Labor Party

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The SMSF Association remains supportive of Limited Recourse Borrowing Arrangements (LRBAs) in the wake of today’s announcement by the Labor Party to recommend their abolition in line with the Financial System Inquiry (FSI) final report. 
SMSF Association Managing Director/CEO Andrea Slattery says the right decision was made when this FSI recommendation was rejected in late 2015, and there is no compelling argument to suggest anything has changed since regarding LRBAs.
“The fact remains there’s little or no convincing evidence that the use of LRBAs by SMSFs is playing a significant role in affecting housing affordability.
“The most recent Australian Tax Office statistics show that SMSFs hold $24.3 billion in LRBAs, with these financial instruments being predominantly used to invest in residential and non-residential property in an almost 50-50 split. 
“That estimated $12 billion where SMSFs have used LRBAs to invest in residential housing has to be put in the context of a $6.43 trillion housing market. In other words, LRBAs comprise only 0.18% of the market. On these figures, it’s hard to argue LRBAs are a ‘market mover’.
“SMSFs investing in residential property, whether through borrowing arrangements or not, should not be singled out from other investors when looking at policy solutions to improve housing affordability.
“The idea that SMSFs have plunged into property investment in recent times also is not borne out by the statistics, with SMSF residential property holdings (both geared and ungeared) being consistent between 4-6% of total SMSF assets in recent times.
“In addition, there is scant evidence to support the notion that the use of LRBAs by SMSFs pose a systemic risk to superannuation or the broader financial sector.
“Consistent with our view submitted to the FSI, we still believe that the clear majority of SMSFs are using LRBAs appropriately to build their retirement savings and therefore should remain an investment option.”
In a recent speech given at the 2017 SMSF Association National Conference, Andrea suggested <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/guides/65467-smsfs-integral-to-our-superannuation-system-andrea-slattery" target="_blank">SMSFs are integral to our superannuation system</a>.
<h1>Andrea Slattery is managing director and chief executive officer, SMSF Association, and can be contacted <a href="https://www.smsfassociation.com/" target="_blank">here</a>.</h1>
 
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

SMSF Association rejects Labor proposal to ban LRBAs

<html><body>
Shadow assistant federal treasurer Stephen Jones and wife Julie have bought a $690,000 home in his electorate of Whitlam, south of Sydney.
The couple snapped up the Mount Warrigal home, near Shellharbour, just five days in to its marketing campaigning.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/9/27/mount%20warrigal%202.jpg" alt="">
They paid towards the top end of the $660,000 to $699,000 guide.
The brick-built, 1970s home on 645 square metres has four bedrooms and one bathroom and views of the escarpment, lake and ocean from nearly every room.
The family are moving from Keiraville, where they have been since 2011.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/9/27/mount%20warrigal%203.jpg" alt="">
This article was first published in The Daily Telegraph.
</body></html>

