Federal Budget

EXPERT INSIGHT

Despite overwhelmingly endorsing the general stance of the 2021 budget, only a few of the 56 leading economists surveyed by the Economic Society of Australia and The Conversation are prepared to give it top marks.

Asked to grade the budget on a scale of A to F given Treasurer Josh Frydenberg&rsquo;s objective of <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg-2018/speeches/budget-speech-2021-22">securing Australia&rsquo;s economic recovery and building for the future</a>, only three of the 56 economists surveyed gave it an &lsquo;A&rsquo;.

But a very large 41% awarded it either an A or a B, up from <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-do-better-top-australian-economists-award-the-budget-a-cautious-pass-148624">37%</a> in last year&rsquo;s October COVID budget.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=94542 project_image_fid=160739]

The economists chosen to take part in the Economic Society of Australia survey have been recognised by their peers as Australia&rsquo;s leaders in fields including macroeconomics, economic modelling, housing and budget policy.

Among them are a former head of Australia&rsquo;s prime minister&rsquo;s department, a former member of the Reserve Bank board, a former OECD director and two former frontbenchers, one from Labor and one from the Coalition.

Of the panel members who commented on the historic stance of the budget &mdash; expanding the size of the deficit <a href="https://theconversation.com/frydenberg-spends-the-bounty-to-drive-unemployment-to-new-lows-159229">beyond what it would have been</a> in order to drive down unemployment &mdash; all but three offered enthusiastic endorsement.

Emeritus Professor Sue Richardson of the University of Adelaide commended the government for at last turning its back on a &ldquo;debt and deficit&rdquo; mantra, that was &ldquo;never justified&rdquo;.

Professor Richard Holden praised the &ldquo;watershed&rdquo;. In due course there should be increased attention paid to the structure and quality of spending, but for now we should applaud the &ldquo;Frydenberg Pivot&rdquo;.

Saul Eslake said the strategy of providing further stimulus to push unemployment down to levels <a href="https://theconversation.com/josh-frydenberg-has-the-opportunity-to-transform-australia-permanently-lowering-unemployment-156175">not seen consistently since the first half of the 1970s</a> was the right one. It meant the Reserve Bank and the treasury would no longer be working at &ldquo;cross purposes&rdquo; as they had been for most of the past two decades.

But Eslake said the budget fell short in the A$20 billion it devoted to tax concessions for small business in the mistaken and unfounded belief it is &ldquo;the engine room of the economy&rdquo; and in housing measures that failed to heed warnings from history about the risks of ultra-high loan-to-valuation ratios.

Rebecca Cassells of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre said the claim that 60,000 jobs would flow from extending the temporary loss carry back and full expensing tax concessions was &ldquo;a stretch,&rdquo; with the connection quite tenuous.

Bucks, but not the biggest bang

Consultant Nicki Hutley said a bigger boost to the JobSeeker unemployment payment would have achieved much more than the $7.8 billion one-year extension of the &ldquo;<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-low-and-middle-income-tax-offset-has-been-extended-yet-again-it-delivers-help-neither-when-nor-where-its-needed-160772">lamington</a>&rdquo; low and middle income tax offset.

Economic modeller Janine Dixon said while spending more to get more people into work was the &ldquo;right setting for the times,&rdquo; Australia had to ensure its workforce was ready to supply the extra aged care and child care and disability services it had funded by delivering the right training, especially in the absence of migration, which has traditionally been used to address workforce shortages.

Labour market specialist Elisabetta Magnani said measures to boost wages in the caring occupations could have achieved the double bonus of drawing more workers into those occupations and shrinking the gender pay gap, given that more than 80% of the workers in residential aged care are female.

Little for net-zero

Michael Keating, a former head of the prime minister&rsquo;s department, said restoring high wage growth would require big investments in education and training, which sits oddly with the cuts in funding for universities. The extra funding for apprentices and trainees only makes up for past cuts.

Professor Gigi Foster said the $1.7 billion spent on childcare subsidies was only &ldquo;surface-level fiddling with the sticker price&rdquo;.

&ldquo;Where is the supply-side intervention required to make childcare services sustainably accessible and of high quality?&rdquo; she asked. &ldquo;Childcare should be viewed as social infrastructure. Instead, when we heard infrastructure, it was mainly code for transportation.&rdquo;

Margaret Nowak of Curtin University said a budget that really &ldquo;built for the future&rdquo; would not have focused on the &ldquo;infrastructure of the past&rdquo;. Professor Richardson lamented that most of the infrastructure spending was on traditional &ldquo;roads and ports&rdquo; when the future was net-zero emissions.

&ldquo;There is little in the budget that supports this transformation,&rdquo; she said. &ldquo;It is an extraordinary lost opportunity.

Nicki Hutley said retooling the economy for zero emissions would have brought forth &quot;more jobs, higher wages, more growth and private sector co-investment&rdquo;.

Some concern about debt

Former OECD director Adrian Blundell-Wignall said a much-greater investment in vaccinations would have helped &ldquo;get the economy back to work and the borders opened sooner which, in turn, would have saved unemployment benefits, tourism, aviation support and the need for the extension of temporary measures&rdquo;.

And he was concerned that a jump in US inflation might cause international interest rates to rise faster than expected, forcing Australia to cut its projected budget deficits in order to stabilise net debt.

Former International Monetary Fund economist Tony Makin, a <a href="https://research.treasury.gov.au/external-paper/the-effectiveness-of-federal-fiscal-policy-a-review">critic</a> of government spending during the global financial crisis, described the budget spending as a &ldquo;knee-jerk primitive Keynesian reaction&rdquo; to the COVID recession.

