Thursday, 29 May 2025

Review of Daniel Susskind's Growth: A Reckoning

 An interesting and stimulating book on tradeoffs and moral questions

 




The causes and consequences of economic growth are two of the key topics in economics. The former was a focus of researchers in the twentieth century, while the latter has come into focus in the twenty-first. When growth took off during the industrial revolution, working conditions in the mines and factories were appalling, and it took many decades for them to improve, then many more decades for modern society with its science, health and education systems to develop. Those are the benefits of two centuries of economic growth. Now, however, Daniel Susskind points to the costs of growth, such as ‘widening economic inequalities, the degradation of the natural world, the hollowing out of local communities, the unleashing of technologies that we seem unable to control.’

 

Susskind calls this the ‘tension between the promise and price of growth’, and he warns that ‘for the first time in our history, the costs of growth threaten to overwhelm its gains.’ His book is not a detailed study of challenges of climate change, globalisation, inequality or artificial intelligence. Nor does it offer ‘definitive lists of policy interventions’ tailored to each challenge. Instead the ‘aim is different. To sweep these challenges together and look at them from a new vantage point…to deepen our understanding of the problems we face and why we have failed to tackle them until now.’

 

Susskind starts with three ‘simple but remarkable’ facts. The first is the fact that economic life was stagnant for millennia until the industrial revolution; the second is that growth began only 200 years ago; and the third is how economic growth has been sustained, unlike previous growth spurts that were limited and fizzled out. The first half of his book covers this history of growth, what he calls its ‘mysterious past.’

 

This is a familiar story. Living standards did not change from primitive humans to Neolithic hunter gatherers to medieval farmers, Economic growth was missing in Greek, Roman, Persian and Chinese empires. Historically, there was a Malthusian tradeoff between population growth and food supply, and the imperative was subsistence and survival. Susskind calls this 300,000 year period the great stagnation. 

 

Classical economists like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill did not write about growth. They were concerned with economic progress, but not economic growth because there was no measurement of economic growth until gross domestic product (GDP) was developed in the 1930s and 1940s as a measure of economic activity. In those days GDP was tangible, about adding up what was being made. Today, services and the intangible economy are important. Simon Kuznets, who was the first to measure GDP, didn’t think defence spending should be included, and what is in and is out of GDP raises interesting and important philosophical questions.

 

How did economic growth get going? The book has a deep analysis of why economic growth lifted sustainably in the industrial revolution rather than some other time in history, and why it occurred in England. Although the causes of the industrial revolution have been much debated between different schools of thought, and ‘economists have struggled to understand the process’, we now know enough understand what happened.

 

Susskind provides a very short history of the important ideas. The 1930s Harrod-Domar model attributed growth to increases in physical capital (plant, equipment, buildings and structures).  The 1950s Solow-Swan model of economic growth identified the role of technological progress and productivity (how efficiently capital and labour are used). Susskind then highlights the work of Paul Romer in the 1980s, who made the role of new ideas fundamental for economic growth, Joel Mokyr on the role of culture in the 1990s, and Daron Acemoglu and the role of institutions in the 2000s. 

 

The conceptual and political role of GDP is given a lengthy treatment. Firstly, because in the twentieth century increasing GDP was strongly correlated with ‘human flourishing’ and measures like mortality, health, education and employment. Second, because both economics and politics became dominated by the need to increase GDP, despite its limitations as an adequate or comprehensive measure of progress. Susskind argues that the post-war pursuit of growth and increasing GDP assumed that success would resolve other problems, avoiding associated moral questions and costs of growth. 

 

The second half of the book is on what he calls the growth dilemma: ‘on the one hand it is associated with many of our greatest triumphs and achievements. But on the other, it is also related to many of the greatest problems we confront today. The promise of growth pulls us …towards pursuing ever more of it. But its price pushes us away with a powerful force.’ Susskind calls this the ‘troubling present’, where people are no longer confident their living standards, and those of their children, will continue to improve. 

 

Technology is not on a pre-determined path. Britain’s role in the Industrial Revolution was also caused in part by the high cost of wages and the availability of cheap coal, known as induced technological change. Susskind emphasises the significance of directed technological change, or how governments can shape the path of technological development through policy choices. For example, the US university system has benefited from public funding for defence and space technologies, and the pandemic effects on technology adoption and behaviour shows how fast we can change. Markets on their own do not provide adequate price signals for the process of idea generation, and he suggests taxes and subsidies, laws and regulations, and social narratives and norms can be used, for example to promote technological progress that is more environmentally friendly and provide incentives for growth that is less reliant on fossil fuels.

