Australian Politics
A real estate agent has turned heads after claiming bad tenants are partly to blame for increasing the rates of homelessness
Ashleigh Goodchild, who is a director at Perth-based company Soco Realty, made the shock claim as Australia is crippled by a housing crisis.
Long queues have become a common sight at rental inspections with residents forced into a fierce bidding war as they compete for vacant rooms.
Families are among the growing number of Australians that have been forced to take drastic measures and live out of caravans, tents or even their cars.
Mission Australia recently claimed over 122,000 Australians experience homelessness on any given night and that demand for its housing help services has spiked 26 per cent since 2020.
Ms Goodchild, whose company bio boasts she 'worked her way from the reception desk to business ownership', said there is another side to the homelessness picture that the media is missing.
'I know that no-one deserves homelessness, I get that, but there's a big fact that the media is missing that is contributing to these people being homeless,' she said in a TikTok video. 'And it is that they have done the wrong thing by landlords.
'The pool of tenants that are applying for properties at the moment in the Perth residential market are way below standard.
'We're talking tenants that have done the wrong thing. They have trashed properties, they lie on their application, they don't pay rent and these are the people that are more at risk of being homeless.'
Ms Goodchild posted the clip to TikTok after reading an article about homelessness. 'This fired me up this morning,' the video title read.
Perth's rental market is among the tightest in the country, with prospective tenants taking to social media to share images and videos of queues with up to 100 people waiting to inspect the city's few vacant properties.
Last month Perth's rental vacancy rate - the percentage of all rental properties that are vacant or unoccupied - was at 0.5 per cent.
Nationally the rate is just 1.3 per cent. The lower the rate, the more difficult it is to find a home.
Ms Goodchild's opinions received a mixed response, though many people working in real estate agreed with her. 'OMG this! I work as a leasing agent and this is exactly what I'm dealing with in day in and day out!' one said.
However two mums did not and firmly disagreed with Ms Goodchild's claims bad tenants were partly to blame.
'You're wrong,' a mother of six children said. 'There are so many dual income families, with A+ rental record [who] cannot get homes.'
Another Queensland woman, who is currently looking for a home, chimed into the debate. 'Sorry but I have always paid rent on time never trashed a house yet good references I have a dog and 3 adults and 3 kids and we still miss out,' she said.
Ms Goodchild responded if the woman was in Perth and could provide a rental ledger 'and a copy of your last inspection report' she would have found her a property
**********************************************************
The newly elected Labor Minns government has commissioned a report to provide a handy excuse to try and slow down the currently manic net zero transition.
What is it about the relentless pursuit of so-called renewable energy by our leaders that they overlook the need to provide affordable and reliable electricity supply to Australians?
Especially at a time when the cost of living is front of mind.
In a first-world country blessed with huge energy resources, the unreliability and cost of energy is a national scandal.
Even if one accepts the need to "transition" from fossil fuels to other forms of energy there is the foundational requirement to keep the lights on and our factories and farms producing at an affordable price.
Time and again warnings have been provided that inherent in the word "transitioning" is the imperative that energy supply and affordability need to be maintained.
Those who have correctly sounded those warnings of commonsense have been decried as "deniers" and economic vandals along with all sorts of other descriptors to avoid the discussion.
In that scenario leaders of all stripes have virtue signalled how quickly they can decommission coal-fired power stations and set zero emission targets.
Decommissioning and net zero targets can be achieved overnight by simply turning off all the power stations.
But the hugely more difficult task, with its accompanying cost factors, is the provision of alternate, affordable, and reliable energy.
An unwelcome reminder of this monumental task is the concern around the slated closure of the Eraring power station in New South Wales in 2025.
The newly elected Labor Minns government commissioned a report to provide a handy excuse to try and slow down the currently manic net zero transition.
Why a report was needed is obvious. It was to cover the government’s proverbial backside from being kicked by the citizens who feel betrayed by the hype and propaganda associated with "transitioning."
In a completely unsurprising finding the recommendation has been made to extend the life of Eraring.
Apart from that there was also the "groundbreaking" insightful suggestion that a mechanism to orderly manage the retirement of coal-fired power stations be established.
Who would have thought it necessary? Order. Management. These two previously quite foreign concepts to the renewable energy pushers and political leadership have finally mugged them and not before time.
The Eraring inquiry suggested that negotiations be entered into with the owners of the power station to prolong its life to prevent reliability gaps and guarantee no adverse price impact.
That such an inquiry was at all necessary is a complete exposure of the manic nature of the irresponsible renewable push.
Where was the leadership willing to state the bleeding obvious—we need reliability and affordability in any transition.
The false narratives are being slowly but relentlessly exposed as the predictable chickens called reliability and affordability are coming home to roost.