Unease about going into debt to keep and create jobs aside (and very few of the economists surveyed shared Makin&rsquo;s unease) the criticisms of the economists surveyed relate to execution and details. If Frydenberg had been judged on his approach, most would have given him an A.

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, Visiting Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</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/great-approach-weak-execution-economists-decline-to-give-budget-top-marks-161347">original article</a>.

Asked to grade the budget on a scale of A to F given Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s objective of securing Australia’s economic recovery and building for the future, only three of the 56 economists surveyed gave it an A

jordan_55689

Economists decline to give budget top marks

There was one surprise for the housing sector in tonight's federal budget, and three foreshadowed housing measures were made official.

The federal treasurer Josh Frydenberg advised the parliament in his budget speech that new house starts were now at the highest level in 20 years. 

"New loans to first home buyers reached their highest level in nearly 12 years.

"HomeBuilder has been a huge success and our $2 billion investment in affordable housing is bringing on more supply," he said.

"Our housing measures go even further," he added.

"Helping another 10,000 first home buyers build a new home with a 5 per cent deposit.

"Supporting 10,000 single parents to purchase a home with a 2 per cent deposit. 

"Increasing the amount that can be released under the First Home Super Saver Scheme from $30,000 to $50,000.

"Under the Coalition, home ownership will always be supported," he noted.

The budget effectively continued the First Home Low Deposit Scheme for new homes and off the plan acquistions, and tweaked the First Home Super Saver Scheme, and introduced a new scheme for single parents.

The 10,000 Family Home Guarantees will be made available for single parents over the next four financial years.

The Family Home Guarantee will be available regardless of whether that single parent is a first home buyer or previous owner-occupier. 

Applicants have an annual taxable income of no more than $125,000. 

A fact sheet with further information on eligibility criteria will be available on the NHFIC’s website next week.

The surprise announcement was the government will lower the minimum age for the downsizer super contribution from 65 to 60.

“This will allow Australians nearing retirement to make a one-off post-tax contribution of up to $300,000 per person (or $600,000 per couple) when they sell their family home,” the budget documents advised.

“This improves the flexibility for Australians to contribute to their superannuation savings, and may encourage people to downsize sooner and increase the supply of family homes.”

The budgetary measure will be argued as positive for first home buyers and next home buyers by freeing up established housing stock for younger property buyers.

There was a warning after the budget announcement from the Property Council on the long-term economic consequences of idling population growth.
 
"Budget assumptions anticipate that Australia’s population growth will be limited to only 0.2 per cent over in the next financial year. Net overseas migration is forecast at -77,000 in 2021/22, with a return to normal levels of migration not expected until 2024/25," the PCA noted.
 
“The Budget has revealed that our restricted border is the biggest constraint on our economy.
 
“Our lack of growth is going to catch up with us with economic and employment growth expectations slowing over the forward estimates.
 
“Population growth is not an optional extra for Australia’s economy," the PCA said.

The budget also made $15 billion in additional infrastructure commitments including for:

a) the North‑South Corridor in South Australia
b) the Great Western Highway and Newcastle airport in New South Wales
c) the new Melbourne Intermodal Terminal in Victoria 
d) the Bruce Highway in Queensland
e) METRONET in Western Australia
f) highway upgrades in the Northern Territory
g) Light Rail Stage 2A in the Australian Capital Territory and
h) Midland Highway upgrades in Tasmania.

Josh Frydenberg noted that "when construction work began to dry up, HomeBuilder came to the rescue."



jchancellor

Federal Budget formalises three mooted housing measures

EXPERT INSIGHT

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg calls this a &ldquo;pandemic budget&rdquo; &ndash; one to sustain the economy in times that are still uncertain &ndash; but it also has a substantial element of an election budget.

That&rsquo;s not to suggest Prime Minister Scott Morrison will rush to the polls this year. But given the election has to be held by May 21, 2022, this is likely to be the last budget of the cycle. Another could be squeezed in, as in 2019, but it would have to be brought forward from the normal time.

Last year the treasurer said budget repair and debt repayment &ndash; otherwise known as the hard and unpleasant decisions &ndash; wouldn&rsquo;t be undertaken before unemployment was &ldquo;comfortably&rdquo; below 6%.

Now unemployment is 5.6% (the March figure) but Frydenberg has shifted the goal posts, so the emphasis remains on recovery, with more difficult reckonings a way off &ndash; beyond the election.

Given a grim COVID picture internationally and a long way to go with the vaccine program locally, that is sound &ndash; and also politically convenient.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=89720 project_image_fid=147505]

In this budget, the government&rsquo;s policy approach is firmly aligned with that of the Reserve Bank, with Frydenberg embracing the bank&rsquo;s objective of pushing unemployment well below pre-pandemic levels, which means to a rate with a 4 in front of it.

Two central spending areas in the budget have been, in effect, imposed on the government.

It had to respond to the damning findings of the aged care royal commission. The fact most Australian COVID deaths occurred in aged care underlined how unfit for purpose the system is. Frydenberg told the ABC there will be more than $10 billion spending on aged care over the forward estimates.

The budget&rsquo;s &ldquo;women&rsquo;s&rdquo; focus &mdash; a sharp contrast to last year &mdash; has drivers that go beyond the urgent need to do more to combat violence against women, and other imperatives.

Morrison&rsquo;s &ldquo;women problem&rdquo;, which exploded with the demonstrations following the high-profile allegations of rape, most obviously increased the attention on women in this budget, which will include a women&rsquo;s statement with initiatives on health, safety, and economic security.