 

Susskind believes confronting the growth dilemma is ‘one of the most important tasks that now faces humankind.’ Further, it is an ‘opportunity for moral revitalization, to create a renewed sense of collective purpose in society in pursuit of what really matters - not simply a more prosperous economy but the many other ends that people care about’ such as a fairer society, a healthier planet, good jobs and the quality of our politics. This is the ‘uncertain future’ of growth. 

 

One response is to ‘tinker’ with GDP and make it more representative, favoured by technocrats. This ‘misunderstands the nature of the challenge that we face: it is not a technical problem about mismeasurement but a moral one about what matters.’ He argues that markets will not always provide the right price signals, and will not embody all the things that society actually cares about. In particular, market pricing does not deal with externalities, such as the future impact of climate change.

 

The other response is to give up on growth, and slow down the economy through degrowth. Susskind argues this focuses on the price of growth while neglecting the promise of future benefits, and at a ‘time when growth is slowing around the world, this seems particularly misguided.’ Degrowth is not a solution to the growth dilemma, instead there is infinite potential for ideas. A weak version of degrowth is to accept that growth is only one of the goals society cares about, for example we might introduce a wealth tax even if it reduces economic growth.

 

Looking at what we might do, Susskind is sceptical on the effectiveness of conventional approaches like building more infrastructure, reforming planning and land-use, and more education. The important and most innovative sections of the book are on the solutions Susskind advocates, which are about dealing with the tradeoffs involved, such as between growth and the environment, or growth and inequality. He suggests three approaches: where possible, tradeoffs should be avoided; we should attempt to weaken tradeoffs using the tools of policy, regulation and incentives; and in some case tradeoffs must be accepted, where the choice is between less growth and ‘other important outcomes we care about’, which raises moral questions on what we should care about and how much we should value the future and future people. 

 

Susskind thinks most of these tradeoffs cannot be avoided, therefore we should confront them and the moral issues involved directly. On equity versus efficiency, he argues we are inside the frontier for the optimal point on this trade-off. On growth versus the environment, the decline in the cost of reducing or removing emissions has changed and still is changing the tradeoff. A difficult tradeoff is between globalisation and the damage done to left-behind places, and he argues for ‘dynamic competitive advantage’ where a country does what is best for it at any given time. He says ‘It falls to us to confront the tradeoffs presented by growth’s promise and its price,’ by managing them where possible but, if that is not possible, accepting the need to choose between objectives.

 

His answers to the growth dilemma can be frustratingly imprecise. For example, he says ‘we should care about the future far more’, and ‘we should care about other valuable ends far more.’  Exactly how we do this and what they are is not always clear. On how to pursue growth in the future, he believes the key is the creation and unleashing of ideas, through reform of the patent system, increasing R&D, and faster development of technology. He warns inequality risks losing the idea-generating potential of people without access to education or resources to create and take advantage of their ideas. 

 

Although some people ignore the trade-offs between growth and its costs, denying that they exist, there may be (or possibly will be) a point where policymakers need to accept that meeting climate and other social objectives requires slower growth. When it becomes necessary to choose among objectives, Susskind suggests leaving the choice ‘to the world of politics.’ He proposes more use of collective deliberation such as citizen assemblies (100 or more people) for major policy issues, and ‘mini-publics’ such as citizens juries and citizen panels (30 or more people) for ‘important, but less consequential questions such as the location of a new hospital.’ There are also consensus conferences and citizen dialogues that offer feedback. 

 

Susskind concludes with this shift from our current ‘representative’ democracy to this ‘deliberative’ democracy. ‘The leaders to whom we have delegated the growth dilemma … have failed to confront the tradeoffs that it presents us with. This is why we feel the tension between the promise and price of growth so acutely today.’ He is optimistic that people want to be more useful citizens and, if given the chance to participate, would resolve the tradeoffs the growth dilemma presents us with. 

 

This is a most interesting and stimulating book, particularly the last couple of sections on the tradeoffs and the moral questions. Whether or not one shares Susskind’s optimism about people as citizens and solutions to the growth dilemma, his view that the direction of growth is something we can control is important. His analogy is the difference between a train that runs in one direction on tracks and a sailing boat that can be steered by raising and lowering the sails and can go in any direction on the open sea. That is a message people and policymakers everywhere should heed.

 

 

Daniel Susskind, 2024. Growth: A Reckoning, Penguin Books. 

 

 

Saturday, 17 May 2025

Perspectives from 25 Years of Research

And Why Construction Has a Marketing Problem

I was interviewed by Site Steer for their new podcast series last week.






