Australian Politics General...

[sptrawler]

Yes 10m people live in Sydney/Melbourne, most rich overseas immigrants want to go and live there because the house prices are twice that of elsewhere, most of the Australian elite, most of Australia's professional politicians and most of the journalists live there and most have an investment property or two probably.

So are we going to keep the fanfare going, keep the narrative bubbling along, or are we going to fix the ridiculous prices of my PPR and my investment properties in Sydney/Melbourne? Let me think HMMMMM.

Lets bring in 200,000+ workers, to help keep prices down and while we're at it lets add $1,000 to the first home buyers grant.

But there is hope.

Anthony Albanese lists investment property for $2.1m

The federal Opposition Leader and former NSW deputy premier Carmel Tebbutt are selling their bungalow in the trendy inner-west Sydney suburb of Marrickville.

www.afr.com

As if on cue, I just saw this on the ABC website, this will sort out the house prices and no highly skilled jobs, or apprenticeships @Sir Rumpole.
It doesn't sound like skilling up our kids is on the agenda, nor reducing demand for housing. ?
Even Clare says there has been too much of a focus on temporary workers, when we could just bring them here permanently.?

'Broken' and 'backwards': Home affairs minister takes aim at Australia's migration system

Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil says Australia's migration system is "broken" and "backwards" and is in desperate need of a fundamental overhaul and a "radical simplification".

www.abc.net.au

"Our migration system has been on continental drift for a decade," she told an AFR workforce summit in Sydney.

"Australia's migration system is broken, it is unstrategic, it is complex, expensive, it's slow.

"It's not delivering for business, it's not delivering for migrants and it's not delivering for the nation."

Ms O'Neil said structural reform "very significant in size and scope" was needed to rebalance temporary and permanent migration programs and fix the complex administration system that makes Australia an "unattractive destination" for would-be migrants.

"Highly-valued migrants that the world is fighting for today, face bureaucratic delay coming to Australia, and the red carpet treatment migrating elsewhere," she said.

"We just can't let that continue. And our government doesn't intend to.

"We've got to simplify those arcane rules and reduce complexity, no more spaghetti diagrams."

Net migration played a crucial role in Australia growing its economy and avoiding a recession for almost 30 years.

But net skilled permanent migration to Australia has plateaued at about 30,000 a year in the past two decades, while the number people on a temporary basis had grown to 1.9 million migrants today.

"We have the system pretty much exactly backwards," she said.

"It is relatively easy for a low-skilled, temporary migrant to come to Australia, but difficult, slow and not particularly attractive for high-skilled permanent migrants who come here.

"This reliance on temporary migration that we have today is having enormous social and economic consequences for the country."

 

[SirRumpole]

As if on cue, I just saw this on the ABC website, this will sort out the house prices and no highly skilled jobs, or apprenticeships @Sir Rumpole.
It doesn't sound like skilling up our kids is on the agenda, nor reducing demand for housing. ?
Even Clare says there has been too much of a focus on temporary workers, when we could just bring them here permanently.?

'Broken' and 'backwards': Home affairs minister takes aim at Australia's migration system

Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil says Australia's migration system is "broken" and "backwards" and is in desperate need of a fundamental overhaul and a "radical simplification".

www.abc.net.au

"Our migration system has been on continental drift for a decade," she told an AFR workforce summit in Sydney.

"Australia's migration system is broken, it is unstrategic, it is complex, expensive, it's slow.

"It's not delivering for business, it's not delivering for migrants and it's not delivering for the nation."

Ms O'Neil said structural reform "very significant in size and scope" was needed to rebalance temporary and permanent migration programs and fix the complex administration system that makes Australia an "unattractive destination" for would-be migrants.

"Highly-valued migrants that the world is fighting for today, face bureaucratic delay coming to Australia, and the red carpet treatment migrating elsewhere," she said.

"We just can't let that continue. And our government doesn't intend to.

"We've got to simplify those arcane rules and reduce complexity, no more spaghetti diagrams."

