Regulations

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66202/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Drone footage is everywhere, whether used to film extreme sports, outdoor events, nature, music festivals, or just for its own sake.
Recreational aircraft such as quadcopters, fixed-wing and mini drones are getting ever cheaper and easier to buy. They are fast becoming a must-have item for people who want to document their activities for social media, or just explore their neighbourhood.
As of today it will also be legally easier to use such aircraft in Australia, with the relaxation of Civil Aviation Safety Authority rules about “remotely piloted aircraft”, or RPAs.
The change is partly due to the significant challenges of regulating something that is so easy to buy and even easier to use. As a result, you can expect to see many more drones in the sky from today – and of course, given that they routinely have high-resolution cameras on board, you can expect a lot more drones to be seeing you.
<h2>What do the relaxed rules involve?</h2>
The new, relaxed regulations – first proposed in April this year – will exempt drones under certain weight limits from licensing and notice requirements.
In particular, drones weighing less than 2kg will not need to be licensed at all. Owners only need to notify CASA of their use if it is for commercial purposes. Similarly, drones under 25kg can also be flown without licensing or notification requirements if they are used for “sport and recreation”, or if they are flown on private land and used for private aerial photography, spotting, communications or agricultural operations.
Operators of drones weighing more than 100g will still have to steer clear of certain areas, under the so-called “standard RPA operating conditions”. This means no flying in controlled or prohibited airspace; above 400ft (122m); at night; in swarms; over emergency operations without approval; within 30m of another person; out of the pilot’s direct line of sight; or in an area of “sufficient density of population for some aspect of the operation … to pose an unreasonable risk to the life, safety or property”.
<h2>What about privacy?</h2>
What is notably absent from the standard RPA operating conditions is any requirement to avoid flying over private property. Nor do the rules require the operator to respect the privacy of others or refrain from filming them, either on their own land or in public.
That may concern some people, because in Australia there is little legal recourse if someone films you in your backyard, in a secluded area or even through your window at home.
The loosening of the rules thus has obvious implications for privacy. Every new drone platform is basically an eye in the sky, capable of recording high-resolution images and video.
In 2014, a Commonwealth House of Representatives standing committee warned:
"Remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) have the potential to pose a serious threat to Australians’ privacy. They can intrude on a person’s or a business’s private activities either intentionally, as in the case of deliberate surveillance, or inadvertently."
The committee recommended a raft of urgent legislative changes to counter the wide-scale adoption of “privacy-invasive technologies” like drones. But the recommendations were not taken up by the government, and nor was the committee’s echoing of the recommendation by the Australian Law Reform Commission that Australia develop a “tort of privacy” to guard people against intrusion by drones.
Such a measure would allow individuals to sue for damages if another person grossly violates their private life or affairs. While this privacy law remedy is available in other countries, Australian courts have generally rejected it.
This is largely a result of a 1936 court case brought against a man called George Taylor, who built a viewing platform on land next to Victoria Park Racetrack so he could call the races over the radio. The racecourse sued him for a breach of privacy but the High Court of Australia rejected the claim, not wanting to set a precedent by which neighbours could sue one another for simply peering over a fence. Chief Justice Latham’s reasoning was simple:
"Any person is entitled to look over the plaintiff’s fences and to see what goes on in the plaintiff’s land. If the plaintiff desires to prevent this, the plaintiff can erect a higher fence."
This reasoning has prevailed in Australia ever since. But as the sky grows ever more saturated with cameras, it becomes harder to justify. No longer can you just build a higher fence, unless of course you want to box in your entire property from any aerial observation.
This is why the legal justification has been criticised by scholars, lawyers and privacy advocates, as well as by parliamentary bodies specifically in response to “privacy-invasive technologies” like drones.
Given that nothing has been done about it – even while agencies like CASA make it ever easier to record invasive footage – it may be time to accept that, in Australia at least, the age of privacy might really be over.
Brendan Gogarty is<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-gogarty-146584" rel="author"> </a>lecturer in Law, University of Tasmania and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-gogarty-146584" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

