New Home Sales Rebound In May – HIA

New home sales jumped in all four major states in May 2019, according to the HIA New Home Sales report – a monthly survey of the largest volume home builders in the five largest states – provides an early indication of trends in the residential building industry. They were up by 54.2 per cent in New South Wales, by 34.0 per cent in Western Australia, by 26.0 per cent in Queensland, by 25.3 per cent in Victoria and by 0.9 per cent in South Australia.

“New home sales in May bounced back to their highest monthly level in over a year,” stated HIA’s Chief Economist, Tim Reardon.

“The pickup in sales during May follows lacklustre results throughout the first four months of 2019,” added Mr Reardon.

“Federal Elections always impact market confidence and the discussion around new tax imposts on investors through an increase in Capital Gains Tax magnified this uncertainty in the first part of the year.

“This month’s result confirms our expectation that the decline in building activity will start to level off in the second half of 2019 and stabilise at a level below the highs achieved back in 2017.

“The resurgence in home sales was evident across all five states covered by the New Home Sales survey, suggesting a broad based improvement in housing market sentiment around the country.

“An easing of the credit squeeze, lower interest rates and an expectation that APRA will implement reforms to mortgage lending guidelines are also factors supporting the lift in sales activity.

“The slow start to 2019 has seen intense competition amongst home builders. The lift in sales shows that more homebuyers are seeing opportunities in this competitive trading environment.

“Income tax cuts, solid population growth and accelerating wage growth are necessary to ensure that the market does not decline further,” concluded Mr Reardon.

Australia’s still building 4 in every 5 new houses to no more than the minimum energy standard

New housing in Australia must meet minimum energy performance requirements. We wondered how many buildings exceeded the minimum standard. What our analysis found is that four in five new houses are being built to the minimum standard and a negligible proportion to an optimal performance standard. Via The Conversation.

Before these standards were introduced the average performance of housing was found to be around 1.5 stars. The current minimum across most of Australia is six stars under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS).

This six-star minimum falls short of what is optimal in terms of environmental, economic and social outcomes. It’s also below the minimum set by many other countries.

There have been calls for these minimum standards to be raised. However, many policymakers and building industry stakeholders believe the market will lift performance beyond minimum standards and so there is no need to raise these.

What did the data show?

We wanted to understand what was happening in the market to see if consumers or regulation were driving the energy performance of new housing. To do this we explored the NatHERS data set of building approvals for new Class 1 housing (detached and row houses) in Australia from May 2016 (when all data sets were integrated by CSIRO and Sustainability Victoria) to December 2018.

Our analysis focuses on new housing in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, all of which apply the minimum six-star NatHERS requirement. The other states have local variations to the standard, while New South Wales uses the BASIX index to determine the environmental impact of housing.

The chart below shows the performance for 187,320 house ratings. Almost 82% just met the minimum standard (6.0-6.4 star). Another 16% performed just above the minimum standard (6.5-6.9 star).

Only 1.5% were designed to perform at the economically optimal 7.5 stars and beyond. By this we mean a balance between the extra upfront building costs and the savings and benefits from lifetime building performance.

NatHERS star ratings across total data set for new housing approvals, May 2016–December 2018. Author provided

The average rating is 6.2 stars across the states. This has not changed since 2016.

Average NatHERS star rating for each state, 2016-18. Author provided

The data analysis shows that, while most housing is built to the minimum standard, the cooler temperate regions (Tasmania, ACT) have more houses above 7.0 stars compared with the warm temperate states.

NatHERS data spread by state. Author provided

The ACT increased average performance each year from 6.5 stars in 2016 to 6.9 stars in 2018. This was not seen in any other state or territory.

The ACT is the only region with mandatory disclosure of the energy rating on sale or lease of property. The market can thus value the relative energy efficiency of buildings. Providing this otherwise invisible information may have empowered consumers to demand slightly better performance.

We are paying for accepting a lower standard

The evidence suggests consumers are not acting rationally or making decisions to maximise their financial well-being. Rather, they just accept the minimum performance the building sector delivers.

