Residential News

<html><body>
The release of the 2013/14 financial year taxation statistics by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will no doubt add further fuel to the ongoing debate over the who, what, where, and why of rental property ownership.
Since I work in the industry and view properties more or less all the time, I don't need to look at any stats to know that investment properties are owned by a wide range of Australian income earners, largely "middle Australia". 
I know, because these people include my clients, because I can see it for myself every time I go to viewings, and most significantly, because I'm a property market insider. 
The genuinely wealthy generally have better things to do with their cash then invest in low-yielding residential property. 
Nevertheless, I would hopefully call out others on their useless anecdotes, so I shall do so on myself. 
Here are the headline numbers!
<a href="/images/2016/03/29/ATO1.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/29/ATO1.jpg" alt="">
The figures show that 15.7 per cent of those lodging a tax return or 2,033,973 individuals owned a rental in FY2014, with the vast majority owning only one or two properties.
The long run numbers speak for themselves, with rental property ownership becoming increasingly popular and accessible, and showing a fivefold increase since 1980, or a near-fourfold increase as a share of the total number of taxpayers. 
So much for rentals only being for the rich - there are now, quite literally, millions of landlords.
Happily for landlords, fewer of them declared a net rental loss in financial year 2014. 
Rental market trends - how much?
Adding a bit more texture on what happened to the rental markets and negative gearing deductions in financial year 2014, the ATO Taxation Statistics for 2013/14 showed that net rental income losses fell by more than half from $7.9 billion to $3.7 billion over the last two years. 
<a href="/images/2016/03/29/NG.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/29/NG.jpg" alt="">
The total rental loss claimed fell from $12.04 billion to $10.97 billion, but remember that negative gearing losses are a timing difference only, and as such these are not amounts which could be "saved" from the budget. 
The share of those 2.03 million folk who own a loss-making investment property fell from 64 percent to 62 percent.
OK, so that's the summary data. 
But what does it actually mean?
In terms of what this means in reality for the typical individual owning a property, the average rental loss has declined from well over five grand at $5,096 in the 2008 tax year to just $1,828 by FY2014, a whopping decline of more than 64 percent. 
<a href="/images/2016/03/29/NG2.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/29/NG2.jpg" alt="">
Furthermore, with the cash rate falling several times further since 1 July 2013, average net rental loss will decline for the next two or three tax years to come (just ask any capital city based landlord about their 2015 tax returns).
Rental market trends - who? 
The Tax Office also served up some interesting data on who is recording net rental losses. 
In terms of additional investors in the financial year, the numbers of individuals with a rental interest and a taxable income between $37,000 and $80,000 increased, if only moderately, with those within this taxable income bracket racking up a total of 707,000 taxpayers with a net rental interest. 
However, the greatest increase in volume of overall investors was reflected in an extra 42,400 individuals in the taxable income bracket of $80,001 to $180,000.
By way of contrast there were only an additional 9,000 individuals with an interest in the $180,000 to $250,000 taxable income bracket, and an additional 5,000 individuals in the $250,000 to $500,000 bracket. 
Looked at another way by income, 767,000 of those declaring a taxable income of under $80,000 accounted for 61 per cent of total net rental losses. 
With the largest increase in net rental interest over the year, and it does confirm that to a substantial extent "middle Australia" is buying into residential investment property, and so doing is not only "for the rich". 
It is worth highlighting here, however, that the "taxable income" declared on tax returns is reduced by negative gearing losses.  
Thus for example it should be acknowledged  that a person declaring a net rental interest and taxable income of under $80,000 could theoretically have income of $81,828 before an average net rental loss is deducted.
The overwhelming majority of landlords continue to only own one or two rental properties. 
Naturally when analysing the figures by age younger investors remain the most likely to rely upon negative gearing, with 82 per cent of all property investors aged between 18 and 29 declaring a net rental loss.
As the population ages it is little surprise to discover that more than one fifth of investors are now aged over 60, a share that will likely increase over time.
It goes almost without saying that the top 20 percent of income earners owe the bulk of investment housing debt, a point highlighted by the Reserve Bank of Australia as favourable for economic stability, since these investors are also best placed to service their debt.  
Finally, one other interesting trend was the surge in sundry rental deductions, suggesting that with the rental market softening and becoming more competitive landlords have had an increasing propensity to spend on property improvements, which has been of significant benefit to the trades sector. 
The wrap 
Overall, the figures again showed that rental properties are owned by a broad range of Australians by income, comprising a total of well over two million taxpayers. 
The good news from a budget repair perspective is that net rental losses have declined by well over half over the past two tax years alone. 
What's more, with interest rates since falling to record lows, we can look forward to seeing further declines over the next few years of data.
 