 New drone rules: with more eyes in the sky, expect less privacy

<html><body>
If you’re currently living in an apartment, planning a purchase or have an investment apartment, it’s important to know that the next and final stage of the big review of Strata Schemes in NSW has been announced.
Draft regulations detailing the backbone of the changes, have been released by The NSW Government to support the wide ranging strata reforms that were passed back in late October 2015.
The Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 and the Strata Schemes Development Regulation 2016 that underpin the new Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 and the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 are due to come into effect later this year.
Peter Chittenden is managing director for residential of Colliers International. He can be contacted <a href="https://www.projectagenda.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
The regulations contain a lot of detail and the key points contained in the regulations include:
The provision to accommodate modern technology for virtual meetings and electronic voting which many time poor people will appreciate, and the changes might also encourage more active involvement by owners.
Another regulation and a change that has attracted a lot of comment are the provisions for the documentation and procedures for the collective sale and renewal reform that enables a minimum of 75% of owners in a scheme to jointly agree to sell or redevelop their scheme. As possibly one of the biggest changes, this area needs careful consideration.
There’s also a draft model by-laws on a wide range of issues such as pet ownership and smoke penetration.
Draft Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 
The proposed Regulation is extensive and it aims to support strata communities in a number of ways including some of the following summarised key points:
Protecting a scheme’s assets by:
<ul>
<li>Outlining what the developer’s maintenance schedule should contain.</li>
<li>Providing a ‘common property memorandum’, which owners could adopt.</li>
<li>Setting out how the new building bonds for new strata buildings would function.</li>
</ul>
Helping schemes to operate effectively by:
<ul>
<li>Allowing for different types of voting procedures.</li>
<li>Specifying that voting records, including electronic voting records, need to be retained for 12 months only.</li>
<li>Setting out the process for mandatory Fair Trading mediation.</li>
<li>Establishing that certain financial matters would not require an owners corporation meeting.</li>
<li>Setting out clearer approval requirements for renovations to make it easier to get basic renovations done with no, or minimal, approval.</li>
<li>Structural renovations would continue to require approval by special resolution or as set out by the strata scheme in a by-law.</li>
</ul>
Clarifying and reinforcing key accountabilities by:
<ul>
<li>Providing procedures to elect members for the strata committee, including tenant representatives.</li>
<li>Setting out additional matters and documentation requirements for the agenda for the first annual general meeting.</li>
<li>Determining the insurance requirements for schemes.</li>
<li>Clarifying that owners corporation responsibilities could only be delegated to a strata managing agent or strata committee (formerly called ‘executive committee’).</li>
<li>Outlining requirements for window safety devices.</li>
<li>Determining how schemes could set and enforce rules to limit the number of adults that can occupy a bedroom. An important and sensitive area for many buildings.</li>
<li>Listing the offences that may result in penalty notices.</li>
<li>Setting out the content that should be included in:
<ul>
<li>Payment plans for late strata fees,</li>
<li>Statements of key financial information,</li>
<li>Receipts issued by treasurers of owners corporations.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
The Regulation also include details such as:
<ul>
<li>Accountabilities to prevent financial mismanagement.</li>
<li>Continued provisions allowing lot owners and prospective purchasers to inspect financial and other records.</li>
<li>Requirements to ensure that building assets are better maintained.</li>
<li>The approval process for owners seeking to make changes to their lot, and as apartment buildings age this becomes an ongoing issue for many Schemes.</li>
</ul>
Big Issues – Time To Comment
A fully detailed Regulation Impact Statement outlining the objectives and detail of each proposed regulation is easily accessed from the Fair Trading website.
It makes good sense that all stakeholders be encouraged to review the drafts and suggest improvements needed to the draft regulations. This should help make sure that as far as possible the new regulations work as effectively as possible. Important when you consider the review has taken decades to come around and years to put into force.
The Government has allowed for written submissions on the regulations to be made up until 27 May 2016, which is a tight timeframe, however we should all make our views known.
</body></html>