In this podcast episode we discuss the complexities of construction, the perception of innovation within the sector, and the role of AI in transforming the industry. Gerard highlights the barriers to innovation, the importance of effective labelling and marketing, and the challenges of data privacy and responsibility in AI applications. We also explore the changing landscape of expertise in construction, the need for better measurement of productivity, and the necessity for targeted policies to address the unique challenges faced by different sectors within the construction industry.

This conversation re-emphasized with us how construction has a marketing problem, for example in downplaying it's achievements as an innovation driver, it's attractiveness as an attractive career path, or as Gerard puts it in the perpetuation of the 'false myth' of the productivity curve staying flat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeKWZQrhyXQ&t=2s 


Saturday, 3 May 2025

Negative Gearing and Housing Supply

  How significant for housing supply are loans to investors for new construction?

 

 


 

Negative gearing is a tax policy that allows property investors to offset losses from rental properties against taxable income. Its effect on housing supply and affordability is controversial, with some arguing negative gearing encourages investment in rental properties and increases housing supply, while others argue most of that investment goes into existing properties, so negative gearing increases demand for rental properties and drives up prices, making it more expensive for first-home buyers. However, the effect of negatively geared investor loans on housing supply is not as clear as the effect on house prices. There is nothing in negative gearing to specifically act as an incentive for construction of new homes, but that does not mean it does not increase the supply of housing.  

 

The Australian Taxation Office definition of negative gearing is: ‘A rental property is negatively geared if it is purchased with borrowed funds and the net rental income, after deducting expenses, is less than the interest on the loan.’ With a negatively geared property the taxpayer makes a loss, but that loss is tax-deductible against other income, including ordinary wages and salaries, and thus other taxpayers help the property investor meet the costs. investors know rental returns are less than operating and interest costs but they expect property values will increase so losses will be more than covered by capital gains when the property is sold. The higher the income of the taxpayer the more favourable this type of gearing becomes. 

 

Two examples of arguments for increased supply are reports for the Property Council in 2014 and 2019. The 2014 report  by ACIL Allen claimed around a third of all loans for new dwelling construction were to investors and it was a myth that negative gearing does nothing to support housing supply. The later 2019 report by Deloitte Access Economics found limiting negative gearing to new housing and reducing the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount from 50% to 25% would lead to a decline in prices for new property of 3.6% by 2030 that ‘in turn results in a decline in dwelling commencements which is estimated to be 4.1% below baseline in 2030. The decline in commencements each year reduces the stock of dwellings over time … The stock of dwellings is estimated to be 0.4% lower by 2030.’ 

 

This post addresses the question of the significance of negative gearing for supply of new housing. It starts by looking at the data available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on lending to investors, then compares the data on loans to investors for new construction to the building approvals data, and finally the Australian Tax Office data on deductions for rental properties is considered.  

 

Lending For Dwellings

 

Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Lending Finance data shows over half of the value of new lending is to investors, and ABS census data shows nearly a third of existing properties are owned by investors. How significant for supply of new housing are loans to investors for new construction?

 

Although a lot of lending for dwellings goes to owner occupiers in Australia, since 2019 the share of lending to investors for dwellings has been increasing. This went from 29% to 38% for the number of dwellings and from 39% to 60% for the value, in Figure 1. While these are the headline numbers often used when discussing negative gearing, they are not relevant to the supply of new housing because the great majority of this lending to investors is for established housing, not new construction. 

 

Figure1.  Investor share of total lending for dwellings

 
Source: ABS 5601.

 

Between 2019 and 2024 the shares of lending to investors changed, as the proportion of investor loans for new construction increased from around 11% to 14.5% of the number of dwellings and from about 10% to 14% of the value, while lending for newly built dwellings more than halved over the period, from around 11% to under 5%. As a result, their combined share for new dwellings of total investor lending has fallen from 22% to 19%, which is not insignificant. As Figure 2 shows, over the last two years the growth of lending for existing dwellings has been much faster than lending for new construction. 

 

Figure 2. Lending to investors for dwellings

 
Source: ABS 5601. These ABS data series begin in September 2019.

 

For housing supply the investor loan share for construction new dwellings of total lending is the important point, and that share is only 6% of the number and 8% of the value, in Figure 3. That share is very low because so much more lending goes into existing properties. However, although this suggests investor loans play a marginal role in the supply of new housing, and not all investors are negatively geared, this is not the whole story.

 

Figure 3. Lending to investors for construction of new dwellings

 
Source: ABS 5601. These ABS data series begin in September 2019.

 

Building Approvals 

 

Comparing the number and value of investor loans for new construction of dwellings to building approvals shows the role of investors in housing supply has become more important over the last few years. In 2019 the shares of investor loans for new construction were 8% of the number of private sector building approvals for dwellings and 10% of the value, but in 2024 they had increased to 16% and 21% of the number and value respectively, in Figures 4 and 5. These are more significant shares than those in the lending data. 