PETE WARGENT is the co-founder of <a href="https://allenwargent.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AllenWargent</a> property buyers (London, Sydney) and a best-selling author and <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">blogger</a>. 
His latest book is <a href="https://www.bigskypublishing.com.au/Books/General-Interest/Four-Green-Houses--and-a-Red-Hotel/1015/productview.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Four Green Houses and a Red Hotel</a>.
 
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

New rental market trends: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Gold Coast City Council has won a four-year legal battle with Boral Resources, with the courts upholding the council’s refusal to approve a proposed quarry because of its impacts on the amenity of local residents – including the area’s koalas. In some rare good news for local government in Queensland, which has been under a cloud lately, the Court of Appeal’s decision confirms that councils are entitled to rely on their own planning schemes when deciding on local development applications. Even though Boral had secured approvals from the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, the Queensland Court of Appeal has upheld the council’s decision to refuse Boral’s application to develop a quarry.
A quarry quarrel
The council took on Boral and won after a four-year battle. In May 2014, Boral Resources had applied to the council for a permit to develop a quarry over 65 hectares of land at Reedy Creek, west of Palm Beach. State planning instruments had identified this land as a key resource area of state significance. For Boral, the quarry would generate hard rock and overburden worth A$1.4-1.5 billion.
In January 2014, the federal environment minister, acting under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, approved the development. In July 2014, Queensland’s Department of Environment and Heritage Protection did likewise.
All that remained was council’s consent. But, even though its own planning officer recommended approving the development, on July 11 2014, the council refused Boral’s application. When the local protest is loud enough and big enough – 4,200 objections were received – then even the Gold Coast Council will hear!
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218556/original/file-20180511-34027-9dlg88.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Residents’ opposition to the quarry development was organised, loud and ultimately, after several years, successful. Stop the Gold Coast Quarry/Facebook
Not surprisingly, Boral immediately appealed that decision to the Planning and Environment Court. The court had to balance numerous competing interests to re-decide the merits of the case.
To some extent, the economic arguments were on Boral’s side. If the proposal did not proceed, competition could be reduced and the additional costs to the community could be around A$240 million over the life of the quarry, as even the Court of Appeal later accepted.
On the other side of the equation, the development would have adverse impacts on the amenity of nearby residents. These included creating ugly views and generating noise and dust by introducing an extra 450 haulage truck movements per day on local roads.
Judge Richard Jones decided the balance favoured refusing the application, confirming the council’s refusal.
Now the Court of Appeal has upheld that decision. The council, local residents and koalas have won the day.
The case also raises some points of more general planning interest. These relate to:
<ul>
<li>
the respective roles of state and local planning instruments
</li>
<li>
whether profitable economic development may legitimately be delayed to another day
</li>
<li>
whether protecting koalas requires protecting their habitat as well.
</li>
</ul>
State versus local planning instruments
In Queensland, the state planning policy identifies 16 state interests arranged under five broad themes. No one state interest is given priority over the others.
The Court of Appeal’s decision confirms it is the rightful business of local governments to balance and resolve competing state interests at the local level in their own planning schemes. Notwithstanding the site’s designation as a key resource area in state planning policy, the council had acted lawfully in relying on its own planning instruments to decide that adverse environmental and amenity impacts justified refusing the application.
Should good economic development be postponed?
Despite refusing the application, the judge conceded the resource should be protected for future exploitation when appropriate.
Boral argued this was an “irrational decision”. How would the amenity of residents and the survival of koalas be any less of concern in the future if they were so important even now? In Boral’s view, if this was a valuable economic resource (and everyone agreed it was), development now was the only sensible decision.
The Court of Appeal paid short shrift to this notion. It held that although the local planning instruments currently prevailed against an approval, amendments to these over time might alter the balance in favour of development. Local government, once again, is in the driving seat.
Do koalas need their trees?
Koalas are a recognised matter of environmental significance at Commonwealth and state levels. Developing the quarry would involve, over time, clearing 30,000 trees, including 23,000 koala habitat trees. The Planning and Environment Court judge recognised this would have an adverse impact in relation to a matter of environmental significance.
Boral had, like every other developer, argued conservation efforts at other sites (imposed as offsets) could produce a better outcome overall for koalas in southeast Queensland. The court dismissed this claim because the local planning scheme specified matters of environmental significance should be protected in situ.
Not to be defeated, Boral argued the judge confused koalas (a recognised matter of environmental significance) with koala habitat (of no particular status in this case). The Court of Appeal denounced this logic: "It cannot seriously be disputed that to destroy its habitat is to fail to conserve and protect it as a listed threatened species."
What are the broader planning implications?
The Boral litigation explores some really interesting principles for planning law and local governments.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96263/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Let’s just imagine, for a moment, a land use planning world where state planning policy is always applied with reference to the affected community’s vision for its neighbourhood; where councils regularly protect habitat for endangered species; and where, just occasionally, the drive for ever more resource development gives way to a holistic view of sustainable development … oh, what a different world that would be!
Philippa England, Senior Lecturer, Griffith Law School, Griffith University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/long-running-battle-ends-in-a-win-for-residents-koalas-and-local-council-planning-rules-96263" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Long-running battle ends in a win for residents, koalas and local council planning rules: Philippa England

