Politics

<html><body>
The images of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the French President Emmanuel Macron looked fantastique last week on the lawn at Kirribilli House.
But are taxpayers getting value for money, when these days the home is used principably for dinners and press conferences?
With views of the Harbour Bridge and Opera House, both Kirribilli House and the neighbouring Admiralty House, there for the Governor-General's pleasure, rank among the city's most prestigious real estate. 
The Gothic Revival residence has been the Prime Minister's Sydney home since the 1930s, but I'd suggest Treasurer Scott Morrison's budget tonight ought signal one or maybe both homes should be sold. Let them just entertain in Canberra at The Lodge and Government House.
It was last flagged in 2004 when the then Federal Opposition leader Mark Latham foreshadowed that he would sell the harbourside mansion.
John and Janette Howard stayed put.
At the time it elicited speculation it could fetch around $50 million which would be handy revenue, but more importantly send a stocktaking message.
Even had Malcolm and Lucy opted to downsize from their Point Piper harbour front, the question still needs to be asked.
While it might not go down well with those who politicians who like icons, the Federal Government should not be Sydney-centric.
This article first appeared in The Sunday Telegraph. 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Icon homes ought be considered for government selloff at Kirribilli 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
It’s become a truism of Australian politics that important economic reform peaked in the 1980s and 1990s.
Sometimes the early years of the Howard government in the late 1990s are given credit as well.
This Grattan Institute map of important reforms illustrates the story.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355743/original/file-20200901-18-1sru2fr.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/355743/original/file-20200901-18-1sru2fr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 Notes: Reforms that were not passed, or that were subsequently substantially wound back or repealed, are shown shaded out. A/T/M = Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison. FTAs = Free Trade Agreements. PBO = Parliamentary Budget Office. GBE = Government Business Enterprise. CBA = Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Airline IPO = the sale and Initial Public Offering of Qantas in 1993 and 1995. <a class="source" href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2020/08/oecd-track-record/">Access Economics (2019); The Economist (2011); Grattan analysis</a>
<hr>
Indeed, it looks like Australian governments have merely ‘improved’ at unwinding the reforms of their predecessors, and the reforms they propose for themselves.
But it’s possible that this is all just the rosy-hued memories of former <a href="https://www.ceda.com.au/CEDA/media/General/Publication/PDFs/CEDA-Top-10-Speeches-of-2017-Paul-Keating-Final.pdf">politicians</a>, <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/speech/reflections-on-australias-era-of-economic-reform">public servants</a>, and <a href="https://www.afr.com/opinion/australia-must-rediscover-the-spirit-of-the-1980s-reformers-20180222-h0whbg">journalists</a>.
It might also be that today there are fewer policy reforms worth doing – perhaps most of the big ones have already been done.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355750/original/file-20200901-14-m6y0gv.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/355750/original/file-20200901-14-m6y0gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
To test whether previous governments really were better at reform than more recent governments, we would need a running list of reforms proposed in advance, so we could see what proportion were adopted.
Between 1972 and 2018, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development produced 31 <a href="https://www.oecd.org/economy/australia-economic-snapshot/">Economic Surveys of Australia</a> – roughly one every 18 months.
Each publication put forward reforms that the OECD believed would increase economic growth and living standards.
The good old days were better
Our <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2020/08/oecd-track-record/">analysis of the full series</a> finds that between 1984 and 2001 the overwhelming bulk of these recommendations were taken up by the Hawke and Keating governments, and by the Howard government in its first two terms.
But from roughly 2003 onwards, the record is a lot more patchy: many more of the reforms recommended by the OECD have been either rejected, only partially implemented, or (in the case of carbon pricing) implemented and then unwound.
<hr>
Fate of OECD Economic Survey recommendations
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355776/original/file-20200901-24-wqmkwn.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/355776/original/file-20200901-24-wqmkwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> 
Policies that the OECD recommended but which ran into the sand include reducing the gap between the company tax and top personal income tax rates, implementing a mining resource rent tax, reviewing negative gearing, creating competitive neutrality among Australian ports, aligning the eligibility ages for superannuation and the age pension, including more of the value of owner-occupied housing when calculating eligibility for the age pension, and raising Newstart.
 
A number of other proposed reforms continue to sit in the too-hard basket, including increasing the rate and coverage of the goods and services tax, swapping stamp duties for property taxes, congestion charging for roads, and the use of smart meters for time-of-day electricity pricing.
An imperfect measure, that tells us something
As a means to evaluate the history of reform, the OECD Economic Surveys aren’t perfect, but they’re guide.
It’s true that the scope and number of OECD recommendations has expanded over time, but that expansion was already underway during the Hawke/Keating and Howard eras.
And it’s arguable that these days, the OECD recommends smaller reforms - it certainly recommended many more between 1997 and 2010.
It’s likely that the OECD’s recommendations are partly influenced by the views of the government of the day. But many recommendations have been suggested under one government and implemented by the next.
And while OECD recommendations aren’t gospel, many policy experts support most of them. For instance, all of the policies that are on the OECD’s continuing wish-list are <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/commonwealth-orange-book-2019/">also advocated</a> by the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/state-orange-book-2018/">Grattan Institute</a>.
Our review of what happened after the OECD surveys is broadly consistent with popular wisdom, or at least the recollections of old men (usually men) that the good old days really were better.
 
