Contemporary politics,local and international current affairs, science, music and extracts from the Queensland Newspaper "THE WORKER" documenting the proud history of the Labour Movement.
MAHATMA GANDHI ~ Truth never damages a cause that is just.
Profit margins in the real estate sector are at record highs and
Australia’s richest individuals are increasingly listing property as
their sole source of wealth, new analysis shows.
The analysis also suggests state governments are reaping increasingly
large windfalls from stamp duty, and not matching them with social
housing investment.
The Greens senator Lee Rhiannon, who commissioned the analysis from
the parliamentary library, said it showed a small, powerful group was
making huge profits from the property market, while the disadvantaged
experienced rising homelessness and housing stress.
“It’s going to become an issue that’s not just impacting on working
class people, disadvantaged people, but increasingly hitting
middle-class families, while the wealthy, the super wealthy, are doing
very well,” Rhiannon said.
The analysis looked at 10 years worth of BRW Rich List entries, finding those who listed “property” as their only source of wealth has almost doubled.
Of the 200 richest Australians, those listing property alone as their
source of wealth increased from 28 in 2007 to 47 in 2017. The
parliamentary library warned it could not distinguish between earnings
from residential, as opposed to commercial, property. The analysis, using Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, also showed profit margins for real estate services and property operators had hit levels not seen since before the global financial crisis, reaching 57.6% in 2015-16, compared with 35% in 2009-2010.
Before-tax profits in the sector have increased every year since 2008-09, reaching $59.26bn in 2015-16.
The analysis also considered the revenue to state governments – focusing on the New South Wales government – from the housing market.
It found NSW revenue from land transfer-related taxes, such as stamp duty, had increased by almost $1bn every year since 2012-13.
In 2015-16, the state government earned $6.45bn in 207,463 separate land transfer-related transactions, the analysis said.
The parliamentary library attempted to estimate the amount of capital investment in social housing over a decade, but cautioned that obtaining complete and comparable figures was difficult. It said the total capital investment in NSW social housing in 2015-16 was about $542m, although that included federal funds.
“Its capital expenditure has been generally increasing in recent years, with the notable exception of the 2009–10 and 2010–11 financial years,” the analysis said.
A spokesman for the state’s social housing minister, Pru Goward, said NSW was embarking on the “biggest social housing building program in the country”.
That included an investment of $1.1bn in 2017-18 for support to homeless and social housing tenants, and a $22bn program to deliver 23,000 social and 500 affordable homes in the next 10 years.
“We are building more housing in mixed communities where social housing blends with private and affordable housing, close to shopping, transport and community facilities,” he said.
“This includes more social housing in mixed communities in areas like Macquarie Park, Waterloo, Riverwood, Arncliffe, Telopea and Redfern.”
The state government also used a social and affordable housing fund to commit to another 3,400 social and affordable homes across the state over the next four years.
But Rhiannon said a fundamentally different approach was needed to housing.
Instead of seeing housing as a commodity, governments needed to begin seeing it as a right for all.
“We’re not talking about the end of private housing market,” she said. “We’re talking about governments doing their job and resurrecting their housing policy so it addresses people’s needs.”
Homelessness in Australia continues to rise, despite national targets for its reduction.
The number of homeless Australians rose from 90,000 in 2006 to more than 105,000 in 2011, a 17.3% increase, despite a target reduction of 7%.
More than 1m lower income households are paying housing costs above 30% of their household income, the most commonly-used benchmark for affordability, according to the Australian Council of Social Service.
Last year, before the budget, Acoss and National Shelter urged the government to begin long-term housing affordability reforms, including setting new social housing targets, establishing a UK-style bond aggregator, boosting commonwealth rent assistance and giving funding certainty to homelessness services.
The government in response committed to working with state and territories to set housing supply targets under a new housing and homelessness agreement, while establishing a $1bn infrastructure facility to encourage “development in critical areas of undersupply”, and increasing the release of commonwealth land.
The ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, says a generation of Australian workers is at risk of not experiencing basic employment rights such as annual leave.
The union boss is pushing to rewrite the Fair Work Act that unions and Labor put in place less than a decade ago. And this time McManus wants unions to win the battle for public opinion, not just for the next election cycle.
“Insecure work and low wage growth,
both have crept up on us and actually have happened in such a short
period of time; it is really one generation where we have gone from
someone [being able to] finish school or university and have a good
chance of having a good steady job. You may have changed jobs, but at
least you get leave and all the rights everyone fought for,” McManus
told Guardian Australia.
Advertisement
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
“Over the last 20 to 25 years, that has changed and now young people, they don’t know what annual leave is like, that has happened.
“We didn’t have a problem with low wage growth 10 years ago.
Companies would get more productive and wages would go up. And now that
is not happening.