<html><body>
Residential vacancy rates have tightened across the Sydney market, led by middle Sydney, according to data released by the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales. 
REINSW deputy president Brett Hunter said the August 2016 REINSW Vacancy Rate Survey saw Sydney with an overall vacancy rate of 1.8 percent, down 0.1 percent. 
Middle Sydney, which includes suburbs such as Manly, Parramatta, Strathfield and Willoughby, declined 0.3 percent to 1.6 percent. 
Inner Sydney, which includes Botany Bay, Lane Cove, Mosman, Sydney and Waverley among others, was steady at 1.9 percent, while outer Sydney was down 0.2 percent to 1.7 percent, he said.
In the Hunter region, vacancy rates rose 0.3 percent to 2.7, led by a 0.6 percent climb to 3 percent in Newcastle. 
In the Illawarra region, vacancy rates fell 0.3 percent to 1.6 percent, with Wollongong down 0.5 percent at 1.1 percent. 
Across regional areas, New England fell 0.8 percent to 3.9 percent, Murrumbidgee dropped 0.1 percent to 1.5 percent and Albury was down 0.6 percent at 3.1 percent. 
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Sydney residential vacancy rates tighten: REINSW 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER 
Until now, residential occupiers have generally been able to take comfort that they were not under an obligation to take remediating action against risks of which they were not, and ought not reasonably have been, aware.  
Two recent decisions of Schultz v McCormack [2015] NSWCA 330 and Chandler v Silwood<a href="https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2016/QSC16-090.pdf"> </a>[2016] QSC 90 arguably elevate the burden upon residential occupiers, and call into question what a residential occupier ought to know, and do.  
In each case the Court was persuaded by expert evidence as to the measureable slip resistance values of steps, and was prepared the find that those results were compelling evidence of the slipperiness of the steps when wet, despite the occupiers’ own evidence that they had not found the steps to be slippery, that no concerns or complaints had been brought to their attention by others, and in the absence of knowledge of prior like incidents.
This article follows on from a publication by Barry.Nilsson.’s Nick Robson entitled <a href="https://www.bnlaw.com.au/page/Events__Publications/Insurance__Health_publications/Insurance__Health_publications__alerts/Insurance_Alerts/Public_Product_Liability/Residential_Occupiers_Found_Liable_Has_the_castle_been_breached/">‘</a>Residential Occupiers: Has the Castle Been Breached?’ published 11 November 2015, regarding the Schultz decision. Since then the occupiers, the McCormacks, have sought and been refused special leave to appeal to the High Court, on a narrow point of statutory construction pertaining to obvious risks.
 
In the intervening period judgment was recently handed down in the factually similar matter of Chandler, a Queensland Supreme Court decision in which Mr Silwood, a residential occupier, was found liable for injuries sustained as a result of a slip and fall by an entrant to his premises.
 
The claim arose out of an accident at Mr Silwood’s home on the night of 9 September 2008.
 
