RBA) and dwelling construction (-6.0% compared to -2.6% for the RBA).
Our forecasts for consumer spending were largely aligned (2.3% compared to 2.4% for the RBA).
Following the lower than expected growth in the September quarter and the associated evidence that the household sector is gripped in a sustained period of caution and risk aversion (average quarterly growth in consumption of 0.28% since the September quarter 2018) we have lowered our forecast annualised growth pace for consumer spending in the first half of 2020 from 2.3% to 1.6%.
That lowers our forecast for growth in consumer spending for 2020 from 2.3% to 1.8%.
Along with some other more modest downward adjustments to business investment (2.8% to 2.2% and dwelling construction (-6% to -7.1%) we have lowered our GDP growth forecast for 2020 from 2.4% to 2.1%.
As discussed, that compares with the Reserve Bank’s forecast in November of 2.8%. Accordingly we expect that the RBA, while unlikely to follow Westpac’s forecast exactly, will revise down its 2020 growth forecast from 2.8% to 2.5%. A revision in growth from trend to below trend would represent an appropriate opportunity to deliver on the next rate cut from 0.75% to 0.5%.
That growth revision (from trend to below trend) will be released following its Board meeting on February 4 and, together with an associated boost in the forecast unemployment rate (currently flat lining at 5.2% to end 2020) will make the decision to further cut the overnight cash rate to 0.50%, at that February meeting, a reasonable response.
We expect that cut will be eventually followed by a further cut in June to 0.25%, a little after the Commonwealth Budget which will be released on May 12.
Westpac has argued strongly that the Commonwealth government should bring forward the personal income tax cuts which have been legislated to begin from July 2022. Such a policy initiative would boost the consumer spending profile through the second half of 2020 and in 2021.
A key issue here will be whether the Commonwealth government believes that the bring forward can be accommodated while still delivering on the election commitment of fiscal surpluses from 2019/20.
Current Budget forecasts point to surpluses of $7bn (2019/20); $11bn (2020/21); $17.8bn (2021/2022); and $9.2bn (2022/23).
The approach would be to bring forward the $14bn in tax cuts in two suggested stages of $7bn in 2020/2021 and 2021/22. That would allow surpluses in 2020/21 and 2021/22 of $4bn and $3.8bn respectively – tight but nevertheless surpluses.
In that regard the Government’s Mid-Year Economic and Financial Outlook (MYEFO), which is scheduled to print before December 20, will be very important.
As with our expectation that the RBA will be revising down its growth forecasts in February the government may be forced to do the same in the MYEFO. Of most interest will be the impact on the fiscal outlook of a likely downward revision in the forecast for the growth rate in the Wage Price Index (currently 2.75% through 2019/2020 and 3.25% in 2020/2021). Note that the RBA is forecasting 2.3% in 2020 and 2021.
GDP growth is forecast at 2.75% ( 2019/20) and 2.75% (2020/21) compared with Westpac’s forecasts of 2.0% and 2.2% respectively.
On the other hand, the Government has forecast the iron price at USD 55 per tonne by end March 2020 – currently USD 89 per tonne and clearly a significant underestimate. The revised fiscal outlook will be important for gauging whether the government assesses that there will be sufficient fiscal scope to accommodate the bring forward of the personal income tax cuts.
Even with a bring forward of the tax cuts, we assess that the economic environment (particularly around our forecast 5.6% unemployment rate through most of 2020) will be sufficiently threatening for the RBA to see the need for a second rate cut in June 2020 to the “effective lower bound” of 0.25%.
From that point, in an environment where we expect the US Federal Reserve to be cutting rates – putting downward pressure on global rates – the RBA will need to adopt a QE style policy to contain any unwelcome boost to the AUD as well as put further downward pressure on the risk free rate. That policy is likely to take the form of a regular monthly purchase program of $2-3bn comprised of Commonwealth government bonds and probably, selected semi government securities. The program is likely to be open ended, contingent on the economic and inflation outlook.
Evidence from offshore, as set out in the Bank of International Settlements study (CGFS Papers No. 63) point to “overall, the effects have been estimated as positive for both output and inflation, but these assessments are subject to a high degree of uncertainty.”
Channels recognised in the studies refer to reductions in the risk free rate; impacts on bank lending (as reserves of the banks are increased); currency effects; and spill overs to other private sector rates.
Such a modest purchase program could be extended well into 2021 by which time we expect the economic outlook will have shown steady improvement.
BILL EVANS is the Chief Economist for Westpac
</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