 

Figure 4. Investor loans for new construction and number of building approvals

 

Source: ABS 8731 and 5601.

 

The increase in the investor share of building approvals is a combination of a decline in approvals since 2021, which can be attributed to the 30-40% increase in costs since then, and the increase in investor loans noted above. The increase in the share of the value of both investor loans for new construction and the share of building approvals suggest this is funding for houses rather than apartments or medium density development. 

 

Figure 5. Investor loans for new construction and value of building approvals

 

Source: ABS 8731 and 5601.

 

 

The 16% investor share of the number of dwellings approved is significant. There are, however, two caveats to this. The first is that not all approvals become commencements, although most do eventually get started. The second is that not all investor loans are negatively geared. 

 

Australian Tax Office Data

 

The most recent ATO statistics are for the 2021-2022 financial year because of the time taken to submit and process returns, so there is no data for the last two years. The share of investors who are negatively geared rises and falls with changes in interest rates. During the financial crisis in 2008 when the cash rate was 7.25% the share of negatively geared rental properties was over 69%.  As Figure 6 shows, in the years before before 2019-20 total net rental income was negative, but as the cash rate fell to 0.1% in 2020 total deductions also decreased and the share of negatively geared rental properties fell below 50%. Table 1 has the same data going back a few more years to 2014-15.

 

Figure 6. Total rental income and deductions

 Source: ATO Taxation Statistics Individuals

 

 

Table 1. Total rental income and deductions, $ billion

Source: ATO Taxation Statistics 

 

In the ATO data going back to 1999-2000 the majority of investors have been negatively geared, and since 2002 it has been between 60% and 70%. As Figure 7 shows around 60% of rental properties were negatively geared in the six years before 2019-20. Because interest rates were at record lows in 2020-21 and 2021-22 the number of negatively geared properties fell to 47% and 42%. With the increase in the cash rate after 2022 to 4.35% in 2024 the share of negatively geared properties should be trending upward to the long-run level of over 60%.

 

Figure 7. Number of rental properties by rental outcome

 

Source: ATO Taxation Statistics 

 

What is not in the data from either the ATO or the ABS is the share of negatively geared investor loans for new construction, the question this post is addressing. The assumption can be made that the share is the same 60 to 70% for new builds as for negatively geared existing properties, but there is no way of knowing if that is the case. In all likelihood it is less, possibly much less, because investing in a new build would be seen by the typical negatively geared investor, who has one property, as more risky than an existing dwelling. The ATO data has 70% of investors with one property. 

 

Of the investor loan share of 16% of the number of building approvals, if around a third are negatively geared then the 16% becomes 5 or 6% of building approvals, if it were half then 8% of the number of approvals would be negatively geared. Even at the high range assumption of two thirds of investor loans for new construction being negatively geared, that is barely more than 10% of approvals.

 

Conclusion

 

Negative gearing is a tax incentive that allows investors to deduct rental property losses from other income. Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Lending Finance figures show about 85% of investment in rental properties is for purchase of existing properties, not building new ones. Because it increases demand for rental properties, this drives up prices for existing properties, making it more expensive for first-home buyers. However, the effect of negatively geared investor loans on housing supply is not as clear as the effect on house prices. There is nothing in negative gearing to specifically act as an incentive for construction of new homes, but that does not mean it does not increase the supply of housing.  

 

Between 2019 and 2024 the share of lending going to investors for dwellings went from 29% to 38% for the number of dwellings and from 39% to 60% for the value, The great majority of this lending is for established housing, not new construction. The proportion of investor loans for new construction increased from around 11% to 14.5% of the number of dwellings and from about 10% to 14% of the value, while lending for newly built dwellings fell from 11% to under 5%. For housing supply, the investor loan share for construction new dwellings of total lending is only 6% of the number and 8% of the value. The higher share of the value of investor loans for new construction and suggests this is funding for houses rather than apartments.

 

The role of investors in housing supply has become more important. In 2019 investor loans for new construction were 8% of the number of private sector building approvals for dwellings and 10% of the value, but by 2024 had increased to 16% and 21% of the number and value respectively. That 16% share of the number of dwellings approved is significant, but not all approvals become commencements, although most do eventually get started, and not all investor loans are negatively geared. This rise in the investor share of building approvals is due to the combination of a decline in approvals since 2021 and the increase in investor loans. 

 

Australian Tax Office data going back to 1999-2000 shows the majority of rental properties have been negatively geared, with between 60% and 70% negatively geared before 2019-20. Because interest rates were reduced to 0.1% in 2020-21 and 2021-22, negatively geared investors fell to 42% of properties. With the increase in interest rates after 2022 the share should be trending back toward the long-run level of 60% or more. 