“And all the economists are all scratching their heads and going ‘Why
is this so, maybe workers should just ask for a pay rise’ but workers
do just ask for pay rises and they don’t get them.
“And when they try and get them, they don’t have the tools, because
they have been taken off them. We have not acknowledged that the policy
settings aren’t right, and you have to change those to enable people in
the day to day sense get a share of the wealth which is being created in
this country.”
McManus said while the Fair Work Act, put in place in 2009 in an
effort to remedy the Howard-era Work Choices changes, was of its time,
the situation had changed after the global financial crisis.
“It had new ideas in there, a whole idea about low-paid bargaining and [we thought] maybe this would work,” she said.
“Maybe the Fair Work Act might have worked if we didn’t have the GFC and this huge inequality problem and power imbalance.” The “Change the Rules” campaign
recently launched by the ACTU aims to address low wage growth and the
growing issue of insecure work in Australia. The union movement has also
said it will target vulnerable Coalition seats as it seeks to rewrite
industrial relations protections in Australia.
McManus said while the Turnbull government remained the main focus,
given it was in power, all political parties would be facing pressure to
commit to better protections, including allowing unions to bargain with
governments to set minimum working conditions.
The Fair Work Commission “used to be able to be an independent umpire” who could intervene successfully in cases such as the current dispute between workers and management on Sydney train workers.
“But now, workers don’t have the right to strike, and they don’t have
the right to get arbitration. All of these things are working together
to mean we have low wage growth.
“To change the laws, it is not just an election, it is also the
Senate. So, we will be out there arguing with all the political
parties.”
McManus said the move was about shifting the power balance towards a
more equal footing between workers and their employers, something she
said had been heavily bent towards multinationals and big businesses
since the global financial crisis.
“What needs to happen is governments need to update our laws
recognising that one side has got more powerful, because of outside
reasons, and you have to have then labour laws to make sure that working
people have strong enough rights and enough freedoms to make sure that
people get pay increases again. You have to update them,” she said.
A labour market expert says Labor may be foreshadowing a boost to the
minimum wage worth up to $80 a week for low-paid workers, as part of
Bill Shorten’s pitch on wages growth in his first major political speech
of 2018.
Tim Lyons, who ran the minimum wage case for the Australian Council
of Trade Unions for seven years, seized on Shorten’s comments at the
National Press Club on Tuesday calling for a “real living wage” and
noting that the minimum wage has been going “backwards relative to
median wages for years”.
He said the Shorten speech signalled a “much more aggressive approach
to raising the minimum wage from a future Labor government”.
Lyons said Labor could be looking to change the rules on how the Fair
Work Commission sets the minimum wage and to make a submission asking
for an increase in line with union demands for the minimum to keep pace
with the median wage.
“To the extent that Labor is now using the analysis that we ran with
United Voice to get to a 60% minimum wage target or benchmark ... it’s a
very important development,” Lyons said.
With federal parliament set to resume next week, the opposition leader has attempted to lay out Labor’s agenda for 2018,
focusing on cost of living pressures and responding to voter
disaffection about politics by promising a national integrity
commission.
Shorten also signalled Labor was contemplating a pledge to stop the
controversial Adani mine project and left open the prospect that an
incoming Labor government would scrap the private health insurance
rebate – picking a fight with the politically powerful sector.
Shorten’s pledge on the national integrity commission has won
plaudits from two former judges who have lobbied for a federal
anti-corruption watchdog and are now pressing Malcolm Turnbull to adopt it as bipartisan policy.
The chairman of Transparency International, Anthony Whealy, and Margaret McMurdo said that Labor’s policy was in line with the principles developed by a committee of judges and legal experts.
These included that the commission would be independent, have
a broad jurisdiction and powers of a standing royal commission with one
commissioner and two deputies, appointed on a bipartisan basis by
parliament for one five-year term.
Shorten said on Tuesday the commission would cover the judiciary,
commonwealth public service businesses and people who transact with the
commonwealth and the governor-general.
“We’re hoping it becomes a bipartisan issue – that would be very good
news for the community – not an election issue with one side proposing
it and one resisting it,” Whealy said.
While Shorten’s comments on the integrity commission provided a clear
model, some other elements of the speech lacked concrete detail.
Labor has identified wages stagnation as a problem it wants to
address and contrasts its position with the Turnbull government’s
repeated hints that it will offer workers a tax cut as a means of
boosting the household balance sheet. Shorten on Tuesday did not specify
how to he would adjust wages except noting the ALP would “have a look
not just at the minimum wage but what is the living wage”.
“The current framework simply doesn’t give adequate consideration to
contemporary cost of living pressures that working people are battling,”
he said.
Adelaide University professor Andrew Stewart said it was unimaginable
that Labor would take away FWC’s power to set minimum wages but there
were “options within the politically feasible spectrum” including using
commonwealth submissions to persuade it or changing the Fair Work Act to
“direct or induce” it to give a higher pay rise.