firstname1-iYD4UYzvBa

Stephen Jones, Member for Whitlam, buys at Mount Warrigal

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The Australian Labor Party’s 2019 election campaign showed a depth and breadth of economic policies rare for an opposition party to present. Its policy agenda was boldly extensive. But in developing these policies over the past five years, it seems Labor’s economic minds overlooked some fundamental principles of behavioural economics.
Had greater focus been put on these principles, it is possible Labor would have taken a different approach to selling its credentials, and succeeded in moving more voters its way.
1. People are loss averse
Distinguished psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman demonstrated in the 1970s that losses have a profound psychological impact and people prefer to avoid them. In 1979 they <a href="https://www.uzh.ch/cmsssl/suz/dam/jcr:00000000-64a0-5b1c-0000-00003b7ec704/10.05-kahneman-tversky-79.pdf">published a paper</a> proposing what they called “prospect theory” – that the pain a person feels from a monetary loss is greater than the pleasure felt from a monetary gain of the same value.
<hr>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275783/original/file-20190521-23838-r9kptt.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/275783/original/file-20190521-23838-r9kptt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/prospect-theory/" target="_blank">economicshelp.org</a>
<hr>
As Tversky and Daniel Kahneman put it succinctly: “Losses loom larger than gains.” This means, when faced with uncertain outcomes, most people prefer keeping the status quo to the risk of change.
Labor’s failure to persuade more voters they would gain more than they might lose under its reforms played to the Coalition’s advantage.
The government was able, for example, to make the most of Labor’s policy on negative gearing by playing on the chance all home values would fall, even though modelling suggested any fall would be minor.
It did something similar with Labor’s franking credit, casting it as a “retiree tax”, and playing on fears that big promises to increase spending on welfare, health, education and wages might mean them losing money from other tax changes.
2. Limited decision-making
People’s decisions are limited by the amount of information they have – a concept known as bounded rationality – and giving them more information doesn’t necessarily help.
Our ability to pay attention to two or three things at the same time is much more limited than we think. We tend to be selectively inattentive, screening out information we perceive as unimportant, and preferencing information that confirms existing views.
Economists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein argued in a 2002 article that bounded rationality demanded “<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=405940" target="_blank">libertarian paternalism</a>” – limiting the choices offered to voters without eliminating freedom of choice.
Labor went another way – burying voters in an avalanche of policy prescriptions. Arguably it overestimated how much people would absorb, and diluted focus on a few key ideas.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275608/original/file-20190521-23829-14y6hdh.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/275608/original/file-20190521-23829-14y6hdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
System 1 and 2 thinking. <a class="source" href="http://upfrontanalytics.com/market-research-system-1-vs-system-2-decision-making/" target="_blank">www.upfrontanalytics.com</a>
To understand and compare policy detail, according to <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Thinking_Fast_and_Slow?id=ZuKTvERuPG8C" target="_blank">economist and psychologist Daniel Kahneman</a>, requires a deliberate and methodical approach – what he calls “System 2 thinking”.
But most media and social media deals in “System 1 thinking”, which responds instinctively to short slogans and repeated messaging.
What Labor failed to do was reconcile System 2 idealism with System 1 necessities.
3. Now is worth more than later
People place a higher value on the short-term over the long-term. From an evolutionary perspective, this bias has no doubt served us well, particularly in times past when the future was much more uncertain.
This disposition informs an important economic concept known as hyperbolic discounting – the tendency for people to increasingly choose a smaller reward sooner over a larger reward later.
Say, for example, you were offered a choice between taking $150 now or $160 in four weeks. Most people would take the $150.
But what if you were asked to choose between $150 in 48 weeks or $160 in 52 weeks? Research shows most people would then elect to wait the extra four weeks to receive the higher amount of money.
So Labor faced the problem of it promising to deliver benefits that might take decades to pan out, such as transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy, while the Coalition was offering immediate tax cuts and cheaper energy prices. Many Australians, we can imagine, preferred the more immediate benefits to the longer-term ones.
Whatever criticisms might be made about other aspects of the campaign, the Coalition’s messaging demonstrated an intuitive understanding of the behavioural biases of individuals.
From its strategy Labor could learn a lot.
Tracey West, Lecturer in Behavioural Finance, Griffith University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-lessons-from-behavioural-economics-bill-shortens-labor-party-forgot-about-117404" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Three lessons from behavioural economics Bill Shorten’s Labor Party forgot about: Tracey West

