Election 2016: Greens desire national standards to protect renters from 'horror stories'


The Greens desire a new national body to protect the rights of renters and improve the standard of rental properties after a survey on the party's website revealed "thousands of horror stories".

The party said nearly half of the 3190 tenants who responded to its survey reported that they were paying 50 per cent of their income on rent.

More than two-thirds said they paid at least 30 per cent – the level considered "rental stress". Nearly 1000 tenants said they felt unsafe in their rented home.

The third force in Australian politics wants Canberra to takeover responsibility for rental standards from the states by introducing a national tenancy act.

The national body would enforce minimum standards for properties, make it harder to evict tenants with little notice, usher in the option of leases longer than 12 months, and investigate ways to make rent "more stable and fair" by considering restrictions on increases.

The Greens would help landlords get their properties up to scratch by offering $500 per property for upgrades to meet the new standard, at a cost to the budget of $1 billion over 10 years.

It comes as experts call for an overhaul of renters' rights – including long-term leases and a standard right to do minor alterations – to reflect that following the housing a growing percentage of the population will rent for life.

Greens housing spokesman Scott Ludlam said: "We have national standards that cover our health and education system, work safety – even plastic chairs have a standard. Our housing system should be no different."

Fairfax Media this month reported that the percentage of the population in private rental properties increased from 18 to 26 per cent over the past 20 years.

The Greens said the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the policy would cost $474 million over the next four years. They said it would be paid for by restricting negative gearing to existing investments and reducing exemptions to capital gains tax.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-greens-want-national-standards-to-protect-renters-from-horror-stories-20160617-gpm56r.html

Nice one Green.

However on this planet its usually the renters that rip off the landlords

Even MORE bureaucracy!

Just what we (don't) need!  ::)

____ wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

The party said nearly half of the 3190 tenants

____ wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

Fairfax Media this month reported that the percentage of the population in private rental properties increased from 18 to 26 per cent over the past 20 years.

Households in Australia  ~9m
26%of 9m - 2,340.000

And they only got 3190 to say they were unfairly treated?  About 0.14% of renters. You would think that if it was critical they would complain.

While it is deplorable it is not a national disgrace and doesn't need to be addressed nationally.

What a dope you are Green
What do you think the renters will do if you get rid of negative gearin?
I'll be able to rent them my chook shed for $200 a week. Fetch your own water out of the creek.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 9:58am:

Even MORE bureaucracy! Just what we (don't) need!  ::)

I reckon Land Tax is responsible for high rents, funny how the renters whinge about negative gearing yet never say anything about Land Tax which they pay for with rent.

Abolishing land tax would see rental prices decrease.

Cracking down on negative gearing will see rents increase as investors move out of property.

Settle down Baron,, the poor old greens can only handle one concept at a time.

I believe they are working on four legs good two legs bad at the moment.

(yes yes except for chickens I know)

I could be wrong on this, I frequently am, but wasn't Land Tax one of the state taxes that were supposed to go with the introduction of GST? Stamp Duty certainly was.
The trouble is they set the GST too low - it should have been 15% to begin with, even though I dislike it philosophically. If you don't set your rates high enough at the start it just becomes impossible to change them.

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 1:58pm:

I could be wrong on this, I frequently am, but wasn't Land Tax one of the state taxes that were supposed to go with the introduction of GST? Stamp Duty certainly was. The trouble is they set the GST too low - it should have been 15% to begin with, even though I dislike it philosophically. If you don't set your rates high enough at the start it just becomes impossible to change them.

Land Tax rates were increased in NSW in 1998.

The Real Estate Institute said it would increase rents.

miketrees wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 9:56am:

Nice one Green. However on this planet its usually the renters that rip off the landlords

If that's the case then why are there so many here with investment properties willing to lease them out to people who are going to rip them off ??

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 12:55pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 9:58am: Even MORE bureaucracy! Just what we (don't) need!  ::) I reckon Land Tax is responsible for high rents, funny how the renters whinge about negative gearing yet never say anything about Land Tax which they pay for with rent. Abolishing land tax would see rental prices decrease. Cracking down on negative gearing will see rents increase as investors move out of property.

And when the investors move out of those properties who do you think will own and live in them ? Aliens ? :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 2:41pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 12:55pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 9:58am: Even MORE bureaucracy! Just what we (don't) need!  ::) I reckon Land Tax is responsible for high rents, funny how the renters whinge about negative gearing yet never say anything about Land Tax which they pay for with rent. Abolishing land tax would see rental prices decrease. Cracking down on negative gearing will see rents increase as investors move out of property. And when the investors move out of those properties who do you think will own and live in them ? Aliens ? :D LOL

have you bought a house yet rustynail?

here are some in your price range-
google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tiny+houses+australia

it's landlords who need protection from renters, not the other way around. As it is the courts will almost ALWAYS side with the tenants. Even when the tenants are obviously in the wrong.