Mrs Chandler and Mr Silwood were the parents of a newborn child, but had separated prior to the date of the incident, and had never resided together. Mrs Chandler had been to Mr Silwood’s house on many occasions, and had arranged to bring the child to Mr Silwood’s premises on the night of the incident.
Upon arriving at Mr Silwood’s residence Mrs Chandler had left her child in her vehicle and walked from the driveway, along a concrete path and toward the house, intending to bring her arrival to Mr Silwood’s attention and summon his assistance to bring in the child, and her belongings. 
As she approached the house she slipped on one of two tiled steps in an alcove outside the front door, and fell, with her right arm extending through a glass panel in the front door, sustaining significant and disabling injuries to her dominant arm. 
Mrs Chandler had consumed some alcohol before attending at Mr Silwood’s residence on the evening of the incident, the amount and effect of which was in dispute. The trial judge ultimately concluded that the plaintiff’s blood alcohol concentration was unlikely to have had any deleterious effect on her capacity. 
Mr Silwood’s evidence was that he had hosed bat droppings from walls above and adjacent to the tiled alcove some five hours earlier, on the afternoon of the incident. He was not able to say whether the tiled steps in the alcove were wet or damp at the time of the incident, as a result of his earlier hosing. He conceded both after the incident and at trial that they may have been, but that he did not know. 
At trial the Court made findings of fact that residual moisture remained on the tiled steps. 
Mr Silwood’s evidence was otherwise that the tiled steps had been in situ when he bought the premises in 2000, that there had been no previous similar incidents or complaints by guests of them being slippery, and that he himself had never found them to be slippery in either wet or dry conditions.
A good Samaritan neighbour came to the assistance of Mrs Chandler after hearing the incident take place, and gave evidence at trial that she did not find the tiles or the steps slippery and could not recall seeing any water on them when she attended only moments after the incident.
Mrs Chandler tendered expert liability evidence comprising a report of Intersafe, which made certain assumptions about the angle of the plaintiff’s approach towards the steps, was critical of the slipperiness of the steps when wet and which indicated that water was unable to drain freely from the steps and was unlikely to have completely evaporated by the time of the plaintiff’s arrival.
There was one external light at the premises which was not illuminated at the time. 
Mrs Chandler alleged that Mr Silwood had breached his duty of care by failing to take steps in circumstances where he knew Mrs Chandler would be attending at his premises on the night of the incident, and where Mr Silwood had created a hazard by earlier hosing the walls adjacent to the tiled alcove and the step.
Her Honour Chief Justice Holmes found that, as a residential occupier, Mr Silwood owed Mrs Chandler a duty to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to her, on the premise that she was exercising reasonable care for her own safety. 
In the present situation, the duty included an obligation to take such precautions as a reasonable person in the circumstances would have taken by way of response to the risk of injury posed by the wet and slippery steps.
Despite unchallenged evidence that Mr Silwood had never found the steps to be slippery when wet, nor encountered any problem with them, the Court found that the effect of the moisture on the steps was to produce a significant risk of slipping, and that Mr Silwood had breached his duty of care. 
Her Honour found that a reasonable person in his position was required to take precautions and ought to have “made sure the stairs were dry or at least warned Ms Chandler…that they might be wet and should be taken with care, and would certainly have made sure that the light was on”. 
An appeal has been commenced in the Queensland Court of Appeal on behalf of Mr Silwood challenging a number of the findings at first instance. No date for the hearing of the appeal has been set. It remains to be seen whether the Court of Appeal will overturn the findings at first instance such that residential occupiers in Queensland are still ‘safe as houses’, with respect to defects at their premises of which they were not reasonably on notice, or whether the Castle has again been breached.
<div>
<div id="news-author">Melanie Quixley is partner and Hannah Savins senior associate, Barry. Nilsson Lawyers and can be contacted <a href="https://www.bnlaw.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Property 101: The legal burden on residential renters on remediating property risks

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/62621/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The transition to a clean energy future is upon us, as shown by the huge uptake of solar panels and by the Turnbull government’s decision to set up a A$1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund. But what about those people who are at risk of being left behind?
Our survey of lower-income households shows that information about low-carbon living is often difficult to access, and that assistance is sometimes misdirected.
As a result, transitioning to low-carbon living is much harder for these households than it should be.
<h2>Listening to the people</h2>
Between December 2015 and June 2016, we held 23 focus group discussions with 164 lower-income households across eight metropolitan and regional centres in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Our aim was to try to understand the challenges these households face in transitioning to low-carbon living. This was part of a wider study, funded by the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, on finding ways to help poorer households reduce their carbon impact.
Almost everyone we spoke with supported the idea of low-carbon living. However, the ability to afford whiz-bang green technology – from expensive solar panels and battery systems right down to LED lightbulbs – is a big issue for these households.
Significant increases in energy costs since the late 2000s have added to this problem. In some states, bills have more than doubled in just the past six years.
While money is a key problem, it’s not the whole story, and there are ways to help. We have found a range of factors, besides affordability, that limit lower-income households’ ability to transition to low-carbon living.
<h2>Finding reliable information</h2>
Not everyone is looking for a hand-out; many just want to know how they can help themselves become more energy-efficient.
A major barrier that cropped up time and again in our survey is accessing the “right” information. Many people get good tips about assistance programs through friends and family, or via charities like the Salvation Army (one of our in-kind project partners).
But outside these avenues, information is often only available online, and many of our participants said that they either can’t afford internet access at home or, more importantly, don’t know what to search for.
What little information trickles through is often hard to understand. The Tasmanian government, for instance, offers a range of concessions on power and heating bills for older people or those who need to run medical equipment at home. But the benefits are expressed in cents per day (the current electricity concession, for instance, is 132.557¢ per day), which can make them unnecessarily hard for customers to calculate. Eligibility criteria are also often complicated.
With access to government services increasingly being moved online, the process can become a confusing rigmarole for many people, while others may miss out entirely.
<h2>Misdirected assistance</h2>
Most of the assistance programs available to lower-income households, such as Centrelink Utilities Allowances, are aimed squarely at providing financial relief.
States and territories also have their own rebate schemes to offer relief from rising energy costs. In NSW, for example, EAPA vouchers are designed to provide emergency and crisis relief.
But with lower-income households less likely to own their homes, they are often precluded from accessing programs to encourage green energy, such as solar panel rebates. This is a classic split incentive – the owner buys the panels (and gets the rebate) but the tenant gets the benefit (lower bills), making the owner less likely to invest.
This leads to the question of why rebates are not offered for using green energy, as well as for installing it.
“Green” criteria already exist in some other assistance programs. For example, the No Interest Loan Scheme, which helps lower-income households buy products such as whitegoods, now requires appliances to meet certain energy-efficiency standards.
The same principle could easily be used to help lower-income renters access electricity from cleaner energy sources.
Giving poorer households free home energy assessments is a good start, but they are focused purely on cutting energy consumption.
<h2>Removing hurdles</h2>
The compounding impacts of energy bill increases mean that many lower-income households are doing it pretty tough. Forgoing comfort in not turning on the heater or air-conditioner is one thing, but skipping meals or medication (as many of our survey respondents do) can have significant impacts on health and well-being.
Unfortunately, lower-income households have been going without life’s essentials for far too long. Setting up assistance programs is a good start, but we need to make sure that those who need help are getting it.
Here are our five suggestions for making it happen:
<ol>
<li>
Get the info out there. It’s important that people get the right information when they need it. Putting information online is great but it cannot be the only way – consideration must be given to those without internet access or who are less computer-literate.</li>
<li>
Keep it simple. Information needs to be straightforward and clear. If it’s stuffed with jargon and confusing numbers, it can become self-defeating.</li>
<li>
Support the support organisations. Charities like the Salvation Armyand the St Vincent de Paul Society serve important roles within our community, but they too need our continued help, especially when funding is not keeping up with needs.</li>
<li>
Get value for the public’s money. A billion-dollar public fund may sound like a big deal, but this is small fry compared to Australia’s A$878 billion annual domestic consumption expenditure. Nonetheless, it is a good start in heading towards the right direction. We just need to make sure it helps those who need it most.</li>
<li>
Overcome personal pride. Asking for help is never easy, and that’s why so many lower-income families go without. Making sure that incentive programs reach the right people, in the right way, can dramatically improve their willingness to use them. Hopefully, in the long run, fewer families will need to go without.</li>
</ol>
Edgar Liu is research fellow at City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/edgar-liu-32200" target="_blank">here</a>.
Bruce Judd is professor, UNSW Australia, and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bruce-judd-137243" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

It’s not easy being green, especially when affordable help is so hard to find

<html><body>
Land ownership, site value and land use as at midnight 30 June each year is used to determine the land tax for the forthcoming financial year.
Land tax revenue assists in the provision of public services such as education, health and public safety.
RevenueSA is responsible for the collection of land tax under the Land Tax Act 1936, the Taxation Administration Act 1996and associated Regulations.
For details on how land tax is calculated refer to the <a href="https://www.revenuesa.sa.gov.au/taxes-and-duties/land-tax/forms/LTGxx_0515_54767-RevSA-LandTaxGuide.pdf" target="_blank">Guide to Land Tax</a> or the <a href="https://www.revenuesa.sa.gov.au/taxes-and-duties/land-tax/guides-to-legislation" target="_blank">Land Tax Guide to Legislation</a>.
You can also use our <a href="https://www.revenuesa.sa.gov.au/taxes-and-duties/land-tax/calculate-land-tax-new" target="_blank">calculator</a> to determine your land tax.
An <a href="https://www.revenuesa.sa.gov.au/taxes-and-duties/land-tax/exemption-from-land-tax" target="_blank">exemption</a> from land tax may be available depending on the use of the property and/or the owner of the property.
Where a property is held on Trust, the trustees can apply to have that property assessed separately from other land owned by the trustee in another capacity.
 
</body></html>

Property 101: Guide to land tax in South Australia

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Not too long ago, robots were giant, caged things, mainly found in automotive manufacturing lines. Social robotics was a new field of research pursued by the best and brightest in university research labs.
In the past few years, however, it seems that social robots have finally come of age. All of a sudden, the market is teeming with products. Some are distinctly humanoid.
The rise of social robots
Softbank Robotics’ Nao, Pepper and Romeo all have a head and two arms. With their stylised designs, they deftly avoid the “uncanny valley” of human-machine interfaces (realistic enough to look human, but non-human enough to look spooky).
Others are more subdued in their anthropomorphism. Blue Frog Robotics’ Buddy sports an animated face on a screen, and scoots around on wheels. Jibo is yet more subtle in its ability to evoke humanity, with its stationary base and a head that can turn and nod.
Taiwanese electronics manufacturer ASUS recently joined the social robotics explosion with its Zenbo home robot. Tyrone Siu/Reuters
What is a social robot, and what makes it special?
In her seminal paper, “Towards sociable robots”, Professor Breazeal, inventor of Jibo, describes social robots as follows:
“(Social robots have) the ability to interact with people in an entertaining, engaging, or anthropomorphic manner.”
The most noticeable quality in the interactions between a person and a social robot is the emotion. This can be partially achieved via a speech-based interface. For example, Amazon is reputedly working on an enhancement to Alexa, the virtual assistant that lives inside the Echo device, to help it understand emotion. China’s Turing Robot goes a step further, and claims that its Turing Robot OS already understands emotion.
However, Dr. Breazeal’s research has demonstrated that adding non-verbal cues via physical gestures can have a profound effect in increasing people’s engagement, trust and confidence with the robot. In her 2010 TED talk, she discussed how people interacted with a robotic diet-and-exercise coach significantly longer than they did with the exact same coaching program running on a computer. A disembodied voice coming out of a mobile device, or a cylinder on the kitchen counter, leaves a lot of engagement on the table.
A solution, or a gimmick?
So, social robots can be great interfaces. However, an interface, even one that embraces emotion, is only useful as long as it connects people to a solution that solves a problem. And therein lies the challenge. What do these robots do? What problems do they solve?
And the reality is, no one has really made it past the cool factor, and arrived at a killer app that will take the mass market by storm.
Let’s look at the Softbank Robotics product line. Nao and Romeo are research platforms, designed for developers – not ordinary people. Pepper is the first consumer-facing solution that is designed to interact with end users out of the box. It has been deployed as a store attendant in a variety of retail settings. It is also being tested in Japanese homes as a companion robot.
But what is Pepper’s job description in the store? A store representative can greet customers, help them find items, and ring up purchases. Pepper can greet customers. Is it addressing a real need, or is it a gimmick?
Household robots are still a ways away
As Pepper has some emotional intelligence, one could make the case that it can be a great companion robot in the home. Let’s look at who needs companionship at home.
Children or elderly people come to mind. Children would gladly play with a robot. But a robot is no substitute for an adult. Any parent or caregiver of a young child knows this. And elderly people do need companionship. But what they crave is time with those they love, not companionship with a machine. Anybody who has cared for an elderly loved one knows this.
To their credit, Softbank Robotics’ website makes it clear that the robot companion is meant to complement, not replace, people. However, it is not clear to what extent today’s social robots can lessen the load for caregivers. The effectiveness of companion robots will improve in time, but there is work to do.
Last but not least, there is the holy grail of service robots in the home. What about a robot helper that can clean and cook? Alas, the technology in sensing, navigation and manipulation is so far behind the real challenges of a messy household that a truly useful robotic helper is years away. The best that today’s technology can offer is special purpose devices like the Roomba, or AI driven bar tending machines.
As a long time robot enthusiast, I can’t wait to see robots become ubiquitous in the home. Right now, the interface is more advanced than what the robots can do. Only when the back end meets the front end in sophistication will we really start to see truly useful robots in the home.
Elaine Chen<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elaine-chen-269390" rel="author"></a> is senior lecturer, MIT Sloan School of Management and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elaine-chen-269390" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Robots are moving in to our homes, but there’s no killer app