And it is consistent with work in progress by <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/official-reform-efforts-hit-multi-decade-low-20200811-p55kp9">Alphabeta</a> reviewing the history of Australian economic reform.
Our review also shows that it often takes a long run-up of research, advocacy, and detailing before a government implements a major reform. Many reforms were only implemented after sitting on the slate for well over a decade, including the goods and services tax, lower tariffs, a more flexible award system, lower company tax, and competition in utility industries. Reforms often require patient advocacy.
It’s hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Australia has got worse at it. But our review of the OECD’s recommendations for Australia over the past 48 years is consistent with the oft-cited view that governments in the most recent 20 years have rejected many more significant reforms than governments in the 20 years before them.
There’s plenty still on the slate for the 20 years to come.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870">John Daley</a>, Senior Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rory-anderson-1151011">Rory Anderson</a>, Researcher, <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/when-it-comes-to-economic-reform-the-old-days-really-were-better-we-checked-145296">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

When it comes to economic reform, the old days really were better

<html><body>
As widely expected the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) decided again to leave the cash rate in a holding pattern for the seventh straight meeting although somewhat surprising the rhetoric was considerably different this time around.
Sydney is the elephant in the room with house prices jumping 15.6% in the last year according to RP Data, although I would add that this is a lazy way of explaining and defining the property markets across Sydney given they are all performing differently – some are hot and some are not.
Back to the RBA where in an extraordinary week we heard both Glenn Stevens and treasury secretary Martin Parkinson publicly declaring that Australia needs to be closely looking at and discussing taxes and government spending. Well not before time. We are fast drawing the conclusion that the elected ones in Canberra have absolutely no idea how to run a business – they appear to be the only ones who don’t believe that the rate of GST needs to be increased.
Reading between the lines there was a clear concern about what will be brought down in the May budget with a clear indication together with framed criticism by Glenn Stevens: “Put simply, there are things that we want to do as a society, and have voted for, that are not fully funded by taxes over the medium term, as is starting to become clear in the lead up to the May budget.”
<blockquote>
As strange as it might sound, I’m looking forward to seeing the cash rate increases.
</blockquote>
Personally I think it is fabulous when the likes of Messrs Parkinson and Stevens have the fortitude to publicly speak their minds by firing shots at the government on the eve of the budget. Let’s fill in a few gaps – NDIS and paid parental leave are the main culprits to which they were referring.
A perfect case in hand that should be at the forefront of the Abbott government's mind is that $16.2 billion Building and Education Revolution, the master class of the Rudd and Gillard terms which has now been condemned as an international case study of legislative and bureaucratic failure. Reading between the lines again, it would appear that Messrs Stevens and Parkinson are politely pointing out that the Australian economy can ill afford repeats of policy failures.
When you’ve been selling real estate for nearly 30 years, interest rates scare the living daylights out of you! And, as strange as it might sound, I’m looking forward to seeing the cash rate increases. Many economists are suggesting that this will happen in 2015 although I am of the opinion we will start seeing increases sooner rather than later with small increment increases.
<img src="/images/2014/04/07/simeon-april-7-one.jpg" alt="">
<img src="/images/2014/04/07/simeon-april-7-two.jpg" alt="">
<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/housing-bubble-fears-property-prices-could-fall-10-to-20-per-cent-20140331-35sg7" target="_blank" title="Housing bubble fears: property prices could fall 10 to 20 per cent">Housing bubble fears: property prices could fall 10 to 20%</a> was an interesting piece by Christopher Joye although it lacks market definition. Yes, certain parts of the Australian real estate market are over inflated, those being the new suburbs crashing through the $1,000,000 mark for the very first time which will, as history has shown, be the hardest and fastest hit. By comparison the traditional markets such as Paddington, Mosman, Pymble and Bondi, for example, are tracking upwards although at nowhere near the pace of the hotspot suburbs.
I can see the cash rate moving from its current rate of 2.50% to 3.50% next year which will in time place a number of households under increasing financial pressure, although we have seen this happen time and time again. Most notably in the early 2000s the cash rate fell from 6.25% in <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/cash-rate/cash-rate-1997-2001" target="_blank" title="September 2000 to 4.25 per cent in December 2001">September 2000 to 4.25% in December 2001</a>. We then witnessed dramatic market corrections in south-west Sydney as the cash rate started climbing to <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/cash-rate/cash-rate-2008-2014" target="_blank" title="7.25 per cent in March 2008">7.25% in March 2008</a> where it then started being eased to where we find it today at 2.50%.
So what amazes me more is that currently we are seeing record numbers of investors entering the market, which can be best described as panic buying – investors now make up 40% of value of total housing loan approvals in NSW and Victoria. So when and where we do see property market corrections this is when we see the astute investors entering the market – the experienced ones are certainly keeping their powder dry.
What this does clearly identify is that politicians and investors pay very little attention to history where more often than not they become part of history.
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