All this is happening at a time when speculation is rife that the Australian Energy Market Operator will soon alert the unsuspecting public that all the promised essential infrastructure and up-grading of the grid to cope is falling way behind schedule.
The management debacle of the renewable energy transition is now being witnessed on a daily basis.
A debacle that could have been easily avoided by true and responsible leadership willing to level with their citizenry about timelines, capital costs, and power bills.
The owners of Eraring will undoubtedly rub their organisational hands in glee knowing that the commodity which they were being pressured to close is now all of a sudden in demand.
The shortfall cannot be made up from elsewhere so Eraring's owner, Origin Energy, has some sway and negotiating cards with which to play.
The public is at the mercy of the provider.
This lack of foresight and deliberate denigrating of those providing the warnings by the leadership of our country is at best negligence writ large.
The fact similar stories flooding out of Europe were ignored to the detriment of Australia’s family budgets, jobs, and national well-being requires a national apology and for the responsible people to be brought to account.
The realistic fear for Australians is that Eraring will be one of many more cases to emerge over the next few years.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/australian-state-has-its-damascus-moment-on-net-zero-5480545
*********************************************************On campus, there is no room for dissenting views on Indigenous voice to parliament
JAMES ALLAN
Some readers may harbour a sneaking suspicion that Australia’s universities have a serious problem with collapsing viewpoint diversity among their professors and lecturers, to the extent that whole departments on campus have become conservative-free zones. They also may suspect that many university students, as well as academics, self-censor and keep their dissenting views to themselves. Spoiler alert: these suspicions are well founded.
Let me use the upcoming constitutional referendum on the voice to illustrate. Recent polls show the No side has a considerable lead. I mention these polls of the wider public’s view simply to contrast it with the very different world on our campuses. Many Australian universities officially have come out in favour of the Yes side and have done so despite the two main political parties taking opposite sides in the referendum – thereby making this a party-political matter and so the taking of sides by any publicly funded university, in part, a choosing by them and their governing boards between the political positioning of the two main parties. The University of NSW even has lit up one of its main buildings with a big “Yes”, emblematically transmogrifying the institution’s name into “UNYesW”.
It’s bad enough when big corporations use shareholder money to support one side in this referendum (virtually always the Yes side, and to the tune of tens of millions of dollars), and likewise when charities do so (arguably calling into serious question whether they are straying outside their charitable purposes, and also huge amounts of money virtually all to the pro side). But when taxpayer-funded universities use your tax dollars to take a side on a crucial constitutional referendum issue that splits the country, well, that’s even worse. It’s not just a form of virtue signalling with other people’s money; it comes close to being an improper use of taxpayer money.
Now, truth be told, some of our universities have opted not to support the Yes side. They’ve opted to stay officially neutral. Needless to say, neutrality is the best we can hope for. You see, I don’t know of a single Australian university, not one, that has come out for No. And this despite plenty of our tertiary institutions breaking cover to support the Yes side. Heck, it’s despite the majority of polled voters being against this proposal.
Now move down to a more granular level, to what things are like on campus. As a longtime out-of-the-closet political conservative (and cards on the table here, an outspoken No proponent from day one), I get a fair few people calling me to tell me what things are like on campuses around the country. Get this: most universities seem to have decided to put on “information sessions” about the voice.
I do not know of a single university that is putting on one of these events where there are the same number of No speakers as those for Yes on these panels. By contrast, I do know of a good few where every single speaker is (or, if you look up the resume, sure seems likely to be) a Yes speaker.
Let that sink in for a moment. It’s wall-to-wall supporters of the voice supposedly giving students some sort of balanced information about the voice. It would be laughable, if it weren’t. And if you query this you get this sort of basic answer: “We’ve briefed one of the speakers to give the No side.” Got that? Because the great free-speech philosopher John Stuart Mill is rolling in his grave.
No one can seriously believe that a person strongly committed to one side of a highly contentious and moralised issue can do even a half-decent job of giving the other side’s case.
Moreover, when a university purports to be giving a disinterested information session to faculty and students where the views expressed cover the whole range of outlooks from A all the way still to A (“Getting to Yes”, as it were), students and faculty notice. Many will say nothing; they’ll self-censor; they’ll think about what is most prudential given the upcoming promotion application or essay to hand in. And they’ll keep shtum.
I’m going to be blunt. Today’s universities are not overly congenial places for those with conservative political views. There are myriad studies out of the US and Britain showing that viewpoint diversity is collapsing on university campuses – because maybe, for a start, those with right-of-centre views would prefer we flew just the national flag, that there be some respite from the incessant acknowledgments of country, and to see the paring back of the diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy that forces everything to be seen through the prism of identity politics.
