Life has been getting much tougher for renting pensioners

The number of rental listings suitable for age pensioners has dropped dramatically.

Renting retirees finding life harder

The number of rental listings suitable for age pensioners has dropped dramatically, according to the most recent rental affordability snapshot released by Anglicare Australia.

YourLifeChoices’ 2019 Insights Survey found that 13.2 per cent of the 6731 respondents rent their home, and figures from the Centre for Independent Studies suggest as many as 25 per cent of age pensioners don’t own their own home.

Anglicare Australia is calling on federal and state governments to invest in housing for people on the lowest incomes after its latest snapshot found that the percentage of rental listings that were affordable and appropriate for a couple on the Age Pension dropped from a high of 4.4 per cent last year to just 3.2 per cent this year.

Single pensioners have it even worse, with less than one per cent of listings deemed suitable for their needs and budget.

For the past 10 years the Anglicare Australia Network has been testing the affordability of the private rental market for people on low incomes.

This year’s snapshot surveyed over 69,000 rental listings across Australia over one sample weekend, and found a chronic shortage of affordable rentals across Australia.

According to Anglicare, for most people on a low income, rent needs to be no more than 30 per cent of a household budget in order to avoid financial stress and hardship. This is a nationally accepted benchmark from many years of study into the impact of the cost of living and how it affects people.

The snapshot was taken on 23 March this year and there were 69,485 properties listed for rent across Australia on that date.

Of those listed, 2223 were considered affordable and appropriate for a couple on the Age Pension (3.2 per cent), while only 552 (0.8 per cent) were considered affordable and appropriate for a single age pensioner.

Worst of all, only 317 (0.5 per cent) were affordable for a person on the Disability Support Pension.

Of the 660,000 people on the Age Pension who do not own their own home, 88,800 pay over 30 per cent of their income in rent, while 22,529 pay over 50 per cent of their income in rent.

Of people on the Age Pension receiving rent assistance, one in three were still in housing stress after getting the payment.

Anglicare Australia executive director Kasy Chambers said that the rental crisis is getting worse.

“There is a huge shortage of secure, affordable rentals. That’s causing record levels of rental stress and even homelessness,” Ms Chambers said.

“And now we’re seeing older Australians are getting stuck in expensive and insecure rentals – at a time in their life when they need stability more than ever.

“We know that many people on low incomes are avoiding becoming homeless by sacrificing other basic living needs to pay the rent – things like food, transport, heating or cooling, or visits to the doctor.”

Rental stress particularly affects older women and is reflected in their growing rates of homelessness.

Older single women are the fastest growing cohort of people experiencing housing stress and homelessness, and most of them have never been homeless before.

Between the 2011 and 2016 Censuses, there was a 31 per cent rise in homelessness among older women.

In the 10 years leading up to 2016 there was a 97 per cent increase in the number of older women forced to rent in the private market.

What do you think? Should the Government provide more social housing to fix this problem?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    mogo51
    1st May 2019
    9:51am
    It will only get worse. Affordable housis desperately needed.
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    11:59am
    Housing collapse required to bring the market down to sanity. In the short term investors will be hit, but hey - they've had their run.
    Paddington
    1st May 2019
    10:00am
    There should definitely be more affordable housing for single pensioners who are at risk of homelessness. Disabled support individuals should also be provided with safe and affordable accommodation. It sounds like it is becoming urgent for something to be done.
    Some creativity could possibly solve this issues. Unused, unoccupied or specific builds? At least putting it on the table to be discussed and something planned and asking the people it concerns what they need and what they would like. Everyone deserves to be happy and safe.
    Rae
    1st May 2019
    12:20pm
    I wonder about unviable motels. With Air B& B increasingly competing surely some motels would be a quick fix.
    Karl Marx
    1st May 2019
    12:32pm
    Rae, motels would only be a temporary solution as a small room with no facilities.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    2:14pm
    Single pensioners at risk of becoming homeless would do well to emulate young people and get into share housing with a couple of like minded souls, especially since pensioners get 50% more than those on Newstart. I recently met a couple of older blokes doing this and they were very content with their lot.
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    3:10pm
    Most retirees I know are loath to share their space with someone else.. a lifetime of co-habitation usually cures one of that.
    Sundays
    1st May 2019
    3:14pm
    There is a lack of Will by all Governments to change things. Once upon a time, public housing for low income earners was a priority. Now, it’s just bickering between the Commonwealth and the States
    Paddington
    1st May 2019
    4:21pm
    Maybe every new building must supply one special accommodation either for a single pensioner or a disabled person. Often their needs are similar, easy access, etc.
    cupoftea
    1st May 2019
    10:03am
    mogo51 the ALP has said it will build 250,000 affordable housing when they get in and don't forget they could be rented for 50+yrs so they easy repay for themselves
    Anonymous
    1st May 2019
    10:45am
    The policy to build 250,000 new affordable homes, cupoftea, is aimed at assisting people in buying a home to live in.Their policy on rental accommodation is to encourage new housing investment by reforming the tax treatment for Build to Rent. Rentals are being left to investors, not the government if Labor is elected.
    jackie
    1st May 2019
    11:10am
    cupoftea...There are more than 250,000 on public housing lists nationally. The Liberal NSW Government that just was reelected has sold off all theirs.

    The aim of all our Governments is to have rich Australian citizens that can be independent of all Government support. The poor can be cheap slave labour or die.

    This is AustralAsia now and our system will be based on how developing countries operate.
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    12:09pm
    All true....

    Austrochine, jackie - Austrochine - it's a book I'm working on....

    Tract social housing always seems to degenerate into scum slums, often due to the lack of genuine infrastructure to move people to (wait for it) JOBS... they therefore become waiting rooms for prison inmates...

    I've said before that the major centres are full - the only way is more and more vertical slums desecrating the skyline and older and once genteel suburbs, leading to the mass introduction of more and more into smaller and smaller areas, along with a consequent decline in the ability of infrastructure to cater. Vertical slums of the future.

    I've noticed parts of the Hunter region developing vast swathes of new housing - every time I drive past I ask - 'but where are the people coming from and where do they get jobs to pay the mortgage/rent?' Faceless boxes made of ticky-tacky ...scrunched into a tiny block with two feet on either side and room for a Hills hoist out back. Many of these are on the humps just above the 'Maitland flood line'.. meaning massive issues with sewerage etc... be a beauty when the next big flood hits town...

    Where are the jobs to sustain infrastructure needed to provide availability to jobs, and by extension provide infrastructure to provide for aging and disability?