While business will be nervous about repeated signals Labor has sent
over the past 12 months about strengthening labour market regulation as
part of its federal election offering, the Australian Industry Group
chief executive, Innes Willox, gave a low-key response to Tuesday’s
signal from the Labor leader.
Willox said the FWC independently sets the minimum wage and “takes into account a range of evidence”.
“In its latest decision the commission awarded an increase above CPI and above other wage outcomes,” he said.
In June FWC increased the minimum wage by $22 a week, or 3.3%. The ACTU has signalled it will call for a much larger increase – a living wage – because the current minimum of $36,000 a year would not pay for basic goods and services.
Shorten also issued a warning to private health insurers that
“business as usual is not cutting it” and did not rule out changes to
public subsidies.
The health minister, Greg Hunt, responded on Tuesday by warning that
amounted to “a plan to dismantle private health insurance” and drive up
the cost for pensioners, families and young people.
Hunt said the $6.4bn subsidy was means-tested and aimed at people who
would otherwise be unable to afford private health insurance, meaning a
cut could drive up wait times in public hospitals.
The chief executive of the insurer nib, Mark Fitzgibbon, said the
sector shared Shorten’s goals of affordability, effectiveness and
fairness.
He said the sector had “done reasonably well in recent years in
keeping a lid on premium inflation” and was “all ears” if Shorten had
ideas to further improve.
Bill Shorten
is facing rising internal pressure to make the environment central to
Labor’s election pitch after 250 ALP branches passed a motion calling
for strong new national laws and an independent agency akin to a
“Reserve Bank for environmental management”.
Branches from every state and territory have backed a campaign by the
Labor environment action network (Lean), an internal advocacy group,
for sweeping reforms to protect natural heritage to be adopted as policy
at this year’s ALP conference.
They want a new Australian environment act that defines matters of
national significance and – after a period in which both major parties
have tried to shed responsibility for environmental approvals to the
states – asserts the commonwealth’s central role in protecting not just
threatened species, but the entire landscape.
It would be backed by a “science-fuelled and politically empowered”
agency with the authority of the Reserve Bank and watchdog powers to
police the law.
Advertisement
Felicity
Wade, Lean’s national convener, said protecting the environment was a
legacy issue for Labor. This dates back to Gough Whitlam’s introduction
of Australia’s first federal environment laws and Bob Hawke’s protection
of iconic sites and early work factoring sustainability into government
decisions.
“It’s time for Bill Shorten to recognise the environment has been
central to modern Labor’s success and to work with us to make this
happen,” she said.
She said the need to act was clear. “Australia’s identity is
incredibly tied to this amazing landscape, yet things are crashing at an
alarming rate,” she said. “We are one of the top 10 land-clearers in
the world and we have one of the highest extinction rates in the world,
yet we are one of the richest countries in the world.”
The Lean campaign was devised at a meeting of members in
Canberra in August. It has precedent: in 2015, the group won the backing
of 370 branches for a successful motion calling on the party to adopt a
50% renewable energy goal and an emissions reduction target for 2030 based on the advice of the federal Climate Change Authority.
Labor’s environment spokesman, Tony Burke, who served as minister in
the portfolio from 2010 to 2013 under Julia Gillard, said the new motion
would be a matter for national conference.
“There are some good principles in the Lean resolution, but we have a
long consultation process before we reach conclusions,” he said.
The Lean push is running simultaneously with a campaign by about 40 environment groups under the banner of the Places You Love Alliance.
The green groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation,
the Wilderness Society, WWF Australia and Birdlife Australia, want new
national environment laws, an independent Sustainable Australia
Commission to develop a national plan to protect national heritage, and a
national Environment Protection Authority responsible for assessments,
inquiries, monitoring and compliance.
Both campaigns want the new laws to supersede the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, introduced by the Howard
Coalition government in 1999.
Our wide brown land: 'We've hit rock bottom' – video
In a policy document last August, the Places You Love Alliance says
the act has failed to address the big environmental challenges of the 21st century.
“It was written at a time when many of the pervasive threats to our
environment were less well understood, including the threat of climate
change. It provides too much discretion to make poor decisions and does
not deal well with cumulative impacts of development,” it says.
Wilderness Society’s national campaigns director, Lyndon Schneiders,
said it would be a positive campaign. “We know 2018-19 is the
once-in-a-generation chance to set up serious national environment
laws,” he said.
Several environment and political campaigners told Guardian Australia
they believed it was harder to win environment protection decisions
than at any point since before the recognition of landmarks including
Kakadu, the Daintree rainforest and the Franklin river under Hawke in
the 1980s.
The environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, disagreed. He said the act
had ensured Australia was a global leader in delivering on
international environmental obligations, including world heritage
protection.
