regulation

<html><body>
The <a href="https://wp.architecture.com.au/news-media/national-building-agreement-welcome-now-focus-on-action/">Australian Institute of Architects</a> is calling for a fundamental overhaul of building regulation to improve compliance and accountability. 
At the moment, Australian regulation and building codes lack transparency and as we have seen in the recent events, do little to protect residents and homeowners. 
Currently, anybody can procure and construct an apartment building in Australia without evidence of education, experience or insurance held where previously, independent and rigorous checks would oversee the design, materials choice and construction to ensure the utmost safety and sustainability for residents. Over the years this compliance has decreased to prioritise cost-saving over quality and is a reflection of our quick supply and demand culture. 
Countries such as <a href="https://www.building.govt.nz/building-code-compliance/">New Zealand</a> have a building code compliance that all builders must comply with even without building consent to ensure the safety and durability for everyone that uses them. New Zealand builders must abide by the technical guidance by the Building Code of 2004 with strict warnings and bans in place which could see the builder or developer paying a fine of up to $200,000 for which all buildings must focus on:

<ul>
<li>General Provisions</li>
	<li>Stability</li>
	<li>Protection from Fire</li>
	<li>Access</li>
	<li>Moisture</li>
	<li>Safety of Users</li>
	<li>Service and Facilities</li>
	<li>Energy Efficiency</li>
</ul>
Japan’s strict building regulations may be due to protecting citizens from the incredible amount of seismic activity the country experiences but are incredibly helpful when considering updating and strengthening Australia’s as bans on combustible building materials is much more closely regulated than here.

 

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/neo_apartment_screen_peter_clarke-54.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="In early February 2019, Neo200 on Spencer experienced a balcony cladding fire up levels 21 to 27. Image by Hayball."><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="870" src="/s3/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/neo_apartment_screen_peter_clarke-54.jpg?itok=PQvzB5Fo" title="In early February 2019, Neo200 on Spencer experienced a balcony cladding fire up levels 21 to 27. Image by Hayball." width="580"></a>

<figcaption>In early February 2019, Neo200 on Spencer experienced a balcony cladding fire up levels 21 to 27. Image by <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/architects/hayball">Hayball</a>.</figcaption></figure>In late 2018, Victoria banned lethal flammable building cladding, which includes aluminium panels. 
The ban provides builders with a clear and strict guideline of materials that can and cannot be used in the construction of buildings above two levels high. 
The VBA, <a href="https://www.vba.vic.gov.au/">Victorian Building Authority</a> has put builders on notice, as they inspect the hundreds of at risk buildings in a statewide audit to crack down on non-compliant structures. 
Architects and developers design buildings and communities with the intent of enriching the lives of people and the environment in which it stands, therefore building codes in Australia need to match that intensity with strict regulation and inspection to ensure the well being of all people. 
In recent news, residents of <a href="/buildings/australia-108-southbank-70-southbank-boulevard-southbank">Australia 108</a> respond in panic due to hearing cracking noises, power outages and lift operating failures. Since the first settlers took residence in the soon to be 101 story tower in late 2018, there have been a slew of complaints regarding construction noise and construction defects within apartments such as windows not closing or opening due to the curved facade. 
These stories have now either been exacerbated by the media to take advantage of panicked citizens to incite fear and sell papers or forcing builders and developers to take accountability and be more transparent about their building practices.  
With articles published in The Age and Herald Sun displaying the latest apartment building disasters, people are on high alert in fear their building's too, falls under the same underegulated practices. What holds true to these statements is that resident’s voices deserve to be heard with their safety and quality of life at the utmost importance.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image_by_worzil_skyscrapercity.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Most updated construction image of Australia 108 by worzil of Skyscrapercity.com"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="547" src="/s3/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image_by_worzil_skyscrapercity.jpg?itok=wP1ehTRH" title="Most updated construction image of Australia 108 by worzil of Skyscrapercity.com" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Most updated construction image of <a href="/buildings/australia-108-southbank-70-southbank-boulevard-southbank">Australia 108</a> by worzil of Skyscrapercity.com</figcaption></figure>Multiplex denied any structural damages in a statement and said the building is bound to move slightly as it is still under construction and minor defects are quickly fixed with absolutely no risk to residents.  
These complaints of noise are common with residents within and surrounding high density skyscrapers under construction and are not permanent. 
A multiplex representative states that “all residents have access to the Multiplex onsite customer team and our onsite service team has been working closely with the residents to rectify these items in a timely manner.” 
A benefit to the exposure of towers such as Opal in Sydney and its defects is that consumers and citizens are conscious and have opened up a dialogue with government about the loosened regulations and building codes our individual states hold. 
The next step is to hold builders accountable and to provide transparency with VBA and other councils alike in order to adhere to the highest quality of building and ensuring the safety of residents and communities. 
As work commences in Victoria establishing a ban on all flammable materials used in construction, a push for other councils and states is imminent and blatantly necessary. 
The Australian Institute of Architects are taking their demands of an industry revolution to VBA and multiple councils across New South Wales insisting on addressing the root of the issue, a culture and practice that has put time and cost above quality.  
This construction industry crisis facing Australia are systemic and it is crucial to make those steps forward to eradicate unlawful practices.