pchittenden-eLqUUC8TWW

Strata reform regulations the next step: Peter Chittenden

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
Three years have passed since a cladding-fuelled fire claimed 72 lives in Grenfell Tower, London, on June 14 2017. The construction industry and its regulators around the world are still grappling with how to create effective regulations to ensure dwellings are built to keep their occupants safe.
The New South Wales Parliament passed two important bills last week: the Design and Building Practitioners Bill 2020 and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2020. This put in place two important pieces of the “jigsaw puzzle”, as NSW Better Regulation Minister Kevin Anderson put it.
The Residential Apartment Buildings Bill in particular could be a game changer and is the focus of this article. The law is expected to take effect on September 1 2020.
New powers to order serious defects be fixed
The centrepiece of the legislation is an ability for the Secretary of the Department of Customer Service to order the correction of “serious defects” in residential apartment buildings. In practice, the NSW building commissioner and his staff will apply these orders, according to the bill’s second reading speech. Developers can be ordered to rectify building work “if the secretary has a reasonable belief that building work was or is being carried out in a manner that could result in a serious defect”.
The “was” is significant here. These powers of intervention can be used up to ten years after an occupation certificate is issued.
And, to make sure defects are fixed before residents take possession of their apartment, the secretary can issue a “prohibition order” to delay an occupation certificate.
The definition of “serious defect” includes:
failure to comply with performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia
defects likely to deny habitability or use of the building for its intended purpose
use of banned building products.
Other states and territories have in place various provisions to order rectification. However, none of these are as extensive as the new regime in NSW.
In particular, the express power to order rectification after apartments are completed addresses the issue that frustrated the Victorian Building Authority’s 2017 attempt to have the builder rectify non-compliant cladding at the Lacrosse Building in Melbourne. So, the rectification powers are likely, along with the statutory duty of care in the Design and Building Practitioners Bill – also a NSW innovation – to attract interest across the country.
How much will the industry push back?
These measures to rectify defects go to the heart of the commercial drivers that underpin our largely privately delivered apartment stock in Australia. Without an occupation certificate, developers can’t settle the sale of the apartments (usually off-plan). Likewise, their building contractors will typically remain “on the hook” for a raft of obligations under their contracts.
By making defects correction a precondition for issuing the occupation certificate, the new law embraces the “prevention is better than cure” mantra that underpins reforms in Australia and beyond.
To what extent will the industry support this shift? Time will tell.
What can be said is that the reforms add a high level of intervention in the commercial drivers of apartment construction when the industry is already operating under the shadow of COVID-19 and its gathering recession. So it is something of a “wildcard” in an already fraught commercial landscape.
This means developers who do not have adequate measures in place to pass the costs of rectification and delayed occupation down the contractual chain are likely to resort to the extensive appeal measures in the legislation. Likewise, when contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers do “carry the can” for such liability, they will look hard at the relief provisions in their contracts.
The disputes and delays that inevitably result can leave apartment owners and renters in limbo, despite the intent of the legislation to protect them.
Regulators need adequate resources
Another crucial “time will tell” aspect is whether the regulator will have enough resources to inspect buildings – and issue prohibition and rectification orders when needed – in a timely manner across the industry.
The legislation largely leaves it to the Department of Customer Service to appoint “authorised officers”. The minister has indicated these officers will be the building commissioner and his staff.
The commissioner was reported in February to be recruiting up to 60 construction professionals as “auditors” for a scheme that looks similar to what is now enshrined in legislation. They will need to move rapidly to have it ready for the extensive interventions that the legislation anticipates.
A game changer?
Ever since the Grenfell tragedy, politicians around the world have at least paid lip service to the aspiration that “occupants of buildings deserve to feel safe and secure within their walls”. In saying this to the NSW parliament last week, Anderson was able credibly to put forward the Residential Apartment Buildings Bill as a vital piece in the regulatory “puzzle” to achieve that goal.
The issues discussed here are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg as the industry absorbs the implications of the new law (and its forthcoming detail by way of regulations). But recent activity by NSW lawmakers suggests there is at last strong impetus to achieve meaningful and comprehensive reform.
Matthew Bell is a Senior Lecturer and Co-Director of Studies for Construction Law at the University of Melbourne.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