“The act continues to be the best mechanism through which the federal
government protects the most important and sensitive environmental
matters,” he said.
“Australians have cause to be optimistic about the future of environmental protection.”
Burke said he had updated the act when he was environment minister by
establishing a water trigger and amendments to stop a super trawler in
Australian waters: “I’m engaging in consultation about the next stages
of updating this act.”
We’re thrilled by the response to the launch of our series Our wide brown land
and grateful for the funding and support. We will continue to
investigate and publish weekly stories on Australia’s neglected
environmental issues over the next three months or more. If you would
like to send us an idea, email us at widebrownland@theguardian.com and if you would like to help to fund our series, click here.
The heavens are lining up and a stunning blood red moon will grace our sky tonight during a special total lunar eclipse.
If you're anywhere in Australia, you'll have a ringside seat — weather permitting — to the first total lunar eclipse since 2015.
Those in the west will get the most mind-bending view if the sky is clear.
Supermoon or superbuzz?
This lunar eclipse occurs more than a day after the Moon
has come closest to Earth in this orbit. That just makes it a
'supermoon' — the third in three months — based on a loose definition
first coined by an astrologist.
But it's hard to spot the difference between a supermoon, even at its closest, and a regular full moon, said Dr Hill.
"There's a tiny difference, but it's not something we can see or relate to in the night sky.
"The 'supermoon' is just a bit of a superbuzz," she said. Find out more in our Beginner's Guide to the Moon.
For much of Australia, the eclipse also just happens to fall on the second full moon of the calendar month — otherwise known as a "blue moon".
You
may have read that this event is first time a "blue, blood moon" has
happened in 150 years. While it's a relatively rare combination, some
parts of the world (including Australia) were lucky enough to see a
total lunar eclipse on a blue moon just over 35 years ago.
A total lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth's shadow moves across the Moon, blocking out the light from the Sun.
The
first of two total lunar eclipses this year will be visible right
across Australia, Asia, the west coast of North America and the Pacific.
And it will be a beauty, says astronomer Tanya Hill of the Melbourne Planetarium.
"This one is going almost right into the centre of the Earth's shadow, so it will be lovely and long," Dr Hill says.
Shadow across the Moon
Everyone across Australia will
see the Earth's shadow glide across the Moon at exactly the same time
over three hours starting from about 10:48pm (AEDT) (see timezone
conversions below).
"Slowly you'll see that shadow move across the
Moon until it completely engulfs it. That's when we have the beautiful
colour of totality forming," Dr Hill explains.
"After an hour or
so the Moon will start to emerge and you'll start to see the moon
brightening up as it completely drifts away from the Earth's shadow."
And you don't need special equipment to see it.
"If
you do have a telescope or binoculars you do get to see a better or
closer view, but it's certainly not required to watch that shadow
cross," Dr Hill says.
Astronomer Brad Tucker of the Australian
National University says the red appearance is caused by the light
filtering and bending properties of our atmosphere.
"That red appearance is really the sunrise and the sunset of the Earth falling on the Moon," he says.
When to watch the eclipse
Everyone in Australia will see the full eclipse, but people living in eastern states will get a different view to the west.
Partial eclipse begins
Total eclipse begins
Maximum eclipse
Total eclipse ends
Partial eclipse ends
Adelaide
10:18 PM
11:22 PM
Midnight
12:38 AM (Feb 1)
1:41 AM (Feb 1)
Brisbane
9:48 PM
10:52 PM
11:30 PM
12:08 PM (Feb 1)
1:11 AM (Feb 1)
Canberra
10:48 PM
11:52 PM
12:30 AM (Feb 1)
1:08 AM (Feb 1)
2:11 AM (Feb 1)
Darwin
9:18 PM
10:22 PM
11:00 PM
11:38 PM
12:41 AM (Feb 1)
Hobart
10:48 PM
11:52 PM
12:30 AM (Feb 1)
1:08 AM (Feb 1)
2:11 AM (Feb 1)
Melbourne
10:48 PM
11:52 PM
12:30 AM (Feb 1)
1:08 AM (Feb 1)
2:11 AM (Feb 1)
Perth
7:48 PM
8:52 PM
9:30 PM
10:08 PM
11:11 PM
Sydney
10:48 PM
11:52 PM
12:30 AM (Feb 1)
1:08 AM (Feb 1)
2:11 AM (Feb 1)
Note: Full moon occurs at 12:26 AM AEDT Feb 1 (and equivalent time zones).
While the eastern states will see the full eclipse high in the
sky, those on the west coast will see the eclipse start just after the
sun sets and the moon rises.
"They'll have a really fantastic view of this strangely large moon as it wanders into Earth's shadow," Dr Hill says.
This extra big moon is not because it's a "supermoon"; it's an optical illusion that makes things on the horizon look bigger.