 

Read their latest article demanding industry revolution by clicking this <a href="https://wp.architecture.com.au/news-media/nsw-president-says-our-construction-industry-needs-nothing-short-of-a-revolution/">link</a>.
</body></html>

Nick Dante

Australia called, we want our Building Codes updated and regulated

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
A proposal to increase regulation for unlisted property products could result in fewer products being available to retail investors.
Treasury’s proposed product design and distribution obligations combined with new product intervention powers would lead to consolidation among retail providers of unlisted property funds, and fewer choices for retail investors. 
An increase in compliance, uncertainty and costs would make it harder for boutique and mid-market fund providers. Retail investors will likely miss out as more issuers decide to go wholesale only. 
Many in the small-to-mid-market will find the retail compliance demands too onerous and too costly. 
This could lead to consolidation in the retail market with fewer products available, which won’t benefit the average investor.
The proposed legislation, which could be enacted during 2018, shifts more risk to product providers. Key stumbling blocks include the need for product issuers to identify the ‘appropriate target market’ for their products. 
Legislating this requirement places more risk on the issuer and arguably shifts responsibility from the financial adviser to the product issuer. 
Unlisted property funds will need to spend more on compliance, legal advice, and possibly consumer testing to satisfy these requirements. Those funds which do go ahead will be under pressure to pass these increased compliance costs on to investors.
Investors must be protected but investors also benefit from product innovation, much of which comes via boutique providers. There is a balancing act between appropriate compliance measures and the freedom to bring new and innovative products to market. 
ASIC already has the tools available to protect unlisted property investors. There is strong demand among retail investors for unlisted property vehicles and we need to ensure industry can continue to bring appropriate, high performing products to this market.
Paul Healy is CEO of <a href="http://www.propertyfunds.org.au/" target="_blank">Property Funds Association</a>, an industry body for the $125 billion Australian unlisted wholesale and retail property funds sector. 
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Increased regulation of unlisted funds will impact investors: Paul Healy