When it comes to interest rates investors should learn a bit from history

<html><body>
Got a bee in your bonnet about an issue and want some national attention? Go harass the federal government and they’ll create an inquiry.
It’s not hard to achieve. The ruling junta will believe almost anything, particularly if there’s been a bit of media hysteria to put the issue front and centre.
Certainly the property industry is having no trouble getting federal politicians to waste time and taxpayers money on talkfests about some of their pet topics.
Last week there was a housing affordability roundtable. According to the “communiqué” issued from Parliament House in Canberra, this was prompted by the belief first home buyers can’t afford to get into the market. It also stated that: “a major driver of increasing house prices and declining affordability is the under-supply of housing.”
In other words, a major talkfest involving government and industry leaders was based on real estate’s biggest furphies.
These are (a) that the only explanation for the low levels of first home buyers is a lack of affordability, (b) that affordability is declining, and (c) that there’s a housing shortage and that’s been forcing up prices.
All are red herrings which have been dragged around by some of the industry’s representative bodies for the past several years. (The true reason for lower first home buyer numbers is a major demographic shift that everyone seems to be missing).
<blockquote>
It’s a stunt to talk politicians into making decisions favourable to the industry, such as reduced taxes, faster approvals and favourable development policies.
</blockquote>
The prime mover behind this monumental waste of time was the Real Estate Institute of Australia, which is determined to oust the Housing Industry Association as the voice of insanity in the residential property industry.
The REIA has a serious obsession with first home buyer numbers. The reasons for that are obscure, given that major markets around the nation are rising and the institute’s members are having their best time of it in several years.
The institute hasn’t bothered to do any research into why first home buyer numbers are lower than normal. It has simply assumed that the only explanation is that they can’t afford to buy. This is surprising because the REIA is joint-publisher of a quarterly index that shows affordability has improved markedly over the past five years and is currently as good as it’s been any time in the past decade.
Why do they bother producing the report if they’re going to ignore its findings? Especially as the findings (that affordability is particularly strong at the moment) is supported by a host of other research reports, including those by the Housing Industry Association, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canstar and CommSec.
Apparently federal politicians don’t read because, despite the weight of evidence that we don’t have an affordability problem, they’ve accepted the industry line that young buyers “are finding it increasingly difficult to enter the housing market”.
They’ve also swallowed real estate’s biggest lie – that we have a serious housing shortage.
Given that price growth over the past decade has been lower than wages growth and not much bigger than inflation, and that there has been negligible rental growth in most of our major cities in the past couple of years, it’s clear we do not have the much-touted housing shortage.
Indeed, the most serious current issue is oversupply in some of our major markets.
Unless the forces of supply and demand no longer apply to real estate, how can the REIA and other industry bodies explain the lack of price and rental growth (keeping in mind that only Sydney had major growth last year, its first growth year in a decade) when they’ve been claiming a “chronic housing shortage crisis” for the past five years or so?
It’s a stunt to talk politicians into making decisions favourable to the industry, such as reduced taxes, faster approvals and favourable development policies.
The housing affordability roundtable follows the recent announcement that elements in the industry have managed to talk federal politicians into an inquiry to examine how foreign investors (read Chinese) are forcing up Australian property prices and dooming a whole generation of young Australians to a lifetime of renting.
If the inquiry is genuine, it will discover that the impact of foreign investors on the mainstream market populated by Aussie home buyers is zero and that they’ve wasted a lot of time and money.
<a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">ryder@hotspotting.com.au</a>
<a href="https://www.twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">twitter.com/hotspotting</a>
</body></html>