New NSW building law could be a game changer for apartment safety: Matthew Bell

<html><body>
 
New amendments to the regulations that will give homebuyers of properties with swimming pools 90 days to rectify non-compliant swimming pool barriers are a sensible approach, according to the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales.  Minister for Local Government Paul Toole announced on Friday (11 March, 2016) the new regulations applying to the sale of properties with swimming pools to take effect from 29 April 2016.  “From 29 April 2016, vendors will need to attach to the contract of sale a Certificate of Compliance, or a Certificate of Non-Compliance outlining what needs to be fixed,” REINSW President John Cunningham said. “This is a sensible approach given the ongoing issues and delays over the last three years in regard to these important regulations. “It is great to see that amendments have been made to allow these regulations the ability to be successfully implemented and help make our backyards safer,” Mr Cunningham said. As part of the regulations, every new tenancy application to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal must also have a compliance certificate if the property has a swimming pool.
 
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Property 101: Amendments to NSW backyard pool regulations applauded

<html><body>
Regulatory action on multiple fronts to cool prices in an overheated market, which many see as a bubble at risk, could be a case of overshooting and there are dangers signals hidden in a sharp drop in prices, says a leading columnist.
“There is an unease in large parts of the residential property market. Such an unease normally triggers a fall in prices,” according to The Australian columnist Robert Gottliebsen.
A warning by Deloitte Access Economics’ Chris Richardson to first-home buyers that now was a bad time to buy was roundly criticised, but Gottliebsen said he was picking up similar danger signals in parts of the industry itself because of the multiple attacks on the vital housing industry.
“And down in budget preparation land they are planning new attacks with the aim of making it easier for first-home buyers. Scott Morrison, be careful what you wish for,” he writes.
The current volley of attacks, according to Gottliebsen, are:
<ul>
<li>Chinese and other Asian foreign investors want to buy but they get no help from local Australian banks because they can’t prove their income in China to our banks. At the same time, China is making it almost impossible for money directed to Australian housing to legally leave the country. The Chinese who bought apartments “off the plan” two or three years ago are forced to find dubious ways of getting money out of China and/or pay the high interest rates required by the rapidly growing unofficial and unregulated finance system. There is a massive Chinese investor funding problem in Melbourne and a lesser one in Brisbane.</li>
<li>Chinese are re-entering the “off the plan” market with great gusto in the belief that their government will change the rules and/or there will be a reversal in Australian banking attitudes. If we do manage to get through the Melbourne small apartment oversupply problem we are laying the foundations for another and deeper crisis if the current Chinese funding rules do not change.</li>
<li>In the “second-hand” dwelling market, for the most part, Chinese investors do not participate because it is illegal without FIRB approval. However there is clearly buying by local Chinese who have some sort of agreement with their relatives/ friends in China. But the Australian government is cracking down on these arrangements.</li>
<li>The “second-hand” market is largely made up of locals who are pushing up the prices in many areas of Sydney and Melbourne. While there is the normal high activity in house swapping and many first-home buyers in outer suburbs, the biggest force in the market for both apartments and houses is investors.</li>
</ul>
Local investors comprise high-income medical professionals but also teachers, police and trades people like plumbers. The uncertainty about superannuation means people see negatively geared dwellings as a more reliable retirement vehicle, he says.
They have also increased interest rates on investor loans and residential rate loans are being edged up. And so the forces that drove the “second-hand” market higher are being reversed with some savagery. And at the same time, about every regulator is warning of a bubble.
<ul>
<li>Outside the public service, wages are not rising, which exposes risk to the one-third of Australian borrowers (according to RBA figures) who have not built up a repayment buffer, or are less than one month ahead on their home loan repayments. These borrowers are very exposed to an economic downturn or rise in interest rates and shows how vulnerable the current situation is to any further blows in the budget.</li>
<li>There are signs that in Sydney and Melbourne the squeeze on land for development is being eased, particularly in Sydney. The major developer in Sydney, Meriton, has announced that it plans to lift production because long-delayed permits are finally being issued.</li>
</ul>
With all these forces being lined up, home prices should fall but are being help up by the rising populations in Melbourne and Sydney; the rush of foreign students and tourists and problems developers are having organising finance, he says.
In addition, if Labor wins the next election it will most likely dump negative gearing. Hence, investors are buying property before it’s too late. 
Rents in most areas are not falling. Those forces will probably stop a significant fall unless there is a major adverse global event or the budget attacks too hard. And if there is a significant fall the whole Australian economy will be affected, so multiplying the fall, warns Gottliebsen.
“My fear is that the regulators are using weapons to curb the boom that have not been used in a long time. There is risk of overshooting."
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