    I think I need to go into politics... every four years I say that...
    Anonymous
    1st May 2019
    12:14pm
    Not quite right, jackie, the NSW government has been selling off public housing in The Rocks area where ineligible people have been using them. The proceeds have been used to build more public housing in different areas. The NSW government is increasing its public housing, not selling it off as you claim.

    This link is the policy of the NSW government: http://www.socialhousing.nsw.gov.au/?a=348442
    KSS
    1st May 2019
    12:38pm
    And local councils are blocking the building of 'affordable' housing in residential areas due to concerns raised by local residents who fear loss of amenity, overcrowding, inappropriate building size, parking and access as well as a good dose of NIMBYism. And a proportion of this affordable housing stock is meant to be set aside for certain professions such as nurses, teachers, police and emergency services personnel

    If Mr Shorten gets to implement his no negative gearing and CGT tax grabs on existing properties, many investors are likely to exit the market or not enter in the first place. Those that do stay and are limited to new builds only, will in effect be kicking their investment 2-3 years down the road as they wait for the property to be built. This will create another shortage of available rental property. Then add in the undeniable fact that new property generally costs more to buy than existing property which means the rents will be higher as the landlords move to cover the mortgage and most other costs. Investors exiting the market (or even simply maintaining the current level) will do nothing for pensioners or any other low income renter. And by the time the new builds are available for rent, it will be time for the next election. Then what?
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    3:15pm
    Trouble is that the areas with available space are generally infrastructure and job challenged...... many fine country towns have plenty of space, but no jobs etc.

    Regionalisation was tried and was not a major success - again due to lack of solid infrastructure. What the nation needs is a massive overhaul and a few major projects to get things on track again, instead of the current frittering away of massive taxpayer funds on social issues etc.

    Cut out all that crap and put the money where it is needed.. into genuine national infrastructure... government has no place trying to micro-manage a society and invariably ruins the whole issue by dropping its overpaid jack-boots into it.
    Anonymous
    1st May 2019
    5:36pm
    TREBOR, how about Chindiastan? ;)
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    6:39pm
    I was working on a parallel with the French movie Indochine....

    Jeez - I copped some flak the other day about calling Malbun Malbadishu... in regard to the African crime gangs... then there's Bankistan, Khanberratoum, Brisbandar-Abbas .. a few others....

    Ah, yes - the old Chindians... why do people get hostile when I use the term CHIMP = Chinese Industrial/Manufacturing Person?

    I am most upset at being called a racist.... them ain't races - they's ethnic groups....
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    6:43pm
    Yes, OM - but those people aren't interested in relocating to Mau Mau Country in St Marys or whatever...they enjoyed life on The Rocks... just because a person is on a pension doesn't mean:-

    a) they are a vassal of the state and thus subject to its every whim
    b) they are scum of the earth and have no intrinsic value and no rights and thus are disposable items.

    Stuff the NSW state government and their overpaid mates. Maybe Gladys should be shoved out to Mau Mau Country.... get a look at the real world.
    cupoftea
    1st May 2019
    10:03am
    mogo51 the ALP has said it will build 250,000 affordable housing when they get in and don't forget they could be rented for 50+yrs so they easy repay for themselves
    eggles01
    1st May 2019
    10:13pm
    he may have said that,but,I did not hear what year into the future he say they would be available,and also how many times you would have to re-elect them,
    Misty
    3rd May 2019
    10:31am
    Well no worse then all the in the future promises from the LNP who will have to be re elected 3 times for them to come to fruition, all parties do it.
    MICK
    1st May 2019
    10:15am
    There's only ONE reason life has been getting tougher for retirees. THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT which is transferring wealth to the top end of society.
    johnp
    1st May 2019
    10:33am
    Have to agree, Mick. Just saw that facebook, google etc paid less than 2% tax in Australia. so Australians generally are being taken for suckers and the current govt does nothing about it !!; see here
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-01/google-facebook-make-billions-in-australian-sales-pay-little-tax/11060474
    jackie
    1st May 2019
    11:11am
    MICK...It's blatantly obvious.
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    12:12pm
    With average tax on TAXABLE INCOME for corporations at 12%...... who does that leave to pay the bills? The working stiff as usual... unless he's a tradie with a business and can write everything off or get cash... Howard's cash economy and GST - what a laugh.

    Bring on Trump's minimum corporation tax.... money first then we'll argue - same as the unofficial taxes from parking fines for the peasants....
    libsareliars
    1st May 2019
    3:26pm
    "There's only ONE reason life has been getting tougher for retirees. THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT."
    Spot on Mick.
    GeorgeM
    1st May 2019
    11:10pm
    Thanks for that link, john. I did hear about that in news elsewhere. For those not wanting to read the details:
    Google income from Australia: $4.3 Billion, tax paid last year $26.5 Million, i.e. 0.62% tax.
    Facebook income from Australia: $580 Million, tax paid last year $11.8 Million, i.e. 2% tax.
    Why? Because both "transferred" major parts of their income as costs payable to overseas entities - which they own!

    Disgusting incompetence of BOTH major parties to have allowed this blatant rip-off of Australia while the politicians here go about screwing their own people, especially Retirees and others on social welfare.
    The simplest solution would be to disallow any Overseas Costs as Deductions.
    Alternative solution is to impose Minimum Tax on Gross Income - say 20-25% for Large Companies.
    So easy - no guts in Canberra!
    Karl Marx
    1st May 2019
    11:20pm
    Yes GeorgeM & what about all those other multinationals & millionaires that make profits in Australia but haven't paid 1 cent in taxes for years. & if they try to use the international courts then the government can close their operations so they can't trade within Australia.
    Australia would be well & truly in the black within months & pensions, newstart etc wou.d not be even an issue.
    It's not that we can't feed the poor it's because we can't satisfy the rich
    GeorgeM
    2nd May 2019
    11:43pm
    That's right, SFR. While I mentioned the overseas companies (in the context of johnp's link), my comments apply equally to local large companies and the rich as well, as many of them use similar techniques (and shifty accountants) to avoid paying reasonable taxes. The same solutions I suggested can fix them as well - just needs some desire for change in Canberra.
    Not holding my breath though, hence I keep repeating that we need to vote BOTH the Major parties and the Greens current MPs OUT by putting them LAST in preferences (or just above crazies, including climate change activists posing as Independents). We badly need to use this country's wealth better.
    Chooky
    1st May 2019
    10:16am
    Government post-war 1945 were heavily involved in providing housing hence the massive home building program into the 1950s, By 1999 governments no longer saw themselves as holding more than a cursory role in housing provision. Funding agreements between state and federal governments for social housing have been consistently reduced since. We the people have allowed this as we get the government/s we deserve.
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    12:19pm
    Again the failure was in infrastructure - but the difference was, with cities like Wollongong and Newcastle - they had massive industrial complexes and a reasonably close in transport network.