terryryder-YECXbqmri2

Major talkfests based on nothing but industry's biggest furphies

<html><body>
We’ve now entered the traditional pre-budget softening-up period in which treasurers engage in expectations management ahead of the fiscal set-piece of the year in May. But even given that, Joe Hockey is treating us as complete idiots.
The line Hockey has been pushing for some days now, and which he gave a big push to yesterday in a flurry of media appearances, is that not merely did Labor hide the level of deficits in the current budget cycle, but that it left a series of hidden spending commitments in the unpublished years beyond forward estimates. Hockey has been circulating a document to journalists portrayed in the media as a “Treasury analysis” that shows how “the Coalition inherited an unsustainable budget position” and Labor “hid [expenditure] from the public”. Hockey would like us to see him as a budgetary innocent who has found himself in the middle of a fiscal minefield planted by Labor.
<a href="https://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BRIEFING-NOTE.pdf"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-431677" src="https://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-04-01_11-33-411.jpg" alt="" width="520" height="180"></a>
Well <a href="https://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BRIEFING-NOTE.pdf" target="_blank">here’s the document</a>, and it isn’t a “Treasury analysis” — it’s prepared by Hockey’s media adviser, former Australian Financial Review journalist Gemma Daley. And if Hockey seriously expects us to believe his latest argument, he must have nothing but contempt for us. This is Hockey yesterday: “We didn’t anticipate that everything else would be of equal or larger scale as a tsunami coming across the water. The fact is Labor’s left us with a massive forecast increase in foreign aid, a massive increase in defence – for example in one year, there’s meant to be a real increase in defence spending of 13%, a 66% increase in foreign aid.”
<blockquote>
Hockey would like us to see him as a budgetary innocent who has found himself in the middle of a fiscal minefield planted by Labor.
</blockquote>
At another media conference, he said: “If no action was taken on the budget, what the fifth-year deficit would look like, contrary to what both Labor promised was a surplus, if no action was taken, based on the approximately 6% increase in expenditure between the fourth year and the fifth year, which Labor locked in on NDIS, on Gonski, on overseas aid, on hospitals, on defence …”
Well, um, tsunamis are actually tiny when they’re on the ocean — but never mind that, let’s look at the detail. Labor in fact revealed the funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme — or DisabilityCare as it had been renamed — in the budget last May, with new spending broken down out to 2019:
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-431667" src="https://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-04-01_11-24-28.jpg" alt="" width="501" height="179">
In addition to the numbers in the budget papers, there was a specific “glossy” with funding graphs for <a href="https://budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/glossy/NDIS_policy/download/NDIS.pdf" target="_blank">DisabilityCare</a> and one for <a href="https://budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/glossy/gonski_policy/download/NPSI.pdf" target="_blank">education funding</a> as well, which was still being finalised in deals with the states. The increase in foreign aid was also in both the budget papers and a <a href="https://budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/ministerial_statements/download/AusAid_MS.pdf" target="_blank">ministerial statement by Bob Carr</a>  — not that the government got any credit for it, because it was actually a reduction, with the government’s Millennium Development Goal commitment to lifting foreign aid to 0.5% of gross national income put back another year to 2017. The government spelt out its planned increase in foreign aid up to and including 2017-18.
In fact in question time last week, Labor invited the Prime Minister to spell out the government’s MDG policy, which he duly did: aid is to reach 0.5% of GNI when the budget returns to surplus. Which raises the question of why, in Hockey’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December, Hockey left Labor’s MDG aid funding increase intact, in defiance of the government’s own policy. The answer, of course, was that it would inflate the budget deficit for 2017 and beyond.
As for defence, the Gillard government <a href="https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2013/05/14/minister-for-defence-budget-2013-14-defence-budget-overview/" target="_blank">gave the portfolio a “guidance”</a> that it would receive around $220 billion in the six years from 2017-18, which Hockey’s document proposes to mean funding would leap 13% in 2017, when in fact the “guidance” reflects a growth rate in defence spending from 2017 lower than the average between now and 2017 of nearly 7%. And remember that Labor was repeatedly criticised fordecreasing defence spending — every armchair general and arms industry lobbyist in the joint was whinging about how we weren’t spending enough taxpayer money on buying gear from the US military-industrial complex. “Military spending slumps to 1930s level,” The Australian’s <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/military-spending-slumps-to-1930s-level/story-e6frg74x-1226352458112" target="_blank">Paul Kelly shrieked</a>. The 1930s theme — hint,appeasement!­ —  was picked up by the Coalition, including Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce. Abbott “aspired”, he said, to lift defence spending to 3% of GDP.
So, Labor were both neo-Chamberlain surrender monkeys for not spending enough on defence when in government and now, magically, reckless spendthrifts who committed too much to defence at the same time.
Hockey’s fiscal innocent act is a little hard to believe given we were told what an exhaustive, indeed exhausting, shadow ERC process Hockey was leading within the opposition at the time to establish its fiscal credibility.
And above all, there’s this point: if Hockey seriously believes his own claims about the budget beyond forward estimates, why did he remove Labor savings measures that offset future spending? Why did he remove the 15% tax on superannuation income over $100,000 a year, costing the budget billions beyond forward estimates, for the benefit of high income earners? Why did he restore the Fringe Benefits Tax rort on novated leases — remember Joe being photographed in front of a sports car? And why have Hockey and his leader pushed for the abolition of the mining tax, which even in its crippled form, according to Hockey’s own MYEFO, is worth more than $3 billion over forward estimates? Eventually it will be the only way of recovering some of the profits offshore owners of LNG and iron ore projects will make and ship overseas (over 60% of these projects are foreign owned or controlled).
Then there’s the silly decision to hand $8.8 billion of borrowed money to the Reserve Bank in one hit, when it doesn’t need the capital. And the sale of Medibank Private — a $4-5 billion contribution to the budget — will be spent on roads because Abbott wants to be an “infrastructure prime minister”, when it could cut the budget deficit or the debt. That could be $13-14 billion off the deficit and debt right there — or an interest saving of more than half-a-billion dollars a year.
Hockey is talking about sharing the budget burden around, but that’s only after the government plans to increase its own spending for political purposes and sought to hand billions of dollars in tax revenue back to foreign mining companies, large carbon emitters and the well-off in the community — revenue that would have offset exactly the spending on education, disability and foreign aid that Hockey is now claiming to have only just discovered.
This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Crikey</a>.
</body></html>

bkeane-XQ2u7CA6bB

Joe Hockey treating Australian public as fiscal fools ahead of the federal budget