If that's the case then why are there so many here with investment properties willing to lease them out to people who are going to rip them off ??

The bad tenants ,,, after trashing houses and not paying usually end up in government housing where we all pay for them.

Wised up landlords put lots of protections in place before accepting a tenant.

This is also something that increases rents

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 2:33pm:

miketrees wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 9:56am: Nice one Green. However on this planet its usually the renters that rip off the landlords If that's the case then why are there so many here with investment properties willing to lease them out to people who are going to rip them off ??

you think tenants tell you when they apply that they're going to scam you? :D :D :D

Do you think they will get a lease without good references and a huge bond?

miketrees wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

Do you think they will get a lease without good references and a huge bond?

yes .. they often don't bother with references and the bond isn't as large as you seem to think it is. It's not difficult to use up all the bond .....  and that's if the legislation allows you to use it in the first place.

miketrees wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

Do you think they will get a lease without good references and a huge bond?

Of course they won't get a lease!

You'd have to be a total nong to rent your place to just anyone  ::)

And there's heaps of demand for rental properties here in Sydney. We landlords are spoiled for choice. We look for long term good tenants....so their rental history is paramount in assessing who gets picked.

Now...can somebody tell this clueless Last Nail Nong about the existence of LANDLORD INSURANCE COVER...and its benefits?

His continuous nonsense is giving me a bloody migraine :'(

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

miketrees wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 4:24pm: Do you think they will get a lease without good references and a huge bond? Of course they won't get a lease! You'd have to be a total nong to rent your place to just anyone  ::) And there's heaps of demand for rental properties here in Sydney. We landlords are spoiled for choice. We look for long term good tenants....so their rental history is paramount in assessing who gets picked. Now...can somebody tell this clueless Last Nail Nong about the existence of LANDLORD INSURANCE COVER...and its benefits? His continuous nonsense is giving me a bloody migraine :'(

Never mind.

Here's a quick cut n paste for those who don't know :

"NRMA Landlord Insurance provides cover for investment properties located in NSW, ACT and TAS, including rental income protection for peace of mind.

As well as safeguarding your property and contents against damage or loss, NRMA Landlord Insurance covers rent default and the associated legal costs, and loss of rent if the property is uninhabitable due to damage. So your rental income is protected, even if the unexpected happens.

What level of cover do I get for my money?

Rent default up to $5,000, plus associated legal costs up to $5,000

Loss of rent up to 12 months if your property is uninhabitable due to damage

Theft and attempted theft by tenants

Malicious damage or vandalism by tenants

Liability cover"

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

We landlords are spoiled for choice.

except that normally it's not the landlord making the choice, it's the property manager

John Smith wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 5:46pm: We landlords are spoiled for choice. except that normally it's not the landlord making the choice, it's the property manager

Oh God. What a nong!

;D

John Smith wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 5:46pm: We landlords are spoiled for choice. except that normally it's not the landlord making the choice, it's the property manager

Yeas, especially in the case of Lisa Jones given how many properties she/Hubby/kids/ankle biters own and how she is so exhausted running off her feet growing broadbeans, chokos, doing all that cooking, cleaning up, washing and drying and cooking and baby sitting (even of the Big Baby ~ Hubby) and looking after her dying Mum.   No way would she have time to deal with the tenancy issues for all those properties, no way.

John Smith wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 5:34pm:

miketrees wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 4:24pm: Do you think they will get a lease without good references and a huge bond? yes .. they often don't bother with references and the bond isn't as large as you seem to think it is. It's not difficult to use up all the bond .....  and that's if the legislation allows you to use it in the first place.

Christ Almighty....even more nongery!

;D

Aussie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 7:06pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 5:46pm: We landlords are spoiled for choice. except that normally it's not the landlord making the choice, it's the property manager Yeas, especially in the case of Lisa Jones given how many properties she/Hubby/kids/ankle biters own and how she is so exhausted running off her feet growing broadbeans, chokos, doing all that cooking, cleaning up, washing and drying and cooking and baby sitting (even of the Big Baby ~ Hubby) and looking after her dying Mum.   No way would she have time to deal with the tenancy issues for all those properties, no way.

^^^ typical renter  ;D