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The title of this conference is long. Ten words: ‘Financial Cycles, Systemic Risk, Interconnectedness, and Policy Options for Resilience’.
It is also challenging. I say this because just below the surface of these 10 words lies a host of complex and difficult issues. The proper functioning of our modern economies depends on us understanding and addressing these issues as best we can.
If we get things wrong here, the outcomes can be really bad: our economies will be more volatile, job security will be less and people's hard-earned savings will be at greater risk. The global financial crisis was a powerful reminder of this. So the issues that we will discuss at this conference really matter.
It is appropriate that the discussion is taking place at an international conference, which features distinguished speakers from the region and elsewhere. After all, financial stability is a global issue: instability in one country can ripple right around the world. And many of the reforms to address instability are best accomplished internationally. We can also learn a lot from one another's experiences.
In my remarks this morning I would like to highlight three specific questions that are suggested to me by the conference title and papers. These questions are:
How can we make our financial systems more resilient, particularly in a world in which capital flows easily across borders?
How should we characterise and respond to episodes of financial boom and bust – the financial cycle?
What determines the amount of systemic risk we are exposed to, and how can we identify and analyse it?
The positive news is that in each of these three areas much has been learnt since the crisis. The not-so-positive news is that our answers to these questions are still incomplete and, just as one issue is resolved, too often another seems to emerge. I would like to reflect on each of these three questions, highlighting the progress that has been made and offering a few thoughts on some of the work that remains.
Resilience
First, to the issue of resilience.
Looking back at the experience of the past 20 years, I am struck by the fact that large financial disturbances are repeatedly caused by the same factors. Three stand out:
<ol>
<li>poor asset quality, particularly in the area of commercial property development</li>
<li>inadequate attention to liquidity management</li>
<li>the build-up of unhedged foreign currency exposures.</li>
</ol>
Not surprisingly then, it is these areas that have received the most attention from the international regulatory community. Over recent years, the most extensive of the global reforms has been the Basel III package.
This package means that, globally, banks now have more and better-quality capital, so they are better placed to absorb losses. In addition, minimum standards for banks' liquidity management are now more rigorous and transparent.
The stronger liquidity standards also help reduce vulnerabilities from foreign currency exposures, by giving supervisors new ways of monitoring liquidity requirements on a per-currency basis. Other reforms have helped increase resilience in other parts of the financial system, including derivative markets and shadow banking.
But the reforms remain incomplete and challenges remain. The last chapter of the Basel III package is being finalised this year. While some of the reforms have helped address the too-big-to-fail problem, there are still considerable challenges in developing recovery and resolution plans for the largest global financial institutions. And, in the area of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market reform, legal restrictions sometimes still make it difficult to share information across borders.
The Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board are both reviewing the overall calibration of the reforms. This is essential because with so many new metrics and requirements, we need to ensure they do not interact in unintended ways. Of course, some of the effects that market participants comment on are intended. Maturity transformation has become more expensive.
So too, has providing market making services in some financial instruments, generating concerns about a lack of liquidity in bond markets. More broadly, the cost of many forms of financial intermediation across banks' balance sheets has become more expensive. The promised benefit of this additional expense is that the system is now more stable. But we need to keep an eye on this trade-off, because a well-functioning system needs to be able to take risk at a reasonable price.
A well-functioning system also needs to be resilient to the shifting flows of capital across borders. Collectively, global investors can deploy funds on a much larger scale than many markets can absorb without large price movements. In some countries this has led to discomfort with the free flow of capital. But at the same time, access to foreign capital can help drive prosperity and economic development, and allows people to hold more diversified portfolios.
The challenge we face then is to design arrangements that allow us to all capture the considerable benefits that open capital markets can deliver, while minimising the attendant risks. The work on the global financial safety net being undertaken in international policy circles is an important contribution here. One of the questions still to be resolved is how extensive that safety net should be and what form it should take.
The Financial Cycle
An important theme of this conference is that of ‘financial cycles’. Identifying and understanding these cycles has become an active area both for academic research and policy development.
As a concept, the financial cycle has considerable intuitive appeal. It has long been observed that financial systems seem to be subject to boom–bust dynamics. We have repeatedly seen credit and leverage build up over time in response to some initial impetus, only to generate excesses that ultimately unwind, sometimes painfully.
One question we face is how to define and measure these cycles. It has become common practice to start by looking at cycles in credit growth. But there are limitations here. Not all credit cycles end in a financial crisis; indeed in industrialised economies, only a minority have done so. And in some cases a period of fast credit growth, followed by a period of slower growth, might be exactly what is required, and so should not be viewed as problematic.
This means that we need to move beyond a focus on credit only. In my view, it is probably more useful to start with the question: are balance sheets in the economy being strengthened or weakened? If credit is growing quickly, we need to think about whether the credit is being used to create new productive assets or simply to finance current consumption. The implications are quite different. A protracted period of balance sheet weakening might reasonably be viewed as problematic, particularly if it increases the probability of future balance sheet strains and weak economic growth.
So a research challenge here is to find ways of systematically measuring the quality of balance sheets across the economy, taking into account the myriad influences that are at work. Close analysis and good judgement are both needed to do this.
A related research question is how policy should respond to a systematic weakening of balance sheets. This question is the subject of a lot of research at present, much of it prompted by work at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The work at the BIS, though it has focused heavily on aggregate credit as the indicator, has advanced the hypothesis that, in some circumstances, the build-up of financial imbalances may be a better guide to the sustainability of growth in the economy than is the current rate of inflation.
Clearly, this hypothesis needs to be tested. If it were found to be valid, it would have implications for policymakers in a number of spheres, including monetary policy, prudential policy and even fiscal policy.
Systemic risk: interconnections and spillovers
Systemic risk is another theme of the conference, and again, a topic inspiring a great deal of academic research, some of which is being presented at this conference. Systemic risk cannot be seen, nor can it be easily measured. So we need to explore a range of indicators. Academic research is helping ensure that we are looking at the right ones.
The aspect of systemic risk that I would like to highlight is the interconnections between banks, firms and countries that lie at the heart of the contagion that can turn a small disruption into something much bigger. In the global financial crisis, when one entity became distressed their counterparties incurred mark-to-market losses on the value of securities issued by that entity. Investors also often started refusing to deal with those counterparties that had – or merely were thought to have – significant exposures to that entity.
So, contagion could and did occur because of both direct and supposed interconnections. It can occur even as a reputational effect when two entities or economies are perceived to be similar: once investors have reassessed the risks in one institution or country, they often start to probe similar vulnerabilities elsewhere. We cannot escape the conclusion that greater interconnection is a prominent marker of increased systemic risk.
The global policy response to the financial crisis has recognised the importance of interconnections and built that into the design of regulatory reforms. Some of the design details are quite technical, but their essence is to create incentives against excessive interconnected exposures between banks, or between banks and other parts of the financial system such as so-called ‘shadow banking’.
Contagion is most likely to occur when information is not equally available to all parties. Opacity and a lack of information about exposures were endemic to OTC derivative markets during the crisis, making these markets an important locus of contagion. Following the post-crisis reforms, derivative markets have functioned more effectively. Regulatory mandates and supervisory incentives are resulting in a larger share of derivatives transactions being cleared through central counterparties and more are being collateralised and are therefore safer.
Policymakers also have more visibility about financial market infrastructures now that they play a more central role in financial markets. There are, though, some information-sharing issues in this area that still need to be worked out.
One other outstanding issue is how the multiplicity of indicators of systemic risk can inform policymaking, and how one might use the signal provided by an indicator to develop a particular policy response. This is no easy task. The insights of research such as the work presented at this conference will certainly be welcome.
Conclusion: the role of supervision
In all three areas I have spoken about – namely, resilience, the financial cycle and systemic risk – it is easy to focus mainly on the regulatory initiatives. Regulation can be printed, measured and enforced. But history teaches that regulation cannot solve all problems. The financial system evolves, so no set of rules can deal with all risks and problems.
This is an important reason why there needs to be a parallel focus on strong and effective supervision. My view is that a strengthening of supervision is at least as important as are the post-crisis regulatory reforms. Rigorous, inquiring supervision that takes a holistic view of the environment is essential to maintaining financial stability and good outcomes for consumers. I encourage you to consider how the research agenda can be expanded to consider how to best balance regulation and supervision.
Philip Lowe is deputy governor, RBA and was addressing the <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2016/sp-dg-2016-09-08" target="_blank">Institute of Global Finance International Conference</a>. 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

History teaches that regulation cannot solve all problems: RBA's Philip Lowe

<html><body>
Costly pre-purchase building, pest inspection and strata reports are an imperative when buying property, but laws now operational across NSW might make them cheaper from a collaborative approach.
It's a timely initiative by the Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation Victor Dominello who has come up with a system that should see savings for intending home buyers.
With Sydney auction clearance rates at around 80 percent, there will still be plenty of disappointed, and out of pocket, buyers this spring. 
But rather than bear the cost yourself, the system encourages a sharing among competing buyers. Building and pest inspection reports can cost anywhere from $200 to $600 each.
When any prospective buyer requests a contract of sale for the residential property, the estate agent will now need to inform the buyer about any pre-purchase reports that have been undertaken by other potential buyers.
Home buyers may then opt to access an already available report, and negotiate a reduced cost with the inspection company, instead of commissioning their own full priced report. 
Qualified inspectors are important because they look beyond cosmetic repairs or improvements, and identify unsafe renovations and repairs, thus minimising the issues of unforeseen costs.  
Prior to the August 15 amendments, Dominello met with participants from the NSW property industry. It had been an issue for around three decades, especially as the city's embrace of auctions rather than private treaty meant 10,000s of unsuccessful bidders were left with binned inspection reports.  
It was raised with vigour under the State Labor Government in 2010, by the founder of Aussie Home Loans, mortgage broker John Symond who described the longstanding practice of buyer inspection reports as "antiquated, cumbersome and expensive".
"It imposes a serious cost to the consumer in circumstances where there's no guarantee they'll get the property anyway," he noted.
Since 2004, vendors in the Australian Capital Territory have been required to provide pre-purchase reports to potential purchasers. Upon completion of the contract, the purchaser reimburses the vendor for the cost of the reports. 
The NSW Government toyed with vendors providing one report, but there were always conflict of interest, disclosure and liability concerns. There was always the concern the inspection reports provided by vendors may not rigorous enough especially if the vendor's mate was the building inspector.
This article was first published in the Saturday Daily Telegraph.
</body></html>

Cheaper NSW pre-inspection reports

<html><body>
Public comments and submissions are invited on a proposed new fee structure for the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
The existing regulations governing fees at VCAT are set to expire on 30 June 2016. The government is taking this opportunity to design a new fee structure that will more accurately reflect the cost of operating VCAT and more fairly distribute the proportion of that cost that is paid for by users.
In accordance with the Victorian Guide to Regulation, the government now seeks the views of the public on the proposed regulations, in the hope that their quality and usefulness can be improved by integrating the information and perspectives of the community.
Submissions
Public comments and submissions are invited on the attached Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and proposed regulations. Submissions must be received no later than 5pm on Monday, 2 May 2016. The submissions will be considered before the proposed regulations are made.
All submissions will be treated as public documents, will be provided to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, and are subject to legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
For more information, <a href="https://myviews.justice.vic.gov.au/vcat-fees-regulations-2016" target="_blank">click here</a>.
</body></html>

regulation

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

The latest real estate & off the plan properties & news, delivered to your inbox.

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

The latest real estate & off the plan properties & news, delivered to your inbox.

regulation

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

The latest real estate & off the plan properties & news, delivered to your inbox.

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

The latest real estate & off the plan properties & news, delivered to your inbox.