<html><body>
Modern governments believe that during budget framing, it is politically savvy to parade the pain. We saw it with Labor and the Coalition is doing the same.
There are scary scenarios of what would happen without remediation, with warnings about problem areas. Some surprises will be held for the night, but other measures will be strategically “leaked” beforehand.
Tony Abbott, in Perth campaigning for the West Australian Senate election, let it be known he was chairing Wednesday’s meeting of cabinet’s expenditure review committee.
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen declared it was the first time in Australian history a PM had chaired the ERC, claiming it showed dysfunction at the highest level.
This was nonsense. The government could quickly counter that Bob Hawke, John Howard and Kevin Rudd had also done so.
But it was surprising Abbott gave such a high profile to this “razor gang” meeting.
The ERC is all about nasties and, after all, Labor is making the prospect of deep budget cuts a centrepiece of its WA Senate campaigning. Abbott seemed to be providing ammunition. On the other hand, he could take the view Labor had the bullets anyway so he might as well play the longer game.
Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson publicly chimed into the pre- budget debate with a speech reinforcing the government’s lines about spending growth in the big areas.
But Parkinson also sent a public message to the government for later about what it should do on taxation.
With Hockey shining attention on health and pension costs, Parkinson documented the escalation.
Total Commonwealth spending on health is set to rise from $64.7 billion in nominal terms in 2013-14 to $74.6 billion in 2016-17, and to $116 billion in 2023-24.
The Commonwealth’s three main pension payments - for the aged, those on disability support and carers – will grow at an annual 6% in nominal terms over the forward estimates, adding $13 billion to annual payments by 2016-17, and another $39 billion by 2023-24. “Of this nearly $52 billion in additional payments in 2023-24, compared to 2013-14, over half is a result of indexation with the remainder due to increases in the number of recipients.”
That seems a fair hint that both drivers are being looked at. It should be remembered that successive governments have been trying to curtail the numbers on the disability pension but it has seemed a losing battle. It’s never as easy as it looks in theory.
Parkinson then turned to the tax side. His argument, aimed well beyond this budget and directed squarely at the political masters he will leave in December, is crystal clear. Australia needs a tax system it relies more on indirect tax, less on direct tax. The king of indirect taxes is, of course, the GST.
Parkinson pointed to one rather surprising fact, given the tax debates we’ve been through over many years. “Despite reforms that broaden the tax base (such as the GST), and decisions that have lowered corporate and personal tax rates across the decades, the share of direct and indirect taxes (as well as Australia’s reliance on income taxes) has changed little since the 1950s.”
Australia had relatively high reliance on direct taxes as a proportion of revenue raised compared with other OECD countries, he noted, before observing that: “Research consistently says that reduced reliance on income taxes and increased reliance on other, more efficient sources of revenue, including indirect taxes, can support higher growth and higher living standards by increasing workforce participation and lifting productivity.”
The problem is that “without conscious change, Australia’s tax mix will move in the opposite direction as personal income tax increases through fiscal drag”.
“We will move even further in this direction if, as we anticipate, the relative share of total indirect taxes (including GST) continues its long-term decline. Contributing to this decline is the non-indexation of fuel excise (unlike other excise rates) and a rising proportion of consumption outside the GST net, for example, in increased health expenditure.”
Parkinson warned that “continued increases in the personal income tax burden will hit lower and middle income earners with higher marginal and average tax rates. This will have adverse labour force participation impacts, while sharpening incentives for tax minimisation by higher income earners”.
The globalised economy meant Australia would be under pressure to cut the company tax rate.
“Given the pressure to return fiscal drag and to reduce the burden of corporate income tax, it will be a challenge to maintain the current levels of revenue over the medium term, let alone the increases required to achieve the budget projections.”
In the past, Parkinson said, tax reform had largely been pursued through broadening tax bases as an offset for lowering tax rates.
“However, a key challenge for the upcoming White Paper on Taxation will be to consider the mix of taxes, including whether there is a role for a greater contribution from indirect taxes.”
The opportunity were there to plot a path to a better tax system and the dangers clear if it was not done.
“If we do not start making these changes and simply keep drifting along we will be increasingly vulnerable to the next global crisis and will also lose out on the opportunities presented by the rising Asian middle class. The exceptionalism of this ‘lucky country’ will become just a distant, ironic memory and our children may really end up ‘doing it tough’”.
So there you have it. Parkinson, axed by the government (though extended until year’s end) won’t be around for the battles after the white paper, which has a long time table.
But he has signposted another lot of unpalatable truths. In terms of painful decisions ahead, this budget is only the start of it for the Abbott government, which hates the idea of tax increases, fears the politics of a robust debate about needing a higher, broader GST and has promised to take any major tax changes to the election.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/25161/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="line-height: 1.3em;">
Michelle Grattan is professorial fellow at the <a href="https://www.canberra.edu.au/" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">University of Canberra</a>.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jake-cSmGT7VXVf

