Landlords smashed with new rules, rents to soar in Victoria

It's about to become a better place to buy your your own home but a nightmare to rent in. This is ANTI-tenant legislation.

Note that no costng is given to introduce the new requirements -- but from experience I can tell that the costs will be huge -- particularly for the older buildings which are commonly let out.

Many landlords will simply not be able to afford it all and will have to sell. And given the expenses looming over the houses concerned, the buyers will not be investors. It will be be owner occupiers. So the supply of houses to live in will be increased while forcing up costs for renters competing for the reduced supply of rental hosing.

So these measures will benefit owner-occupiers while hitting tenants hard: just the opposite of the intended state of affairs. Very destructive. Tenants should indeed be the the ones squealing loudest against this Leftist insanity. Leftists are always looking for ways to do harm while seeming to do good and this one is a doozy.

There are going to be a lot more street sleepers in Melbourne if this goes through. One hopes that the new laws get knocked over in the upper house


A landlord has warned a government proposal to introduce new minimum rental standards will only “worsen” the rental crisis and cause tenants more pain as property owners pass on the blowout in costs.

Simon*, from Victoria, said the situation has gotten so bad for landlords in the state that he is looking to sell and get out of the rental game.

He believes new rental rules would cost thousands of dollars to ensure compliance and said ultimately these costs will be passed on to tenants.

“I would suggest across Victoria that rents would skyrocket. My wife and I would certainly apply a hefty increase and I have just increased the rent by $2500 for the year,” he said.

The Victorian government is proposing to introduce new minimum heating and cooling standards for rental properties.

It would include things such as installing ceiling insulation where none exists, droughtproofing with weather seals on all external doors, new electric hot water systems and three-star efficiency cooling.

The Victorian government has launched a consultation on the requirements, which would also encompass replacing broken appliances with energy efficient ones, which it said would drive down power bills for renters by more than $800 a year.

Overall, the government estimates these proposed upgrades would save renters about $567 a year off their energy bills.

Rental providers would also be required to replace hot water and heating systems with energy-efficient electric appliances when their current appliance reaches end of life.

The move is expected to save renters $215 off their power bills a year, while the lower-cost option to upgrade a hot water system would save tenants about $113 a year.

While landlords have hit out at the move, Everybody’s Home, a group campaigning to fix the housing crisis, has welcomed the move.

“Landlords are taking every opportunity they can to increase rents. There have been huge rent increases year-on-year and major increases since the pandemic. We need these reforms to be passed alongside caps to rental increases as they have in ACT – they go hand-in-hand,” Everybody’s Home spokeswoman Maiy Azize told news.com.au.

“Housing hasn’t collapsed in the ACT with these requirements. We have just got people living in homes that are of a decent standard and their rent increases are capped to 10 per cent of CPI, which is very reasonable.”

However, Simon, who owns a three-bedroom unit in the suburb of Ringwood, argued that any more costs would only worsen the situation for all.

He said he has watched costs for landlords increase from land tax to smoke detection inspections to sending out tradies for maintenance, while insurance has jumped by 30 per cent.

The business owner said he can’t “keep absorbing these costs”.

“Landlords are leaving the market in the droves. Those remaining are being forced to pass the costs onto tenants,” he said.

“I, like many others, don’t like displacing tenants or passing on rental increases. I have just received the $2200 or thereabouts insurance costs for this year and that does not even include the additional public liability insurance we have to have for inside the property.”

The business owner said landlords don’t buy property for the rental income.

“You would have be a moron to buy a property for rent – you buy in hope that maybe in five, 10, 15 or 20 years, prices have gone up substantially and you make some capital growth on it. Anyone with a brain is investing in property not to make rent – no one does it to get rich.”

The 57-year-old said he had previously had five rental properties but was grateful he had sold them declaring he would never invest in property again in Victoria given compliance costs and other expenses. He has tried twice to sell the Ringwood property already.

“I plan to sell it again to get out of the market – I have simply been waiting for the right time,” he shared.

“I would earn more money in a 5 per cent term deposit with no outgoings, no management fees, no land taxes, no compliance costs, no 8.8 per cent investor mortgage rates, stress, damage.”

He said his wife also owned a rental and after hearing about the Victorian government’s proposal for new standards said “she would give up and get out” if they were introduced by immediately putting it on the market for sale.