A simple way West Australians can test this is to hold your
thumb next to the Moon at the beginning of the eclipse, then put your
thumb against the Moon when it is higher in the sky.
"You'll see that it hasn't changed size at all," he says.
How rare is rare?
You may have read that a "blue, blood moon" is a "once-in-a-lifetime" event. That's true only if you live in North America.
The last time people living in North America saw a total lunar eclipse on a blue moon was on March 31, 1866. This eclipse was not a "supermoon". Nor was it visible from Australia.
"Everybody
who is on the night side of the Earth will see the lunar eclipse,
anyone who is on the day side won't because the sun is in the sky and
not the full moon," Dr Hill explains.
However, total lunar eclipses during blue moons occurred over Australia on December 30, 1982 and December 30, 1963.
But, thanks to time zone differences, these were not blue moons in
North America. Both these eclipses would have been "supermoons".
Even this lunar eclipse doesn't happen on a blue moon for everyone in Australia.
The
full moon happens at a precise time — 1:26PM UTC January 31— everywhere
around the world at the equivalent time. This means the full moon will
fall on January 31 in most Australian time zones, but it will be 12:26
AM February 1 in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the Australian
Capital Territory.
First of two total lunar eclipses this year
If you
miss this, eclipse don't despair. We will get another chance to see a
total lunar eclipse in the early hours of July 28, 2018.
People living in the eastern states will see the eclipse slip below the horizon during totality just before sunrise.
"It will look lovely and big low down on the horizon as it sets," Dr Hill says.
"Whereas
across in Perth or the rest of the country will actually get to see
most of the eclipse playing out and the moon will be just re-emerging
from the Earth's shadow as the moon sets."
There will be another
total lunar eclipse on January 19, 2019. But this one won't be visible
from Australia so you'll need to travel to North or South America to get
the best view of that one.
"It'll be daytime for us when it is playing out on the other side of the globe," Dr Hill says.
Lunar eclipses are also paired with solar eclipses.
"You always get a solar and a lunar eclipse happening within a couple of weeks of each other," he says.
There will be a partial solar eclipse over Tasmania, southern Victoria and South Australia on July 13.
Renters and landlords don't always see eye-to-eye and disputes can get ugly.
If
you do take your landlord to a court or tribunal, or end up being
called yourself, here are some ways to put your best foot forward.
The ABC spoke to two tenants who won their cases.
Landlord tried to claim $1,700
Melanie
Burge drew the line after her landlord took her to the tribunal at the
end of her lease in Melbourne's inner-north in 2016.
The landlord
tried to claim the $1,700 bond, including $220 for steam-cleaning and
unspecified amounts for cleaning, painting, gardening and a missing old
wine barrel.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found
only $50 worth could be proved, with Ms Burge securing the remainder of
the bond.
What was your reaction when you found out you were being taken to the tribunal?
"I
felt incredibly angry and disbelieving. I felt, 'Pinch me, are you
serious, you're actually taking us to VCAT [Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal]?'" she said.
"We paid the rent on time every month. We were conscientious in letting the landlord know of issues.
"I
wasn't in position to sacrifice any part of my bond but I think a
stronger factor was, 'I can't let you get away with it, this is
ridiculous!'"
What did you do to prepare yourself for the hearing?
"Not
having had any experience of VCAT myself, I put a message on Facebook
saying, 'Melbourne friends, have any of you had anything to do with
VCAT?'" she said.
"People told me all kinds of stories, and the stories were quite eye-opening and they actually gave me a bit of confidence.
"They
led me to believe that if I was organised and presentable and
articulate and could stand up in a VCAT hearing room and tell my side of
the story then I would be fine.
"I printed off copies of the
various emails and notes that I'd made of correspondence between myself
and the landlord over those three years and just focused on being ready
to put my side of the story in a respectful and articulate way."
How did you feel after the ruling?
"I felt a lot of relief and vindication; however, I still felt quite angry," she said.
"The
cumulative effect of living in a rental property for three years where
you're never confident that a breakdown or something that you need to be
fixed quickly is going to be attended to, is that you don't feel very
confident or relaxed in your own home.
How to prepare for rental disputes:
Don't get emotional Stick to the facts.
"Keep calm, rational and objective," says Allan Anforth, a tribunal member in the ACT and former member in NSW.
"A
tenant who's angry or full of conspiracy theories and says nasty things
to everybody including the tribunal members is really unhelpful."
Prepare your evidence "If
you have the piece of paper to prove what you're saying is what
happened, that's what you need," says Leo Patterson Ross from Tenants
NSW.
When you first move into a place, keep a record of all correspondence between you and the agent or landlord.
Emails, texts and letters can be provided as evidence.
Bring a witness such as a housemate.
Read a statement if you're nervous On hearing day, you'll probably have to speak before a tribunal member or magistrate and may be asked questions.
Write down your story and be clear and honest about what happened and how you want the dispute to be resolved.
Try resolving a dispute outside a tribunal Depending on the disagreement, there are ways to resolve things before going to a tribunal.
Speak to your landlord or agent first or seek advice from tenancy advocacy services.
Some state consumer bodies have dispute resolution services.
"While I felt relieved and vindicated I still felt
stressed. It's like, 'That's the end of that, thank God,' but it's going
to take me a little while to unclench.
"The feeling that came to
me later was a kind of secondary feeling of anger on behalf of tenants
who maybe aren't English-fluent.
"They might be precariously
employed in shift work, it might be very hard for them to take half a
day off work to trek out to a VCAT hearing.
"The idea that these tenants can be exploited in such a shoddy way made me really sad and angry."
Was it worth it?
"I don't think there was any question I would have [defended myself]. It was absolutely worth it," she said.
So, you're a happy renter now?
"I
am such a happy renter [now]. In fact, after the Coburg experience I
feel like my ship has come in. I'm renting with a different agent. The
real estate agent is responsive, he's friendly, he's courteous," she
said.
"I feel he respects my time and more importantly my right to enjoy my home that I'm renting."
Do you have any thoughts on how to have a good relationship with your landlord?
"People have such widely-diverging experiences between really supportive and positive, to absolutely direly negative," she said.
"If you are in the market for a rental property, keep your eyes open, take advice.
"Be
mindful of your own responsibilities as a tenant, it's not a one-way
street. If you're signing a lease you're undertaking a responsibility to
maintain someone else's property.
"But
be aware of your own rights and don't be cowed or intimidated or
ignored into feeling like your rights as a tenant don't matter."
Carla Garetti's time living at a Blue
Mountains granny flat turned sour at the end of her lease in 2017, when
the landlord alleged she had damaged some bathroom tiles.
The tiles were chipped and the landlord claimed it would cost $1,485 to repair the bathroom.
Carla
ended up fighting the landlord in the NSW Civil and Administrative
Tribunal, winning back her bond of $1,200 plus interest.
With help
from the tenants' union, she gave the tribunal the original condition
report which noted the damage and statutory declarations backing her
evidence.
Were the tiles already damaged before you moved in?
"I noticed the tiles in the bathroom were chipped and so I did claim it on the ingoing report," Ms Garetti said.
"Nothing was mentioned in the nine months of renting from the landlord or the real estate agent.
"It's not my nature to [fight]. I don't like conflict so it was really difficult for me to stand up for myself.
"I decided to stay strong and fight for what I know was right because I didn't damage any part of the property."
How were you feeling during the hearing?
"English
is not my first language, so being in that circumstance was quite
confronting, especially because the setting doesn't allow proper
communication. The judge sits far away and it's not easy to hear what
the judge is saying," she said.
"The judge was very firm on
finding common ground and asked several times for me and the real estate
agent to [negotiate]. I was intimidated by this; however, I understand
that that's the judge's role to push for negotiation.
"I was quite nervous, but I kept repeating to myself that there was nothing to worry about.
"I decided that I wanted to stand up for myself and not come down to compromises because I would have lost money for no reason."
What's your advice to other renters?
"Have faith in yourself and have faith in the law. The law is there to defend what is right," she said.
"Be
very careful. Take a lot of pictures of whatever you see around the
property. That's what I said to myself for the next tenancy."
Having rented a number of places and rented out my own house, i can see
both sides of the coin here. I always look after a place i'm renting
like it was my own and have still found it a nightmare to get the bond
back or have things fixed.
On the other hand, i've
had nothing but awful tenants who seem to break things in ways i just
find unbelievable. I've gotten my place looking nice again after the
damage that was caused plus done a bit extra so i feel happy with the
place. i'm considering going overseas again for a while and i'm
extremely reluctant to get a tenant in due to the previous experiences.
From the perspective of a landlord who always maintains the property
and agrees to any reasonable request (generally demands) from tenants
(air con installation, security screens, painting etc), I have had some
tenants who did a lot of damage and seemed not to be able to be held
accountable:
1. One lot of tenants cost more that the gross years
rental income by trashing the bathroom and kitchen prior to vacating the
property. The real estate agent and the Landlords Insurance were
useless.
2. Another tenant cost thousands and thousands of
dollars worth of costs as they kept putting sanitary products down the
toilet and blocking it, all the while denying that they were causing the
issue.
Whilst there are no doublt many dodgy landlords out there, there are also poor estate agents and bad tenants.
Once
had my residential bond challenged for alleged damage to the common
area of a block of units. The Body Corporate wanted to withhold about
$1800 due to damage caused as we moved out of a middle floor unit -
paint chips on railings, scuffs on walls, etc.