Treasury boss hints at the need for a broader GST

<html><body>
The current NSW ICAC hearings which appears to link clandestine property developer payments to the NSW Liberal Party ought trigger the strategic delay, though not the death knell, of key NSW state government's planning reform initiatives.
Can the freshly installed Baird government ministry now be seen to handsomely reward the property development industry with long-desired legislation against the backdrop of alleged corrupt influence over their parliamentary colleagues and hangers on? Ditto the NSW opposition.
The controversial planning and strata legislation were already looking like courageous endeavours with an apprehensive public, but with the ICAC hearings to resume again in August and the March 28, 2015 election looming, both the NSW planning and strata reforms may possibly not deserve to be high on the agenda before the state Parliament rises in late November this year.
It's not to deny that the majority are cleanskins in the government, opposition and property development industry, but the pall over them all just doesn't sit well.
The new Planning Minister Pru Goward certainly doesn't shy away from doing the tough policy implementation - as her public housing housing tenant reforms showed - but already she has acknowledged her planning bill quandary. She understands the community concern over the derailed planning legislation going too far, even without the troubling backdrop that it now sits within.
''She understands there is community concern about getting the planning reforms right and she'll be very keen to listen to the views of everyone involved and work towards getting the balance right,'' her spokesman said on her appointment last month.
Then a few days later after assuming the ministry Pru Goward acknowledged the public perception.
"Development is a very expensive and highly-invested sector, and there will be plenty of people who want me to do what they want to make money for them, and every community in NSW will want me to listen to them," she told News Ltd papers.
Touted as the biggest shake-up in urban planning for three decades, the overhaul has effectively been in limbo since late 2013 when the Labor opposition and the minor upper house parties forced major changes, with 51 amendments. The government's plan to fast track the approval process for code-complying developments in high growth areas within a 25 day period was struck out in the upper house along with the intention to have the economic significance of mining projects deemed a principal consideration in the approval process.
The other key reform, and gift to urban renewal property developers, is the so-called "collective sales and renewals" initiative which will allow developers to evict strata home owners from their apartments. The renewals policy will actually force elderly owner occupiers out of their homes by developers. 
Currently 100% of strata lot owners have to agree to any replacement and redevelopment.
The property development industry has successfully lobbied the state government to reduce that to a 75% threshold with conciliation and mediation to encourage consensus.
The 75% threshold is a very generous threshold especially as each lot will have one vote, the decision will not be based on the more worthy unit entitlement. It is extraordinary that on such an important issue the lawmakers would seek to have the penthouse owner's voting entitlement the same as the viewless studio down near the laundry in the basement.
Yes it will start slowly with select blocks mostly with water views, but I think there will be an outcry once the electorate understands the disruptive compulsory eviction outcome, let alone The Castle movie-like denial of rights to ownership.
Of course the government has done the talk to the stakeholders routine, but once it filters down to the property ownership constituency there will be no tolerance of the 'Making NSW No.1 Again: Shaping Future Communities' spin. 
Hardly an initiative I'd suggest that reflects the moniker of the NSW Fair Trading department, but rather a scheme that developers have won from lobbying Macquarie Street.
One legislative clause apparently gives all lot owners and mortgagees just 60 days to consider the proposal and to seek independent advice. Hardly fair if you've been resident for many decades, and betcha the wishful stay-put strata owners get their letters early December, just before the lengthy Christmas summer holidays.
Compulsory acquisition by local council and state and national governments has been around in some form for ever for development purposes when they consider this to be in the best interest of the community - and leaves a sour aftermath, but this legislation is handing private nest eggs over to a ambitious private developer. It will involve resumptions eventually on a scale perhaps not seen since farmers lost land for the 1940s postwar soldiers settlements. Milder metropolitan dispossessions subsequently took place on the Macquarie University construction at North Ryde, the Eastern Suburbs railway line, and the Gore Hill freeway, all for the community benefit by government.
This time the supposed net public benefit is going to be harder to cop, especially in the face of big profits for developers. The proposed legislation is really just making life easier, and cheaper, for the developer who view the task of getting 100% as taking too much time and profit.
I don't see why the legislation can't have a graded threshold of say 95% where the building is less than 15 years old and 85% if the building is more than 15 years old. As we already occasionally see amalgamations can happen, and did so recently along the Cronulla beachfront when the Sunland Group consolidated a 2,398 square metre Prince Street site - from nine separate sellers - and then got approval for 12 luxury apartments.
There have now been three Fair Trading ministers with carriage of the task over the past seven months.
Anthony Roberts, the then Fair Trading Minister, told the Strata Community Australia (NSW) last November that the government’s commitment to change has been responding to the community’s calls to modernise the state’s strata laws.
NSW was the first jurisdiction in the world to introduce strata title laws, back in 1961, so there is no doubting they need modernisation, and the economic boost that will come from infill housing, rather than greenfields development. Some 30% of residential strata schemes in the Sydney metropolitan area were registered more than 30 years ago.
Only 826 strata schemes have been terminated since 1961, out of over 72,000 schemes in New South Wales.
Almost all of these terminations have been made following an application to the Registrar General unanimously signed by the lot owners, with only five schemes being terminated by Supreme Court orders.
It is estimated that more than 30% of the State’s population live or work in strata and within two decades around half of NSW’s population will be living or working in strata.
Roberts said the government was undertaking a landmark reconsideration of the strata and community schemes legislation, which will lead to important reforms in the sector in 2014. Termination of a strata scheme without the unanimous support of all apartment owners occurs in countries including Singapore, New Zealand and the United States.
It was Robert's aim of the bill being introduced to Parliament early this year and to commence the new laws by the middle of this year.
Then Fair Trading Minister Stuart Ayres drafted legislation for cabinet approval this month, with hopes to table it in Parliament this month too.
Yesterday MLC Matthew Mason-Cox was appointed the latest Fair Trading minister.
He might reconsider the specifics of the drafts.
It's not just the Liberals who've found the going tough.
Previous Labor governments have averted the emotional legislative debate about property rights with developers expressing their frustrations since the days of the NSW premier Bob Carr.
Then in 2007 the Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, had plans for the Morris Iemma cabinet to drop the threshold to less than 100%, but a decision was made at the last minute to retain the status quo.
The Keneally government envisaged similar legislation in 2010. 
Stand by to watch the potential evictees heading off to the High Court with the Magna Carta of 1215 and the more recent Mabo judgment.
The drama of dozens of Daryl Kerrigans, mimicking the lines from the film The Castle, will be a news feast since compulsory acquisition is almost un-Australian.
</body></html>

