The impact of infrastructure charges on new housing costs : an international comparison

Sourcing funding for the provision of new urban infrastructure has been a policy dilemma for governments around the world for decades. This is particularly relevant in high growth areas where new services are required to support swelling populations. Existing communities resist the introduction of new taxes to fund such infrastructure, hence the introduction of charges to the developer has flourished. The Australian infrastructure funding policy dilemmas are reflective of similar matters to some extent in the United Kingdom, and to a greater extent the United States of America. In these countries, infrastructure cost recovery policies have been in place since the 1940’s and 1970’s respectively. There is an extensive body of theoretical and empirical literature that discusses the passing on (to home buyers) or passing back (to the englobo land seller) of these increased infrastructure charges, and the corresponding impact on housing cost and supply. The purpose of this research is to examine the international evidence that suggests infrastructure charges contribute to increased house prices as well as reduced land supply. The paper concludes that whilst the theoretical work is largely consistent, the empirical research to date is inconclusive and further research is required into these impacts in Australia.

Land buyers likely to foot reform costs

Article in Courier Mail. Friday July 22, 2011.

Legal Profession Act 2007 s 319 - Whether costs agreement made after trial valid and enforceable - whether agreement had retrospective operation

The decision in QCOAL Pty Ltd v Cliffs Australia Coal Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 479 involved an examination of a number of issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The decision highlights a range of issues which, in slightly different circumstances, may have deprived the successful party of the right to recover costs by reference to the costs agreement.

Interim bills and costs assessment : was the application in or out of time?

This article examines the decision in Turner v Mitchells Solicitors [2011] QDC 61 and the issue whether an application for assessment of costs under an interim bill at the time of a final bill is subject to the usual 12-month restriction.

The GST Compliance Costs Of Nonprofit Organisations

On 2 December 1998, the Federal Government tabled their policy paper entitled Regulation Impact Statement for the Introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (RIS) in the House of Representatives. The Federal Government predicted that total gross GST compliance costs to Australian businesses in the first year of implementation would be approximately $1,912 million (or $1,195 per firm). Furthermore, it is estimated that the recurrent net compliance costs will be much lower at $131 per firm. Whilst the government made brief references to charitable organisations in their analysis, it stated that the compliance costs faced by nonprofits would, in substance, be no different to the compliance costs faced by businesses or government departments. This paper examines the RIS process in relation to nonprofit organisations in the context of recent taxation legislation affecting nonprofit organisations. It argues that the assumption that nonprofit compliance costs are similar to government and business costs is flawed and makes a case for the RIS process to be reformed to include more appropriate assessments of the impact of legislation on nonprofit enterprises.

Report on Legal Expenses Insurance, 239 pages; Prepared for the Access to Justice Committee Queensland Law Society Inc.; Access to Justice Committee, Australian Law Society (23 May, 2002).

A report prepared for the Access to Justice Committee Queensland Law Society Inc.