Higher energy efficiency or even environmental sustainability in housing provides not only significant benefits to the individual but also to society. And these improvements can be delivered for little additional cost.

The fact that these improvements aren’t being made suggests there are significant barriers to the market operating efficiently. This is despite increasing awareness among consumers and in the housing industry about the rising cost of energy.

Eight years after the introduction of the six-star NatHERS minimum requirement for new housing in Australia, the results show the market is delivering four out of five houses that just meet this requirement. With only 1.5% designed to 7.5 stars or beyond, regulation rather than the economically optimal energy rating is clearly driving the energy performance of Australian homes.

Increasing the minimum performance standard is the most effective way to improve the energy outcomes.

The next opportunity for increasing the minimum energy requirement will be 2022. Australian housing standards were already about 2.0 NatHERS stars behind comparable developed countries in 2008. If mandatory energy ratings aren’t increased, Australia will fall further behind international best practice.

If we continue to create a legacy of homes with relatively poor energy performance, making the transition to a low-energy and low-carbon economy is likely to get progressively more challenging and expensive. Recent research has calculated that a delay in increasing minimum performance requirements from 2019 to 2022 will result in an estimated A$1.1 billion (to 2050) in avoidable household energy bills. That’s an extra 3 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

Our research confirms the policy proposition that minimum house energy regulations based on the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme are a powerful instrument for delivering better environmental and energy outcomes. While introducing minimum standards has significantly lifted the bottom end of the market, those standards should be reviewed regularly to ensure optimal economic and environmental outcomes.

Authors: Trivess Moore, Lecturer, RMIT University; Michael Ambrose, Research Team Leader, CSIRO; Stephen Berry, Research fellow, University of South Australia

Buck-passing on apartment building safety leaves residents at risk

From The Conversation. Hundreds of residents in a Sydney apartment complex, the 122-unit Mascot Towers, were evacuated last Sunday when cracks began to appear due to a serious structural failure. And it isn’t clear when the residents can return.

This crisis echoes the structural failure at Opal Tower and its evacuation on Christmas Eve last year. We have seen a series of serious building failures and fires in recent years. And state and federal governments have had more than year to act on recommendations for better construction regulations, but instead they’re shifting blame.

Although each building failure was different, the end result is the same: misery for the residents and a looming financial disaster for the owners.

New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian said:

We’re getting to the bottom of what happened. The NSW government will hold everybody to account, that’s our role.

But the government’s role is to regulate sufficiently to prevent building failures in the first place, not to hold people to account after the event.

Building regulations since the Great Fire of London

Prevention of construction failures has been the bedrock of building regulations ever since the Great Fire of London in 1666. In the aftermath, the English government realised there was not much use in raking through the ashes and trying to hold people to account, and that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure. This led to the parliament passing regulations to prevent the spread of fire between buildings.

Governments all around the developed world took the lesson of the Great Fire to heart. Their common goal has been to proactively ensure buildings are constructed properly and are safe as a result.

This has been a pretty successful effort and most significant building failures since 1666 have contributed to a more comprehensive and effective regulatory regime.

Serious building failures appear to be more frequent

Prior to the Opal Tower emergency, there had been only one significant evacuation of a multi-unit residential building in NSW due to structural failure. That was a result of the 2009 gas explosion at Eastgate Towers in Bondi Junction.

However, depending on which research you read, either 72% or 97% of strata apartments suffer from serious defects when they’re finished.

There have also been a series of other problems with recent buildings. These include lead in water caused by imported brass plumbing components, non-complying imported electrical cables and failures in the installation of fire doors, fire walls and fire door frames.

Why has this happened?

The states progressively introduced the Building Code of Australia (now the National Construction Code) during the 1990s as part of an agreed plan between the states and the federal government to make building regulations less prescriptive.

The aim was to reduce the cost of construction by favouring “innovation” over conservative “deemed to satisfy” regulations. Innovation, in these terms, meant finding ways to make buildings cheaper to build.