Corrupt influence backdrop ought stall overly generous NSW strata and planning initiatives

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A damaging admission by the Commonwealth Bank will boost concern about the government’s plan to weaken protections for consumers seeking financial advice and throw into doubt its timetable for announcing changes.
The bank’s earlier failure to provide a parliamentary inquiry with full information about its handling of the aftermath of financial advisers' misconduct has forced a last-minute delay to a Senate report into the affair.
The bank now admits not all the relevant clients were contacted and offered the promised $5,000 to help them get fresh advice. More than 4000 cases are now to be dealt with.
Full information was apparently withheld by the bank for some time from the inquiry and from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
The government’s proposed changes to Labor’s Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) law would advantage the banks. They would apply the ban that exists on “conflicted renumeration” only to the provision of personal advice - exempting general advice provided by employees of banks and product manufacturing institutions.
The controversial package was put on hold for further inquiry and consultations. Seniors groups have been particularly critical.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann is anxious to finalise the measures quickly and does not want to revise them substantially.
But what the Senate economics references committee on Wednesday described as “surprise developments” – the production of new information from ASIC and the bank - will increase suspicion.
The committee, investigating the performance of ASIC, had been due on Friday to present a report expected to be very critical of the bank.
One of the committee’s main concerns has been the misconduct of some financial advisers in Commonwealth Financial Planning Ltd (CFP), part of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Group, and ASIC’s response to allegations of wrongdoing.
The committee said in an interim report on Wednesday that it was particularly interested in the adequacy and integrity of the ASIC-approved compensation arrangements for affected clients.
It had been well advanced in preparing its report when on May 16 ASIC and the CBA advised there were inconsistencies in the way in which the compensation arrangements had been applied.
“This revelation suggested that, for some time, the CBA had not kept either the committee or ASIC full informed about the compensation process for clients affected by serious misconduct within CBA’s businesses,” the interim report said.
Although ASIC and the CBA had attempted to correct the record, the committee said the evidence provided was “sketchy” and many questions were left unanswered.
Committee chairman, Labor’s Mark Bishop, said these included how many affected clients were “kept in the dark by the CFP, for how long, and the number who missed out on the offer of $5000 to help them pay for an expert assessor to assist their claim”.
Concerned it might still not have a full understanding of what had happened, the committee has asked for more information from ASIC and the bank.
Bishop tweeted that he was alarmed that “ASIC says over 4000 clients affected by inconsistent approach CBA applied to compensation measures. Maybe ten of thousands”. The latter number is a reference to possible unidentified clients.
The committee’s final reporting date has been delayed to no later than June 26.
The Senate economics legislation committee, with substantially overlapping membership with the ASIC inquiry, is examining the proposed FoFA changes.
It will report on June 16 and Cormann has planned to announce the government’s position immediately after that.
But the government could expose itself to more criticism if it did not wait until the report dealing with the Commonwealth Bank.
Chairman of the Financial Planning Association Matthew Rowe told The Conversation one would expect the latest development would push out the timetable for the government’s announcement.
His organisation, a professional body representing financial planners, has written to Cormann with its concerns about the reintroduction of commissions. It says the selling of products should be clearly separated from providing professional advice.
“Consumers are becoming increasingly suspicious of the behaviour of some of our major institutions,” Rowe said.
“The government needs to take great care with the arguments of those with significant vested interests where there is a real and significant public interest at stake.”
On FoFA the government is trapped in the triangle of what it wants to do, what politically it should do, and what the Senate will allow it to do.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/27285/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Michelle Grattan is one of Australia's most respected and awarded political journalists. Michelle currently has a dual role with an academic position at the University of Canberra and as associate editor (politics) and chief political correspondent at The Conversation.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. 
</body></html>