    Major cities having spread so wide these days and having a savagely reduced industrial base, suffer inordinately, and one consequence of less use of transport etc is a higher unit cost = higher fares. Add to that the parasitical 'private' roads, and away you go - cost of everything goes up.

    The silliness is you can pay $300 a week in tolls - but you can't persuade a bank that it would be better for you to buy a home closer in for $200 a week higher mortgage payment.

    Years ago - pre the mortgage skyrocket, I had a toss-up between an inner Sydney home and a small farm.. I was short on finance by a small amount for the inner city job but fine for the small farm. The difference was that the cost of running back and forth more than equaled the dollar difference, so I would have been betteroff in the inner city one for capital gains etc.

    Stoopid is as stoopid does, as they allus say down in Green Bow...
    BrianP
    1st May 2019
    10:40am
    Would you let an elderly member of your family or child become homeless? Put that question to every politician and I think you will get almost 100% support for more housing and more funding.

    The homes must be suitable and provide a stable long term place to live. It's not hard to work out where money will come from. Think of the savings to the health system when all the vulnerable people have a home with less health issues as a result.
    jackie
    1st May 2019
    11:03am
    BrianP....I strongly doubt every politician cares. Especially for their disadvantaged members.

    The reason I state this is because of their actions.
    Arvo
    1st May 2019
    2:05pm
    It's all very well for Anglicare to provide a statistical report on homelessness, it's another to offer a solution, which Anglicare has not provided because it's not that simple.
    1- Politicians don't care-that is true.
    2- Sociocultural factors - a huge dilemma
    3 - Generational differences

    150,000 homeless people need affordable abodes but they are too stubborn to move to locations where renting is affordable, for example, regional cities. Rents are $180 pw for one bedroom unit and some are 2 bedroom units for same weekly rent.

    State governments could allocate land to create an urban infrastructure for homeless people and build cheap open plan homes for $10,000 each plus cost of labour to construct, say all up with sewer, power and whatever else all up for $50,000 each and rent them out as public housing.
    OK- so that's a 7.5 billion plan to cover everyone who is homeless. But, not all 150,000 are in the one state. So if all the 6 the states pool together that's an average of 1.25 billion per state and disperse the homeless in equal proportions (that will be the hardest part). The point is, there are solutions...if only the lazy politicians got off their fat posteriors and became conscientious ( that's the other hard part).

    https://www.domain.com.au/news/construction-company-selling-tiny-houses-for-under-10000-20160312-gnfbrz/
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    2:23pm
    Most studies support what you are saying BrianP but unfortunately there are no votes in homelessness. It is a problem that can be solved if it was considered to be sufficiently important however with few exceptions, public housing is not seen as a priority at any level of government. Some regional councils provide affordable housing and subsidised childcare for those working in service industries and trades essential to the community.
    debs
    1st May 2019
    3:01pm
    Arvo.....the link you gave was from the USA. Not much good here!
    and I agree with you about the politicians - they still vote for their pay rises which are more than I get for the whole year on a disability pension
    And I've been on the list for social housing (high need) for over 10 years; so I have to rent privately - which is 60% of my pension and not really suitable as it has stairs - no choice as it was the cheapest out there.
    And most of us can't move to regional areas as our support services don't exist there.
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    6:45pm
    Welcome to Homelessville ... Pearl of The West.... making way for New Chinatown (formerly Sydney Regional)...
    musicveg
    3rd May 2019
    2:44am
    Arvo I checked out that link for the very tiny houses, way too small and not suitable for older people and not available in Australia.
    But tiny houses can be built in Australia which are more suitable but usually need at least $50,000 which is a lot of money for some, then you need and to put it on.
    musicveg
    3rd May 2019
    3:03am
    Arvo have a look at this website:
    https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/11/community-first-village-homeless-tiny-homes-austin-texas/575611/
    and this here in Australia:
    http://www.tinyhomesfoundation.org.au/
    Farside
    3rd May 2019
    12:22pm
    Arvo and Musicveg, you might be interested in the project run by Launch Housing to locate affordable one bedroom homes on vacant government land in Melbourne’s inner west

    https://greenmagazine.com.au/tiny-houses-to-tackle-homelessness/
    musicveg
    3rd May 2019
    10:56pm
    Thanks Farside, really interesting and a fantastic idea. Interesting that Vic Roads is involved. Like to see this expanded nation wide and in regional areas as well.
    Farside
    3rd May 2019
    11:50pm
    musicveg, I'm glad you agree this is a better use of government land than releasing more to developers to increase urban sprawl and directly addresses affordability. Spread the word.
    Nanna75
    1st May 2019
    10:40am
    On my pension I would not be able to live anywhere near my family. My younger son however suggested we share which means I can afford a nicer home and keep my family and friends nearby. We cut expenses down the middle and because he works all hours I virtually have the place to myself.
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    12:21pm
    Wait for the grubs here who'll arrive soon to demand that you sell your house and move to Bourke for cheaper accommodation if you are struggling. People these days are dying to get into Bourke - it's the only way they'll go there... in a hearse.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    2:27pm
    This is a good example of why couples should receive equivalent benefits to singles. Why is it that a parent and child sharing accommodation are treated as singles yet the benefits paid to a couple in similar circumstances are discounted.
    jackie
    1st May 2019
    10:59am
    The Government has allowed foreign ownership money laundering into our property market which has inflated the property and rental market. This is mismanagement by the Government which should be accountable for building more public housing for our disadvantaged Australians, young and old.
    KB
    1st May 2019
    11:23am
    I agree completely. I have friends one on a pension and the partner on a low income and they cannot find affordable rent Either government that is elected must address the issue of homelessness and rentals
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    2:30pm
    there are no votes in homelessness and even many of those sympathetic to the homeless are against governments developing affordable housing for homeless and disabled in their neighbourhoods. NIMBY is strong sentiment when it comes to solutions.
    KB
    1st May 2019
    11:23am
    I agree completely. I have friends one on a pension and the partner on a low income and they cannot find affordable rent Either government that is elected must address the issue of homelessness and rentals
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    11:57am
    Carer pensions should be asset and income test free... it costs a lot more than $130 pf to run Camp Disability.
    eggles01
    1st May 2019
    11:45pm
    Trebor,isn't it funny about the people who always have something to say but when it comes to reality they do not know what they are talking about,before I say anything about anything I always check first,the carers PENSION (payment) is the same money as the old age/disability pension,the carers ALLOWANCE is what you are talking about,
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    9:12am
    What difference does that make to asking that the Carer Pension be income and asset test free, since the costs do not diminish with income earned by the recipient, and the job is essentially 24/7/365?