Danger in excessive moves to cool property market: Gottliebsen

<html><body>
Some 18 out of 24 real estate agencies in western Sydney recently audited by NSW Fair Trading failed random inspections on industry standards.
The inspections were conducted on compliance with Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements in December in the suburbs of Wentworthville, Toongabbie, Pendle Hill, Greystanes, Westmead and Girraween.
<div class="in-content-ad">
<div id="adspot-1x1-pos-5" class="ad" data-google-query-id="CL2s3YKgotkCFUJ4vQodr68P4g">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_/31694718/domain.com.au/news/nsw_4__container__"><iframe title="3rd party ad content" name="google_ads_iframe_/31694718/domain.com.au/news/nsw_4" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" width="1" height="1" data-integralas-id-b18a1185-5227-6afd-d352-8864527f5bda=""></iframe></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="in-content-ad">The compliance crackdown checked whether businesses operated with a necessary licence.</div>
<div class="in-content-ad"> </div>
<div class="in-content-ad">It checked whether agents were sufficiently trained with adequate ongoing supervision, and also whether ongoing professional development was maintained.</div>
Minister for Better Regulation Matt Kean said many agents were not meeting industry standards.
“The results are totally disappointing with only six of the 24 agents inspected found to be fully compliant with NSW Fair Trading requirements,” Kean said.
The three-day crackdown resulted in 30 penalty infringement notices, totalling $31,900.
One agency business that was found to be operating without the necessary licence.
There were three that were using an unaudited trust account.
Some 13 licensees were fined for failing to supervise their business.
Two agents were issued with education letters.
“It’s clear these agents need to pull their socks up, and Fair Trading will continue to target those who aren’t playing by the rules to make sure consumers are put first.” Mr Kean said.
Fair Trading declined to name the agencies because of ongoing investigations.
</body></html>