Net migration played a crucial role in Australia growing its economy and avoiding a recession for almost 30 years.

But net skilled permanent migration to Australia has plateaued at about 30,000 a year in the past two decades, while the number people on a temporary basis had grown to 1.9 million migrants today.

"We have the system pretty much exactly backwards," she said.

"It is relatively easy for a low-skilled, temporary migrant to come to Australia, but difficult, slow and not particularly attractive for high-skilled permanent migrants who come here.

"This reliance on temporary migration that we have today is having enormous social and economic consequences for the country."

The first thing they should do is ditch the family reunion visas and concentrate on skills that we can't produce here (if there are any).

Then have more scholarships for local students to uni and tafe based on merit, not on some perceived disadvantage.

 

[sptrawler]

Cost of housing is a big issue.

It's the difference between people having a secure retirement or sleeping in their cars after they retire and can't afford the rent.

It looks as though McGowan is actually taking things into his own hands, maybe NSW and Victoria couls learn from him, if they actually wanted to change anything.

McGowan takes aim at 'anti-development' Perth councils as new laws strip their approval powers

West Australian property developers will be able to circumvent local councils and access new infrastructure funding in major changes to planning laws designed to speed up the construction of thousands of apartments.

www.abc.net.au

Property developers will be able to circumvent "anti-development" councils and access new infrastructure funding in major changes to planning laws the McGowan government hopes will accelerate the construction of thousands of apartments.
The proposed amendments would further cut out local governments from development approvals in their area, with the opposition saying the government has wealthy councils in Perth's western suburbs in its sights.

Planning Minister Rita Saffioti denied that was the case but did single out Nedlands council for having a 25-year-old planning scheme that was hampering development.

"What we have in some instances is councils who don't update schemes, whose thinking behind that scheme is 20 years old and then they say, 'Oh well it's not compliant with the scheme'," she said.
"Well your scheme is not compliant with the legislation.
"So this is a key point. This is where councils should be involved, they should be talking to the community and asking, 'where do you want your density?'"

The City of Nedlands has been contacted for comment.

Premier Mark McGowan announced the overhaul of planning laws at a Property Council of WA lunch in the city, sponsored by developers including the Satterley Property Group and Multiplex.

Mr McGowan said the changes would streamline and strengthen the planning system.
The temporary 'Part 17 development pathway', introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020 to stimulate major construction projects worth more than $20 million, will be made permanent.

The pathway allowed developers to bypass councils and seek approval directly from the WA Planning Commission.

The government will also introduce a 120-day limit on assessments.

Under the proposed changes, the number of Development Assessment Panels would be reduced from five to three, with permanent members appointed.
Mr McGowan said after working with the Property Council, the government had decided to increase the number of projects that could be reviewed by the DAPs instead of being assessed by local councils.

Currently, development proposals of less than 10 multiple dwellings cannot be assessed by a DAP.

But the government would remove this requirement, so multiple dwelling developments of any number could be assessed by a panel if they were valued at $2 million or more.
"These changes will improve consistency in decision making across the state and enable proponents to choose the most appropriate and efficient pathway," Mr McGowan said.

"We're all tired of quality multi-dwelling proposals becoming a vehicle for grandstanding by anti-development councils and individuals facing re-election at local council level.
The government has also announced a new infrastructure fund designed to help speed up construction of apartments across the state.

The $80 million Infrastructure Development Fund would help offset the costs of providing water, sewerage, and electricity services for proposed apartment developments in urban infill and METRONET station areas.

It would also be used in regional areas to solve water, wastewater and electricity infrastructure obstacles and build accommodation for essential workers.

The money would not go to the developers but be paid straight to the Water Corporation and Synergy.
Ms Saffioti said there were thousands of apartments with approval to build but stuck in limbo due to increased costs.

"That's why this fund is wanting to bring forward projects that may not be developed for four to five years," she said.

 

[Smurf1976]

Property developers will be able to circumvent "anti-development" councils

What I see is another data point, another piece of evidence, that the overall paradigm which has prevailed since the 1980's is now firmly on the wane.