Simon said renters and landlords should join forces to lobby the government to bring down taxes and “horrendous costs for landlords” who are “suffering” so that these savings could be passed on to renters.

Victorian’s new rental standards would be staggered into operation from 30 October 2025.

The state government also introduced minimum renting standards in 2021, which include a requirement for landlords to provide a fixed heater.

Ms Azize said the reforms were a step forward in making sure landlords are not just investing in themselves as they are a “supplier of an essential service”.

“If they can’t provide a home to a minimum standard and they are so highly leveraged that these reforms are going to send them into tail spin or create liability issues, they do need to examine if they are able to supply an essential service to someone,” she added.

“I think landlords are not performing a public service. If they sell the home, it doesn’t dematerialise. It’s sold to another person who will be a landlord or become a home for a buyer who will live in it which we need to see more of in Australia.

“I don’t think it’s a huge disaster if people who are not equipped to supplying housing stop supply housing. It’s not a reason to have minimum standards.”

Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs Gabrielle Williams said the proposed standards will make rental properties safer and more comfortable – giving renters peace of mind for both the winter and summer and driving down costs.

“Everyone deserves to live comfortably – these proposed standards will make rentals more energy efficient and cheaper to run – slashing their bills and making them more climate resilient,” Victorian Minister for Energy and Resources Lily D’Ambrosio added.

However, the Department of Government Services and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action highlighted in documents that there would be short term pain for renters.

“The departments acknowledge that it is likely that at least some of the costs will be passed on to tenants, and that recent cost-of-living pressures and interest rate rises may limit the amount of cost increases that rental providers and rooming house operators can absorb,” said Commissioner for Better Regulation Cressida Wall.

Opposition housing affordability spokesman Evan Mulholland said investors were already fleeing the state and costs would be passed on and the people that would pay are “vulnerable renters who need to get a roof over their head”.

Consultations close in July before the new standards are determined in October.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/renting/landlords-smashed-with-new-rules-rents-to-soar-in-one-state/news-story/92b5d24e22f1ca6a7f502f9a7bdab0be

**************************************************

Gina Rinehart steps in to help worried parents fight back against 'woke' nonsense being taught at elite girls' school

Australia's richest person Gina Rinehart is supporting parents of students at an elite all girls' school who are fighting against 'woke' gender ideology.

The billionaire has offered her encouragement after St Hilda's Anglican School for Girls in Perth introduced 'anti-Australian propaganda' that parents are concerned is being forced upon students.

Concerns came to a head after two teachers were appointed this year - one transgender and one non-binary.

Ms Rinehart, who is among four generations of her family to attend the prestigious college, starting with her mother Hope Nicholas, graduated from the Anglican school more than 50 years ago.

The mining magnate told Sky News she had met with the head of Moms of America, who are fighting the same ideologies in classrooms in the United States.

'I understand a rough estimate is that woke, anti-Australia and similar propaganda takes up approximately one-third of the school curriculums in Australia,' Ms Rinehart said.

'So yes, if you are concerned about your children and grandchildren being exposed to such things instead of facts, logic, and reason, it's time to have a Mums for Australia start and flourish here.'

Ms Rinehart told the news outlet that although it's not easy to stand up, people need to consider speaking up 'for the sake of our children and grandchildren'.

One parent said the situation at the school had become a 'clash of values' between the 'traditional' beliefs in the school community, and principal Fiona Johnston's more 'progressive' stance.

The parents also pointed to a lack of discussion and consultation between themselves and the school.

Among issues was a Pride assembly last year, and gender identity lessons which showed slides telling the students 'having a penis doesn't mean you have to perform the role of a man… Having a vulva doesn't necessarily mean you're a woman and want to use women's spaces like bathrooms'.

Another slide showed a 'Sexuality Matching Game' which used the terms 'transgender' and 'cisgender'.

It is understood a classroom was admonished after one student used the term 'Sir' instead of 'Miss' for one teacher.

Independent think tank Women's Forum Australia CEO Rachel Wong contacted the school after speaking to worried parents.

'Another teacher who identifies as non-binary… the girls are meant to refer to as Mx. These poor, young girls are terrified of being accused of bigotry for potentially misgendering,' she said.

St Hilda's Anglican School for Girls told Sky News it is proud about 'providing an inclusive and progressive' environment.

The school also noted they are an equal opportunity employer and do not judge people based on their beliefs or sexuality.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13495885/Gina-rinehart-st-hildas-anglican-school-perth-parents-woke-gender-ideology-classes.html

*********************************************

Australia’s Internet Regulator Drops Case Against X Over Stabbing Video

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has announced she is withdrawing Federal Court action against Elon Musk’s X Corp over the platform’s carrying footage of the stabbing of a religious leader in a Sydney church in April.

In what she called a “consolidation” of the cases brought against the social media platform, she will now rely on another case also underway—this time in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—for a final ruling on the matter.

eSafety wanted X Corp to take down, across the entire platform, about 60 instances of footage of the alleged attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel at the Wakely church on April 15.

X complied by geo-blocking all posts on the stabbing within Australia, despite disagreeing with the ban.

However, it refused to remove the graphic videos internationally, leading the Commissioner to seek a ruling.

The Court then granted an interim injunction barring X from allowing anyone, anywhere, access to the video, but the company refused to comply.

But then, on May 13, in a major setback to eSafety’s case the Court ruled that its jurisdiction could not extend beyond Australia’s borders.

The Commissioner had, until today, continued the case, hoping to convince the court to fine the company for refusing to obey the interim injunction.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/australias-internet-regulator-drops-case-against-x-over-stabbing-video-5662884

************************************************

Judge Finally Rejects Victoria Dep. Of Health Bureaucrats, Records Justifying Extreme COVID-19 Response Measures to be Released

Some of the most rigid COVID-19 response policies in the Western world occurred in Australia, in places like the state of Victoria, with its multiple lengthy lockdowns. Melbourne with three major lockdowns, had some of the toughest Covid rules in the world and the longest lockdown at least among the democratic nations.

What was behind those lockdowns? How were decisions made? What was the evidence used to justify a process that would have a profound impact on the economy, children’s education and psychology and more? Local activists have spent four years attempting to access the trove of records and documentation, yet to the Department of Health for Victoria, good government doesn’t come with transparency. Until now that is, however, as the secret documents supporting the state’s COVID-19 lockdowns will soon be released after the state lost a legal battle to maintain secrecy.

So, what happened?

Just this past week, a judge at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ordered the department to process freedom of information requests it had refused for the briefings provided to the Chief Health Officer, Deputy Chief Health Officer and Minister for Health relating to public health orders made in 2020, reports Chantelle Francis for News.com.

It turns out that the leadership within the Department of Health for Victoria believes it to be above any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the past four years.

David Davis, a Liberal MP made multiple attempts, three in all, to access the justification for the severe lockdowns, and each and every time his effort was rejected by the Department of Health. Why? The request would substantially and unreasonably divert resources.

Davis then initiated a review process, one that’s a legal requirement to be completed within a specific period of time via the Victorian Information Commissioner yet that commissioner failed to follow the law, not reaching a decision within the statutory period.

In that case, the head of the COVID-19 response at the time, Jeroen Weimar, according to the News.com account complained meeting Mr. Davis’s combined FOI requests would take the agency about four years’ worth of work effort.

That claim was backed by Michael Cain, the department’s manager of FOI and legal compliance.

Legal Intervention

But Judge Caitlin English, Vice President of the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), ruled in a different direction. The judge was not convinced that the health department had reasonably estimated the resources required to process the requests and noted the “strong public interest” in the information.

While acknowledging responding to the FOI would take a substantial effort, Judge English declared nonetheless it was manageable for the department.

The judge’s order stated:

“The Department, bearing the onus, has not satisfied me on the evidence that the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations.” As a consequence, she emphasized, “I direct the agency to process Mr. Davis’s requests in accordance with the FOI Act.”

Now, this judicial ruled that over 115 briefs backing the state government’s public health orders may be released, at an average of 40 to 60 pages each.

Conclusion

Given the extreme nature of the Victoria COVID-19 response in the form of public health orders, the externalities born by the public, plus limited publicly available information as to the justification, the judge’s decision for transparency points to a significant public interest concern.

According to MP Davis, “The second wave as it surged into effect in July 2020 drove my series of freedom of information requests on 7 July, 13 July, and 17 July of the then Department of Health and Human Services for the briefings behind the decisions to impose the public health orders.”

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/judge-finally-rejects-victoria-dep.-of-health-bureaucrats-records-justifying-extreme-covid-19-response-measures-to-be-released-cc2ca05e

************************************

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)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************