<html><body>
 
EXPERT OBSERVER
 
The pushback against federal Labor’s reforms to negative gearing is ramping up again with the release of <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/nsw-warning-on-house-price-stamp-duty-falls-if-labor-pushes-through-negative-gearing-policy/news-story/77e9201eee91aeac831812d647536e5f?nk=acc048a87489709af32fab40a1e4fa75-1557268010" target="_blank">NSW Treasury modelling</a>.
The modelling predicts that Labor’s changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount would cause a 0.8% to 1.3% decline in stamp duty revenues in the three years to 2022-23, or A$200 million over three years, assuming Labor’s policies take effect from January 1, 2020.
But behind the headline is the punchline: NSW Treasury is predicting house prices would barely move. Housing turnover would also fall, but only by between 0.3% and 1%. Since stamp duty revenues depend on (a) property sales; and (b) the prices at which they’re transacted, these figures mean that house prices fall marginally at most. They’d be just 0.5% lower than otherwise by the end of 2019, and around 1% lower over the three years.
<h2>Consistent with Grattan modelling</h2>
These declines in prices is pretty consistent with Grattan Institute’s own <a href="https://grattaedu.au/report/hot-property/" target="_blank">research</a>, which estimated that abolishing negative gearing would lead to house price falls in the range of 1% to 2%, assuming the value of the A$6.6 trillion property market falls by the entire value of the future stream of tax benefits.
Keep in mind that house prices in Sydney and Melbourne have already <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/house-prices-notch-worst-annual-fall-since-gfc/news-story/b654a045a63553d6c97738943195e209" target="_blank">fallen</a> by more than 10%, punching a much larger hole in stamp duty revenues than that modelled by NSW Treasury as a result of reforms to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.
Arguably, the impacts of reforms to the CGT and negative gearing on the housing market would be even smaller today, because many investors are sitting on the sidelines after the recent house price falls and changes to macro-prudential rules.
<h2>It would raise money…</h2>
Labor’s reforms to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount would substantially boost the budget bottom line. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office estimates Labor’s policies would raise about A$32.1 billion over ten years.
Winding back these tax concessions would enable the government to reduce other taxes, provide more services, improve the budget bottom line, or provide additional grants to the states (such as for hospitals) much greater than the A$200 million over three years that the NSW Treasury might lose.
The negative gearing change could increase rents, but only if it reduced the supply of new housing. With <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ACE-2018-Supply-sceptics-beware-11-July-2018-media-version.pdf" target="_blank">tight constraints</a> on the supply of land suitable for urban housing, most of the impact would be felt via lower land prices. And any effects would be small: most investment lending is for existing housing, and Labor’s policy leaves in place negative gearing tax write-offs for new homes.
<h2>…and stabilise the economy</h2>
The policy would also <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/negative-gearing-changes-will-affect-us-all-mostly-for-the-better-20190208-p50wjn">promote financial stability</a> by encouraging investors to chase rental yields rather than capital gains. The Reserve Bank, the Productivity Commission and the Murray financial system inquiry all raised concerns about the effects of the current tax arrangements on financial stability.
The policy would also promote an increase in home ownership. Fewer investors bidding at auctions would mean more homebuyers moving in.
Such small falls in house prices, as the NSW Treasury predicts, seems a modest price to pay for these benefits. Most Australians would probably take such a deal.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644" target="_blank">Brendan Coates</a>, Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/confirmation-from-nsw-treasury-labors-negative-gearing-policy-would-barely-move-house-prices-116736" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Confirmation from NSW Treasury. Labor's negative gearing policy would barely move house prices