Moves to locally manufacture things, anti-China sentiment, renewed focus on defence, building big infrastructure projects and so on are all broadly examples of that. They're all in the same category of being a push against the whole anti-development, globalisation, hands off mentality which became dominant during the 1980's nationally.

 

[Smurf1976]

The tax lurks should only apply to new developments encouraging housing supply.

With a condition that they are actually occupied either by the owner or tenants.

 

[basilio]

Treasurer Jim Chalmers is considering adjustments to superannuation to reduce tax deductions on super balances over $3m. This would affect less than 1% of Australians. But this <1% group have invested billions of dollars into their super funds - and the Liberal Party is not prepared to stand for such a raid.

However The Liberals have now split on this issue.

Liberal MPs break ranks to back Jim Chalmers’ discussion on superannuation reform​

Angus Taylor says Coalition will fight any changes but Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer says we should not ‘shy away from having a conversation’


Angus Taylor says Coalition will fight any changes but Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer says we should not ‘shy away from having a conversation’

Katharine Murphy Political editor

@murpharoo
Mon 27 Feb 2023 20.36 AEDTLast modified on Mon 27 Feb 2023 20.41 AEDT


Liberal moderates Russell Broadbent and Bridget Archer have broken ranks and endorsed the treasurer’s efforts to start a conversation about the fiscal sustainability of generous superannuation tax concessions.

Broadbent told the ABC on Monday it was unclear exactly what changes were being proposed but if the mooted overhaul was “fair and reasonable” then the Coalition should not stand in the way.

While the opposition’s Treasury spokesperson, Angus Taylor, has declared the Coalition will fight any changes, Broadbent said on Monday: “There will be very few people affected by changes to very high superannuation balances because there are so few Australians [in that position].”

The Liberal MP said “the benefits that go to the upper income people in regards to superannuation are for a wealth creation area rather than an area for retirement savings” and he noted “the way superannuation is set up now is not doing the right thing by most women”.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...itself-on-equality-but-logic-isnt-the-default
Capping super balances is a logical fight to have in a country that prides itself on equality – but logic isn’t the default
Katharine Murphy

Read more
“We need to have governments prepared to put policies forward during the lifetime of the government saying well, we find … the way this is set up is not … how we would have designed it, and not [in accordance with] the expectations of the Australian people.”

Liberal MPs break ranks to back Jim Chalmers’ discussion on superannuation reform

Angus Taylor says Coalition will fight any changes but Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer says we should not ‘shy away from having a conversation’

www.theguardian.com

 

[basilio]

So which person has $544million in their super fund ?

Fury at detail in Aussie superannuation graph​

A graph has revealed the extraordinary super savings of some of Australia’s wealthiest people - but one balance in particular has sent social media into overdrive.

Chloe Whelan

3 min read
February 26, 2023 - 11:21AM

Data has revealed that there are 27 Australians with more than $100 million in super — but a small detail has prompted frenzied speculation as to which rich-lister has a racked up an eye-watering balance of more than $544 million.

A graph that circulated on social media on Sunday, compiled by the Sydney Morning Herald using ATO data, revealed the alarming detail.

It showed there were about 300,000 Aussies with more than $1 million in superannuation in 2019, and about 100 with more than $50 million.
But, according to the graph, one superannuation fund had accumulated a staggering balance of more than $544 million

https://www.news.com.au/finance/superannuation/fury-at-detail-in-aussie-superannuation-graph/news-story/b8b49a687d3352bc7b8638305be2f416

 

[basilio]

From the News Ltd article above. Be interesting to see the figures. There around 11,000 people in Australia with over $5m in their super fund. The link below is to a different story.

In fact, the tax concessions received by those with super balances of more than $5 million cost the government more in 2019 than all of the support it provided to low-income households combined.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/everything-you-need-to-know-about-jim-chalmers-superannuation-rethink/news-story/aa29cc54471ebe2e9f08e73edabe3379

 

[basilio]

​ SMSF statistics: 1.1 million members with $822bn in super The number of SMSFs in Australia has continued to rise in recent years, along with average individual member and overall fund balances. The majority of SMSFs have been operating for more than ten years and have corporate trustees, with this structure becoming very popular since 2015. www.superguide.com.au ​ What is the average and median SMSF balance?​ The average account balance of individual SMSF members has been steadily increasing in recent years, as indicated in the first row of the table below. These are the latest figures available, but it’s worth noting that they don’t capture the strong rebound in markets in 2020–21. As the average balance is skewed by a relatively small percentage of very high balance funds (see the following table showing the percentage of funds with various asset balances), the median balance in the second row of the table below is perhaps a more accurate reflection of the typical fund. While the median balance per member has also been growing steadily, it is less than two thirds of the average balance per member. Bearing in mind that the majority of SMSFs in Australia have two members, the average and median combined balance of SMSF fund members is provided in the third and fourth rows of the table. These are the latest figures available. 2019–20 2018–19 2017–18 2016–17 2015–16 Average assets per member $695,757 $690,656 $657,543 $627,471 $577,159 Median assets per member $414,912 $404,632 $382,380 $363,908 $338,631 Average assets per SMSF $1,300,728 $1,296,648 $1,235,784 $1,180,824 $1,088,126 Median assets per SMSF

$733,926

$718,540

$679,079

$646,862

$604,431

Source: ATO

The vast majority (86%) of SMSFs in Australia had balances greater than $200,000 in June 2020, as indicated in the table below. This is consistent with the generally held view that it is not cost effective to set up and run an SMSF with less than $200,000.

As our superannuation system matures, the percentage of funds with less than $200,000 is declining. At the other end of the scale, the ATO has only recently started providing figures for funds with $10 million to $20 million in assets, $20 million to $50 million and $50 million-plus.

SMSF asset balance	Percentage of SMSFs
Under $50k	4.9%
$50k – $100k	2.7%
$100k – $200k	6.6%
$200k – $500k	22.3%
$500k – $1m	25.8%
$1m – $2m	20.7%
$2m – $10m	2.8%
$10m – $20m	0.7%
$20m – $50m	0.1%
$50m +	<0.1%

 

[moXJO]

Albo's government is lacking.

 

[sptrawler]

Albo's government is lacking.

The thing they have to be careful of IMO, there is a fine line between getting thigs done and chaos, they have a lot of things on the go some need to be sorted before more are started.
The Government still hasn't addressed the Sydney/Melbourne housing cost disparity, which is one of the major problems facing a huge percentage of the population.

 

[basilio]

The thing they have to be careful of IMO, there is a fine line between getting thigs done and chaos, they have a lot of things on the go some need to be sorted before more are started.
The Government still hasn't addressed the Sydney/Melbourne housing cost disparity, which is one of the major problems facing a huge percentage of the population.

Really ? Independent observers would agree this government has been exceptionally hard working and productive in the 7 months it has been in office. Not sure what you see as unnecessary.

The conversation about tax treatment of the top 1% of super funds is critical for this government. It has to repair the budget and find funds for defence, housing needs as well as the commitment to fast tracking clean energy generation. They all need funding.

IMV so far so good.

 

[SirRumpole]

Really ? Independent observers would agree this government has been exceptionally hard working and productive in the 7 months it has been in office. Not sure what you see as unnecessary.

The conversation about tax treatment of the top 1% of super funds is critical for this government. It has to repair the budget and find funds for defence, housing needs as well as the commitment to fast tracking clean energy generation. They all need funding.

IMV so far so good.

Some may say a preoccupation with 'The Voice' isn't a priority when cost of living and inflation affects everyone.

 

[basilio]

Some may say a preoccupation with 'The Voice' isn't a priority when cost of living and inflation affects everyone.

Getting this referendum to recognise first nation people in the constitution and giving them a direct voice in discussing issues that affect them was always a priority of the Labour Government. It was also on the Morrison government agenda - but they never did anything about it.

After Scott Morrison became prime minister of Australia in August 2018, the Morrison Government proposed the Indigenous voice to government in October 2019, which would introduce a body via legislation, without changing the Constitution. The process by which the channel would be established was known as the Indigenous voice co-design process. The Senior Advisory Group was set up under Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt.

Indigenous Voice to Parliament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mullokintyre]

Getting this referendum to recognise first nation people in the constitution and giving them a direct voice in discussing issues that affect them was always a priority of the Labour Government. It was also on the Morrison government agenda - but they never did anything about it.

After Scott Morrison became prime minister of Australia in August 2018, the Morrison Government proposed the Indigenous voice to government in October 2019, which would introduce a body via legislation, without changing the Constitution. The process by which the channel would be established was known as the Indigenous voice co-design process. The Senior Advisory Group was set up under Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt.

Indigenous Voice to Parliament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Really ? Independent observers would agree this government has been exceptionally hard working and productive in the 7 months it has been in office. Not sure what you see as unnecessary.

The conversation about tax treatment of the top 1% of super funds is critical for this government. It has to repair the budget and find funds for defence, housing needs as well as the commitment to fast tracking clean energy generation. They all need funding.

IMV so far so good.

Sorry Baz, but you are merely showing your political Bias here.
I don't know how you can identify an independant observer, much less have canvassed all the opinions of said cobservers.
Your opinion of the productivity of government is no better than anyone else's here on ASF.
Some will agree, some will disagree.
But I hate to tell you that unfortunately, opinions are like skin moles, everyone has a few.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

Really ? Independent observers would agree this government has been exceptionally hard working and productive in the 7 months it has been in office. Not sure what you see as unnecessary.

The conversation about tax treatment of the top 1% of super funds is critical for this government. It has to repair the budget and find funds for defence, housing needs as well as the commitment to fast tracking clean energy generation. They all need funding.

IMV so far so good.

It's actually a year in May, since the Government was elected, maybe you could give us a heads up on what has actually been done, other than a lot of proposed initiatives.
Kurri Kurri is an ongoing project from before the election as is Snowy 2.0, the transmission upgrades were well underway also.
So what clean energy projects are you alluding to?
Defence e.g the Subs were also a previous initiative.
Housing well there has been a lot of talk but nothing concrete happening, that I've heard of.
The conversation about the top 1% of super funds hasn't actually happened yet, so just another talk fest.

So what has actually been locked down in the last 12 months, other than an amazing amount of travel by Anthony, Penny and crew?

What really jumps out as a memorable moment?

 

[basilio]

Absolutely Mick. And on ASF who needs facts or reality anyway ? But just for the record there is a factual list of what the Government has achieved to date across its ministries.

Albanese government - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[moXJO]

Absolutely Mick. And on ASF who needs facts or reality anyway ? But just for the record there is a factual list of what the Government has achieved to date across its ministries.

Why didn't you post the list?
Is it all virtue signalling bs?

 

[sptrawler]

Absolutely Mick. And on ASF who needs facts or reality anyway ? But just for the record there is a factual list of what the Government has achieved to date across its ministries.

Albanese government - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So reading through that, the only one that springs to mind as a "oh that's right, they did that", is the increase in immigration to an all time record of 200,000. So as for housing, well that is obviously a work in progress.
I actually like Albo and I think he is the right person for the job, it is just they are starting to look like they are going in ever decreasing circles and the popular hit on the rich 1% actually is probably a response to the problem.
They need to start and get some traction on something solid IMO.
Also, if you consider that the wiki page will be getting updated and enhanced every day by a public servant, it makes pretty boring reading.

 

[SirRumpole]

They need to start and get some traction on something solid IMO.

Maybe 'reforming' the energy & resources sector would be a start ?

- effective reservations policy
- better than symbolic taxes on coal & gas
- more large scale hydro storage
- government takeover of electricity distributors that are ripping consumers off.

etc