US author Jonathan Haidt, himself of the centre-left, details this loss of diverging outlooks on campus chapter and verse, and greatly laments it. Because universities aren’t meant to be factories of monolithic orthodoxy and groupthink. But more and more that is exactly what we’re seeing. If you doubt me, maybe because your memory of university life goes back three decades or more, go and find out how your old university is handling the voice referendum issue. And realise just how much of the Yes case is being run by employees of universities (second spoiler alert: nearly all of it).
Of course, when the progressive-left orthodoxies become held by the preponderance of academics and near-on all the senior managers, that also affects free speech on campus. You won’t see it by looking at university codes of conduct, policies, statutory frameworks and the like. The collapse of viewpoint diversity works more indirectly and insidiously. Many dissenters and apostates from the university orthodoxy (students included) learn to self-censor, to keep quiet, to ride out the one-sided indoctrination sessions (aka, on occasion, voice “information sessions”). Or they quit and do something else. In the context of institutions supposedly dedicated to the free flow and competition of ideas it’s a sad state of affairs.
*****************************************************
Gary Banks: falling living standards risk triggering ‘electoral backlash’
A failure to pursue meaningful economic reform by both major parties is driving down living standards and could trigger an “electoral backlash”, according to a new warning from the nation’s inaugural Productivity Commission chair.
Delivering the annual Shann Memorial Lecture in Perth on Wednesday, Gary Banks critiqued plans to transform Australia into a renewable energy superpower and develop a sovereign manufacturing capability as risking a return to “old think” industry protectionism.
He argued the clean energy transformation was not delivering a more productive economy – arguing there was “not even the consolation that we are at least making a difference to the climate” – and rejected government assurances its workplace changes would enhance enterprise dynamics.
Professor Banks instead argued that an “anti-productivity bias” had infected policy development and a backlash was now possible.
“If there is to be reform of a kind that would make a difference to Australia’s productivity performance, it will require a change in the politics,” he said. “Governments follow or anticipate public opinion more than leading it.”
“How the public reacts to the stagnation or decline in living standards ... remains to be seen. But an electoral backlash cannot be ruled out – as we have just seen here in WA against the ill-conceived ‘heritage’ legislation,” he said.
Professor Banks said that governments were now “spending more over regulating better” and the pay-off from public investments was diminishing, pointing to the NDIS and Gonski education reforms.
He said the established relationship between productivity and non-inflationary wage growth had also been “brought into question” and took aim at Anthony Albanese’s claim the recent 15 per cent pay rise for age-care workers “would not be inflationary and would actually serve to increase productivity.”
“Given that the majority of workers to receive the wage rise are the existing ones, an overall increase in productivity is unlikely,” he said. “Indeed, with the introduction of a new visa category for migrants committing to a union-linked stint in aged care, it may decrease.”
Professor Banks said it was “hard to see” either major party embracing a real pro-productivity agenda. He warned that Coalition reforms had been stymied in the Senate while, under Labor, “devotion to big government, a suspicion of market forces and strong union influence are proving even more challenging.”
Echoing the Productivity Commission’s recent trade and assistance review, Professor Banks expressed concern over plans to turn Australia into a “renewable energy superpower”, arguing the goal had been conflated with the post-Covid push to develop a sovereign manufacturing capability.
“Though portrayed as a new, forward-looking approach to industry policy, there is much that is ‘old-think’ about it,” Professor Banks said. “For example, a ‘local content’ scheme, a form of non-tariff protection ... is being contemplated to promote battery manufacturing.”
The PC review found that total industry assistance increased 3.4 per cent to $13.8bn in 2021-22 and that a domestic processing capacity was “unlikely to create an appreciable cost advantage” for the local battery-making industry.
Ahead of ALP national conference, Professor Banks criticised a union push to change the way free trade agreements were negotiated and the suggestion Australia could impose new green tariffs on products from countries with weaker climate policies.
But his most serious criticism was reserved for policy failures in the areas of workplace relations and energy policy.
“In the case of energy, the determination to meet overly ambitious emission targets while suppressing our only base-load energy sources will inevitably mean further price increases and less reliability,” he said.
Unless there was a change of mindset, the government would need to resort to further “price controls and other regulatory interventions that can only exacerbate supply-side problems.”
Professor Banks said subsidies for intensive electricity users to ‘stand down’ at times of inadequate supply and subsidies to enable coal-fired power stations to remain on call resulted in an energy system requiring “far more capital to produce less reliable power — the antithesis of a pro-productivity approach.”
“Indeed, to the extent that production activity shifts offshore, global emissions are more likely to rise,” he said.