<html><body>
<div id="x_story-description">
The NSW government is predicting a small reduction in house prices ahead of any implementation of the ALP's negative gearing policy, should Bill Shorten win office this month.
It also expects a decrease in stamp duty revenue of $194 million over three years to NSW Treasury if the ALP is elected and successfully implements its controversial policy ending negative gearing.
</div>
NSW Treasury modelling claims that transfer duty would decrease by 0.8 to 1.3 per cent in the three years to 2022-23 if Mr Shorten’s policy to stop negative gearing and increase capital gains tax for the purchase of existing properties, goes ahead from January 1, 2020, The Australian reported.
The modelling shows Labor’s policy could reduce revenue by about $46 million in 2020-21, $63 million in 2021-22 and $85 million in 2022-23.
Treasury argues, because of a belief the property market will fall in value, the imminent introduction of the policy could lead to house prices falling by 0.5 per cent by the end of 2019 (relative to current expectations).
Treasury also expects further reductions in stamp duty of between 0.3 to 1 per cent due to a decline in transaction volumes ahead of the possible January 1, 2020 implementation.
The treasury analysis says there could also be flow-on effects to the economy with lower dwelling investment and household consumption having a negative impact on State Final Demand of around 0.25 per cent after four years.
The Liberal NSW Treasurer Dominic Perrottet said Labor’s promised changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will disrupt the market.
"It will create further uncertainty for homeowners, homebuyers and investors at a time when they can least afford it.
“It will also rip up to $200 million from the State’s bottom line in the next three years and likely push home prices down beyond what existing market conditions would dictate.
“This was a policy proposed by Labor at the height of the property boom — but the circumstances have now changed and so the policy position needs to change too.
“With its toxic cocktail of higher taxes, increased regulation and militant union demands, a Shorten Labor government will be a handbrake on the NSW economy.”
In last night's debate Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten discussed the issue after the PM put a question to the Opposition leader.
He asked the Labor leader for a guarantee proposed limits on negative gearing wouldn't push rents up or house prices down.
Mr Shorten replied that the Grattan Institute and NSW Treasury had said the negative gearing policy "would not have an impact on house prices."
"This is a scam campaign looking for some credibility," he said, noting some limited impact on revenue from activity was anticipated by NSW Treasury.
"So there's no guarantee?" Mr Morrison pushed.
"You heard the answer," Mr Shorten replied.
The initial report by The Australian did not give any figure for the negative price impact after its implementation. 
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

NSW Treasury calculates anticipatory price decline ahead of ALP negative gearing policy implementation

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
When a politician says they want ‘more affordable housing’ that’s code for ‘lower prices’. 
Running an election on ‘lower house prices’ is political suicide. Running for office on the basis of ‘affordable housing’ is noble. 
The ‘more affordable housing’ mantra crosses party lines. The NSW State Liberal Government have overseen the apartment boom in Sydney in the name of extra supply creating ‘more affordable housing’. The Labor Party are contesting the Federal Election on the basis that removing negative gearing will save the tax payer billions and create ‘more affordable housing’.
Labor’s plan is to remove negative gearing (from January 1 2020) on existing dwellings but allow investors to gain negative gearing on brand new dwellings. The policy is designed to drive construction of new dwellings and in turn keep stock levels high and rents down.
Negative gearing was introduced in the 1930s in Australia. It is worth thinking about that the next time someone claims negative gearing is a ‘loop hole’. The tax system has been built around negative gearing, wrongly or rightly. Previous attempts to remove it have failed as the political and economic impact was too hard to handle.
The main complaint from those opposed to negative gearing is the burden the tax payer wears to the benefit of landlords. However, it should also be noted that property investors contribute in many ways to the public purse. Whether it is through stamp duty, land tax, council rates, income tax on positively geared investments and capitals gains tax when they sell a profitable investment.
To simply remove one component of this established tax structure will cause disruption. 
In the children’s game of Jenga, a tower of blocks is constructed and the players have to remove blocks from the bottom and place then at the top of the tower, without crashing the tower in the process.
Removing negative gearing is a political game of Jenga.
If Labor can cleanly achieve the removal of negative gearing, spoil to the victors. It will be a tricky path ahead though.
There is much debate on the impact of removing negative gearing from the housing market.
 Historically, small policy changes by Governments have big impacts on markets. The removal of negative gearing is a big policy change likely to have a big impact on the market.
The key to understanding the impact is understanding the dynamic factors at play. 
Price bubble in brand new dwellings – Brand new dwellings will still be able to be negatively geared by investors. Foreign investors and first home buyers already receive incentives to purchase brand new over established dwellings. As a result, it can be easily argued that brand new dwellings sell at an unjustified premium to the established market. The muted changes to negative gearing will exacerbate the bubble in the prices of brand new dwellings.
At best you could call it an incentive for investors to buy brand new dwellings, at worst it’s a bribe.
Higher rents in undersupplied markets – Property analysts SQM Research recently released a report that compared global residential property markets – those with and without negative gearing. Globally, those housing markets without any negative gearing built into their respective tax system had higher priced rental markets. Here in Australia, markets that are under supplied for dwellings will see a gradual increase on rents as the market recalibrates for the removal of negative gearing. 
Markets such as Hobart which are traditionally anti-development and the Inner city of Sydney which is undersupplied are likely to see tenants paying higher rents over time. 
Aussie housing markets which are pro-development will be less impacted by the removal of negative gearing than global peers, due to investors buying brand new dwellings.
Investors continue to feel the squeeze – owning an investment property is nirvana during those rare times that prices are rising and interest rates are falling. The rest of the time, investment properties can be onerous. Maintenance, vacancy, land tax, strata fees and insurances are just some of the many costs landlords incur. The removal of one of the few but true benefits to investors will see many of them opt for alternate investment options. 
Commercial property could be a winner – in Australia, commercial dwellings have always traded with a higher yield than residential. It is the ALP’s hope and expectation that property investors move into buying brand new dwellings to maintain the negative gearing tax break. Investors could well transfer their interest from the low yielding residential to the higher yields on offer in the commercial market.
Unintended consequences – nothing happens in isolation. Identifying unintended consequences is difficult because they are outcomes no one expected or anticipated.A major policy change usually brings unintended consequences downstream though. For example, a massive move away from property by investors would see State Governments revenue drop from stamp duty and land tax (particularly if prices fall). State Governments would then be under pressure to plug the gap in their budget through new and/or higher taxes.
Downward pressure on property prices. The impact cannot be measured scientifically because negative gearing is one of many reasons that buyers purchase a property. You can rest assured this is one more reason that investors will back off. The Liberal Government closed many of the abused aspects of negative gearing in the May 2017 which had an impact on property prices at the time. 
Peter O'Malley is an agent at Harris Partners Balmain and is the author of Inside Real Estate
</body></html>

The great debate - what will happen if negative gearing is removed?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The national broadband network (<a href="https://www.nbnco.com.au/" target="_blank">NBN</a>) has been a major issue in federal election campaigns for close to a decade.
And the 2019 version of the NBN bears little resemblance to the futuristic, egalitarian earlier editions.
Despite years of controversy, cost over-runs, and delays, the coalition government says our <a href="http://mitchfifield.com/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1688/NBN-marks-10-years-On-track-for-2020-completion.aspx" target="_blank">$50 billion national network</a> is finally nearing completion.
But Labor’s Shadow Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has <a href="http://www.michellerowland.com.au/media_release_labor_s_plan_to_improve_the_nbn_9_april_2019" target="_blank">set out some different priorities</a> should her party achieve government in the coming election. One of these is a “digital inclusion drive”, aimed at improving access to the internet for older Australians and low-income households.
In addition, Labor is making no immediate commitment to <a href="http://www.michellerowland.com.au/speech_address_to_commsday_summit_labor_s_responsible_plan_to_improve_the_nbn_9_april_2019" target="_blank">replacing copper connections with fibre</a>.
Instead, if elected, it will fund service and reliability fixes for those on the copper NBN, and impose service guarantees for small businesses and consumers. It will examine what has happened to the economics of the network, looking at its cash flow, pricing, capital structure, and future options for network upgrades.
Labor’s policy will disappoint those hoping for a fast-tracked return to <a href="http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2009/036.htm&amp;pageID=003&amp;min=wms&amp;Year=&amp;DocType" target="_blank">that party’s original (2009) vision</a> of high-speed fibre for (almost) everyone. But its 2019 plan is an important acknowledgement that network infrastructure is only one part of the NBN story.
Affordability and digital inclusion
The Australian Digital Inclusion Index (<a href="https://digitalinclusionindex.org.au/" target="_blank">ADII</a>) provides data on the affordability of internet services for Australians since 2014. It shows that recent, modest improvements seen by some households have been matched by declines in affordability for a number of Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/digital-inclusion-in-tasmania-has-improved-in-line-with-nbn-rollout-will-the-other-states-follow-102257" target="_blank">more digitally excluded groups</a>.
The results for low-income households, single parents, people outside the labour force, Indigenous Australians, and people with a disability remain poor.
The good news for Australian consumers is that the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/accc-telecommunications-report/accc-communications-market-report-2017-18" target="_blank">pricing of mobile services has improved</a>, reflecting competitive pressures and the reduced cost of delivery as a consequence of investment by network owners.
But when we look at fixed broadband services — the kinds of connections used by most households — recent price increases by NBN have led to a decline in the number of <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/speech/nbn-affordability-a-growing-issue" target="_blank">low-cost plans on the market</a>. This change post-dates the most recent ADII report (2018), and the effects are beginning to work their way into the market.
Communications costs matter
Communications services have a knock-on effect in many other areas of life and work.
Access to high-speed broadband can reduce <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/finance/deloitte-au-fas-benefits-highspeed-broadband-v2-240914.pdf" target="_blank">the costs of using other services considerably</a>. This makes critical activities like banking, seeking government information, looking for work, or studying much easier.
But when we speak of the cost savings linked with online services, we need also to bear in mind the flip-side of those savings: the much higher costs borne by those, often less well-off, citizens who must access services offline.
If an individual on a low income lacks electronic access to banking or government information, the cost of commuting to do these things in person can be prohibitive — and especially so for Australians living in <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/publications/2018-regional-telecommunications-review-getting-it-right-out-there" target="_blank">remote or regional areas</a>.
For children at school and adults in education or training, a lack of access to the internet means many will <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://apo.org.au/node/221806" target="_blank">fall behind their peers</a>, as access to educational materials and online content becomes a core part of the modern education experience. This has implications for Australia’s ability to take advantage of the next wave of digital transformation.
Expensive for everyone
The costs of inequitable internet access are directly felt by many families, but the broader costs are borne by society.
And so digital exclusion now has the potential to be a drag on Australia’s economic growth and productive potential for decades to come.
For individuals, conducting activities offline may be time-consuming and expensive. But that’s also true for the government. It’s estimated that even taking half of government services online would <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/deloitte-au-economics-digital-government-transformation-230715.pdf" target="_blank">save around A$20 billion</a>.
Aside from the costs of lower productivity, economic growth and tax receipts, inequitable access means that the material savings from automated services may never be realised.
Affordable access to broadband also supports the cost effective delivery of core government and other services – such as <a href="https://www.who.int/goe/policies/countries/aus__support_tele.pdf" target="_blank">health</a> – to regional and remote locations.
Although addressing inequitable access will involve costs in the short term, effective policy measures to improve affordability are likely to generate considerable national benefits.
How to improve affordability
At this stage Labor is not saying what it might do to improve internet affordability for low-income households.
The idea of writing down the NBN has been <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/there-s-a-big-obstacle-to-an-nbn-write-down-and-it-s-in-the-billions-20190213-p50xhn" target="_blank">widely discussed</a>. It does, however, have serious implications: it will be very costly to taxpayers.
It will also limit the ability of the NBN to invest in future network upgrades and threaten the economics of uniform national pricing, the NBN’s key promise of equity for regional and remote Australia.
That could mean a return to the pre-NBN communications landscape, with regional and remote Australia relying on increasingly obsolete communications infrastructure while metropolitan Australia moves ahead.
A direct increase in cash payments is likely to improve living standards materially for those in poverty, but more money for low income households doesn’t necessarily mean that broadband will be within their reach.
The creation of a concession at a retail level would make the telecommunications companies responsible for selling products at a cheaper rate, which in an era of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-14/telstra-profit-tumbles-as-nbn-continues-to-drain-revenue/10810552" target="_blank">reduced margins</a> appears unlikely to occur.
Also, a series of retail concessions can lead to consumer confusion, as the scope of each scheme and the discounts on offer vary wildly. We’ve seen these problems in the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/restoring-electricity-affordability-australias-competitive-advantage" target="_blank">energy sector</a>.
Another option is to create a wholesale concession, a measure that has been promoted by <a href="http://accan.org.au/no-australian-left-offline" target="_blank">consumer advocates</a>. This would involve the government paying NBN to put a wholesale product into the market that retailers could purchase and retail to low income households.
A nationally uniform concessional service would allow retailers to compete in offering affordable services to low-income households, boost NBN take-up and consequently its revenue and financial viability.
Focus on inclusion
While the introduction of a concessional arrangement would involve government picking up a part of the tab for service delivery, it offers sizeable benefits.
By ensuring NBN access for low-income households, the government avoids forgoing a large proportion of the savings that should accrued from the digital transformation of government services (and the benefits to be gained from improving services).
It would also prevent a lower take-up of NBN services and revenues. Without such an arrangement, questions will continue to be raised about the financial viability of NBN, its repayment of outstanding debt to government and whether there needs to be a write-down.
The take up of broadband has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9bcwkg3hwf-en" target="_blank">historically seen improvements</a> in average household income, productivity, and the creation of new kinds of work and services.
In order to maximise the benefits of the current wave of digital change, we’ll need a broader public debate, that goes beyond the relative merits of fibre and 5G.
Policy will need to address the challenge of affordability, invest in digital literacy, and ensure that all Australians can access the services that they need.
While there are many improvements that can and should be made to our national network infrastructure, a focus on the larger problem of digital inclusion is both welcome, and overdue.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115135/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;">
Julian Thomas, Professor of Media and Communications; Director, Social Change Enabling Capability Platform, RMIT University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-will-prioritise-an-nbn-digital-inclusion-drive-heres-what-it-should-focus-on-115135" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Labor will prioritise an NBN ‘digital inclusion drive’ – here’s what it should focus on