Also, Labor&rsquo;s decision to make childcare one of its main policy pitches, promising a big spend, reinforced economic considerations pushing the government to produce its own childcare policy (which doesn&rsquo;t start until July 2022).

Even in the middle of the pandemic last year, few would have thought that by now we&rsquo;d still have no firm idea when our international borders will re-open.

Morrison is cautious about it, and judges that&rsquo;s in line with the thinking of the Australians public at the moment. He can read those state electoral results as well as anyone &mdash; he knows people put health safety above all else.

&ldquo;International borders will only open when it is safe to do so&rdquo;, he said on Facebook at the weekend. &ldquo;Australians are living like in few countries around the world today.&rdquo;

On the other hand, the pressure for students to come, migration to resume and people to be allowed to travel must build sooner or later.

The budget&rsquo;s assumptions will put the reopening in 2022, Frydenberg told the ABC at the weekend

Economist Saul Eslake says while keeping the country closed to the outside world is obviously not sustainable in the long run, it has, in a perverse way, some short run plusses for the government&rsquo;s economic objectives.

&ldquo;It&rsquo;s very easy to get unemployment down when the border is closed. You only need to create 5000 new jobs a month to prevent unemployment rising.

&quot;Previously [with migrants coming] you needed 16,000 new jobs a month. Currently we&rsquo;re creating 60,000 a month,&rdquo; Eslake says.

Migrants stimulate growth. But so does having Australians unable to travel overseas, Eslake says. They can only spend domestically &ndash; or save &ndash; the $55 billion they would normally be spending abroad. They appear to be spending quite a deal of it on things like home equipment, furnishings, renovations, cars, and even clothing.

While fiscal repair is formally delayed, the budget will show it is gradually, to a degree, repairing itself.

The quicker-than-expected bounce back of the labour market, which reduces welfare costs and boosts tax revenue, and the similar rebound in corporate profits, help the bottom line. Frydenberg says that, despite JobKeeper coming to an end, 105,000 people came off income support in April. High iron ore prices are also a godsend to revenue.

Chris Richardson, from Deloitte Access Economics, has forecast a deficit for this financial year of about $167 billion, compared with the December budget update figure of $198 billion. For 2021-22 , the Deloitte forecast is a deficit of about $87 billion compared with the update&rsquo;s forecast of $108 billion.

Still, a balanced budget will be some years off, Richardson says.

He gives four reasons: substantial structural spending on aged care, mental health, childcare, disability and the like; low wage and price inflation (inflation helps budgets); missing migrants; and interest payments on debt (helped by low interest rates but still significant).

On what we know, the budget will be safe rather than adventurous. And while budgets can always unexpectedly trip over their own feet, and inevitably have plenty of critics, this will be the sort of benign one that doesn&rsquo;t go out of its way to hurt or offend voters.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" hub="" o3us6t2oy="" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160594/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-grattan-20316">Michelle Grattan</a>, Professorial Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-canberra-865">University of Canberra</a>

This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-a-budget-for-a-pandemic-with-next-years-election-in-mind-160594">original article</a>.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg calls this a “pandemic budget” – one to sustain the economy in times that are still uncertain – but it also has a substantial element of an election budget

A budget for a pandemic, with next year's election in mind

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Department of Finance released the February monthly financial statements on March 24, just prior to the Easter holiday period. This note examines the latest data.
Budget improves: In the twelve months to February 2016, the budget deficit stood at $36.1 billion (around 2.2 percent of GDP), down from $44.7 billion in the year to January and the lowest rolling annual deficit in almost two years (since April 2014).
Lower-than-expected spending: The Department of Finance says the underlying deficit for February was $743 million lower than the ‘profile’ forecast and “primarily relates to lower than expected cash payments and net future fund earnings, partially offset by lower than expected cash receipts.”
The monthly Budget figures can provide insights on the broader economy and policy settings. If fiscal settings are tight, the Reserve Bank may allow easier monetary settings.
What does it all mean?
While figures can bounce around from month to month, all analytics suggest that the Federal Budget is on track to meet Government forecasts. Not only are rolling annual aggregates showing improvement, so are the so-called ‘profile’ positions estimated by the Department of Finance.
Revenue remains hard to come by with annual growth rates hovering around 2 percent. Meanwhile growth of expenses or spending is well contained, with expenses barely growing over the year. The Government was projecting a budget deficit near $37 billion and that expectation remains on target.
Looking ahead, if nominal annual growth of the economy continues to hold around 2-3 percent, then the current Government – and the next Government later this year – will find it increasingly difficult to keep spending static and thus chip away at the budget deficit. Aussies want spending maintained on schools, hospitals, defence and public services but at the same time aren’t keen to pay any more in tax. Same for all levels of Government. The hard decisions on tax will become increasingly more difficult the longer that the major parties put off reaching some form of agreement.
GST revenues continue to lift, but for state governments the difficulty – as it is for all businesses – is the absence of inflation to drive revenues.
What do the figures show?
The underlying budget deficit for the twelve months to February 2016 stood at $36.1 billion, down from $44.4 billion in the year to January. This was the lowest rolling annual deficit since April 2014.
Smoothed revenues (twelve months to December) were up 5.9 percent on a year ago, above the average growth of 2.6 percent over the past year. Expenses rose by 0.3 percent over the same period, down on the 1.7 percent growth over the past year.
<a href="/images/2016/04/6/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-06%20at%202.56.24%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/04/6/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-06%20at%202.56.24%20PM.png" alt="" width="726" height="555">
The Department of Finance noted: “The underlying cash balance for the year to 29 February 2016 was a deficit of $38,719 million, compared to the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) profile deficit of $39,462 million. The difference of $743 million primarily relates to lower than expected cash payments and net future fund earnings, partially offset by lower than expected cash receipts.”
<a href="/images/2016/04/6/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-06%20at%203.03.04%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/04/6/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-06%20at%203.03.04%20PM.png" alt="">
In terms of the fiscal balance, the Department of Finance noted: “The fiscal balance for the year to 29 February 2016 was a deficit of $35,292 million, compared to the MYEFO profile deficit of $36,719 million. The difference of $1,427 million primarily relates to lower than expected expenses, partially offset by lower than expected revenue.”
“Revenues: Total revenue was $1,223 million lower than the MYEFO profile, primarily due to lower than expected taxation revenue and dividend income.
Expenses: Total expenses were $2,831 million lower than the MYEFO profile, primarily due to lower than expected supply of goods and services, wages and salaries and grants expenses.”
The Government currently expects an underlying deficit of $37.4 billion for 2015/16 (around 2.3 percent of GDP).
Receipts from the Goods and Services Tax stood at $59.6 billion in the twelve months to February, up 7.0 percent on a year ago but affected by the one extra day in the month. The Government has forecast GST receipts of $59.79 billion for the entire 2015/16 year.
Actual GST receipts for the eight months to February stood at $41.367 billion, above the Budget ‘profile’ of $40.734 billion.
What is the importance of the economic data?
The Department of Finance releases the Government Financial Statements (Niemeyer Statement) almost every month. The statement allows investors to track the current budget position and provides insights into the  effectiveness of fiscal policy.
What are the implications for interest rates and investors?
The Federal Budget is on track to meet forecasts. Spending restraint including low public service wage growth (similar trend in private sector) is driving the improvement. The Federal Government and Opposition parties will eventually have to agree on tax reform to address medium term challenges for the economy.
The Government is showing restraint on spending at present, but this is actually constraining stimulus to the economy.
<a href="/images/2016/04/6/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-06%20at%203.04.17%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/04/6/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-06%20at%203.04.17%20PM.png" alt="" width="731" height="535">
 
Craig James is the chief economist at <a href="https://www.comsec.com.au/default.aspx" target="_blank">CommSec</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Federal Budget is on track to meet forecasts: CommSec's Craig James 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
As well as restricting supply to an already full rental market, the 50 percent foreign ownership restriction removes some of the competitive advantages overseas developers had over local developers.
Prior to this change coming into effect, overseas developers had a competitive advantage as they had no overseas sales limits whatsoever. Overseas developers using overseas banks could, if they so desired, have 100 percent foreign sales, with 100 pe cent en masse sales occurring overseas.
What Scott Morrison has done is even the playing field between local and overseas developers, with overseas developers now forced to generally work within the same FIRB sales metrics as local developers.
To commence a development, local banks require local developers to presell approximately 70 percent of the apartments in a development and impose a 25 percent Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) restriction on these presales. This means local developers require 52 percent local sales prior to construction commencing.
Once the developer has achieved financial close with a local bank, they are free to sell the rest overseas. Meaning, under a 25 per cent FIRB presales limit, local developers using local banks can develop buildings with circa 48 per cent foreign ownership.
Banks are always looking at the FIRB presales limit and whilst many current developments are at 25 percent, there is a more recent bank trend to constrict this further – more in the realm of 15 percent. If this is the case, then locally banked projects can end up with 40 percent foreign ownership.
It is also fair to say that overseas purchasers have settled better than local sales. Many pundits were nervous about large buildings settling this year, yet what we are seeing is that very few overseas purchasers are falling through when it comes to quality developments (just 1-2 percent in fact), even against Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s (APRA) headwinds of overseas purchaser mortgage finance.
With the 50 percent FIRB restriction placed across the whole market, coupled with APRA’s new powers across non-bank lenders, it means that the metrics by which local and overseas developers, local and overseas banks, and local and overseas non-bank lenders are becoming converged.
As a flow on effect of the overseas sales metrics now being similar, this policy change will result in overseas developers using local banks and non-bank lenders more readily to avoid foreign exchange risk, again levelling the playing field.
Perhaps this new measure may even narrow the gap between what an overseas and local developer can pay for a site, which sets the market and ultimately gets passed onto the (local) consumer.
As an unintended consequence however, this change will further constrict supply to rental markets, thus driving rental and housing prices further out of reach of local first home owners and owner occupiers. It is only state planning ministers that can affect real change by encouraging the supply side of the housing economic supply/demand pendulum.
Andrew Hogan is a managing director of Point Polaris. He can be contacted <a href="https://www.pointpolaris.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