NSW Fair Trading find Sydney agencies falling short on industry standards

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">Changing local market and regulatory conditions resulted in a dramatic slowdown in outbound Chinese investment in Australian commercial property during 2017, falling further from its 2015 peak.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">But despite these weaker investment levels, Australia remains a firm favourite among Mainland Chinese investors, ranking second for the third consecutive year behind the United States, the Cushman &amp; Wakefield’s annual investor intentions research noted.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">Australia ranked as the 7th most popular global destination for Chinese CRE investment in 2017</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">The investment challenges are driven by supply constraints and regulatory changes.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">The report noted sentiment among Chinese investors towards Australian CRE ranks 2nd globally, although its has decreased from 2016.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">Inbound investment from Hong Kong rises by $200m year-on-year to $1.1Bn with NSW offices accounting for almost 50% of Chinese CRE investment into Australia (excluding development sites).</div>
<div class="column">It reported 73% of deals transacted by Chinese investors during 2017 were in the sub-$50m category.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">Total Chinese outbound investment into Australian commercial property has fallen from $6.97bn in 2016 to $2.83bn in 2017, a 60% decline overall, and ranking as the 7th most popular destination for China investment worldwide. Total 2017 investment comprised $1.97bn invested into standing assets and $853m in developments sites, a decline of 60% and 72% respectively.</div>
<div class="column">
 While mainland Chinese investment has decreased, investment from Hong Kong Kong has increased by 20% last year, rising from $918m to $1.1Bn in 2017. This is expected to increase further during 2018 as Mainland Chinese investors seek to reallocate capital via Hong Kong.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/2/28/CHINESE%202.jpg" alt=""></div>
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
A recent survey of top Mainland Chinese Real Estate Investors Overseas (‘MCREIO’) conducted by the Cushman &amp; Wakefield Research team also shows that MCREIO’s sentiment towards Australian commercial property had dropped from 22% in 2016 to 17% in 2017. This was in line with the decrease in overall investment, however it still placed Australia in second position overall - behind the 31% of investors that intend to invest in the United States (also down from 44% in 2016). 
From the survey, the most significant declines in sentiment were experienced in Canada, Singapore and Japan where allocations fell to 1% or less of the available MCREIO global real estate capital as investors backed away from expensive markets and stabilised assets. 
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
While there is expected to be greater scrutiny of offshore investment by the Chinese Government, Cushman &amp; Wakefield Research also shows that only 50% of mainland investors have been significantly impacted by the latest guidelines. The remaining half felt limited or no impact. 
Cushman &amp; Wakefield’s Head of Capital Markets Australia and New Zealand, James Quigley, said while there had been a significant drop in China outbound investment into Australian real estate over the past year, Australia remains as one of the top global destinations of choice for Chinese investors. 
“Top Chinese investors are telling us that they still greatly favour the Australian market, but with regulatory changes and fierce competition for top assets, deal activity is expected to weaker. That said, we are seeing rising investment volumes from Hong Kong with further growth expected as Mainland Chinese investors look at alternative avenues to invest. 
“Nonetheless, some investors are likely to be less impacted by recent policy changes, and so are expected to remain active purchasers. As investors change strategies and potentially lower volumes, this also presents near term opportunity for local capital partnering,” Mr Quigley said. 
While Chinese investment into larger Australian assets with sale prices of $200m+ have transacted, they have only accounted for just 4% of deals by number since 2013 (and 37% of dollar value). Conversely, 73% of deals by number have been completed in the sub-$50m range, accounting for 25% of total deal value. 
Outside the development site market, Chinese investors have a sharp focus on the Australian office market, and New South Wales offices in particular, which have averaged 48% and 45% of total investment by value respectively since 2011, and 40% during 2017. 
With many of Sydney’s largest transactions in 2017 undertaken by domestic entities, this is in part contributing to the decline in investment, but also driving greater diversification into other sectors such as retail and mixed use and geographically into metropolitan Sydney and Victoria. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/2/28/CHINESE%201.jpg" alt="">
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Since 2015, there have been three major policy developments that have impacted Chinese investment into the Australian real estate sector. The China Australia Free Trade Agreement (CHAFTA, the Belt and Road Initiative, and most recently, the updated guidance on foreign investment (Circular 74). While the CHAFTA is designed to make trade more efficient, the Belt and Road and Circular 74 are expected to have broader reaching implications for commercial real estate.
According to Cushman &amp; Wakefield research, the expected impact of these policy frameworks will include lower investment volumes and fewer Chinese investors in the market, also driving opportunities for capital partnering and local asset management services.
Realignment of real estate strategies to Belt and Road criteria is likely to benefit the development and industrial sector, especially logistics, production space and R&amp;D sites. Over the longer term, there is an anticipated uplift in demand for space as Chinese occupiers continue to expand into international markets. 
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

Chinese investment into Australian commercial property falls further from its 2015 peak

<html><body>
APRA have finalised the rules governing the data that banks must hand over on their residential mortgage-lending operations.
They have been warning the banks of heightened risks and has been urging the banks to monitor the lending more closely, especially with the much publicised liar loans still sneaking through the cracks. 
On 24 October 2016 APRA released proposed revisions to the residential mortgage lending reporting requirements for authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs), Reporting Standard ARS 223.0 Residential Mortgage Lending (ARS 223.0) and accompanying reporting guidance.
On 23 May 2017, APRA released a revised ARS 223.0, which responded to submissions received and proposed a small number of additional data items. APRA sought feedback on these additional data items.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
APRA received six submissions from ADIs and industry associations in response to the May 2017 proposals. No submissions objected to the proposals, but changes and clarifications were suggested. 
APRA has made minor clarifications to reporting requirements and amended the reporting guidance as a result of these comments (see attached). 
Today APRA released the final ARS 223.0. Reporting will commence: 
<ul>
<li>for ADIs that currently report on Reporting Form ARF 320.8 Housing Loan Reconciliation (ARF 320.8), from the reporting period ending 31 March 2018; and</li>
<li>for ADIs that do not currently report on ARF 320.8, from the reporting period ending 30 September 2018.</li>
<li>APRA will conduct a webinar for ADIs in the coming weeks, to facilitate understanding of the changes.</li>
</ul>
Changes to reporting requirements
Loan-to-income (LTI) and debt-to-income (DTI) ratios
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
APRA received feedback in two submissions that using gross income for LTI and DTI may not reflect ADIs’ risk management practices. However, ADIs that apply more conservative discounts or ‘haircuts’ to income will report higher LTI and DTI measures, limiting comparability. In APRA’s view, using gross income for reporting purposes is necessary to allow comparison between all ADIs, acknowledging that it does have limitations.
Two submissions asked for additional guidance on the definition of gross income. The definition of gross income for LTI and DTI reporting has been amended to exclude compulsory superannuation contributions. Further detail has been included in the reporting guidance. 
Additional increases in lending 
One submission sought clarity on whether loans to self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) and non-residents should be included in this item. The instructions have been updated to include such loans. 
Two ADIs noted in submissions that they do not expect to report this item, as all increases in credit limits are already captured as new loans funded. APRA confirms that loans subject to a credit assessment should be reported as loans funded, and not as an additional increase. 
Lending to private unincorporated businesses 
APRA proposed that ADIs report two data items on loans to private unincorporated businesses that are secured by residential mortgages. The definition of private unincorporated businesses is consistent with the Economic and Financial Statistics (EFS) proposed by APRA, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Reserve Bank of Australia.2 
Three submissions stated that collecting information on ‘family trusts with a controlling interest in a business’ would be problematic. APRA has amended the definition to include all family trusts, not just family trusts with a controlling interest in business. The EFS definitions were also amended accordingly. 
Two submissions suggested expanding the reporting to cover loans to all trading companies, to provide a more complete picture of ADIs’ lending activity. APRA does not propose to expand reporting beyond private unincorporated businesses. ARS 223.0 is intended to capture household (and similar) lending only. Commercial lending for property is captured on other reporting forms. 
External refinancing 
The current definition of external refinancing is limited to loans for substantially the same purpose as the loan they replace. One submission noted that it is not feasible for an ADI to know the predominant purpose of external loans. In line with EFS, the reference to the loan being for substantially the same purpose has been removed from the definition in ARS 223.0.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 3">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Loan vintage 
Two submissions questioned if loan vintage should be measured from the date of a refinance or from the date of the original loan. As per the instructions, loan vintage is to be reported from when the loan is funded, meaning the date of a refinance should be used. 
To find out more about the changes <a href="http://www.apra.gov.au/adi/PrudentialFramework/Pages/Residential-mortgage-lending-reporting-requirements-response-Jan-2018.aspx" target="_blank">click here.</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

APRA update on review of deposit-taking institutions on mortgage lending

<html><body>
The NSW Government has announced a new a regulatory framework to govern the short-term holiday letting industry.
Short-term holiday letting has rapidly expanded in recent years due to the growth of online booking services such as Airbnb and Stayz.
The regulatory framework is designed to ensure that local communities continue to gain from the economic benefits of short-term holiday letting, while protecting neighbours from anti-social behaviour.
What is the new framework?
The new framework will include new planning laws, an industry Code of Conduct and new provisions for strata scheme by-laws.
Planning laws
New planning laws will allow short-term holiday letting under certain conditions. If the host is present, they can use their home for short-term holiday letting all year round as exempt development. That is, they do not need to submit a development application to local council.
If the host is not present, that residence can be used for short-term holiday letting up to 180 days per year in Greater Sydney, with 365 days allowed in all other areas of New South Wales. Councils outside Greater Sydney will have the power to decrease the 365 day limit to no less than 180 days per year.
There will also be additional conditions for bushfire prone land to ensure visitor safety.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/9/4/regulation%201.jpg" target="_blank">Click here to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/9/4/regulation%201.jpg" alt="">
Code of Conduct
A mandatory Code of Conduct will be introduced that will apply to anyone involved in providing or using short-term holiday letting including hosts, guests, online platforms, and letting agents.
The Code will establish the ‘two strikes and you’re out’ policy. Hosts or guests who commit two serious breaches of the Code within two years will be banned for five years. Platforms and letting agents will not be permitted to offer services to anyone, or any dwelling, that is listed on the exclusion register.
A strike will include any behaviour which unreasonably interferes with a neighbour’s quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their home.
The Code will establish a complaints system, which will be available to neighbours of short-term holiday letting premises, strata committees and owners corporations.
Complaints will be assessed by independent and impartial adjudicators, approved by the Commissioner for Fair Trading. Adjudicators will be required to make decisions on evidence and after giving both complainants and respondents a chance to put forward their case.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/9/4/regulation%202.jpg" alt="">
Strikes will be recorded on an online register to ensure that guests and/or hosts cannot 'platform shop'. Platforms and property agents will have to check the register before taking on new customers. Failure to do so may result in significant penalties of up to $1.1million for corporations and $220,000 for individuals.
NSW Fair Trading will have powers to police online platforms and letting agents. The Code, its enforcement, the compliance system and the register will be funded by industry.
What about strata schemes?
Strata scheme management laws will be amended to clarify that by-laws can prohibit short-term holiday letting, but only for lots that are not a host’s principal place of residence.
That is, if a host is genuinely sharing their home, they will still be able to use a spare room for short-term holiday letting, and will be allowed to let out their principal place of residence while they are away on holidays.
NSW Fair Trading will also develop guidelines to advise owners corporations on how they can use other existing strata laws to help deal with short-term holiday letting.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/9/4/regulation%203.jpg" target="_blank">Click here to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/9/4/regulation%203.jpg" alt="">
When will the new framework start?
The NSW Parliament passed the Government’s short-term holiday letting reforms on Tuesday 14 August. The new framework is expected to start in 2019.
The Code of Conduct will be developed in consultation with Government agencies, and industry and community groups during 2018.
The reforms will be reviewed a year after they commence.
How was the framework determined?
In October 2016, the NSW Parliament Legislative Assembly Committee on Environment and Planning made several recommendations to the Government following its public inquiry on the Adequacy of Regulation of short-term residential accommodation.
The Committee’s report was released in October 2016 and made 12 recommendations, mostly relating to planning and strata laws.
In mid-2017, the Government released an Options Paper on short-term holiday letting.
The Options Paper explored approaches to implement a whole of Government regulatory framework for the industry that addressed land use and planning issues and strata scheme management issues, including the amenity and safety of existing residents.
Community and industry feedback on these options helped guide and inform the Government's reforms to the regulations of short-term holiday letting.
</body></html>

Regulations

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Regulations

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News