 

The data from the ATO and the ABS does not give the share of negatively geared investor loans for new construction, the question this post addresses. An assumption has to be made. Is the share the same 60 to 70% for new builds as for existing properties? Probably less, possibly much less, because investing in a new build would be seen by the typical negatively geared investor, who has one property, as more risky than an existing dwelling. Of the investor loan share of 16% of the number of building approvals, if around a third are negatively geared then the 16% becomes 5 to 6% of building approvals, if it were half then 8% or at two thirds slightly over 10% of the number of approvals would be negatively geared. 

 

At between 5 and 10% of building approvals for new dwellings, negatively geared investor loans do not play an important role in the supply of new dwellings, and they are more likely to be for houses than apartments. To increase supply better targeted policies are needed and would be more effective. 

 

Sunday, 20 April 2025

Recent Developments in MMC in Australia

  Increasing industry capacity and funding

 



Over the last few months there has been significant progress in advancing the use of modern methods of construction (MMC) in Australia. MMC ranges from products and kit-of-parts to prefabricated components to modular and volumetric buildings. This post looks at these developments and assesses the current use of MMC in Australia.

 

The post has three sections. The first is on the Commonwealth Government and national developments, covering the Australian Building Codes Board’s Prefabricated, Modular and Offsite Construction Handbook, the March budget and National Productivity Fund, the, the National Construction Industry Forum’s draft Blueprint for the Future, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s MMC financing initiative.

 

Ther have also been developments around the states. NSW has a MMC Taskforce, in Queensland there was a change of government however no changes to the MMC policy have been announced. Western Australia is building industry capacity, and there have been deliveries of social housing in South Australia, Tasmania and Victorie.

 

Commonwealth Government and National Developments

 

ABCB Prefabricated, Modular and Offsite Construction Handbook

 

The Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) is the agency responsible for the National Construction Code (NCC), and the WaterMark (plumbing) and CodeMark (product) Certification Schemes. The Handbook does not introduce any new standards, but ‘has been developed to increase the understanding and effectiveness of existing building standards and regulations’ and to answer ‘questions about determining evidence to support compliance and common NCC compliance risk areas.’

 

The Handbook published in December 2024 is not ‘a document that sets out specific compliance advice for developing solutions to comply with the requirements in the NCC.’ The emphasis is on Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS) compliance when applying the NCC to residential buildings and shows: 

1. How to determine the evidence required to demonstrate NCC compliance and fitness for purpose through documentation. 

2. How to avoid common NCC compliance risks that affect MMC and other products. 

 

The Handbook notes some products only require relatively simple evidence to demonstrate compliance. However, ‘complex products, including volumetric forms of construction may be subject to multiple NCC requirements and require extensive documentation to demonstrate compliance.’ Key points are 

·      Buildings using MMC, including prefabricated and modular buildings, are regulated in the same manner (except for plumbing products) as other construction products.

·      There are 3 compliance pathways: DTS Solution, Performance Solution, or a combination of the two.

·      The Handbook includes a 4-step approach to assist determining the evidence to demonstrate fitness for purpose and NCC compliance.

·      Fitness for purpose is supported by evidence of suitability and construction/installation in an appropriate manner.

 

The Handbook does not address state and territory legislation covering planning, building and plumbing approvals, licensing, and mandatory inspections, and does not cover ‘the end-to-end process of the use of MMC … nor does it provide a how-to-construct or how-to-install manual for the thousands of products and MMC in use.’

 

Given the extent of what the Handbook does not include, how much of a contribution does it make to promoting MMC? First, it establishes the requirement to comply with current standards using the compliance pathways available, and the explanation of how to establish fitness for purpose is useful. Second, by discussing specific forms of MMC like precast, SIPs, wall panels, floor and roof systems and light gauge steel the Handbook is an important first step in determining evidence on compliance with the construction code. 

 

March 2025 Commonwealth Budget

 

In the pre-election March budget the Albanese Government allocated $54 million to MMC, with $49.3 million to help states and territories develop programs to support MMC, and $4.7 million towards the  voluntary certification process announced in November 2024. There are no details on what exactly this funding will cover, who will do it and  how certification will be done, what might be in the MMC programs and whether they will be coordinated across the states is unknown, and approaches using volumetric, modular and kit-of-parts are not explained. 

 

The budget allocation adds to funding in the $900 million National Productivity Fund announced in November by the Treasurer, which included an unspecified amount for removing barriers to MMC and improving development approval processes. 

 

The Commonwealth also currently has two working groups, One is on MMC as part of a National Construction Strategy. The second is a Federal Treasury Workshop on Removing Barriers to MMC Finance. Ther are no reports from those groups available. 

 

NCIF Blueprint for the Future of Construction

 

In March the National Construction Industry Forum released their draft Blueprint for the Future: A building and construction industry that works for everyone. The Forum is an advisory body under the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace relations with 16 members from industry associations and unions and three ministers. 

 

‘The Blueprint sets a path to address challenges and build a stronger construction industry. The NCIF identified eight themes, with associated challenges that included insights like contracts are unfair, procurement focuses on price, there are skills gaps, and under Financial Viability ‘Limited investment in innovation e.g. modern methods of construction, digitisation.’ This is the sole mention of MMC in a document called Blueprint for the Future. The following section on Opportunities includes contracts, security of payment, phoenixing and insolvencies, but not MMC. 

 

Figure 1. NCIF themes

 

Source: NCIF Blueprint

 

The Blueprint is the latest in the long sequence of worthy, wordy, and optimistic documents that clearly explain the issues and problems, identify potential responses and remedies, and promote collaboration and cooperative tripartite solutions. How many of the 45 Opportunities it suggests exist will be realised is an open question, but the history of these proposals is not encouraging. For example, security of payment and the apprenticeship system have been reviewed and recommendations made but little has changed, phoenixing has not been addressed by ASIC for decades, proactive enforcement of regulations requires resources, and there have been numerous industry charters and codes of conduct. There is no commitment to any specific action by the members of the NCIF, and not recognising MMC (if done well) as a major element in future construction is a glaring oversight. The NCIF future looks very much like the present.  

 

Commonwealth Bank MMC Financing

 

In January the Commonwealth Bank of Australia became the first bank to endorse MMC and provide financing, when CommBank announced a partnership with prefabAUS, and became the organisation’s first bank member. The bank agreed to sponsor the development of a standard form contract for MMC to simplify and speed up the process of financing a prefab home. 

 

Limited to fixed price contracts for offsite work up to $1.5 million, CommBank offers construction financing while a prefab home is being built offsite, for the lowest of 120% of the land value or up to 60% of the contract price, or 150% and up to 80% from a manufacturer accredited by the bank. After final completion the home is inspected and the rest of the construction finance is released. 

 

In October National Australia Bank announced $6 billion in funding for affordable and specialist housing by 2029, with modular construction playing a key role. 

 

ABCB Building Product Registration Scheme Proposal 

 

In September the ABCB opened public consultation for a month on a proposed risk-based Building Product Registration Scheme, aimed at addressing product conformity and traceability issues. Minimum standardised information for all building products would be required, with traceability through labelling and a national product register, compulsory registration of high-risk products, and voluntary registration for other products. It will take years for the scheme to be implemented.  At the Offsite 2024 conference Gary Rake, the CEO of the ABCB, included the slide below. 

 

Figure 2. Building Product Registration Scheme

 

Source: G. Rake Offsite 2024

 

On building products, in January 2025 the European Union’s Construction Products Regulation replaced the 2011 framework. This introduced Digital Product Passports (DPPs) to provide performance metrics, and compliance with sustainability and safety standards. For modular construction, DPPs presents significant opportunities because they enable tracking of prefabricated components through their lifecycle. 

 

 

Around the States 

 

New South Wales

 

In March 2025 the NSW government released its industry policy, covering housing, net zero and the energy transition, and local manufacturing, The policy links modular construction to increasing housing supply and affordability. 

 

In August 2024 the Building Commission NSW released a position paper for consultation on Regulation of Prefabricated Buildings for a new building bill that would include MMC. The paper redefined prefabricated buildings as ‘building work’ not ‘building products’, and showed the stages in the delivery of a prefabricated building (Figure 1A), highlighted the role of the certifier and proposed consumer protections (Figure 1B). The draft of a new building bill has not yet been released. 

 

Figure 3A. MMC stages

 

 

Figure 3B. MMC certification and consumer protection

 

Source: NSW MMC Position Paper

 

 

In the 2023-24 budget the Minns government committed $10 million for modular social housing trials. In July 2024 four sites in Port Macquarie and three in Wollongong were announced. 

 

The Modern Methods of Construction Taskforce was established in November 2023 to investigate the ‘use and potential for off-site manufacturing in NSW Government housing projects.’ The Taskforce has met twice, with the last meeting in June 2024. Meeting notes are on the website. 

 

In May 2024 the Homes NSW MMC Procurement list was opened for suppliers who provide off site manufacturing and prefabricated products. In March 2025 there were 28 suppliers on the list.  

 

The Homes NSW MMC Program commenced in May 2024 as a partnership with the Building 4.0 Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) focused on developing strategies and methods to utilise MMC to deliver quality social housing faster.The Program aims to define products and components for design and construction of medium density homes (4-6 storey buildings) using a standardised kit-of-parts manufactured offsite (i.e. bathroom, kitchens, balconies).

 

NSW Department of Education 2024 Pattern Book set out standardised, repeatable designs for schools and preschools, and promotes modular and prefabricated construction for 3 storey new schools. Other school buildings including halls, COLAs, pre-schools, single and double storey buildings will be added to the 2025 Pattern Book.

 

 

Queensland

 

There was a change of government in October 2024 when the Crisafulli LNP replaced the Miles Labor government. So far there have been no changes to the MMC programs of Homes for Queenslanders or QBuild announced. 

 

The Homes for Queenslanders policy aims to deliver 53,500 new social homes by 2046, The Miles Government June 2024 budget included $2.8 billion for up to 600 modular homes in 2024-25, with the goal of social housing production of 2,000 homes by 2027-28. There are 11 industry partners: Ausco, Fleetwood, Hutchies Modular, Modscape, Blok Modular, Eco Cottages, James Engineering, ModnPods, Saltair Modular, Volo Modular, and WestBuilt.

 

In February two modular homes were delivered to Thallon in South West Queensland, as part of the Quickstarts Queensland initiative, built by Oly Homes. By October 2024 Fleetwood had delivered 40 of 60 homes contracted. In September a Cairns project commenced for 490 homes built by Modscape and FCC Construction, funded by ANZ, Housing Australia and the Commonwealth and State Governments. 

 

QBuild has three Rapid Accommodation and Apprentice Centres for MMC, in Brisbane at Eagle Farm and Zillmere, and Cairns. Qbuild has standardised floor plans for four house types: studio; 1 bedroom; 2 bedroom; and 3 bedroom.  

 

Victoria

 

In December 2024 the Federal and Victorian governments announced joint funding for a $50 million Future of Housing Construction Centre of Excellence (FHC CoE) at Melbourne Polytechnic’s Heidelberg campus, the first training facility in Australia focused on MMC, expected to start in a temporary location in mid 2025.

 

In September 2024 the Victorian Prefabricated Construction Directory was published, with profiles of 24 firms using MMC in Victoria. All were manufacturers, eight firms coved all five capabilities of architecture, assembly, engineering, manufacturing and project management. 

 

Western Australia

 

Before the March election the Cook Government said If re-elected it will commit $50 million to boost modular and prefabricated housing. The Housing Innovation Program will provide competitive grants of up to $3 million for WA-based businesses involved in modular or prefabricated housing. 

 

In addition to grants, the government will allocate $20 million in low-interest loans to help businesses adopt new technologies and expand their operations. Opportunities identified include automation in steel frame and concrete slab manufacturing, enhanced wall and ceiling construction processes, and expanded capacity for window, door, and cabinetry production. There is already an $80 million allocation for transportable classrooms by 2026. 

 

In February 2025,16 modular tiny homes for Geraldton were commissioned from Summit Modular for delivery in mid-2025. In January three new modular homes in Manjimup were delivered by Fleetwood. 

 

In October 2024 eight two-bedroom modular social homes in were completed, built by Murray River North and Modularis. In September the Federal and WA Governments provided $6.3 million for 12 social modular homes built by Dale Alcock Homes in Perth.  In August Sheraton College opened a modular two storey building from Ausco Modular. 

 

South Australia

 

In March Renewal SA’s Office for Regional Housing began a pilot program of six homes, expected to be completed by September 2025, constructed using SipForm structural insulated panels (SIPs), a prefabricated building system manufactured in Perth. 

 

Tasmania

 

In February six new modular units were installed in Burnie, built offsite by Podmatrix. The government has a target of ‘more than 200’ modular homes over the next four years.

 

The Chandler Critique

 

David Chandler became the inaugural NSW Building Commissioner in 2019 after the Mascot Towers building failure highlighted the extent of building defects and non-compliance with the NCC. He was responsible for implementing the NSW construction reform strategy, establishing the Building Commission with 400 inspectors, introduced the iCIRT ratings scheme for developers and contractors, and decennial liability insurance for apartment buildings. By the time he stepped down in 2024, his focus on consumers and compliance had begun restoring public confidence in new housing.

 

Soon after finishing as Building Commissioner, he gave a presentation on MMC at the Offsite 2024 Conference. His concern was that ‘An unregulated MMC market could introduce a new cohort of modular building defects.’ Chandler has supported MMC for many years, for example he was involved in setting up the Centre for Smart Modern Construction at the University of Western Sydney in 2017. However, in his presentation he argued there are unresolved issues with MMC, such as integration of components, fire and water management, training and qualifications of workers, compliance of offshore suppliers and quality of components. He emphasised the lack of performance measures and data on MMC. The slide below is from the presentation with a list of issues that he believes need to be addressed.