On industrial relations, Professor Banks noted the government’s agenda “aligns closely with the ACTU’s own wish list” and that Labor’s workplace changes meant industry deals could be forced on individual firms – undermining flexibility.
“To the extent that the current government’s policies continue to be influenced by union concerns, we could expect to see further measures to increase union coverage and ‘say’, and limit the ability of management to secure productivity-enhancing changes,” he said.
Since Labor won office, Professor Banks observed “successive waves of regulation have emerged with the ostensible purpose of ‘getting wages moving’ or achieving greater ‘job security.’”
“Looking beneath these aspirational headings, much of what is proposed appears more likely to impede than promote the enterprise dynamic on which, as Treasury has stressed, productivity growth and well-paid jobs depend.”
*****************************************************
Harry Garside: Justice, lies and a knockout videotape
False accusations from angry women can be very dangerous
When star boxer Harry Garside locked himself in the spare room of a Sydney apartment and hit “send” on his phone, launching off to his mum a 33-second video of an argument with his girlfriend, he couldn’t know he’d just saved his boxing career.
Not that it would spare him being very publicly arrested and shamed for the “assault” he had just filmed; not that it would stop Boxing Australia suspending him from competition; and not that he will ever recoup much of the $500,000 he lost in sponsorships.
But the cautionary tale of how Garside came so close to losing everything – including his freedom – is the latest of many that raise uncomfortable questions about whether police and prosecutors are properly investigating allegations before pursuing charges.
As the now 25-year-old boxer discovered, even a petty argument – in the hands of a skilled liar – can be manipulated to destroy a career.
The colourful, heart-on-sleeve athlete was on the ascent, both in and out of the ring, when his trajectory was suddenly and stunningly derailed.
Garside turned up at the GQ Men of the Year Awards last year dressed in a pleated grey skirt, long black boots and bare-chested under a formal black jacket.
On that occasion Garside was arm in arm with his then girlfriend, Ashley Ruscoe.
Ruscoe is a wellness coach and fitness expert, with more than 26,000 followers on Instagram, thanks to a role on the 2019 season of Ten Network’s The Amazing Race. The now 35-year-old martial arts expert – with a black belt in karate – runs a self-defence business called Hit Like a Girl.
A fixture on Sydney’s social scene, Ruscoe had been in relationships with a number of high-profile men, including Sidney Pierucci, her partner in The Amazing Race.
But when she and then 23-year-old Garside met on Instagram in early 2021, it seemed to be love at first sight, despite the nine-year age gap. When the boxer left for the Tokyo Olympics, they spoke every day on FaceTime.
The pair met up again in Sydney, and in March last year Garside moved into Ruscoe’s Bellevue Hill apartment.
Earlier this year, Garside decided he was going to devote himself to winning gold at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Ruscoe was unhappy. They’d talked about having children, but for Garside that was much further down the track. He had a dream and was intent on pursuing it.
The couple announced they were splitting up but continued to meet – and have sex.
On March 1 this year, when Garside returned from a month-long trip to Europe, Ruscoe sent him a text saying: “Ok, let’s try really rough sex, Like semi bash me hahaha, Like maybe a slight black eye.” Garside declined. Later that day they met at the apartment to discuss their relationship. They had an argument. It started outside the flat, continued inside and became increasingly heated.
Garside won’t discuss the incident while court proceedings are afoot, but the details are now all on record.
Ruscoe grabbed a suitcase Garside hadn’t unpacked from his trip and threatened to take it outside and burn some of his things. Garside, concerned things were getting out of hand, recorded two short video clips on his phone. Garside says he made these recordings because he was worried Ruscoe would try to suggest he was the aggressor.
The first video shows Ruscoe coming out of a room towards Garside holding the suitcase, then dropping it when she realises he is filming her. After Garside retreated into the bathroom the second clip, which runs for 33 seconds, shows Ruscoe lunging to grab his phone as he pleads with her to stop.
“You’re psychotic,” Garside says, “stop f..king touching me like that … stop, stop, stop, leave me alone, leave me alone.”
When Garside tried to leave the apartment, an increasingly aggressive Ruscoe shut the front door and told him he couldn’t leave until he deleted the videos of her.
Garside headed for the spare room, locked the door, and quickly sent the videos to his mother via Facebook.
When he unlocked the door and came out, Garside showed Ruscoe he was deleting the videos. Only then did she let him leave the apartment.
Garside left for South Africa three weeks after the incident, on March 25, to film I’m a Celebrity.
Ruscoe went to the police the same day.
Kate Garside has no doubts why she did it.
“I think she was in such fear that Harry would say something that it would ruin her reputation, that she sort of thought, well, I’ll throw the first punch here and go to the police.”
Much more here:
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment