Peter Tulip
petertulip.bsky.social
Peter Tulip
@petertulip.bsky.social

Chief economist at Centre for Independent Studies

Economics 86%
Engineering 9%
Pinned
This paper summarises what I see as the key points in the Australian housing debate, as of February 2024.
www.cis.org.au/wp-content/u... 1/8
www.cis.org.au

Reposted by Peter Tulip

Shout out to the recent upgrades to Crown St, Surry Hills. City of Sydney removed several car parks in favour of landscaped outdoor dining areas. Some were turning temporary ones from COVID permanent, others are new. It's a really great area to walk along and enjoy.

Here's some before and after:

Reposted by Peter Tulip

A great idea.
But rigour and randomisation seem ambitious.
I would be happy with any evidence-based evaluation.
The RBA's post-mortems on its Covid-era programs and forecasts are a great advance.

www.rba.gov.au/monetary-pol...

www.rba.gov.au/publications...
Box B: Annual Forecast Review | Statement on Monetary Policy – November 2025
Box B: Annual Forecast Review | Statement on Monetary Policy – November 2025
www.rba.gov.au

Reposted by Peter Tulip

Reposted by Peter Tulip

Yes, with the insurance companies closely monitoring builders and their reputation.

Opal Towers failed because of non-compliant support beams. That (or Mascot) does not warrant changes to the building code.
I think it requires changes to certification, so the code is properly enforced.

Builders and/or certifiers should post a bond that gets returned (with interest) after say 10 years if no major faults are found.
Essentially, that is a warranty that can't be evaded by bankruptcy.

The change in regulations most needed is more focus on asymmetric information (where regulation helps) and less on paternalism (where it hurts).
The Apartment Design Guide, lending restrictions and recreational drugs are good examples.
Secondly, we need more cost-benefit evaluations.

It's not the regulations that are to blame in most of these examples, it's poor enforcement.
We don't need to change the building code, for example; we need to incentivise thorough credible certification. Perhaps bonds would help. 1/2
Good regulation is good for productivity growth. Lack of regulation is driving inefficiency.

Poorly regulated building markets led to debacles like the cracking in Opal Towers and flammable cladding being expensively replaced across the country

My column

thepoint.com.au/opinions/251...
Cutting red tape shows that when we ‘trust the market’ taxpayers usually end up footing the bill
The point.com.au
thepoint.com.au

Reposted by Peter Tulip

Good regulation is good for productivity growth. Lack of regulation is driving inefficiency.

Poorly regulated building markets led to debacles like the cracking in Opal Towers and flammable cladding being expensively replaced across the country

My column

thepoint.com.au/opinions/251...
Cutting red tape shows that when we ‘trust the market’ taxpayers usually end up footing the bill
The point.com.au
thepoint.com.au

Reposted by Peter Tulip