    I am, as usual right on top of the issues - as for the Carer Allowance - it should be the same as Pension and without income or asset test.
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    9:12am
    Two totally separate issues, eggles... thanks for coming.
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    9:38am
    As a matter of interest.... here is a link to one service provider, specifically for their 24 hour service.

    It cites 2.8 million hours of service provided over 21 years - that's 1.3 million hours a year....number of customers not cited). It does say 'trusted by 7,100 families' - but it is not clear if that is over the 21 years or in one year....

    If it is '7100 families' across 2.8 million hours (likely), that is 393+ hours per 'family' (I assume one cared for per family).

    The average cost per hour of government provided home care(non live-in, such as lawn mowing) is $23 to the applicant - you can easily double that for the actual payment to the mower (etc), then add the costs of administration again.... so a figure of around $60-70 an hour is definitely non outside the realm of reason.

    Ergo - if the actual hourly cost of the provider is $60 per hour, that equals $23,661 per client... more than the pension.....

    If, as appears likely, the actual cost per hour (including co-payment and government subsidies etc - the ex's daughter does visiting care work and cops $2k+ a week) - is higher - say $70... the figure becomes around $28,000 per person.

    A carer provides, often, transport etc as well, which is not covered by 'professional' carer fees, and often provides food etc...

    It seems to me a walk-up start that the current position of the carer - in a society that genuinely provided care for all (a pipe dream, of course) - would be far better served cost-wise in paying the full pension rate to all carers, and allowing them to earn a few dollars on the outside...

    Of course, I'm open to argument here.. just not personal jibes, thanks, kids.....
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    9:45am
    Bit more meat:-

    "Senior Home Care: $15 - $25 per hour for hourly care and $150 - $350 per day for 24-hour live-in care."

    https://www.caregiverlist.com/SeniorCareCosts.aspx

    Wide range, but let's just look at the lowest $150 per day... that's $1050 per week.... maybe $53,000 a year plus the usuals such as mowing and other tasks not done by a professional carer, and the normal bills for household...

    At the higher end of $350 per day = $2450 per week or $127,000 a year......

    Need I go further?

    Will you do the job for $65 a week?
    Farside
    2nd May 2019
    6:27pm
    Trebor, you do the job for love and sense of obligation. If someone needs an allowance in lieu of a job then Newstart is the appropriate choice, and that would give carers about double their current income.

    My parents and their siblings cared well for their parents and did not receive or expect an allowance to do it. My grandparents likewise cared for their parents and this has been the case for generations. Fast forward twenty years and my sister-in-law received allowance for caring for my mother-in-law and was hopeless.

    p.s. and good job on the research above
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    6:46pm
    Yes, I know, Farsie, most carers would happily relinquish the job if they could, it has no superannuation benefits etc, and is often costly out of pocket as well.

    Tomorrow, for instance - I'll be running the ex 200+ km for an MRI of her head (hmmm ...just hmmmmmmm) .. petrol cost will be around $25... cost of running vehicle four times that - so that one trip is worth $125..... according to the figures on operating a vehicle that is the rough formula ..... CA is $65 a week, $130 a fortnight.

    She'll get about $43 from IPTAAS, which she'll keep.... trust me on that.... my cost - her bonus..... and woe betide the serf who says otherwise....

    Even UB would be valuable, given there are sometimes three trips a week.
    Farside
    2nd May 2019
    9:21pm
    privatising income and socialising revenue is tried and proven, especially when it comes to seniors :D

    It does not surprise me in the least you kick the tin for helping out the ex and nor does it surprise that she will keep the allowance. For better or worse, richer or poorer right? We make sacrifices at times like this so we can avoid sense of guilt for not doing so but it is our choice, even if you suspect the ex would not reciprocate if circumstances were reversed. No point bitching about it or having regrets, remember the good years.
    porthboy
    1st May 2019
    12:04pm
    Where are the Liberal trolls?
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    12:22pm
    'Ave no concerns, m'lod - they's be along shortly .....
    Sundays
    1st May 2019
    3:15pm
    Yes, and it will be off topic as usual
    porthboy
    1st May 2019
    12:04pm
    Where are the Liberal trolls?
    Ageing but not getting old
    1st May 2019
    12:47pm
    Reminds me of the song "Send in the Clowns' from show 'A Little Night Music....
    Some of the lyrics "Send in the Clowns; Where are the Clowns?"
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    3:09pm
    Eine Kleine NachtMusik?
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    6:47pm
    Isn't it rich?
    Isn't it queer?
    Losing their timing this late
    In their career...??
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    6:47pm
    Where are the clowns?
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    6:47pm
    Please send in the clowns,
    Don't bother... they're here!
    eggles01
    1st May 2019
    11:49pm
    the only clowns that comment here are theone that talk without knowing what they are talking about,isn't that right Trebor
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    9:14am
    Now, now, eggles - you've been bested above. Go read.... it's ll you some good.