<html><body>
Online rental listings portal Rent.com.au has had its third consecutive month of strong growth in real estate agent registrations  with more than 500 real estate offices signing up to the site every month since March.
The total number of real estate agencies now accessing rent.com.au services is around 8,400. 
More than 700,000 renters and landlords visited the site in May.
Rent.com.au chief executive officer and founder Mark Woschnak said in the past three months alone, they have seen a further 20 percent of real estate agencies across Australia, list their properties on the site.
Given the rate of growth, we are expecting a full market take-up of our services in the coming months,” he said.
“As more and more people opt to rent as a conscious lifestyle choice, we’re strategically positioned to respond and deliver highly effective results and value-add outcomes for every agent in the country.”
For more information <a href="https://rent.com.au" target="_blank">click here</a>.
</body></html>

Record number of agents sign to rent.com.au

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
New South Wales based Sammut Developments has won the HIA-CSR Australian Home of the Year award for ‘Nautilus’, a seven bedroom, six-storey waterfront home.
The home also won the Australian Custom Built Home award, partnered by Stramit Building Products.
Judges were impressed with the level of detail and high-quality finishes.
Other award winners from across Australia in eight regions include:
Mirvac from Victoria won Australian Apartment of the Year, partnered by Caltex HIA fuel card. 
Sunland Group from Queensland won Australian Apartment Complex, partnered by Toyota Fleet. 
Atkinson Pontifex from Victoria won both the Australian Townhouse/Villa of the Year, partnered by newhomesguide.com.au and Australian Outdoor Project partnered by James Hardie Australia. 
Ryan Designer Homes from Queensland won Australian Townhouse/Villa Development, partnered by Rheem Australia. 
Peter Sosso Building from the Hunter won Australian Specialised Housing, partnered by HIA Insurance Services. 
Art Nouveau Homes from Victoria won Australian Spec Home, partnered by Stratco Australia. 
Samuel James Homes from South Australia won Australian Display Home, partnered by ActronAir. 
Alvaro Bros Builders from ACT/Southern NSW won Australian Renovation/Addition Project, partnered by BlueScope Steel. 
Kalka from Queensland won Australian Project Home, partnered by OneSteel Reinforcing. 
Minosa from NSW won both the Australian Bathroom Design, partnered by GWA Bathrooms &amp; Kitchens and the Australian Kitchen Design, partnered by Miele. 
Drew Moore Constructions from Tasmania won Australian Bathroom of the Year, partnered by GWA Bathrooms &amp; Kitchens. 
Stewart Homes and Ultraspace from Queensland won Australian Kitchen of the Year, partnered by Miele.
Jake Laidlaw from Victoria won the Jim Brookes Australian Apprentice, partnered by Stratco Australia. 
Dale Alcock Homes from Western Australia won Australian Professional Major, partnered by Companion Systems. 
 
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

mick.cee-iDmgDDAmu8

NSW builder Sammut Developments wins Australian Home of the Year

<html><body>
RP Data Professional will be integrated into the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales' online real estate agreements and forms system.
REINSW President John Cunningham said the integration puts information at the fingertips of agents and supports the growth of REI Forms Live into the one stop shop for agents.
Greg Dickason, CoreLogic RP Data executive general manager, property and partnerships said it will improve processes for agents. 
"The software enables you to create your own, accurate reports very quickly and easily. You can track prospects, listings, current and future sales and rentals," he said. “Sophisticated search tools enable agents to find properties easily by searching by street, suburb, postcode or land parcel. They can also easily filter results, then use the information to create geographically targeted marketing campaigns,” Mr Dickason said. RP Data Professional has joined a growing number of systems which have linked with REI Forms Live including MyDesktop, Agentbox, Rockend’s REST system and Console’s GatewayLive and APM’s PriceFinder.
</body></html>

Residential News

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Residential News

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News