How will the 50 percent foreign ownership limit affect developers? Andrew Hogan

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Two weeks following the budget, the topic of housing affordability is still not waning.
Australia and the world united last week to slam young real estate mogul, Tim Gurner, who claimed young Australians can’t afford to buy property because they are spending “$40 a day on smashed avocados” and “not working”. The story spread like wildfire nationally as well as globally with media outlets including TIME Magazine, Washington Post, and The LA Times picking up the story.
While sensationalised, the crux of the problem has still not been addressed.  
Recent research conducted by iBuildNew which surveyed Australian FHBs to examine how much an affordable house is considered to cost, what the biggest barriers to entry are, where and what housing alternatives were being considered, and other useful statistics and insights. The full findings can be found in the Appendix below.
About the super saver scheme
The Government will help Australians boost their savings for their first home by allowing them to build a deposit inside superannuation. These contributions, which are taxed at 15 per cent, along with deemed earnings, can be withdrawn for a deposit from 1 July, 2018.
While the 'First Home Super Savers Scheme' will provide some benefit to Australian FHBs, it needs to still be kept in perspective in terms of popularity among its target audience:
As an incentive to help FHB's save I really like the scheme, but am skeptical as to how effective this will be in terms of how many people will take this up.  
I suspect FHB's will not see the incentive as strong enough and have concerns their savings will be locked away until retirement if they can't ultimately save enough, property prices keep rising, or their personal circumstances change, which are all legitimate concerns. 
In theory however, if a FHB is on $80,000 pa and elects to salary sacrifice $1,000 per month into super for a deposit, within 2.5 years they will save the $30,000. Depending on their state, they should be eligible for the FHB grant of $10,000-$15,000 (let's say $15,000), so they then have $45,000 in total savings. An average off-the-plan house and land package across Australia is $440,000 and if you assume you need 20% of the total amount (worst case) to secure a loan from the bank, the FHB still needs to save or access another $43,000.  
This is in no way a slam dunk but may be possible if they already have some sort of additional savings or can access equity in their parent’s home, for example. However, with only just over 20 percent of FHB’s considering new home builds with most preferring established properties at much higher starting prices, this savings challenge is far more acute for most. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t lie, and while this initiative may create some savings discipline from the few that take it up, most FHB’s dream of owning their own home will still be out of reach.
Relevant statistics (per iBuildNew recent survey findings): 76 per cent of first home buyers can’t get into the property market because they can’t save the deposit or secure a loan.
Only 22 percent of FHBs are considering a new home build as their entry option to the property market, with 60 per cent preferring to buy established despite the significant price differential between the two options.
About retirees downsizing super exemptions 
In a bid to release more property to the market and help tackle housing affordability for Aussie first home buyers, Australians over 65 years of age will be able to contribute an additional $300,000 from the sale of their main residence (if they have owned it for 10 years) into their superfund at non-concessional rates.
Starting from July next year, this scheme was designed to encourage retirees to actively consider downsizing in an attempt to free up larger homes for younger families and FHBs. Downsizing to free up capital makes a lot of sense for the older generation as they often own their own home with significant equity, but may not have much super to live off.
I am is very skeptical about this initiative. He thinks this won't help first home buyers at all and is simply a strategy from the government to relieve pressure on pension entitlements:
Firstly retirees that have been in their home for more than 10 years generally live in homes that cost $1,000,000 or more, so creating new supply in this high-cost range won't help first home buyers at all. Any impact is likely to be at the upper end of the housing market, not in the sub $450,000 where most FHB’s consider affordable. This initiative in the short term actually has a negative impact on supply as some retirees that would have otherwise downsized in the next 6-12 months will now be holding off selling their house until this initiative takes effect in July 2018.
Secondly, and most importantly, we see this as being a strategy from the government to relieve pressure on pension entitlements. At the end of the day the country has an issue on how to fund pensions entitlements, so this would take some pressure off if retirees took it up. However, accountants will advise their clients to think very carefully about this as the principal place of residency is excluded from the net asset means test calculations when it comes to pension eligibility.
Many simply don’t want to leave what they know, but many won’t want to forgo the state pension in lieu of their super pension, so you really have to question what impact this will have on housing supply. Branding the retiree downsizing scheme as a housing affordability measure I find very strange, at least for FHB’s.
Relevant statistic (per iBuildNew recent survey findings): 63 pe cent of first home buyers believe an affordable house costs less than $450,000, 85 percent think it’s less than $600,000.
About the foreign owners rent levy
Overseas property investors who leave their houses unoccupied will face an annual charge to help encourage foreign owners to make their property available to rent to improve rental supply – or that’s the plan anyway. Predictions on empty properties put the number as high as 300,000 across the country, however Mr. Peterson believes the levy will do nothing to increase housing affordability:
The levy only starts from $5,000, so even the more expensive properties around Australia will only attract a $15,000 slap on the wrist. For the Chinese who are using this as a strategy to get money into a safe haven (often several million dollars), a small annual charge is unlikely to drive a change in behavior from these types of investors who are more concerned about capital preservation than realizing rental returns. Even if it does, all this would do is ensure more blue chip houses are available for rent, generally at rental rates that people who are looking for affordable housing, can't afford anyway.
I think this is bit of a cop out by the Government who are trying to blame foreign investors for the housing supply shortage and affordability, when in reality they are a minority group undertaking this activity, so they have missed the mark.
About the release of surplus government land
As part of the housing affordability package released in the budget announcement the government has earmarked 127 hectares of surplus land in Melbourne which could house up to 6,000 properties. They have also outlined similar measures for Western Sydney. It is initiatives like this that can make a real difference.
The release of government land is one of the few genuine measures announced in this year’s budget that will actually help the housing affordability challenge. It directly impacts supply of land, and that has a direct impact on price and affordability.
In my view this type of land should be made almost exclusively for first home buyers, with a double FHB grant available on the purchase of such land when committed as part of a house and land package. If the super saving scheme is going to have any real impact, it still needs to be coupled with a first home buyer grant if FHB’s are going to be any chance of saving sufficient deposit in the Melbourne and Sydney markets.
However, FHB’s need to look beyond the inner suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney, lift their eyes and explore some of the outer suburbs if they are serious about getting into the property market. A new build house and land package is typically 40% plus cheaper than an inner suburb established property, not to mention its brand new.
Relevant research (per iBuildNew recent survey findings): 64 percent of first home buyers are only prepared to look at properties within their suburb of choice or surrounding suburbs.
Only 22 percent of first home buyers are considering a new home build while 60 per cent are focused on buying an established home or townhouse.
76 percent of first home buyers can’t get into the property market because they can’t save the deposit or secure a loan.
Daniel Peterson is chief executive officer, iBuildNew, and can be contacted <a href="https://www.ibuildnew.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

iBuildNew rejects three key initiatives from the 2017 Budget first home buyer measures 

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77101/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The measures in the 2017-18 Federal Budget targeting the supply of lower-cost rental housing are limited.
There are no significant funding increases to social housing and homelessness services. There is no increase in rent assistance to help low-income renters in the private rental market.
Capital gains tax and negative gearing settings remain largely untouched, and the proposed bond aggregator will support expansion of housing aimed at very specific groups. 
For the majority of Australia’s renters, housing will remain unaffordable, insecure and out of reach.
<h2>Community housing</h2>
If private investors get on board, the bond aggregator may help boost the supply of affordable and community housing by providing cheaper financing to community housing providers.
These two forms of housing are extremely important. However, they do little to help most renters.
Eligibility requirements for community housing mean many who require low-cost housing, where rent is calculated at between 25 percent and 30 percent of household income, are not able to gain access.
Single older women are among the fastest-growing group of homeless people in Australia. However, most are unable to access community housing because the only eligibility benchmark they meet is their low-income status. 
Women not leaving situations of domestic violence or who do not have a recognised disability will find it difficult to qualify for housing before they reach homelessness.
The private rental market these women face is obscene. There is extremely low housing security with the risk of eviction when the standard lease agreement (of six and 12 months) runs out. High rents place sufficient, nutritious food out of reach of their budget, and they face difficulties paying power bills.
Time spent bringing up children, the gendered pay gap and – for some – relationship breakdown are among the factors that lead to this housing experience.
Long waiting lists for social housing and eligibility restrictions mean this year’s budget proposals are likely to fail this group.
<h2>Affordable housing</h2>
The second target of the bond aggregator is affordable housing. This is housing that is rented at between 75% and 80% of market rent. It is often described as “key worker” housing, where teachers, ambulance drivers and police officers can live.
Affordable housing has an important place in the housing system. However, below-market rents in central, work-rich regions are still extremely high and out of reach for many.
Of more concern, it is unlikely that many of these lower-income workers would be able to maintain their high rents at retirement. This generates two risks:
<ul>
<li>
that the renter is evicted and forced to find housing on the private market, which puts them at high risk of homelessness
</li>
<li>
that the housing provider continues their commitment to house the tenant securely once their income drops, so the risk here is to the housing provider’s bottom line. They will face a loss of income, as they drop rents from 80% of market value to around 30% of the retired person’s pension.
</li>
</ul>
<h2>First home buyers</h2>
The budget tips its hat to first home buyers; prospective buyers will now be allowed to save up to A$30,000 at a reduced tax rate. But this is barely one-quarter of a standard 20% deposit for most apartments in Sydney.
Renters who aspire to home ownership and have sufficient income to service a mortgage may benefit from this measure. However, it will do little for the large number of low- and moderate-income households. For this group, spiralling housing costs put home ownership well out of reach.
It is also possible that this measure will add to inflationary pressure on housing prices by boosting demand for entry-level homes. Existing owners who are selling their homes would be the primary beneficiaries.
<h2>What’s missing?</h2>
There remains a need for courageous government action to tackle the structural inequities in the housing market. 
Removing tax incentives that keep investor heat in the market will be essential – and so will increases to social housing budgets.
Investment in a large stock of secure low-cost social housing should be prioritised. Failing this, there will be a need to increase rent assistance payments, particularly in high-cost regions. 
But this is far from ideal. More rent assistance will help renters in the short term, but amounts to a subsidy for private landlords in the long term.
<h2>Does the government care?</h2>
Underpinning much budget analysis is a sense that government should be concerned with the needs of the disadvantaged. Sociologist Keith Jacobs argues we should disavow ourselves of that view, describing housing policy in Australia as a “form of reverse welfarism that exacerbates social inequality”. 
Jacobs argues:
… the state should be understood as an agency that sustains the conditions necessary for the finance industry, developers and real estate agents, along with well-off householders and landlords, to reap profits.
The failure of the 2017 budget to tackle tax measures that support individual private investment, and its emphasis on funding social and affordable housing through market investment mechanisms while providing little direct support at the bottom end of the market, does little to challenge this argument.
Emma Power is senior Research Fellow, Geography and Urban Studies, Western Sydney University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-power-250930" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Is this the budget that forgot renters?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75834/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
It is ironic that at a time when so many young Australians are finding it so hard to break into the property market, commentators are finding it so hard to break out of discussing it.
This week we saw three notable pieces of information. First, the CoreLogic home value index showed further rises in property prices across the country in the month to March 31. Year-on-year, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Hobart had double-digit percentage gains. Melbourne was up 15.9 percent and Sydney a staggering 18.9 percent.
And although prices have come down a little in the volatile Perth and Darwin markets, the numbers triggered further concern from regulators.
In keeping the cash rate steady at 1.5 percent, RBA governor Philip Lowe made the following observation is the formal announcement:
“Growth in household borrowing, largely to purchase housing, continues to outpace growth in household income. By reinforcing strong lending standards, the recently announced supervisory measures should help address the risks associated with high and rising levels of indebtedness. Lenders need to ensure that the serviceability metrics that they use are appropriate for current conditions. A reduced reliance on interest-only housing loans in the Australian market would also be a positive development.”
But it was comments made outside the official script that were the most revealing. The governor specifically tied prices to “taxation arrangements” and <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2017/sp-gov-2017-04-04">noted</a>: “For many people, the high debt levels and low wage growth are a sobering combination.”
Yup: negative gearing plus inadequate supply plus low wage growth equals financial distress.
<h2>Prudential regulation</h2>
The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) announced it wanted to see the proportion of interest-only loans fall from the current strikingly-high level of 40 percent of new loans, down to 30 percent.
That’s fine, but three concerning things come quickly to mind: it treats the symptom not the cause of risky lending; it may be too late; and targets like this tend to lead to “gaming”. 
On the latter point, how much principal repayment qualifies? What about a loan with a 200-year maturity – is that interest only or not? You can bet the smart folks at the big banks are on the case figuring out how they can comply with the letter of the regulation but not necessarily the spirit.
Meanwhile, building approvals rose strongly in February, up 8.3 percent. This came mostly from NSW and Queensland, which were up 19.6% and 33.7%, respectively. These numbers reveal how volatile approvals are, and hence how little of a long-term supply trend they represent. 
The numbers were also driven largely by apartment approvals, which are particularly lumpy. Moreover, if these don’t sell well off-the-plan – perhaps because of interest-only loans drying up – then developers can quickly find themselves in trouble. 
Much as I would like to read these figures as a positive supply response, it’s hard not to be worried.
<h2>Governments aren’t helping</h2>
So while the RBA keeps cautioning market participants, governments are doing very little, or things that are explicitly unhelpful. It <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bringing-down-the-house-radical-plans-considered-to-ease-homebuyer-crisis/news-story/1c9eae05b7f7569d785dea29a5adb159">was reported</a>this week that NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian favours extending the first home owner grant from new properties to existing properties in the June state budget. The premier has said previously that increasing supply is important (she is correct on that), but now seems to be undoing that by goosing demand.
That is the worst idea ever. Period. It just drives up prices and throws away precious government funds. As economist Saul Eslake has put it:
“All [FHOGs] do is increase the price of housing by that amount. There’s almost 50 years of evidence to show that when you give cash to would-be home buyers … the price of the housing they buy goes up by at least that amount. The people who get it think that it’s helping them - the government says ‘here’s a slab of cash’, and that’s popular, but it does nothing.” 
Meanwhile, we wait with anticipation the housing affordability package in the Commonwealth budget on May 9. No shortage of dumb ideas have already been floated – including letting people dip into their superannuation to buy a property.
Let’s hope that economics trumps politics just this once. Negative gearing needs to be reformed, and supply needs to be boosted. Housing affordability, financial stability and economic inequality are all riding on it.
Richard Holden is professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance Fellow, UNSW and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-holden-118107" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Regulators fiddle while house prices sizzle

<html><body>
If the 2014-15 Federal Budget was considered ‘aggressive’, this year’s Federal Budget could be considered ‘boring’ by comparison.
According to Treasurer Joe Hockey, this year’s Federal Budget engaged integrity measures in the name of fairness.
Small business owners were the big winners to come out of the Federal Budget, winning tax breaks and other incentives, while homeowners and the housing sector remained relatively unscathed.
Small business owners to receive tax breaks to allow for future investment
From 1 July this year, small companies with annual turnover of less than $2 million will have their tax rate lowered, from 30% to 28.5%. In addition, small businesses will be able to claim up to a $20,000 tax deduction for every item they purchase. Further, employees in start-ups will get access to tax breaks on shares they receive as part of their pay. This stream of tax breaks and incentives will help small businesses to grow and flourish. It will give small business owners the opportunity to reinvest in their businesses and take their companies to the next level. And considering small businesses are the engine room of Australia, these tax breaks should spell good news for the broader economy and employment. Foreign investment framework to see o/s investors pay fees to buy property
As part of the 2015-16 Federal Budget, Treasurer Joe Hockey said changes would be made to strengthen Australia’s foreign investment framework. Under the proposed changes, a new fee regime will be introduced which will require foreign investors to pay an application fee of up to $5,000 to purchase residential properties valued under $1 million. Those purchasing a property equal to or greater than $1 million would be subject to a fee of up to $10,000. This would then increase in increments of up to $10,000 for each additional $1 million in property value.                                                       While this application fee may be high enough to deter some foreign investors, we do not believe it is high enough to significantly impact the current level of foreign investment activity within Australia. Childcare rebates introduced to encourage mothers back into the workforce
The Federal Government has committed to providing $327.7 million extra over the next four years to help vulnerable and disadvantaged families access childcare. According to the Treasurer, investing this money in childcare should help approximately 165,000 parents who are currently unable to work due to high cost of childcare re-enter the workforce. But while some parents will be given extra help to pay for childcare, new mothers who are given Paid Parental Leave by their employer will no longer be able to access the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme. This move will more than likely encourage new mothers to re-enter the workforce sooner than they may have planned. Mr Hockey said mothers who access the government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme and are paid parental leave by their employer are ‘double dipping’ and stopping them from doing this was ‘only fair’. Superannuation to avoid further tax
The Federal government has revealed that there will be no new taxes on superannuation under their watch. Furthermore, the Age Pension will continue to increase, twice a year, this year, and every year — at the highest available indexation rate. The Age Pension is the budget’s biggest expenditure item, costing $44 billion a year. This equates to more than 10% of all government spending. Moving forward, Treasurer Joe Hockey said the pension would be increased so that it remains sustainable and affordable. But while many pensioners will benefit from the announcement, wealthy pensioners with more assets outside of the family home will miss out on any increases to the Age pension as the Government plans to tighten eligibility for those pensioners with higher levels of assets from 1 January 2017. Conclusion
While it is too early to tell how consumers will react to this year’s budget, it is widely expected that initial reaction will be more positive than it was last year. In the month following the 2014-15 Federal Budget, consumer sentiment plummeted 6.8% and failed to recover for the rest of the year. This year’s Budget would suggest the Government is looking to avoid such a strong negative reaction. Many financial commentators believe this year’s budget acts as an apology for last year’s aggressive Budget. In fact, many believe this could be an election Budget. While the theme of last year’s budget was to pay down debt, it would seem the Government is now trying to encourage Australians to spend. It is still too early to tell what impact this year’s Budget will have on buyer and seller activity in the immediate future. Auction attendance and clearance rates will come into sharp focus over the coming months to demonstrate stronger indications of consumer confidence. However, with interest rates set to remain at historically low levels throughout 2015, the housing sector remains positive for both current mortgage holders and those looking to enter the property market.
</body></html>

Small business the big winners: Mortgage Choice's John Flavell

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/76791/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">GUEST OBSERVER
The budget acknowledges the crisis of affordability for first home buyers, but fails to do enough about demand pressures on prices to put home ownership back within their reach.
In its 2017 budget, the federal government repeatedly stated its preference for a “scalpel” rather than a “chainsaw” or “sledgehammer” approach to demand management in the housing market.
The number of housing measures in the budget are more wide-ranging than in previous budgets of recent times. Policy levers on both the supply and demand side have been incorporated within a raft of housing measures. The government claims this is a “comprehensive package that can make a difference”.
However, do the demand measures go far enough to make much-needed inroads into the housing affordability crisis now facing an entire generation of would-be first home buyers? Or is the so-called scalpel too blunt to make a meaningful difference for them?
<h2>First Home Super Savers Scheme</h2>
The budget’s key housing measure for helping young people gain a foothold on the home-ownership ladder is to allow first home buyers to use up to A$30,000 of voluntary superannuation contributions for a deposit on their first home.
Clearly, the scheme will attract the tax advantages of superannuation. Therefore, in principle, it will help first home savers accelerate their savings to buy a home, thus bridging the deposit gap, while protecting superannuation savings accumulated through compulsory employer contributions.
However, at least two key questions are pertinent.
The first relates to how many first home buyers will likely be well positioned to make voluntary contributions to their super saving account. There appears to be a general reluctance among Australians to make voluntary contributions.
Existing research has found household budget constraints are a major barrier that make it unaffordable for many to make voluntary superannuation contributions. Poor financial literacy and lack of knowledge of the superannuation system are other factors.
The second key question relates to the scheme’s impact on property prices. The scheme does not aim to ease demand pressures in the housing market. It is likely that high house prices will not be curbed, so the prospects of home ownership will continue to fade for many first home buyers.
Existing demand-side levers, including the First Home Owners Grant and stamp duty concessions for first home buyers, have not succeeded in improving the affordability of houses for most young people. Hence, it is difficult to see how an additional demand lever such as the First Home Super Savers scheme is going to have a substantial impact on affordability.
This is not to say that the budget has completely ignored the need to temper demand tensions in the property market.
Demand pressures can be eased via measures that target two other types of property owners – older home owners and property investors. The budget does contain measures that target both groups. Yet again, the question remains as to whether the levers are long enough to produce meaningful impacts.
<h2>Targeting older owners and property investors</h2>
Older downsizers aged over 65 years will be allowed to channel up to $300,000 from the sale proceeds of the family home into their super fund.
Many older home owners are living in larger dwellings than they need after their children leave home. Helping elderly home owners – sometimes coined “last home buyers” – to downsize into smaller dwellings can free up larger homes for first home buyers in earlier stages of life who are forming families.
However, the impediments to downsizing are many. These include financial barriers but also non-financial barriers. Importantly, most elderly home owners have strong emotional attachments to their family home and local community.
However, a lack of appropriate and affordable dwellings in neighbourhoods where older owners would like to stay also poses barriers to downsizing. For downsizing reforms to be effective, financial incentives will need to be accompanied by supply-side solutions that broaden the diversity of the housing stock so older home owners’ housing preferences and needs can be met.
The government has not made any significant changes to tighten negative gearing or capital gains tax concessions to reduce competition from property investors. Concern has focused on the potential contraction of private rental housing supply should investors withdraw en masse from the private rental market. However, a longer-term perspective would take into account second-round effects.
As investors sell off their rental properties, more properties will become available in the market to meet demand from first home buyers. This will not only have the impact of easing tensions in the rental market as more renters become home buyers, but it will also encourage subsequent second property investment as young career-builders seek to accumulate more wealth in their property portfolios after securing their first home.
Such second- and third-round effects need to be incorporated more into policy thinking so that policy design rests on not just short-term, but medium-to-long-term, considerations.
<h2>Is the scalpel sharp enough?</h2>
The budget contains myriad demand and supply levers that directly or indirectly aim to assist young people with their first home purchase. It represents an overdue but welcome acknowledgement on the government’s part that much needs to be done to improve home-ownership prospects for first home buyers.
A package of measures that seeks to influence both supply and demand simultaneously in the housing market is, in principle, a sensible approach to an entrenched policy concern such as housing affordability. However, in practice, policy design matters.
In the case of the 2017 budget, it would appear that the scalpel will need a whole lot more sharpening if it is to make an effective incision into the housing affordability crisis that’s plaguing an entire generation of aspiring home owners.
Rachel Ong is deputy director of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachel-ong-113482" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Federal Budget

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Federal Budget

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News