 

Figure 4. Chandler MMC issues

 

Source: D. Chandler Offsite 2024

 

Since then he has frequently posted on LinkedIn about his concerns with MMC and its focus on producers rather than consumers. A lightly edited version of his post in response to the announcement of the CommBank financing of MMC is below:

 

‘Funding for prefab leaves many questions unanswered. Bringing Prefab Housing into the mainstream construction domain has been the quest of many for nearly 2 decades in Australia. Despite government endorsement, research grants, policy announcements and uptake by social housing organisations, there is still no clear regulatory or legal framework for this procurement method. 

 

The first question deals with what building contracts are proposed to be covered by the prefab off-site payment arrangement? Who are the parties to these transactions. Will the home purchaser be required to authorise these payments? Will the home purchaser be protected by a Home Building Insurance Scheme if the builder of record has engaged or has been given permission by the home purchaser to procure between 60 to 80 percent of the build cost by way of prefab. Will the builder of record (which may include a licensed prefabricator) be satisfied that the on-site components of the work are adequately provided for? How might unforeseen variations be dealt with, especially with high LVR loans. 

 

What criteria will CBA deploy to distinguish an accredited v unaccredited player? Will off-shore prefabricators be included in the mix? What happens if the prefab provider goes broke before the house is completed? There could be the discovery of building non-compliances post the occupancy of substantially prefab buildings. There could be a mixture where both on-site and off-site inputs give rise to a serious defect. What then? 

 

There is a need for a full disclosure about all these issues, not just in the lender's interests, but more importantly for the borrowers. I am a proponent of modernising Australia's construction industry including the embrace of MMC. This evolution must start out as customer facing, or it runs the risk of undermining years of good work … unless consumers, compliance and public confidence become the centrepiece of these conversations, they are bound to end in tears.’

 

In a September 2024 interview Chandler argued for single-point accountability, ensuring one entity is responsible for the entire project, from design and manufacturing to onsite assembly, to create clear lines of responsibility and reduce the chaos caused by fragmented accountability.

 

Conclusion

 

In April 2025, what progress has been made in the promotion of MMC in Australia over the last year or so? One positive development was the Commonwealth Bank agreeing to provide mortgage finance for prefabricated houses. Another was the ABCB Prefabricated, Modular and Offsite Construction Handbook on determining evidence on MMC compliance with the construction code, a first step in the long process to arrive at a set of standards for MMC and a product compliance regime with digital product passports in Australia. There was also an unspecified amount for removing barriers to MMC and improving development approval processes in the National Productivity Fund announced in November.

 

Funding of $160 million for industry development is promised from governments. There is $50 million on offer from both the Albanese Commonwealth Government (if re-elected in May) and from the recently re-elected Cook Government in Western Australia, and $10 million from the Minns Government in NSW for social housing trials. The Federal and Victorian governments are funding a $50 million Future of Housing Construction Centre of Excellence in Melbourne. 

 

In Queensland QBuild has three MMC centres operating and the Homes for Queenslanders program is still running, which will deliver possibly hundreds of prefabricated houses this year. Western Australia is building capacity and has delivered several projects over the last year. NSW, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria have small scale prefabricated social housing programs. There continues to be demand for institutional buildings like schools and hospitals, particularly for regional and remote locations. All this adds up to steady if not spectacular production of MMC buildings for the public sector. However, the number and value of private sector deliveries of prefabricated buildings is unknown, as is the extent of prefabrication 

 

NSW established a MMC Taskforce and in mid-2024 released a position paper for consultation on Regulation of Prefabricated Buildings for a new building bill that would include MMC. The paper redefined prefabricated buildings as ‘building work’ not ‘building products.’ The 2024 Homes NSW MMC Program is a partnership with the Building 4.0 Cooperative Research Centre on developing strategies and methods to utilise MMC to deliver social housing. The 2025 industry policy linked modular construction to increasing housing supply and affordability.

 

Therefore, on the one hand, there is currently substantial funding on offer for industry development from the Commonwealth and three state governments, and there continues to be institutional buildings and prefabricated social housing in regional areas delivered. On the other hand, when and what that funding will actually be used for is still unclear, and prefabrication is still reliant on public sector clients. There are also many unresolved issues with MMC, such as certification and product compliance, the regulatory and legal framework (which is what the funding seems to be directed at), the lack of standards and slow progress on updating the National Construction Code.