<html><body>
The shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen has defended the accuracy of his costings of the opposition’s signature negative gearing reform. 
It follows reports in the Australian Financial Review and the Australian questioning whether the policy was based on accurate numbers on the extent of new home acquisitions by investors.
Labor has said it would remove negative gearing for people who <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/96967-labor-sets-january-1-2020-start-date-for-its-cgt-and-negative-gearing-policy-implementation" target="_blank">purchase existing properties from 1 January 2020</a> and halve the capital gains tax discount for properties bought after the same date – measures expected to raise $2.9bn over four years or $35.1bn over 10.
Bowen said in February the Grattan Institute had stated that “around 90% of investment lending is for existing housing”, implying that 10% is for new housing – a figure he has stated publicly for three years.
Bowen angrily rejected the reported black hole, arguing that his public statements about the current rate of investment loans for new housing were designed to show the policy rationale of negative gearing to stimulate new housing had failed but the figures used in costing the policy were “quite separate”.
Bowen revealed the PBO had originally calculated that 12% of negatively geared dwellings would be new properties, which they had now updated to 22% in the first year, rising over time.
The PBO had reached a “prudent assumption” based on “the best evidence available to them”, including Australian Bureau of Statistics data but supplemented by “unpublished data” from the Reserve Bank and big four banks.
“We have the most rigorous costings process of any opposition, ever,” he said. “The PBO stands by their costings and I stand by the PBO.”
Bowen said Labor would provide full costings of its revenue measures “in good time during the election campaign”. 
</body></html>

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen defends negative gearing data assumptions

<html><body>
Josh Frydenberg has accused Labor of “lying” about figures behind their negative gearing reforms. 
It comes as the Australian ­Bureau of Statistics has denied claims it had produced data showing that only 7 per cent of property invest­ors bought new homes, a figure opposition treasury spokesman Chris Bowen has been using repeatedly to back his housing policy.
Mr Bowen’s use of ABS data has been challenged by the Grattan Institute, a ­public policy think tank, which has argued that 14 per cent of ­investors buy new properties rather than existing ones. 
Mr Bowen has repeatedly referred to ABS figures purportedly showing that negative gearing has failed to promote construction in new housing and create jobs. 
But ABS financial statistics analyst Tony Mitchell told The Australian newspaper the ABS did not collate the figures Mr Bowen had been referring to since 2016. 
“If you wanted to have those numbers you wouldn’t be able to get them from our statistics ­because we don’t collect them,” Mr Mitchell told The Australian. 
“We’ve got a little bit about construction, but it is to do with lending to businesses for construction of investment dwellings. It is not to do with lending to households for construction of ­investment dwellings.
“There is nothing about lending­ for newly constructed dwellings. That is included in other statistics, but you can’t break it out.” 
The Treasurer said Bowen had been “caught out” and had to “come clean” about Labor’s sums in his budget reply speech later today.
“Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen have been tripping over their shoe laces and the election hasn’t even begun,” the Treasurer told Sydney’s Alan Jones on 2GB radio this morning.
“The Labor Party in reality may see a big black hole in them because they have underestimated the number of negative gearers who use new homes.
“Chris Bowen needs to come clean about the data.”
“The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that 93 per cent of new investment loans go to people purchasing ­existing housing stock,” Mr Bowen said in January. 
“This means that the vast bulk of investment does not increase supply or boost jobs. 
“All it does is increase demand and the price of the existing homes, allowing investors to use tax subsidies to outbid owner-occupiers and first-home buyers.”
Grattan Institute director Danielle Wood said the independent think tank had estimated that more investors bought new properties than Labor was claiming. 
“It is right that you can’t ­directly calculate it from the ABS data because some of the finance is going into homes that are newly constructed and you can’t see the split between­ investors and owner-occupiers for that ­category,” Ms Wood said. 
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The Property Investors Council of Australia (PICA) said the use of ‘dodgy data’ shows Labor must urgently authorise the Parliamentary Budget Office to release modelling and assumptions used in their negative gearing and capital gains tax policies.
“If Labor has nothing to hide, then this is a straight forward exercise in full disclosure so all property owners can understand their reasoning for such significant reform,” said PICA chairman, Ben Kingsley.
Mr Kingsley said Labor’s keystone policy failed to include off-the-plan and house-and- land packages in its estimation that more than 90 per cent of new investment loans are to people purchasing existing housing stock.
He said industry experts have shown this figure to be woefully inaccurate.
“Just today Australia biggest aggregator – AFG with over 2900 mortgage brokers – confirmed its mortgage application data for new investment purchases vs. existing property was 43% new and 57% existing,” he said.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

Labor's Chris Bowen accused on major negative gearing data miscalculation

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The recent release of SQM’s research is the latest in a series of economic modelling critical of Labor’s housing tax policy to increase capital gains tax and restrict negative gearing.
Previous research commissioned by Master Builders Australia has shown that the ALP’s policies would result in an up to 42,000 reduction in new home building activity.
Given the indications of weaker than expected economic growth this is the exactly the wrong time to be discouraging investment in housing. All current incentives should be kept on the table.
Instead of just saying ‘No We Can’t’, Labor needs to stop fobbing off and ignoring legitimate questions about the impact of its housing tax policy and rethink their policies
Housing market conditions are already in sharp decline – unfavourable policy changes would make things even worse. Even in the absence of NG/CGT changes, new home building starts are likely to decline from over 230,000 to about 175,000 over the next couple of years.
Labor continues to argue that ‘grandfathering’ will neutralise any negative impact of their policies and protect against future shocks to the housing market but the evidence we do have from the Hawke-Keating era and Cadence Economics modelling is that there will be negative impacts on the housing market regardless.
For example, the investment potential of grandfathered assets will be undervalued because all subsequent owners will have a 50% tax increase on their investment.
Treasury analysis (FOI 1876) that Labor quotes in support of its policies suggests that Labor’s policies to increase capital gain tax could compound upon a cyclical downturn in the housing market that may be underway.
All this amounts to a compelling need for Labor to consider the impact of its policies to increase capital tax and restrict negative gearing before the next federal election.
Master Builders also restates that Labor conceived this policy in booming housing market – this is no longer the case. House prices have fallen by at least 15% in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth while new dwelling approvals and lending volumes are driving lower at some pace.
DENITA WAWN is the Chief Executive of Master Builders Australia
</body></html>

Labor Party

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Labor Party

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News