The
letting agent attended an on-site "mediation" which went our way when
we showed the same marks were also on the level ABOVE our flat. The
Body Corp representatives huffed and puffed but the agent threatened to
call in the police (completely idle threat, but it worked!). Rental
bonds are often seen as a contribution to the sinking fund, it seems...
@Michael06
As soon as you decide on a date to move out from rental accommodation
you should begin the process of claiming your bond from the Residential
Bonds Board (or interstate equivalent). This is YOUR money. It belongs
to you and his held in trust to cover any genuine costs incurred by the
landlord as a result of misbehaviour or negligence on the part of the
tenant. If you ask the agent or landlord for the bond, they will
invariably offer you less and justify this with some sort of bodgey
claim of damage to the property. But if you claim your bond directly
from the relevant authority, the onus is much more on the landlord to
substantiate any financial losses and prove negligence or misbehaviour
by the tenant. In most cases they don't even try because they KNOW that
they have no case and are just trying it on.
Remember, it is not
acceptable for a landlord to demand that a carpet be steam-cleaned, and
the same goes for any number of bogus claims made by landlords. It is
only damage over and above what would normally be classified as
"reasonable wear and tear" that they can claim for.
In the case of
a block of flats or units with common stairways, some damage from the
normal moving in/moving out activities of tenants would most likely be
considered to be "reasonable wear and tear" by a tribunal because it is
the sort of damage one would reasonably expect from the removal of a
household via a narrow staircase. It would only be in a case where
excessive damage had been caused by an act of malice or negligence from a
tenant, that the bond would become an issue.
I
rented for about 10 years when I started work. In those days most
rentals were through agents and owners were unlikely to be involved.
Some agents regarded the bond as their bonus but as it was usually 1
months rent it wasn't that big a problem.
I did rent a few years
back in Canberra and found it more intrusive with inspections etc but
took the trouble to fully document the conditions on arrival and
presented the agent with a copy. Got a compliment on the document and
had no problem with the bond but then again I was from Defence and they
are a major user of rental properties in Canberra.
I've
rented for 20 years and experienced many instances of poor form from agents and
once, from a landlord. Things like repairs not being undertaken in a timely
manner (or at all!), un-treated mould issues etc have been common.
The one time
I rented privately as a lone young woman, I had the much older male landlord at
my home almost every day doing "repairs". For example, I'd wake in
the AM to find him on a ladder immediately outside my open bedroom window
cleaning gutters. I served him with multiple breach notices on the advice of
the RTA and they spoke to him on the phone once about it, but it didn't cease.
In the end, I was given the "option" to put up with it or leave. I
had to do the latter, which was enormously disruptive and expensive at the time.
Another
time, my friend and I successfully took an agent to the tribunal. Upon moving
into a house in regional NSW, we discovered it had been trashed by the previous
tenants since we'd inspected it. The agent had let us sign the lease when we
picked up the keys in the morning, without mentioning the damage. Cupboard doors
were hanging off hinges, holes had been punched in walls, locks were broken,
sinks were blocked - the damage was very extensive. We took photos of everything and
immediately went back to the agent to demand the lease be terminated. They
refused so we told them we would apply to the tribunal. However, the date
of the hearing was set for six weeks away, meaning we had to live in and pay
rent for the house in the meantime. Once at the tribunal, the presiding judge
chatted to our agent about the game of golf they were set to play that weekend,
which was a bit disheartening to be honest. After looking at the photos we'd taken of the
house, though, he terminated our lease, telling the agent the house was uninhabitable
from the start. We got our bond back. However, when we argued that
we deserved our rent or at least part of it back too, he told us not to "push
your luck". If we'd been older we'd have pursued it but we were very young
and knew we'd have little chance of renting locally through an agent again as
it was.
The only
other time an agent claimed some of our bond, it was to remove a few
fallen
palm branches from the garden, which had well over 15 or so palm trees
in it.
We'd taken exceptional care of their property, including that garden in
the five years there - it was
in better condition when we left than when we moved in. Anyway, they
claimed
over $400 of our bond simply to remove a couple of palm branches, which
was very mean-spirited in our view. Unfortunately, we'd moved from that
house 2000km interstate and thus, wouldn't be able to appear at a
tribunal hearing
in order to challenge them, so we felt compelled to accept the claim.
I could go
on.
Have your say
Please read our house rules and terms of use.Having rented a number of places and rented out my own house, i can see both sides of the coin here. I always look after a place i'm renting like it was my own and have still found it a nightmare to get the bond back or have things fixed.
On the other hand, i've had nothing but awful tenants who seem to break things in ways i just find unbelievable. I've gotten my place looking nice again after the damage that was caused plus done a bit extra so i feel happy with the place. i'm considering going overseas again for a while and i'm extremely reluctant to get a tenant in due to the previous experiences.
From the perspective of a landlord who always maintains the property and agrees to any reasonable request (generally demands) from tenants (air con installation, security screens, painting etc), I have had some tenants who did a lot of damage and seemed not to be able to be held accountable:
1. One lot of tenants cost more that the gross years rental income by trashing the bathroom and kitchen prior to vacating the property. The real estate agent and the Landlords Insurance were useless.
2. Another tenant cost thousands and thousands of dollars worth of costs as they kept putting sanitary products down the toilet and blocking it, all the while denying that they were causing the issue.
Whilst there are no doublt many dodgy landlords out there, there are also poor estate agents and bad tenants.
Once had my residential bond challenged for alleged damage to the common area of a block of units. The Body Corporate wanted to withhold about $1800 due to damage caused as we moved out of a middle floor unit - paint chips on railings, scuffs on walls, etc.
The letting agent attended an on-site "mediation" which went our way when we showed the same marks were also on the level ABOVE our flat. The Body Corp representatives huffed and puffed but the agent threatened to call in the police (completely idle threat, but it worked!). Rental bonds are often seen as a contribution to the sinking fund, it seems...
@Michael06 As soon as you decide on a date to move out from rental accommodation you should begin the process of claiming your bond from the Residential Bonds Board (or interstate equivalent). This is YOUR money. It belongs to you and his held in trust to cover any genuine costs incurred by the landlord as a result of misbehaviour or negligence on the part of the tenant. If you ask the agent or landlord for the bond, they will invariably offer you less and justify this with some sort of bodgey claim of damage to the property. But if you claim your bond directly from the relevant authority, the onus is much more on the landlord to substantiate any financial losses and prove negligence or misbehaviour by the tenant. In most cases they don't even try because they KNOW that they have no case and are just trying it on.
Remember, it is not acceptable for a landlord to demand that a carpet be steam-cleaned, and the same goes for any number of bogus claims made by landlords. It is only damage over and above what would normally be classified as "reasonable wear and tear" that they can claim for.
In the case of a block of flats or units with common stairways, some damage from the normal moving in/moving out activities of tenants would most likely be considered to be "reasonable wear and tear" by a tribunal because it is the sort of damage one would reasonably expect from the removal of a household via a narrow staircase. It would only be in a case where excessive damage had been caused by an act of malice or negligence from a tenant, that the bond would become an issue.
I rented for about 10 years when I started work. In those days most rentals were through agents and owners were unlikely to be involved. Some agents regarded the bond as their bonus but as it was usually 1 months rent it wasn't that big a problem.
I did rent a few years back in Canberra and found it more intrusive with inspections etc but took the trouble to fully document the conditions on arrival and presented the agent with a copy. Got a compliment on the document and had no problem with the bond but then again I was from Defence and they are a major user of rental properties in Canberra.
I've rented for 20 years and experienced many instances of poor form from agents and once, from a landlord. Things like repairs not being undertaken in a timely manner (or at all!), un-treated mould issues etc have been common.
The one time I rented privately as a lone young woman, I had the much older male landlord at my home almost every day doing "repairs". For example, I'd wake in the AM to find him on a ladder immediately outside my open bedroom window cleaning gutters. I served him with multiple breach notices on the advice of the RTA and they spoke to him on the phone once about it, but it didn't cease. In the end, I was given the "option" to put up with it or leave. I had to do the latter, which was enormously disruptive and expensive at the time.
Another time, my friend and I successfully took an agent to the tribunal. Upon moving into a house in regional NSW, we discovered it had been trashed by the previous tenants since we'd inspected it. The agent had let us sign the lease when we picked up the keys in the morning, without mentioning the damage. Cupboard doors were hanging off hinges, holes had been punched in walls, locks were broken, sinks were blocked - the damage was very extensive. We took photos of everything and immediately went back to the agent to demand the lease be terminated. They refused so we told them we would apply to the tribunal. However, the date of the hearing was set for six weeks away, meaning we had to live in and pay rent for the house in the meantime. Once at the tribunal, the presiding judge chatted to our agent about the game of golf they were set to play that weekend, which was a bit disheartening to be honest. After looking at the photos we'd taken of the house, though, he terminated our lease, telling the agent the house was uninhabitable from the start. We got our bond back. However, when we argued that we deserved our rent or at least part of it back too, he told us not to "push your luck". If we'd been older we'd have pursued it but we were very young and knew we'd have little chance of renting locally through an agent again as it was.
The only other time an agent claimed some of our bond, it was to remove a few fallen palm branches from the garden, which had well over 15 or so palm trees in it. We'd taken exceptional care of their property, including that garden in the five years there - it was in better condition when we left than when we moved in. Anyway, they claimed over $400 of our bond simply to remove a couple of palm branches, which was very mean-spirited in our view. Unfortunately, we'd moved from that house 2000km interstate and thus, wouldn't be able to appear at a tribunal hearing in order to challenge them, so we felt compelled to accept the claim.
I could go on.