    It seems, therefore, that you wish to deem yourself a 'clown' - go ahead, it's your life, son.
    patti
    1st May 2019
    12:28pm
    More social housing would be good, but it takes a while to organise and build them. As a woman in my 60s, I was still paying a mortgage, on my own, and also had to find rates, body corporate, insurance and essential repair costs out of an Age Pension, which was my only income. No housing costs assistance for me........I do empathise with those finding it hard to find affordable rentals, but spare a thought for those of us who get no assistance at all for housing costs. No wonder there are so many older women becoming homeless
    Anonymous
    5th May 2019
    6:20pm
    i know of two elderly women both living in 4 x 2 homes with large grounds...one mid 80's other late 70's. upkeep is horrendous for them now as the homes are over 25 years old and lots of maintenance now and upkeep of gardens is now beyond them both. personally i would have downsized years ago. who wants all this aggro as an elderly person let alone the fear of being broken in etc. and assaulted..which is more prevalent these days and age means nothing.
    Karl Marx
    1st May 2019
    12:29pm
    Australia should hang its head in shame. Disgusting, & this doesn't even include those not on the pension like those on newstart etc.
    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
    Karl Marx
    1st May 2019
    12:35pm
    What is required is for governments to start building housing specifically for the elderly & only for the elderly so children etc can't move in.
    Keep the housing in government hands only NEVER to be privatised
    This will also generate jobs in the building industry which in turn will help the local economy creating even more jobs but governments can't see that as the dollar sign is in the way
    KSS
    1st May 2019
    12:47pm
    In which case the property should be at most a small one bedroom unit. Perhaps better would be a reasonable size bedsit with kitchen and bathroom where the sleeping part can be screened off. Quite suitable for a single person but not conducive for more than one person.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    2:37pm
    These housing solutions also tick off another couple of boxes like improved mental health by addressing loneliness and isolation and better monitoring. There are good examples of these types of facilities developed for dementia patients.
    Karl Marx
    1st May 2019
    5:51pm
    Yes KSS keep them like a small 1 or 2 bedroom apartment. 2 bedroom for a couple at a slightly higher rent, 1 bedroom for a single.
    have an on site manager to check non residence coming & going & regulate a policy of non residence staying or moving in. The last thing you need is scum to start moving in then taking control by criminal activity that has been the case in many complexes in Australia & overseas.
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    6:49pm
    A few old prisons around the place that could be revamped into single room accommodation........
    neil
    1st May 2019
    12:42pm
    YES.
    Australia has about 150000 homeless people, why's that?
    Food banks abound to feed people all over Australia, why's that?
    Neil.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    2:40pm
    Volunteering at a local community centre has surprised me how much demand there is for foodbank services. Unfortunately there are no votes in welfare services and it is easy for people to turn a blind eye while unaware or not confronted by it.
    GeorgeM
    1st May 2019
    10:56pm
    Why is that, Neil? Because in the 2-party system no one represents the people. Hence, best to get as many of them out as possible in each election. Note that currently 44 (out of 151) Lower House MPs are on less than 5% Margins and are vulnerable. Note also, that there are 3 Million+ Retirees who have seen the anti-people and disastrous work of BOTH major parties (and the Greens) over a long period of time. People have to act, in particular Retirees whom no one cares about, and not behave like zombies. Vote them OUT! At least vote OUT the current seat-warmer by putting them at or near the last position in preferences.
    neil
    1st May 2019
    12:42pm
    YES.
    Australia has about 150000 homeless people, why's that?
    Food banks abound to feed people all over Australia, why's that?
    Neil.
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    6:50pm
    When I first looked into homelessness - about five years ago while researching homeless veterans - the figure was a total of about 100,000 - now it's 150% of that....

    As an aside:-

    "1 in 20 of the 8,370 homeless people interviewed over the past eight years, were ex-military personnel. That’s a huge five percent. Most of those people (close to 400) were men. About 15 per cent (71 people) were women."

    https://hope1032.com.au/stories/life/news/2018/1-20-homeless-people-surveyed-military-veterans-new-study/

    It pays to keep up with these things....
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    6:53pm
    That even 71 x 19 = about 12-1300 total, of ex Defence living homelessly (that covers many different things) are women is a screaming shame....

    WTF???
    Not a Bludger
    1st May 2019
    12:43pm
    You ain’t seen nothing yet - if the Bill (+ his union mates) that we cannot afford gets in.
    He has retirees of every stripe in his sights and says so.
    In particular, rents will skyrocket let alone tax increases such as capital gains tax, franking credit tax theft and the like.
    porthboy
    1st May 2019
    12:53pm
    Where's the rest of you?
    porthboy
    1st May 2019
    12:53pm
    Where's the rest of you?
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    3:48pm
    Research does not support the contention that rents will skyrocket if negative gearing concession on existing properties removed.
    Karl Marx
    1st May 2019
    6:38pm
    Not a Bludger, DILLIGAF or any one else on here for that matter about your constant union bashing & ALP bashing posts. I don't think so, but then again that's probably how you get paid, hope you're declaring to CentreKlink your income, ROFLMFHO
    eggles01
    1st May 2019
    11:53pm
    haven't you heard the "say of the day",the only thing that Bill will give you is a BIGGER BILL
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    9:15am
    Let me make my position clear.

    I am anti-LNP, anti-Greens, and anti-Labor, but not anti-Unions, only anti-Union Bosses who, like politicians, see their position not as one of service to their constituents, but of personal power and of self-enrichment – as a career path rather than a service to and vox populi for their members.

    How they ever arrived at the monstrous salaries and superannuation they enjoy is beyond me, and like politicians, there is absolutely no need for it, and their salaries should be equal to the average member's. It is reasonable that their genuine operating costs on behalf of members should be covered, but there is zero 'need' for preferential superannuation or anything else.

    How their remuneration was arrived at I know not, but the average member, like the voter or PAYE taxpayer, did not vote directly for it, and has no real choice but to accept it unless he/she is prepared to stand alone in an increasingly hostile and selfish world – a world nowhere more epitomised than by the selfish actions of those same Union bosses who use their position for self-elevation and riches beyond the dreams of their members.

    The utter and complete betrayal of the ordinary, decent, loyal, hard-working man in this country during my lifetime has gone beyond all reckoning and beyond even my words to tell, and it is past time to take back the asylum.
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    9:20am
    As for Bill - I've always said he was an opportunist who will say and do anything to get elected to the top spot... nothing new about politicians there.

    As regards 'bigger bills' and trite one-liners like that - there is no real difference either way - the reality is that the nation has to run, and someone has to pay for it - the only real difference between Labor and LNP etc is that they state different groups will do the paying, but at the end of the day, nothing much really changes at all.

    Actually, like CEOs, the nation has no real need for politicians to run the show - they are nothing but mouth-pieces for their party and those who offer them their views.... same as CEOs - they don't actually do all the pushing and lifting etc themselves - they sign off on the work of others and hope it will work. No single individual actually does those things at that level of business - in which I include government.
    TigerB
    1st May 2019
    12:47pm
    Very Interesting.
    I am a single Age Pensioner with additional part time work.
    Heard all about Pensioners doing it hard rent wise, No one can live by themslves these days due to financial stress if Pension/Benefit is only income etc.
    Recently advertised for female Older/Age Pensioner to just share rent only (I pay gas, Elec and Water), Bed Suplied in own room with sep facilities in a very modern secure complex 5 min from Shops, Transport etc in Biggera Waters, QLD.
    Not one enquiry!!! Are they really doing it hard or are people just prepared to suffer and accept their situation.
    I am taken back because I have been in rent stress situations before and will continue to be again if rents dont reduce or affordable housing is made available. Something needs to be done as people cannot afford to live alone and are being forced into share situations they really don't want.
    KSS
    1st May 2019
    12:56pm
    Try advertising for a student or hospitality worker. Keep the same conditions but also ask for some help e.g. a bit of light housework, help with carrying shopping etc. This kind of arrangement has had some success with both the young and old benefiting from the exchange.
    Foxy
    1st May 2019
    12:48pm
    .... a larger increase in Rental Allowance would help perhaps?

    Should be assessed per individual Lease as to what the monthly rent is? Although that could be an added "nightmare" for Centrelink as often people have to move constantly - or whenever the "landlord" wants them to "move on" for whatever reason?

    I could be wrong but I don't think the rental allowance has been increased much in the past few years - given the current rental market and often exhorbitant rents charged in most Capital cities?

    Needs to be addressed urgently!!
    Triss
    1st May 2019
    1:33pm
    Unfortunately, Foxy, chucking government money into the ring doesn’t work, all that happens is that landlords put the rent up.
    thommo
    1st May 2019
    2:14pm
    foxy ,i'm afraid if rental assistance was increased ,the first thing landlords would do is increase rents,no win situation
    debs
    1st May 2019
    3:06pm
    Rental assistance is $130, my rent is $560!
    Anonymous
    1st May 2019
    3:58pm
    the same with child care allowance..all that will happen is that the providers will put up fees
    Foxy
    1st May 2019
    4:45pm
    debs .... you talking fortnightly - right? Some rents here in Melbourne are $400 plus per week!!

    Triss n thommo .... sorry for having a duhhh moment lol - but - why would landlords increase the rent? Landlords don't benefit from a person's rent allowance? A persons monthly rent is still the same as set by the landlord?

    ardnher .... so why do people (couple with combined income....) of say $170,000+ per year - still qualify for child care benefits? Or - do they get "less" as their salary increases?

    I'm sure plenty of us here didn't get a "brass razoo" from the Govt. when we had kids? If people can't afford to have kids - don't have them!
    eggles01
    2nd May 2019
    12:06am
    Hey Foxie,the rental allowance increases each 20th March and 20th September the same as the Pension increases by the C.P.I amount
    eggles01
    2nd May 2019
    1:06am
    my income is "disability pension" plus my extra income in the 17/18 financial year was from my pension debit card account a whopping $0.01c,I pay $344.20 p/f rent in public housing,I prepay my electricity through centrepay is $25 p/f, gas $20 p/f,all I have to pay for this fortnight is bread and a couple of kilo of good grade mince,I have from my last pension $200 left and $500 from this pension,the reason I have that is when I gave up smoking a pkt Winfield 25 cost $0.99c and they are now over $32 a pkt,I used to smoke around 20-25 a day,I liked to have a few beers,a pint now costs around $8 I would have about 3 pints a day 6 days a week,they were around $1.50 when I gave it up,I actually had 3 heart attacks in 2007 all with in 4 months,do I think I would still be alive if I had kept on smoking and drinking,I think not,my message to you out there is,"wise up,live healthier,richer and hopefully longer"people can exist on less that you think,if you want to.
    floss
    1st May 2019
    1:36pm
    Don't look at me I did not vote for the L.N.P.
    Rae
    2nd May 2019
    9:53am
    It's actually the Staes that are responsible and after selling everything that brought in revenue they have less funds to work with. Also growth in population effects the States more.

    Privatising has created real issues for government tasked with delivering services.
    Aussie
    1st May 2019
    1:40pm
    The final solution for pensioners .... is that what our goverments are planing for us ????? looks that way to me .... this is my opinion no offence to anyone but that is the way I feel
    Foxy
    1st May 2019
    4:47pm
    ... lol - yep - be "Soylent Green" (Charlton Heston movie) within the next 10 years! Trust me! :-)
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    6:53pm
    .. a few gas chambers.. Auschtrawitz.... is no pensioners, is no problem.....

    Put 'em to work shoveling snow off the roads at the ski resorts before being bused back for their night's sleep in tents and their soup handout .... should've provided for their retirement regardless of reality... (easy to say when you're a pollie or some parasite on a massive super scheme for no valid reason, or some equal parasite who has enjoyed business deductions over a lifetime but claims to have never received taxpayer money but to be totally self-sufficient)....
    Karl Marx
    1st May 2019
    7:08pm
    Hmmm road of bones comes to mind, used as a road base, saved money
    TREBOR
    1st May 2019
    7:16pm
    Hmmm - there's a thought....
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    11:28pm
    don't need gas chambers Trebor, plenty of easier options out there if brave enough to take responsibility for own fate.
    Foxy
    2nd May 2019
    7:03am
    ..... Farside - bit on the "Darkside" that comment? ...lol at least from reading "all of the above" ....nothing can "kill off" our humour (well what's left of it!) .............. :-)
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    3:50pm
    Jah.. in der Stalag/Konzentrationslager Auschtrawitz ve eeffen haff der humour!! Ha... Ha... Ha. But not after lights out at 6 pm.. zen no joking and especially no laughing, or you vill be shot!!!!
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    7:52pm
    I've also been wondering about fat people going missing just before Christmas and that Christmas ham.... roast pork Chrissie Day anyone???

    In the movie Road Games a corpse ended up hanging in the back of a refrigerated truck and looking just like a hung pig.... same thing happened to some bad guys in one of my books - they were on their way to Washington where the government employees wouldn't know the difference anyway since they were used to chewing people up ...
    floss
    1st May 2019
    1:44pm
    Not a Bludger please join the real world and stop blaming the Unions your mob are in power blame the real culprits , people like you are the problem.
    Not a Bludger
    1st May 2019
    2:54pm
    Really Floss - reality check for you.
    Boss of the United Firefighters Union (some 1800 members in all) gets around $450,000.00 per annum plus superannuation,plus living away from home allowances, plus vehicle paid for,plus travel & entertainment costs,plus office & support staff costs,plus, plus,plus.
    A struggling worker/unionist, fat cat or?
    Sundays
    1st May 2019
    3:27pm
    That’s peanuts compared to the amount paid to bank executives. Floss has a point. What has the Liberal Government done for homelessness over the past six years. That’s right nothing!
    Karl Marx
    1st May 2019
    6:34pm
    Wow holy Wow batman. Boss of the United Firefighters Union or CEO only gets $450k, wait until he finds out the CEO's of banks, telecommunications, insurance companies etc get 10 time os more than that with extra bonuses thrown in for underperformance. ROFLMFHO
    Not a Bludger, DILLIGAF about your constant union bashing & ALP bashing posts. ROFLMFHO
    TREBOR
    2nd May 2019
    3:57pm
    I got into that above, SFR - it appalls me that Union bosses can draw that kind of money, and yet the union often relies on UNPAID on-the-job reps (as I once was), and when those are targeted by 'management', the Union Bosses don't even bat an eye... just tough titties for the targeted rep who loses a job or whatever, and his family etc ....... no room at the inn for that kind when they come applying for a full-time job with THEIR Union that they took hits for... gotta look after the minorities and the special interest groups first....