Commonwealth Bank behaviour sends more warning signals about Liberals' financial advice changes

<html><body>
The purchase of domestic real estate, and in particular residential real estate, is a topic that frequently attracts a lot of attention.
That’s nothing new; some of the same ‘concerns’ we hear and read about today have all been aired before. At various times and across different markets we have, for instance, seen big in-flows of money from Japan and the Middle East.
However offshore investment into our housing market always tends to be a touchy subject. I think that we should not see this as threatening or abnormal and as far as new projects are concerned, the impact of these buyers needs to be seen in the greater context of the total market.
It is unfortunate that currently any negatives surrounding this debate are being fuelled by a number of factors. Key among these is the reality that the inflow of funds is not aligned with our general market conditions. So as we see prices increase, and in some markets this may be impacting first time buyers, some blame is being attributed to offshore buyers. But there is also a clear benefit from the fact that demand in total is now driving a big increase in construction activity, and that is at a time when the local economy needs that stimulus.
Key motivations
Part of the reality of this trend is the fact that across Asia and in particular from China there is a weight of money available for investment. some of that money is regardless of any policy settings, naturally going to flow into our residential property. But are the key motivations of buyers necessarily any foundation for concern? I suggest that these buyers are in the main driven by motivations that we are all familiar with.
Accepting that almost all markets now operate on a global basis, offshore buyers will be motivated by quality of life, economic stability, good infrastructure – this includes both hard infrastructure like roads and everyday services such as power and water, but also soft infrastructure and a big item there is education and medical facilities. Lastly offshore buyers are attracted by political stability. A quick tally would clearly give Australia a big tick on all of these items and so it’s a good and appealing place to call home.
<blockquote>
There is clear benefit from the fact that housing demand is now driving a big increase in construction activity, and that is at a time when the local economy needs that stimulus.
</blockquote>
We also now have in Australia inter-generational changes that are reinforcing family ties and these are a big influence. it’s worth keeping in mind that we have seen this trend before. In particular as post-World War Two and post Vietnam brought about new waves of population growth.
I think that it’s easy to identify with these motivations, and also like most of us, it is the stability of the Australian lifestyle that is a strong appeal.
SENATE REVIEW
However now, and somewhat predictably, The Treasurer has asked the Senate <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=economics/index.htm" target="_blank">House Standing Committee on Economics</a> to inquire into and report on Australia’s foreign investment policy as it applies to residential real estate.
A key starting point is the principle of Australia’s foreign investment policy, as it applies to residential property, is that the investment should increase Australia’s housing stock and as such this includes new developments that aim to deliver benefits to the local building industry and its suppliers. Which is now starting to happen.
Off-shore or foreign investors cannot generally buy established homes; however, temporary residents can apply to purchase one established dwelling to use as their residence while in Australia.
Despite these conditions and in view of some of the concerns already outlined the Committee has been asked to examine:
<ul>
<li>The economic benefits of foreign investment in residential property;</li>
<li>Whether such foreign investment is directly increasing the supply of new housing and bringing benefits to the local building industry and its suppliers;</li>
<li>How Australia’s foreign investment framework compares with international experience; and</li>
<li>Whether the administration of Australia’s foreign investment policy relating to residential property can be enhanced.</li>
</ul>
This looks like a quick review with the Committee’s report due in early October 2014.
LET’S NOT FORGET OTHER POLICIES
If as it appears the Senate Review is partly in response to helping keep homes affordable in particular for the FHB market, then it would also be an ideal time for government to look at how much government charges and red-tape adds to the cost of a home.
Stamp duty for example is levied on the GST already built into the cost of a new home, and development delays almost defy reason without any real benefits.
Could all levels of government be more engaged in creating a positive environment for new housing by direct leadership and by ensuring a more collaborative, results focused view among decision makers that directly or indirectly impacts housing supply and costs.
</body></html>

pchittenden-eLqUUC8TWW

Offshore buyers are here to stay

<html><body>
Mike Baird's election as Premier of New South Wales has the Urban Taskforce suggesting that this may be a boost for the state’s economy, but that it may also have a significant effect on planning.
CEO of Urban Taskforce, Chris Johnson, said that as Treasurer, Baird did well with the state’s economy and this is a good platform to build from.
“The NSW government had become too bogged down in reviews and committees,” said Johnson.
He said that Baird needs to demonstrate leadership and a “can do” approach.
“Barry O’Farrell gave sound leadership to NSW over the last three years but his term was marked by a cautious approach with many potential reforms being slowed down.”
He also pointed to Gladys Berejiklian’s election as Deputy Leader as a potential positive, pointing to a required focus.
“Clearly issues like the sale of the poles and wires can now be rethought and hopefully a new look at the unresolved planning reforms can occur,” he said.
</body></html>

Politics

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Politics

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News