This move coincided with the globalisation of the building materials supply industry and a boom in the construction of tall apartment buildings in Australia.

Some of the innovation has been innocuous, or even beneficial, such as the introduction of a variety of lightweight interior wall systems, but some have resulted in substantial remediation bills – combustible cladding being the prime example. Inspection and responsibility for the plethora of imported components is virtually non-existent.

The downstream cost of failure has landed squarely in the laps of the building owners, many of them owners of tall apartments.

It’s difficult to estimate the total bill for remedial works to tall apartment buildings built over the last 25 years, but it may well exceed the Productivity Commission estimates of savings resulting from the introduction of the National Construction Code.

Blame shifting and ineffective regulations

The federal minister responsible for building regulations, Karen Andrews, says the states are to blame.

And some states, including NSW, have resorted to tough talk about crackdowns on “dodgy” certifiers and “dodgy” builders. In reality, the problem is dodgy government regulation, by both federal and state governments.

The federal and state governments already have an initial plan for fixing these problems. The Shergold-Weir report was delivered to the Building Ministers’ Forum in February 2018.

As the report said:

After having examined the matters put to us, we have concluded that the nature and extent [of building defects] are significant and concerning. The problems have led to diminishing public confidence that the building and construction industry can deliver compliant, safe buildings which will perform to the expected standards over the long term.

Since then, state and federal governments have done almost nothing to implement the recommendations of the report, despite the 2018 Christmas Eve failure at Opal and the fire at Neo200 in Melbourne the following February.

The report itself states:

The recommendations have been designed to form a holistic and structured framework to improve the compliance and enforcement systems of the [National Construction Code] across the country. They form a coherent package. They would best be implemented in their entirety.

In NSW, the published response to Shergold-Weir is a patchwork focusing on holding people to account after a building construction event. This is the reverse of the proactive approach developed following the Great Fire of London.

The NSW government is set to appoint a building commissioner to oversee qualifications and to review building documentation.

But this will likely not achieve much, unless the government commits to upskilling workers throughout the industry and backs up desktop audits by increasing direct inspections on site. Neither of these things appears to be part of its plan.

All governments must take an active role in fixing the defective regulatory regime they have created. If they can’t get on with this process in a timely way, we will need yet another royal commission to sort it out.

The least Premier Berejiklian can do is to treat the Mascot Towers and Opal events in the same way the government treats natural disasters and provide housing assistance to residents who have been displaced through no fault of their own.

Author: Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, UNSW

15.2% Fall In New Homes Being Built

HIA released its quarterly economic and industry outlook report today.

They plea for weaker lending standards to revitalise the residential construction sector. In other words let the debt bomb get ever bigger!

The State and National Outlook Reports include updated forecasts for new home building and renovations activity for Australia and each of the eight states and territories.

Preliminary data suggests that the housing market has adjusted from a strong annualised rate of home building of around 220,000 homes per year this time last year, to around 183,000 at the start of 2019

“The low number of building approvals in the first three months of 2019 are of concern. With this poor quarter of results, the number of new homes being built has fallen by 15.2 per cent this year and a further decline in activity through this calendar year of around 11.0 per cent is expected,” stated HIA’s Chief Economist, Tim Reardon.

“We had anticipated that this correction to new home building would take two years, not six months.

“Market confidence fell away in the later part of 2018 as dwelling prices corrected, adversely impacting all segments of the market. Investors and owner occupiers are delaying purchase decisions and foreign investment has also fallen dramatically due to a range of government restrictions.

“At the start of 2019 the most encouraging news for the building industry was that a strong national economy would be sufficient to pull the home building industry through this downturn. These hopes fell away as GDP slowed.

“The RBA has repeatedly stated that it is looking for a deterioration in the labour market before it moves to lower interest rates further. There is a risk that if they wait for this trigger, it might be too late for the home building industry which will adjust employment levels for this lower level of activity.

“Unfortunately, a cut to interest rates in 2019 will not have the same positive impact on new home building as in previous cycles.

“Banks are assessing borrowing capacity against a minimum floor of a 7.25 per cent mortgage rate and for ‘Interest Only’ loans to be assessed on a Principal and Interest basis for the term of the loan. An easing of APRA’s lending restrictions would have a more significant impact on home building and the broader economy, than a further cut to interest rates alone.

“Regardless of the timing of a cut to interest rates or the repeal of regulatory restrictions in the housing market, the impact of a slowing economy and the ongoing impact of the credit squeeze will continue to force new home building lower.

“As a consequence, there is a need to downgrade our expectations of the speed of the current downturn in the housing market further,” concluded Mr Reardon.

Turn And Turn About – The Property Imperative Weekly 04 May 2019

The latest edition of our weekly finance and property news digest with a distinctively Australian flavour.

Note at 4:25 Nasdaq was 7,845.73 (not what I said in the recording).

Dwelling Approvals Fall 0.6% in March

The number of dwellings approved in Australia fell by 0.6 per cent in March 2019, in trend terms, according to data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today. This won’t help the GDP or construction employment.

“The overall decrease was driven by private sector houses, which declined 1.4 per cent in trend terms,” said Justin Lokhorst, Director of Construction Statistics at the ABS. “

However, private dwellings excluding houses rose by 0.8 per cent”.

Among the states and territories, total dwelling approvals fell in Victoria (3.5 per cent) and Queensland (1.4 per cent) in trend terms. Increases were recorded in the Australian Capital Territory (4.8 per cent), the Northern Territory (3.9 per cent), Western Australia (3.8 per cent), New South Wales (0.8 per cent) and South Australia (0.4 per cent). Tasmania was flat.

Approvals for private sector houses fell 1.4 per cent nationally in trend terms. Declines were recorded in the three largest states: New South Wales (3.4 per cent), Victoria (1.8 per cent) and Queensland (0.9 per cent), while increases were recorded in Western Australia (1.0 per cent) and South Australia (0.9 per cent).

In seasonally adjusted terms, total dwellings declined by 15.5 per cent in March, largely driven by falls in New South Wales (27.4 per cent) and Victoria (27.0 per cent). The decline was led by private dwellings excluding houses which fell 30.6 per cent, while private house approvals decreased 3.2 per cent.

The value of total building approved was flat in March, in trend terms. The value of residential building rose 0.4 per cent, while non-residential building fell 0.6 per cent.

HIA Says New Home Sales Show Signs of Stabilising

The HIA New Home Sales report for March shows that across the state’s New South Wales (4.8 per cent), South Australia (8.6 per cent) and Western Australia (2.3 per cent) all experienced an increase in new home sales compared to the previous month. Queensland experience a decrease of 4.7 per cent and Victoria was down by 2.9 per cent on the month of February.

The HIA New Home Sales report – a monthly survey of the largest volume home builders in the five largest states – provides an early indication of trends in the residential building industry.

“After falling by 8.5 per cent in 2018 new home sales appear to have stabilised in the first quarter of 2019,” stated Geordan Murray, HIA Senior Economist.

“Given the rapid decline in new home sales throughout 2018, this moderation in the fall in new home sales suggests that the credit squeeze is easing as the market adjusts to the new lending norms,” added Mr Murray.

“The credit squeeze impacted the market at a time when the natural housing cycle was already beginning to cool. Banks reduced the amount of money they were willing to lend and the time it took to get a loan approved blew out. The market is now showing signs of adjusting to the new levels of lending.

“Three of the five mainland states experienced a significant increase in new homes sales on the previous month, reversing some of the declines experienced in 2018.

“There is uncertainty surrounding the federal election, which typically subdues new home sales and approvals as investors and owner occupiers put decisions on hold until after the election. The election result will rectify this uncertainty but the potential for higher taxes on housing means a post-election rebound in sales may not eventuate,” concluded Mr Murray.