    Now, of course, the Union movement is an adjunct to uni quadrangle sidewalk cafe Labor's 'equalisation' - of every group except White Australian Men, that is... and Union people are drawn from the 'educated' ranks and not the ranks of those they serve, just like 'management' these days, and so have no real idea, same as 'management'....

    I'd like to see one of them do one full day's work of one of their constituents............ they'd fall in a heap.....
    travelman
    1st May 2019
    2:27pm
    The housing problem goes back to the time John Howard was Prime Minister. He allowed the cost of purchasing a house to rapidly increase while the supply of State governments reduced the supply of rental homes. This meant that private landlords increased their rents for greed of profit. This situation has never been redressed by either Federal or State Governments.

    Then add to this distress of pensioners, no Federal Government has increased the pension to counteract the high increases of living cost including energy costs since 2009. They all have fallen back on the indexing of incomes which is so out date they are almost ineffective. I believe a Labour Government will certain tackle this problem. I am equally certain that the Coalition will NOT tackle the problem. The Prime Minister is to involved in shouting a whole lot of diatribe at the Labour Party than getting on with the job of government that his predecessors were too, self interested, to do.
    travelman
    1st May 2019
    2:40pm
    To add one other thought: The only way to make rentals low enough to be affordable is for State Governments with the help of the Federal government to get an emergency building program started NOW, to supply more rental homes. If supply is greater than the demand then rents will come down. Then to make sure we never have this disgusting housing failure coupled with increase rents, never to happen again, we insist that legislation be implemented to govern the rental industry from excessive profits.
    Jim
    1st May 2019
    2:48pm
    Looking at the price of housing now and what it used to be in the 60’s, the biggest increase has come about because of the price rise in land, actually building a house now is possibly cheaper than it used to be, I have come to this conclusion based on the costs in the Illawarra, in the 60’s you could buy land for between $1000 and $2000 for the more affluent areas, I can remember there was also steep blocks of land in Farnborough Hts for $500, the cost of putting a house on the land varied between $8000 to $12000 ie between 4 and 8 times the cost of buying your block of land, I am only talking about modest size homes, so it appears that the major cost increases are for land, so how did this come about? The solution as I see it is that the government should be releasing government land to build affordable housing for everyone, but in particular some of the land should be set aside for the building of housing commission homes that used to be available for the less well off, or is this just too simple of a solution?
    Jim
    1st May 2019
    3:01pm
    I meant to add onto this the current cost of land in the Illawarra, which ranges between $400,000 and $650,000 depending on where you look, even using the lower figure of a multiple of 4 that would mean the average house and land package should be close to $2 million, which is more than double the cost of house and land packages in our area, so I believe that is further evidence of the major cost increases in home ownership, I guess it doesn’t matter a great deal what has caused the increases, but if the government did release land at a reduced amount then that could make for more affordable homes, as long as it isn’t put into the hands of greedy developers, and that might be where a new housing commission body could be formed.

    1st May 2019
    3:16pm
    heard on news this am that there has been a 7% drop in investors in property..why would you invest in properties to rent when we all know that if labor gets in you cannot negative gear property unles it is brandnew. pity those renters it is only going to get worse and there is not enough public housing either.
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    4:16pm
    the conversation on investor drop in property could be more nuanced than just pointing the finger at negative gearing ... falling housing prices, less interest only finance available, tighter lending practices, fewer foreign investors etc. You ask why would you invest in properties ... the answer remains as ever, for the capital gain. There is little incentive to negatively gear without the capital gain. It's a bit rich to want subsidies to finance a property and then expect a tax concession on the resultant gain.
    Anonymous
    5th May 2019
    6:16pm
    no way would I own an investment property now. better off with blue chip shares
    Ted Wards
    1st May 2019
    3:52pm
    As someone who supports older women with housing issues and homelessness it should not even be a question of not if but how.......

    1st May 2019
    5:35pm
    We can thank the LNP for this. Kick the bastards out of government this month!
    GeorgeM
    1st May 2019
    10:46pm
    Political parties in power (Libs currently) constantly boast how good they have done.
    We need an agency to inform the public of the the real issues and the status of care for the people - with ABS, Anglicare and others in the know supplying their data.

    This is (rather was) a really rich country given the vast amount of mineral resources of various types (much more than the Middle East), as well as exceptional farming sector. The politicians of both major parties have sold us out and handed over our riches to foreign companies and countries. Time for a National Emergency to be declared and all Resources and Assets to be taken back from foreign interests. We need a revolutionary to set the ball in motion - at the moment only Clive Palmer is talking about reversing the Chinese takeover, hopefully more will follow... maybe Yellow Vests taking roots here might help?

    First, all have to vote OUT the seat-hugging, do-nothing current MPs of the Major parties (and the Greens) by putting them LAST (or just above any crazies) - to start the clean-out. Real change takes time, but is never too late to start...
    Farside
    1st May 2019
    11:41pm
    Case in point ... compare LNG royalties received by Qatar in 2021 for export similar volume to Australia.

    Treasury forecasts each will export about 100B M3 of LNG but the similarities end there. Qatar will receive $27 billion in royalties from its gas reserves whereas Australia will receive just $0.8 billion in revenue from the PRRT. Genius.

    It is estimated Australia will lose hundreds of billions is lost tax revenue over the next few decades.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/turnbull-government-called-on-to-explain-where-australias-offshore-gas-wealth-is-going-20161009-gryaoi.html
    BillF2
    2nd May 2019
    12:14pm
    Once upon a time, not so long ago, the state government built and rented out housing for low income tenants. That is, until some bright spark suggested they should get out of the market, as it isn't 'core' government business (just like power utilities). So they sold off their stock to some lucky renters and to speculators. Result - very little government housing and expensive private rental accommodation. Additionally, much of the government housing was on generously sized blocks of land, the consequence of which was to knock over the old housing and build two, three, or more units to maximise speculator profit.
    The current crisis is the result of stupidity, greed, and lack of social conscience, especially by those who are charged with managing the state and its institutions.
    As state governments have a duty of care to all citizens, they should be obliged, if not forced, to provide affordable accommodation once again for the most needy. Failure to do so will only accelerate the disintegration of society, and eventually, the country.
    Farside
    2nd May 2019
    6:44pm
    There is plenty of blame to chuck around when it comes to failure of providing housing. Perhaps instead of governments releasing urban land to private developers they redevelop the sites with fit for purpose accommodation on small blocks - nothing wrong with the 12 square 3bed 1bath homes provided as defence married quarters back in the day.
    Pameliza
    2nd May 2019
    4:35pm
    When I retired I had less than 50,000 in superannuation. As a professional female I was rarely offered employer superannuation. So early in my life, I went without any luxuries (including even a phone, newspapers or magazines. I chose to buy property instead. Things didn't always work out and twice in my life I did not know when my next meal would be. One Christmas I did not even have enough money to even send my children a Christmas card. I know what it is to be hungry and not know where I would sleep that night. Now I am considered one of the well off because I am independent of the pension but I worry about Australia's aged population. What I could cope with when young I would have real difficulty handling now in my mid 70s. I have now been a landlady for many many years in rural Australia. Recently, I was paying 25% of my gross rent on one property for insurance. Costs have gone up and up but in much of rural Australia property prices are low and getting lower. I don't know how much longer I can afford to be a landlady. My net rent is only about 1% and still dropping. There has been no capital gain for over a decade. The cheapest rent in my area are very old houses. They are easy to rent but even they would be expensive for a pensioner living on their own. I would like to see much smaller and cheaper houses built as affordable housing. The new homes are very luxurious. Big. lots of bedrooms, bathrooms, garages... I am sure many pensioners would love smaller homes. There are a few in my area and they are never available. They are snatched up!
    Pameliza
    2nd May 2019
    4:37pm
    If negative gearing and other assistance is taken away, there will be an even greater shortage of rental premises.
    Farside
    2nd May 2019
    6:51pm
    Most people looking closely at this topic seem to think there is unlikely to be any detriment to rental housing as a result of negative gearing reforms. Most likely is a movement of renters to first home buyers, which reduces rental demand. It is generally recognised the only solution to shortage of rental properties is building more properties, something that negative gearing does not do. If it did we would not have the current housing shortage.
    Anonymous
    5th May 2019
    6:15pm
    credit has tightened up ..there may be some renters who become home buyers but I would suggest there will be more renters out there.
    Farside
    5th May 2019
    7:35pm
    it will be interesting to see how it pans out over time ardnher, of course there will be increase in demand from usual forces. Mortgage stress will keep a trickle of homes entering the market and no doubt there will be incentives to build new accommodations.
    musicveg
    3rd May 2019
    3:01am
    There is a lot of public housing still full of people who do not need it anymore, family's that have grown up and left leaving mum alone in a 3 bed house, other's who now have jobs and could afford private rent, and other's who sublet their public housing to other's. So why not kick them out and put those in need in there instead?
    Another option is what is happening in the USA building tiny house communities for the homeless: https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/11/community-first-village-homeless-tiny-homes-austin-texas/575611/
    And now here in Australia: http://www.tinyhomesfoundation.org.au/
    Farside
    3rd May 2019
    11:54pm
    I agree that public housing should be fit for purpose. Tenancies should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure changes in circumstances are taken in to account. The intention is to provide affordable housing for those who need support rather than providing subsidised accommodation to those who can afford renting on the market.
    musicveg
    4th May 2019
    12:03am
    My sisters partner used to have housing commission house he rented cheaply, he not only had full time work but he only got it initially because he claimed his daughter lived there with him and she only stayed occasionally. He also rented it out to a friend for awhile until he decided to give it up and move interstate with my sister. So glad he finally did give it up. That is the only first hand story I have but I have heard others speak of it and also saw something on current affair not long ago, why on earth is the Government not reviewing public housing, seems very unfair.
    Anonymous
    5th May 2019
    8:49am
    Both sides of government have freely (and desperately) admitted that government can neither afford to build, nor can it successfully manage, government housing.

    That is why government has duck-shoved the responsibility for welfare housing onto the private sector. -Where the only thing that has kept low cost housing afloat is smaller investors who do not do their due diligence adequately and who are prepared to forgo their own quality of life and reasonable returns for the high risks of residential housing in the hope of a future gain many years down the track (but that is usually only inflation anyway and is subject to capital gains tax).

    It would be disingenuous of anyone with experience of rental housing or government housing (read the papers!) to deny the high risks and complex management problems of rentals and welfare housing in particular. The regulatory risks alone are huge, ie., regulatory changes by QANGO tenancies agencies and interpretations by rental tribunals.

    A new booming industry in chemical testing for drugs is in the wings and one can expect the rental tribunals to be well-used by the usual suspects, the 'professional tenants' who will be right onto this new opportunity to hold property managers and owners to ransom for alleged faults that demand hefy compensation, loss of rent and rectification.
    Sundays
    5th May 2019
    12:06pm
    If only that simple Musicveg. My widowed sister brought up 4 kids in public housing in NSW. Now they’ve all grown, she would like to move to small place suitable for a retiree. Two years she has been waiting for a swap, but apparently Housing have nothing suitable
    musicveg
    5th May 2019
    12:28pm
    Sundays, there is always the exception, I understand the choices are not always good, and not available for those still on low income, but the ones who are working should be booted out straight away or at least given a time frame.
    musicveg
    5th May 2019
    1:05pm
    LJ what boom in chemical testing? I doubt very much this is going to happen, should test the pollies first. There are more working people, yes even those driving on roads and running machinery that are taking drugs, and many of them are legal drugs that effect your ability to function.
    Anonymous
    5th May 2019
    8:03pm
    musicveg,

    Meth - use or labs.
    musicveg
    5th May 2019
    8:12pm
    Oh that's what you meant, yes a good idea, it is really bad for your health if you move into house that is toxic, should really test for everything including mold.

    6th May 2019
    6:11am
    If you think things are tough now for pensioners SFR if Labor gets in we will really experience what toughness is we will be financially crippled
    Farside
    6th May 2019
    10:03am
    Do tell Dinkum, what do Labor have in mind that is specifically directed at pensioners? Are you suggesting a general financial crippling of the economy?


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles