8 February 2024

Rent freeze would fix Canberra's increasingly unaffordable rental market, says Greens' Jo Clay

| Jo Clay
Join the conversation
Jo Clay, MLA

Jo Clay MLA says there’s a need for urgent action to make rentals more affordable in Canberra. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

Canberrans are anxious about the cost of living. It’s an inequality crisis impacting some Canberrans much worse than others.

They’re frightened of being evicted. They’re scared of landlords increasing their rent. They fear one more rent increase will send them over the edge.

It’s understandable. It’s never cost so much to live, and rents have never been higher.

Many people are worried they might do something that might irritate their landlord, even if it’s simple repairs and they’re within their rights. People are frightened that if they lose their current rental, they’ll have to compete for a new rental at much higher prices. They’re worried they’ll be homeless.

We need a rent freeze.

I’ve lived in Canberra my whole life. Belconnen was always the affordable place to live. I lived in share houses in Hawker, Aranda and Cook in the 2000s and we paid between $200 and $330 per week between us.

Median rents in Belconnen are now $565 per week. Around Canberra, the average rental is a jaw-dropping $750 a week. If you haven’t seen a raise in your paycheck in years, this is nowhere near affordable. If you’re on Jobseeker, the Aged Pension or Youth Allowance, there is not a single property affordable for you to rent.

READ ALSO Chief Minister accused of ‘downright lie’ in his criticism of Canberra Liberals’ cost-of-living pledge

My partner and I bought our home in Macquarie for $368,000. The same house sold for $118,000 the decade before and we paid a big price rise in those eight years, but we could easily afford it on one full-time and one part-time salary. Median house prices in Belconnen are now around $890,000.

Young people can’t afford to buy a home, so renting is not something they’ll do for a little while before saving a deposit. Renting is their long-term option and, as it stands, it’s a bad one.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Renters should be able to have a safe, secure and affordable home. Renting can give you freedom to move and greater flexibility than when you own your house.

The ACT Greens have long been the party for renters.

Just last year, my colleague Shane Rattenbury, Greens leader and Attorney-General, ended no-cause evictions, banned solicited rent bidding and brought in some basic standards like insulation. He also published the Tenant’s Rights Handbook, among other important reforms.

It’s great progress, but it’s not yet enough to make renting fair, affordable and secure. That’s why I’m bringing a bill to improve our existing rent controls and make renting more affordable.

People can only stretch their budget so far before they have to start cutting back on meals, doctor’s visits and heating or cooling their homes. More people are slipping into precarity and poverty. The private rental market is failing. This, of course, means we need more investment in public housing.

But we also need to freeze rent increases.

READ ALSO Canberra analyst says voting trends are not going conservative despite referendum result

We already have rent caps, which limit increases to 110 per cent of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). But this isn’t enough. ACT rents have increased significantly more in the last few years than in the decade before the COVID-19 pandemic.

As your groceries and medical care go up, you can’t afford a rent increase at the same time. The Greens want to freeze rent increases completely for two years to give everyone some relief and then cap rent increases at a flat 2 per cent rate of existing rent.

We also want to stop big rent increases between leases and stop rent bidding.

Rental market analysis from the Reserve Bank of Australia shows that the majority of new tenants pay higher rent than what was charged for the same property one year prior and properties with new tenants have larger rent increases than those with existing tenants.

Current laws allow this. Between leases, the 110 per cent limit doesn’t apply. A rent increase at that point is negotiated by tenant and landlord. Landlords can also write clauses into a tenancy agreement that override the 110 per cent limit. And when a property is vacated and re-advertised for rent, landlords can set the asking price at whatever they choose.

Our bill will change this. Rent increases will be tied to the property, not to a specific tenant or tenancy agreement. This will put more downward pressure on rental prices and stop price hikes when a property is advertised for rent.

I’m tabling this bill in the first sitting week this year because Canberra renters urgently need our help. For too long, their needs have been overshadowed by the wants of property investors. Everybody deserves an affordable home.

Jo Clay MLA is a Member for Ginninderra.

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
devils_advocate1:07 pm 20 Feb 24

Bring on the rent freeze! It will be worth it to see the mental gymnastics when the inevitable results come home to roost.

Spoiler alert: it will still somehow be the fault of landlords lol

Irrelevant greens need to focus on the tram and legalising their drugs! No one takes them seriously in this country!

More hypocrisy from the muddled Greens. Push the idea of a team. Build a tram. Result: land values on the transport corridor rise. Rents rise. Then bleat about the rising rents you’ve caused. And is it true that a certain ACT Green had a few negatively geared rental properties in the vicinity of the tram?

Since land and location amenity cannot be created in a factory, rents must be regulated by government via taxation or price controls, as no competitive market can exist. Arguments against this are arguments for rent seeking and exploitation on the basis of who was here first.

HiddenDragon9:25 pm 16 Feb 24

A provocative perspective on this issue from across the Tasman –


Of course, the caption on that image could equally be “Latte Socialist Politicians” (and the revenue-gouging bureaucracies which they foster).

devils_advocate8:48 am 16 Feb 24

Landlords: if my investment property makes a loss, I’ll just cover the difference with my other sources of income.

Low-Income Transfer Recipients: ZOMG the government is sUbSiDiSiNg your iNvEsTmENT11!1!1!1!

Landlords: k’den, I’ll just increase the rent to cover the full costs of providing housing.

Also LITRs: NOOOOOOO you can’t DO that, you’re PROFITEERING and eXpLoItiNg vUlnEraBle tEnAnTs!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEeeeee


devils_advocate4:24 pm 13 Feb 24

“So perhaps drop the “we’re doing a community service” sanctimony and just admit you are sucking on the public teat to help finance your investments”

Point out where I indicated I was a property investor, let alone one that was operating at a loss?

The level of presumption is disgraceful.

Given the hysteria of your defence of negative gearing, a reasonable assumption on my part, nevertheless I will amend my comment …
So perhaps drop the “they’re doing a community service” sanctimony and just admit they are sucking on the public teat to help finance their investments rather than truly generating investment income. And the leeching continues even when they sell the investment and they get these huge capital gains concessions.

devils_advocate9:35 pm 13 Feb 24


The only “hysteria” here is from low income earners who don’t seem to realise that landlords who are running their properties at a loss are funding those losses from their own pocket

It is the landlords subsidising the tenants, not the government subsidising landlords. I would have thought people would be grateful that landlords are willing to incur losses for the purposes of picking up where the state and territory governments have failed to provide public housing.

My reaction to the inevitable asset inequality and landlord/serfdom that will arise from abolishing negative gearing is more detached amusement than hysteria.

“landlords who are running their properties at a loss are funding those losses from their own pocket”
Were that the case then I would probably suggest they get a community service award. Reality is their losses, on an appreciating asset, are being funded by the other tax payers – which as I said is even further funded by the tax payer when they dispose of the asset.
But keep on perpetuating your 18th Century “landlord/serfdom” scaremongering … I’m sure you’ll find a lot of leeching negative gearers to swallow your tripe.

devils_advocate12:59 pm 15 Feb 24

“Reality is their losses, on an appreciating asset, are being funded by the other tax payers.”

Nope. Wrong again. The landlord’s losses on residential investment properties are being funded out of their own pocket, from their other earnings whether that be from PAYG income or other, positive cashflow properties.

Feel free to keep attempting to obfuscate this fact to push whatever agenda you have though.

devils_advocate, anyone who invests with an intention or foreknowledge of a net loss is an idiot. Some investors might reasonably fall into that class in the end, but not by plan, and not for want of potential tax advantage.

Your deceit that landlords are in some manner generously supporting tenants rather than investing for long run tax-advantaged profit displays either staggering ignorance or a clear wish that nobody notice.

devils_advocate3:33 pm 15 Feb 24

The “tax advantage” comes from having incurred a loss, yes you forgo the tax liability but you also forgo the income.

So the point stands that landlords who run at a loss are subsidising their tenants.

They may make a capital gain at some point down the road, and that gain may or may not exceed the losses they incurred along the way, and that gain is itself subject to some rate of tax (albeit concessional). So a contingent gain at best.

From the governments perspective, private landlords are providing housing at a subsidised price, and in the event they somehow profit then the government gets a healthy slice of that action too.

The audacity of low income earners to complain about this scenario is astounding.

I invest for profit, devils_advocate, so what do you do? For loss?

You really are trying to have a lend.

Specific tax advantages arise from offsetting short term losses against unrelated employment income, and most significantly from tax concessions on capital gains. It’s quite simple, and can be read in charts of the rocketing divergence of house prices from income since 1998.

If the CGT concession were killed, housing investment for personal profit would immediately become less attractive, leading to slower price growth, more affordable house prices, and thus lower rents still produce a financial dividend for non-silly investors.

I can reassure those audacious low income earners they are right to recognise that your arguments are fraudulently self-serving.

This is next level from Devils Advocate.

Not only are property investors generously providing housing for tenants, they are apparently so altruistic they are subsidising them too.

But of course, only if you ignore the reality of the upward impacts on property prices and rents caused by property investors and the tax advantages they receive.

There is no tenant subsidy, investors charge market rates. And they do so because of their financial assessment of the value and likelihood of that future capital gain being well in excess of any immediate, tax preferenced loss. You can’t just ignore this as its inherently linked to the market as a whole.

The mental gymnastics are hilarious, you should have a stand up comedy show.

“The audacity of low income earners to complain about this scenario is astounding.”

Haven’t seen any low income earners complaining here, pretty audacious assumption I would think.

Particularly for someone who started this thread complaining about JS assuming he was a property investor.

“ Feel free to keep attempting to obfuscate this fact to push whatever agenda you have though.”
My agenda is simple. I’m sick and tired of dud landlords using other tax payers to supplement their “supposed investment income” and then tax payers further supporting their leeching through ridiculously generous capital gains concessions.
Your feeble attempts to make them into magnanimous donors of ‘subsidised housing’ would be risible if it were not so pathetic.
What’s your agenda if you are not one of these dud landlords?

devils_advocate8:42 pm 15 Feb 24

There were no assumptions by me. I know that the people complaining are low income earners because they have conceded as much, in that they acknowledge this is the reason they don’t know about the special levies, surcharges and excess contributions taxes that drive marginal income tax rates above 45%.

The sense of entitlement to other people’s money is astounding.

I don’t endorse the concept of loss-making investments but if it benefits renters they could at least not complain about it, even if they can’t be grateful.

” I know that the people complaining are low income earners because they have conceded as much, in that they acknowledge this is the reason they don’t know about the special levies, surcharges and excess contributions taxes that drive marginal income tax rates above 45%.”
As one of those “people complaining” I can assure you, d_a, you are totaly off the mark. I am neither a low income earner nor a renter. Far from it, while retired now, I own my home and I spent many of my years in the workforce paying a substantial amount of PAYG tax at the highest marginal rate.
So having ‘paid my tax dues’ I understand fully that the only people with a sense of entitlement are those dud landlords sucking on the public teat, to compensate for their inability to turn an investment into a profit.
As for “special levies, surcharges and excess contributions taxes”? Perhaps you can explain how which of these public imposts, dud landlords pay that profit making landlors and other PAYG earners don’t pay?

I wrote:
“anyone who invests with an intention or foreknowledge of a net loss is an idiot. Some investors might reasonably fall into that class in the end, but not by plan, and not for want of potential tax advantage.”

devils_advocate wrote:
“I don’t endorse the concept of loss-making investments…”

Observe that devils_advocate skips the word I used, “net” (or nett for older readers). All investment is outlay for return, by definition. The only questions here are tax advantage and devils_advocate’s shallow pretence that this is some noble benefit to others, the earth is flat and the sun will rise over the south pole tomorrow.

devils_advocate6:58 pm 16 Feb 24

Entirely irrelevant either way. If the speculation pays off and the investor makes a profit the government wins by taxing the capital gain.

If not, the housing market received a subsidised rental. Also a win for society.

Of course the beneficiaries of the transfer system will find something to complain about, but what’s new

“… the housing market received a subsidised rental …” – yeah subsidised by the government, you muppet

The beneficiaries of “the transfer system” are precisely the property owners to whom wealth is transferred through under-taxation of capital gains.

As I wrote earlier, and is undisputed, “It’s quite simple, and can be read in charts of the rocketing divergence of house prices from income since 1998.”

Even speculators and dud investors with whom you seem most familiar price to market.

Keep trying devils_advocate. It helps your argument look more desperate and sillier every time you write. Do you imagine most other readers do not see through your dissembling?

Continuing to repeat something doesn’t make it true.

Housing investment does not provide subsidised rental properties, it does the opposite, increasing the costs of housing across the board because of the constrained nature of the market.

And not being a beneficiary of the transfer system, I still think it’s a woeful idea to give such preferential tax treatment to property investment.

It simply sucks too much capital into an unproductive sector of the economy, reducing opportunities for higher overall economic growth if the investment funds were directed elsewhere.

But of course every time this is mentioned, the property investment spivs sucking on the proverbial teat, squeal like stuck pigs and make up stories about generous benevolent investors.

devils_advocate2:02 pm 17 Feb 24

Imagine if low income earners spent half as much time securing the bag as they did counting the money in other people’s pockets

Imagine if high income earners paid tax according to their means rather than engaging in tax avoidance (conveniently called ‘tax minimisation’) schemes and sponging off other PAYG paying citizens.

devils_advocate12:40 pm 18 Feb 24

Very easy way to discourage tax minimisation, which is to stop charging punitive rates of income tax (including punitive withdrawal of benefits) and encouraging people to be productive.

Good to see you have effectively conceded all argued points even vaguely relevant, devils_advocate, leaving you grasping to support yourself by implicitly demeaning opponents in your own eyes.

“Imagine if”…some wealthy people not only recognised the structural imbalances in society but willingly voted to rectify them at their own (minor) expense.

On taxes, in my long experience earning more has yet to send me broke. Is your problem risky speculation or dud investing? If neither, why do you spend so much time supporting them?

devils_advocate5:01 pm 19 Feb 24

20 replies deep and the hysterical greens supporters can’t decide whether they are
a) upset by landlords running a loss in providing housing (screeching about negative gearing) or
b) getting a positive return on their investment (in which case they are obviously exploiting tenants, and therefore more screeching required)

Logic not even once

I see you’ve given up trying to justify dud landlords being able to use the public purse to counterbalance their inability to turn a profit on their investment. Instead you’ve decided your defence of these leeches is to fabricate pigeon holes for those who oppose you.

a) These dud landlords are not “running a loss in providing housing”, they are running a loss in trying to increase their wealth, and are using the government to supplement their wealth by partially underwriting that loss – the provision of housing is an aside; and
b) Who has raised an objection to landlords “getting a positive return on their investment” in this thread? I, for one, would be happy to see all landlords being able to positively gear their investments (and not needing to suck on the public teat via negative gearing). As long as they don’t find some other scheme to avoid paying their proportionate share towards the public purse as other ordinary PAYG tax payers do.

You label the progressive PAYG tax system “punitive rates of income tax”. As byline said, and I concur fully, “On taxes, in my long experience earning more has yet to send me broke.”

Again, I draw your attention to the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes: ‘Taxes are the price we pay for civilized (sic) society.’ What say you to that?

devils_advocate9:47 am 20 Feb 24

Framing the debate as one about whether taxes are necessary at all, is the very definition of a strawman argument.

Moreover it precludes a realistic discussion of tax which taxes into account efficiency, incentives, behaviours and unintended consequences.

Of course the latter is intellectually challenging and requires the acceptance of hard truths, such as the relative value of different people’s labour etc, so easier to just continue screeching I suppose.

It’s funny that in the attempts to frame property investors as some sort of benevolent heroes, Devils Advocate has raised a good point around the overall mix of taxation and where efficiencies could be gained.

The government could, for example, lower the “punitive” levels of income taxation if their revenue base was more balanced and efficient.

Which is exactly why the current level of incentives and concessions to property investors (amongst others) should be reduced, because of the poor economic outcomes they promote overall.

Australia’s high reliance on income taxes is an obvious problem. There’s also some obvious solutions of how that revenue could be replaced.

The responses of any of the three people here, standing alone, suffice to rebut devils_advocate’s positions entirely, so devils_advocate keeps injecting crass assumptions in hope of justifying his beliefs (to himself). Wrong as usual.

The black knight in Monty Python claimed to be relevant while armless and legless. Unlike the black knight, devils_advocate has also lost his head.

Only the have nots will complain the loudest. The silent majority who have invested wisely support the current tax system on property as evidenced by the election we had on negative gearing. Keep on whinging! Regardless of the tax settings those without the financial sense to invest wisely will always have something to crow about.

You are correct, the issue is not whether or not taxes are necessary. The issue is the fact that, as I commented when referencing that quote, people like you advocate for civilisation at a discounted price – especially for dud landlords and other tax minimising leeches.

If everybody paid their taxes according to their means rather than their ability to pay someone to help them get around their obligations, perhaps the tax system would be better for all.

chewy14 has rightly argued on many occasions for across the board tax reform – indexarion of income tax brackets being an obvious area of positive reform. Unfortunately governments of all flavours don’t want to do this because of the short term windfall it brings. And an overhaul of the tax system would require bipartisan support – not going to happen.

And let’s not even go there with the “relative value of different people’s labour etc”. I’m sure most Australians would place much higher importance on the value of community service workers, such as nurses, child, aged care and emergency service workers, as opposed to some of the much higher paid white collar workers – advisors on tax minimising, such as accountants and financial advisors, quickly come to mind.

JS the labour market determines the relative “importance” of jobs in Australia not your personal opinion. When an immigrant with no language skills can step in and do an equivalent job of a nurse, aged and child carer it proves they are not “more important” that the lawyers and accountants of this world. It’d be cool if our cleaning maids all came with PhDs but makes no difference if they job description is just to clean the toilet!

I see Sam Oak has stepped in where devils_advocate is already deep in it.

These determinedly ignorant attempts at self-aggrandisement presumably do something for their egos, for it does nothing to compensate for their lack of argument.

Still, if Sam Oak believes (without hypocrisy) in payment by value, he will support reform of current tax concessions which reward unproductive investment of excess capital in existing housing stock. I’ll wait.

@Sam Oak
‘the labour market determines the relative “importance” of jobs in Australia’
That could be the issue with current labour shortages in the community service areas I mentioned, Sam. I don’t hear anyone bemoaning the “shortage” of lawyers and accountants in Australia and calling for action to address this shortage – could that be because the former are overworked and underpaid, whereas the latter are … well the less said the better.

devils_advocate7:10 pm 20 Feb 24

lol@ people think you need an “argument” to support the observation that labour markets allocate wages based on the relative demand for different types of labour.

Yes some types of labour are worth more than others.

“ Yes some types of labour are worth more than others.”
I certainly agree, as I’ve stated above, that some workers are “valued” by the community more than others.
We can agree to disagree on the appropriateness of their wages.
Nevertheless once the market determines their salary, the (progressive tax) system determines the appropriate level of proportionate PAYG tax they pay. Unless they are dud landlords and investors who “use the system” to suck on the public teat and leech on other tax payers. Nobody would care how much people earn, if they paid tax according to their actual income, rather than according to their inability to turn a profit on a totally unrelated investment, and expect others to fund their loss through the public purse.


Ironic to read this article today showing the research that increasing numbers of high income earners are now being forced to rent due to the ridiculous state of the housing market.

And having those higher income earners renting further increases rents due to the higher demand of people with greater disposable incomes.

Just a situation that is woeful for anyone who cares about efficient allocation of capital and the performance of the economy as a whole.

devils_advocate now demonstrates that he no longer even knows what the subject is, resorting to platitudes, though I can understand he would like it to be something other than he first claimed, and repeatedly failed to justify to any of his interlocutors.

Chewy that is a ridiculously poor research article. Of course if you keep your definition of “high income earner” at a fixed amount the proportion renting goes up. It’s called wage inflation! Come back to me with genuine analysis showing the top quintile are doing it tough. Because they aren’t! A $200k a year gross salary today is maybe just enough to be considered average in Australia and equivalent to $100k pre-COVID when the government chose to pay people to sit at home and do nothing for 2 years!

devils_advocate9:59 am 21 Feb 24

“ devils_advocate now demonstrates that he no longer even knows what the subject is, resorting to platitudes, though I can understand he would like it to be something other than he first claimed, and repeatedly failed to justify to any of his interlocutors.”

Hah! If you can’t see the connection between
-asset yields (rents) that have become detached from asset values
-bandaid (but apparent populist) solutions to policy problems that will cause more problems than they solve
-underlying issues with punitive tax and transfer systems that encourage loss making activity to speculate on asset price growth (even in the face of negative yields- a la Dutch tulip bulbs) and
-overall unwillingness to understand how tax rates overall drive incentives to be productive, including minimisation

It’s not my job to draw you a crayon picture

Also using words like “interlocutor” to attempt to elevate the status of poorly informed ideological screeching does nothing to bolster the underlying “argument” (which is based on view of how the greens would like people to behave, rather than how they actually behave)

Sam Oak,
We aren’t talking about the top quintile “doing it tough”, so not sure what you’re on about.

And you clearly didn’t actually go and read the research because it shows the fundamental shift in people accessing private rentals across income ranges.

The results clearly show a structural shift with increasing amounts of higher income earners renting outside of any wage inflation impacts. If your claim was correct, the lower income amounts would see a proportionate reduction as overall incomes increase due to inflation. But none of the results show anything like that.

It clearly outlines problems with the housing market where supply issues and incentivised investor demand have ramped up prices such that fewer and fewer people can afford to purchase their own home.

Which as I said leads to inefficient capital allocation and reduced overall economic growth.

It’s truly funny to see people talk about people needing to work smarter/harder so they too can be well off, whilst at the same time saying they need specific government incentives and concessions to prop up their investments in areas that hurt Australia’s overall economic performance.

Surely you don’t need the government to subsidise your investment decisions Sam Oak? You’re a smart and savvy investor, you’ll just keep on being the most winningest winner that ever won, no matter what right?

“ Surely you don’t need the government to subsidise your investment decisions Sam Oak? You’re a smart and savvy investor, you’ll just keep on being the most winningest winner that ever won, no matter what right?”

As I and many others have explained to you on countless occasions there is no “subsidisation” of investments. Everything gets taxed whether that is capital gains or rental incomes. A CGT discount is not a “subsidy” it is just a reduced rate of taxation to incentivise the provision of a housing service to a lower income family in no position to buy a house currently. Raise taxes on property and you are throttling the supply of rental properties and drastically increasing rents!

Time for a longer response.

– “yields detached from asset values”

Precisely. If yields are low then more expected gain is in capital or there is no return on investment. We see massive divergence in house prices from income since 1998 when the GST concession was introduced, as I commented twice earlier and continues to be undisputed, because it can’t be. That acceleration in asset values over incomes directly affects rents (reduced yields) as well as purchase affordability. Hence, low rents, negative cashflows in some cases, capital gain concessionally taxed in a structural imbalance within society, diverting investment away from productive activity into land and its accoutrements.

Thank you for raising a point which cuts to pieces your own claims.

– “underlying issues with punitive tax and transfer systems that encourage loss making activity to speculate on asset price growth”

Your affinity for speculation and dud investment is your problem not mine. If taxation on capital is punitive then sane investors disinvest. It is precisely the tax incentive through capital gains tax concessions and to a lesser degree from negative gearing which inflate the asset price; not some 17th century infatuation with colourful plants. Data about housing shows massive divergence of prices from income since 1998 when the GST concession was introduced, a tax incentive for speculative investment as discussed above.

Thank you for again raising a point which cuts to pieces your own claims.

– “overall unwillingness to understand how tax rates overall drive incentives to be productive, including minimisation.”

I really had to stop laughing to respond to this one. You said tax minimisation is productive activity.

You know nothing about my background and circumstances simply because I do not divulge them. Doing so usually speaks to someone’s lack of confidence in their position by making an unsubstantiable (and insubstantial) claim to authority. When you have finished with the dictionary, read up on economics.

devils_advocate2:55 pm 21 Feb 24

The lack of comprehension on display would be hilarious did it not speak to the parlour state of the education system.

Classic illustration of misrepresenting the argument and then railing against the straw man.

Nowhere did I discuss punitive rates of tax on CAPITAL. In any case if you knew how the tax system works you’d understand that the rate of tax on capital is a direct function of the marginal rate paid on income.

But you clearly don’t understand any of that, nor the linkages between punitive INCOME tax rates, distortionary tax policies which favour one asset class over another,
and incentives which INCLUDE the full range of incentives (either to work hard and be productive; or engage in tax minimisation, both of which are incentives driven by tax policies)

And again, it’s not my job to explain the fundamentals of income tax policy or economics (either neoclassical or behavioral) to you – although it is enlightening to understand how the average punter thinks (or doesn’t, as the case may be)

Sam Oak,
I’m beginning to question your self claimed investment genius skills.

Hilariously in your strange reply, you’ve literally provided the dictionary definition of a subsidy in claiming the CGT discount isn’t one.

Perhaps if you actually mentioned the original intent of not taxing inflation, you wouldn’t make yourself look so silly.

And as has been explained to you many times, the incentives given to property investors do not provide significant increases to housing supply, so your point is flat wrong regardless.

Particularly so when if you had actually read my last comment and the linked research, it shows that the proportion of people needing to rent because of affordability issues, partly driven by investor demand increasing prices across the board. Instead of providing rental properties for truly low income families who can’t afford to purchase, investors are actually forcing higher income people into renting rather than being able to purchase.

For a supposed “community service”, you’re doing a woeful job of it.

“speak to the parlour state of the education system”.
Indeed. Try ‘parlous’.

I did not assert you “discuss punitive rates of tax on CAPITAL”. On the contrary, I assert (and have shown) you seek consistently to avoid the implications of structural imbalance arising from capital gains tax concessions. That distortionary tax policy favouring unbuilt asset trading over income and new investment is shown in property prices and rents over time. It is not doing favours.

In your final paragraphs your betray your lack of grounded confidence again. While you make desperate claims about yourself and others, I and others simply demonstrate with facts undisputed.

devils_advocate9:28 am 22 Feb 24

The spellcheck is the most valuable contribution to the thread thus far! Well done.

Incidental Tourist4:17 pm 12 Feb 24

The ACT Government treasury report says (https://www.treasury.act.gov.au/taxreform) “Tax reform has particularly benefited first-home buyers … rents have decreased and the supply of rental properties has increased”. Either this article or their treasury report is wrong. Can Greens make their mind before election? She bought her house in early 2000s when Liberals were in power and Greens were not ruling in the Assembly. Then in her words ” Belconnen was always the affordable place to live”. Talking of affordability – did she refer to free parking across Canberra, rates one third of today’s, no land tax/rent tax, no GPs tax when they bulk billed? And today after 6 terms in government and years of their “progressive reforms” – read more taxes – she says “there is not a single property affordable for you to rent” and “Canberrans are anxious about the cost of living”.. Really? Did she read the treasury report? Or did she just notice how her Rates increased? Do they ever take responsibility either for what they say or do?

@Incidental Tourist
As I read it, the report, to which you provided the link, was commissioned by the ACT government in 2019 and covers the period 2012 – 2019. Publication of the report was delayed due to COVID … so unfortunately it’s old news. Perhaps both the report (at the time) and the article are correct?

Incidental Tourist11:55 am 13 Feb 24

It’s correct if you divide average rent per average income. It means if someone rented 3r house in 2012 say for $400 with the average territory income of $65K and then in 2019 the same house would be rented at $600 they can’t afford it and moved to 1 br apartment for the same price. As the average territory income in 2019 has risen to say $75K it means average rent per average income per tenant has fallen. With the proliferation of tiny apartments and shared housing indeed the average rent per average income would fall.

Incidental Tourist2:09 pm 13 Feb 24

@JustSaying “Correct” save for hidden density per rental in their report. They appear drawing conclusion from using average ratio of average rent per average income. Say if one person rented a 2br unit for $300 in 2012 and then in 2019 two people share the same unit renting it for say $450 then the combined “average” income per rental more than doubles (wages grew) and the rent to income ratio falls. The same “improvement” happens when people downsize to smaller / cheaper dwellings. There are many more tiny apartments today than in 2012. Unfortunately many rentals will disappear as a result of the reckless rent freeze. Remaining tenants will have to squeeze in even more. And unlucky those who won’t fit in, will have to wait for public housing if they live long enough to see it.

How about the Greens look in their own backyard and question how they and their Labor government partners have reduced the raw number of Public Housing dwellings in Canberra.

The massive percentage reduction in the proportion of public housing tenants since Labor came to government 22 years ago is shameful. Selling off so much prime public housing land to developers and not properly maintaining public housing properties and grounds has been disgraceful for politicians who claim to support the disadvantaged.

Public housing, community housing and affordable housing in Canberra’s outer suburbs has been woefully mismanaged by our two government political parties for many years.

Is there a recent report on the management of public housing?

You must not read much. This has been covered in detail, and most recently in City Weekly by John Stanhope and colleague.

If you want to reduce the rental prices in Canberra, use your position in government to drive down the costs of owning a property, by reducing rates. You could also drive down the cost of renting a property to a tenant, by reducing land tax. The massive rises in these costs have driven up the price of rentals in Canberra as owners have to recover their costs and price their rental properties accordingly. The rates and land tax costs here are way higher than in Sydney, so wake up and change the things that will really help reduce prices. If you do your economic research, you’ll realise that rental freezes do not work. They reduce the availability of rentals.

The greens will say they’ll support all those. however the end of the day Labor always gets to decide and the greens are only a backup party and not a party in their own right.

Else they could just form goverenment with the librerals and be in charge.
At this rate the ACT greens look closer to liberals than labor does.

Advocating reduction in land taxes, the economic value of land rents, (and replaced with what? stamp duty?) is economic illiteracy.

Other than that, I agree about the effects of freezes and the need for governments to do their own social work, for which of course they need to raise money through efficient and equitable taxation.

They might like to stop their spending on things we don’t need instead of raising extra taxes. Rates and land taxes in the ACT are many times higher than in Sydney. It is actually cheaper to live in Sydney than here, despite the cost of housing there as everything else is cheaper there from land taxes and rates to dentists, doctors and food.

“cheaper”? Sydney is about ten times the size of Canberra, with huge variations in wealth, and even here there is price differentiation. Like for like you are talking nonsense again. Try buying a house within a short, easy drive to Sydney CBD although if you live further out you might find trains avoid congestion.

No mention of stamp duty? No mention that other States are looking at or following Canberra’s example on the economically fairer shift to efficient land taxes instead? No, they don’t suit your tirade.

Yes, everybody deserves an affordable home, but it is not the responsibility of individuals to provide that to them. Nor is it the responsibility of investors. It is up to the government and that is why we pay taxes, to ensure that we look after people doing it tough.

Stop trying to shift the responsibility of government onto private individuals! Do your job in government as a representative to ensure the government does its job of supporting those having a tough time. Stop trying to blame individuals who are following the law.

Rental freezes don’t work. They just drive owners away from building, buying and renting out their properties, which shrinks the rental market even further. Higher need = higher demand = higher prices. Wake up you naive green fool!!!!

She should buy up as many properties as she can and rent them out cheaply and see how she goes.

Agree. Lefties are full of hot air and impractical ideas, as can be seen in Victoria currently, after the Labour government’s newest land taxes.

Incidental Tourist5:42 pm 11 Feb 24

I keep hearing narrative that majority of property investors are purchasing existing properties to rent out. Hence pushing out landlords from the market won’t make much difference in housing supply. In reality every property bought on a secondary market is a property not built. As investors leave the former rentals change hands and displace the new builds. So the new builds stall as landlords sell out. And we do see this trend in the heavily under-subscribed Whitlam land release. But regardless of the housing supply even if we had lots of houses around there is no tenant without landlord. If you have 100 houses and only one is owned by a landlord, then there will be only one tenant and no more. Whatever the rest of houses are, they are not for rent. So the war on landlords is inevitably a war on tenants.

con tricolas5:31 pm 11 Feb 24

I’d like to see more public housing.

Capital Retro9:18 pm 11 Feb 24

Then move to Brussels in Belgium.

Looks like Jo Clay is taking advice from the opposition. This opinion piece sounds just like the Canberra Liberals’ motions in the Assembly, a predictable, rehashed and deceitful cut-and-paste effort taken from their federal counterparts. Revealing yet again the Greens inability and lack of appetite to contribute to constructive policy initiatives in dealing with the underlying issues that impact wealth and inequality in this city.

Ms Clay’s highly charged and dishonest opinion piece displays her ignorance. It was only a few months ago that her federal colleagues, supported by her party, used all of their powers and delaying tactics to oppose Labor’s $10 billion housing investment plan to build thousands of new social and affordable properties.

As those in the media and government have pointed out, time-and-time again, tackling inequality and poverty as well as housing affordability is complex and involves a concerted effort from all sides of politics including federal and state and territory governments. The ACT government has implemented many protections and policies over the past few years, supported by her party, bolstering rental relief and tenants’ rights. Despite this however, in the narrowminded world of the ACT Greens, they continue to call for a rent freeze. This will potentially increase rental demand in the ACT by forcing investors out of the market.

The latest Statistics also do not support Ms Clay’s doom and gloom arguments and her call for a rent freeze. The ACT economy is doing well as we recover from the pandemic. High employment rates, public investment and spending has all contributed to this recovery. All of this influences property investment and housing affordability. Statistics also show that rental affordability has increased and rents have fallen in each quarter of the past 12-months revealing Ms Clay’s dishonesty.

Of course much more can be done, it always can be. But Ms Clay and her party will have to do better than ignorance, dishonesty and scaremongering in tackling housing affordability in the ACT!!

Mike McGettrick1:32 pm 11 Feb 24

I suspect the Greens are not aware of the fact that the majority of apartment property investors in Canberra over the past 25 years have actually LOST money when all financial factors are taken into account. Were it not for those brave investors the shortage of properties for rent would have become dramatic.

Anyone that “brave” sounds more like a speculator than an investor.

Capital Retro9:19 pm 11 Feb 24

It only works with negative gearing.

Not all property owners get into the market with the aim to rent. When I got married my partner and I moved to another house to start a family. We both were in the process of buying a place when we met and both had a mortgage with interest rates double what they are today. We decided to rent our houses to help secure our retirement, however after approximately 18 months we both sold, as after real estate fees, council and water rates, and ongoing maintenance costs, which significantly increased after the properties were leased, it was no affordable to continue to pay a significant portion of our wages to allow someone else the privilege of living in our homes. The investors (both real estate agents) that bought the properties immediately increased the rents to cover costs, something that may have meant I wouldn’t have had to sell. Neither my partner or I have looked at an investment property again based on this experience even though we could probably now afford to. A cap on rents will only drive similar investors out of the market further exacerbating the available rental houses. Any bill should look at balancing the rights of both the tenant and the landlord not further drive it in the favor of the tenant if you want to encourage investors back into the market and increase rental numbers. By all means add something to discourage deliberate gouging of tenants, but everyone feels the hurt of cost of living not just tenants.

Well said! Thankyou for sharing your experience as landlords in Canberra, the worst place in Australia to be a landlord.

Elle Cehcker10:25 am 11 Feb 24

Rent Freeze was disastrous for renters in Germany when they tried it.

But I guess like socialism it just wasn’t implemented correctly that time, but this time it will…lol never change Left.

John Citizen1:26 pm 11 Feb 24

ReAl SoCiAlIsM hAs NeVeR bEeN tRiEd!!11!!!

devils_advocate5:32 pm 11 Feb 24

Rent control also didn’t work out too well in New York.

Mmmmmm, lead paint chips. Delicious, delicious paint chips.

NeVeR bEeN sUcCeSsFuL eItHeR.

devils_advocate8:31 am 11 Feb 24

Lmao. At this point I want these policies to go through just so I can taste the delicious, delicious lefty tears when it all blows up in their face.

Yes I do feel bad for the homeless and housing stressed but this government was never going to do anything to help them anyway.

Lastly, a reminder: you cannot regulate prices. You can only ever engineer a shortage.

Terry Mooney7:34 am 11 Feb 24

If the ALP support this bill they are effectively signalling to existing and potential investors in the ACT’s housing market that it’s no longer financial sensible nor viable and to consider looking elsewhere….how about directing a significant percentage of the funds collected from land tax and rates to building mixed housing options around shopping precincts/transport hubs for low to moderate income earners to rent or rent to buy?

Great idea! But not the goal of this government to help people, just to pretend they do. They’d rather help developers by building a tram line that increases the value of land nearby so people will build and buy here. No money left for public housing and even the bus service has been cut, along with health and education. The developers have won as have the politicians who look after their interests, but the rest of Canberra is suffering.

I wonder if the ACT Greens have asked their federal and other state counterparts about whether they have implemented rent freezes on their investment properties:
And the wider political class:

Incidental Tourist11:21 pm 10 Feb 24

You can hardly do better job if you want to push remaining landlords out of Canberra. But there is no tenant without landlord. Hence the rental crisis.

William Newby10:44 pm 10 Feb 24

Record migration and Labor’s strangle hold on available land is killing renters (and home buyers).
But let’s bash up all those mega rich landlords, we will just socialise this pain by limiting their ability to get the maximum return on their investment.
Name me one stock on the ASX where the government will prohibit them from maximising their returns? there are none..
This idea has not worked elsewhere in the world, why would it work in Canberra?
90% of Canberra never vote for the Greens but we all suffer from their ill thought out socialist agendas.
Rents are high because the cost of buying the asset is high, Canberra is already the worst place to own a rental with increased land taxes if tenanted. This will be the final blow to landlords, air BnB will be their last chance before they just quit the ACT property market and sell up. How will this fix things Jo?

GrumpyGrandpa8:40 pm 10 Feb 24

I’m not a landlord, so I have no vested interests here. But even I can tell The Greens have no idea.

By freezing rents or capping increases, it reduces the incentive to invest and a without investment, people end up with living in their cars. The Greens might ask whether the Alliance partners would agree to freeze property Rates and other Government charges to offset landlord’s frozen rent?

Government charges such as Rates and Land Tax all filter through into the cost of rentals. In the ACT, rental properties are charged Land Tax at 150% of the Rates charged on the property. Eg. The Rates on our house are $3,000 p.a. If we rented out our house, we would be charged $4,500 in Land Tax. It would cost us $7,500 a year or about $150 p.w. in ACT Government charges, before we see a cent in rent. The Greens might consider talking to the Alliance partners about how much of their own charges contribute to the cost of rent in Canberra?

The other issue is supply. If our population grows faster than the growth in available properties, demand forces up prices. Greens, maybe speak to your Alliance partners about releasing more land.

Why anyone votes for The Greens, I have no idea.

Not that I am a great fan of the Greens, your argument falls over when you mention supply.

The majority of property investors are purchasing existing properties to rent out, rather than building new properties and increasing supply.

It’s one of the reasons that Labor’s original (abandoned after 2019 election) plan to limit negative gearing to new properties was such a good idea. Seemed like a good way to encourage a growth in supply – and there are many today, who believe that tax change should be resurrected.

So in your opinion, renters don’t warrant the ability to live in the inner city areas, ie. Established properties, just the new suburbs. Seems very blinkered thinking.

Wow – that’s a huge leap from reality! Those with existing investment properties were also going to be able to continue to negatively gear under grandfathering – so nothing would change for those renters.

devils_advocate5:36 pm 11 Feb 24

The landed classes who have either grandfathered investment properties or positive cashflow properties to write off losses against, will continue to consolidate their economic advantage.

People trying to get onto the property ladder for the first time though an investment property? Rentvestors? Who cares! Lmao

Let’s get rid of negative gearing and finally entrench a fuedal system of lords and serfs, once and for all!

You prefer to preserve and extend privilege rather than curtailing to let it dwindle.

GrumpyGrandpa8:36 pm 11 Feb 24

Hi JustSaying,

There is nothing wrong with Negative Gearing. Every business offsets it’s expenses against it’s income. A landlord is operating a business.

If the legislation was sound, he wouldn’t have needed grandfathering clauses.

If there is a tax issue with property, it’s with CGT. Keating charged CGT on gains, after CPI adjustments. Costello changed the rules to allow 50% tax-free gains after 12 months ownership. Who doesn’t like 50% tax-free money?

Had Shorten changed the ownership requirement from 1 year to say 10 years (which would still encourage long-term investors), he might have had half a chance.

Actually, he kinda also a brain-fart when he decided he’d limit Franking Credit refunds to people who were tax-payers, then backtracked on that, when there was outrage from people on the Old Age Pension, but still denied those who were self-funded.

If Albo goes to the next election with Shorten’s policies, history would repeat itself.

@justsaying, where are the most expensive properties? I’ll give you the answer, they tend to be closer to the city. Where are the fixed costs highest? Again, allow me to give you the answer – they are of course closer to the city.

And what fixed costs am I referring to you may ask? Well let’s start with the big ones for established homes, Interest, Land Tax & Rates. If you have an apartment, Strata Fees are a big cost. Add in maintenance on the older property and boom, expenses exceed the rental income.

So that raises the question of why would an investor want to invest in something that loses money? The answer is Capital Gains. They play the long game and wear the annual loss in the hope of recouping them and a whole lot more when they sell up.

If the Greens get their way and remove Negative Gearing, the next one on their list is the Capital Gains Tax discount. And if I’m an inner city investor, chances are I bought that place in my 40’s and 10, 15 – 20 years later I’m heading for retirement. Chances are I’ll cash out and that home will be purchased by an owner occupier upgrading from the outer areas or perhaps an inner city apartment.

That change reduces the supply of an investment property in the inner city areas, and it won’t be replaced with Negative Gearing gone. That will mean rental homes will only be available in the outer suburbs.

That change may not happen overnight, but over a number of years it will happen.

Consider the consequences carefully.

Oh please, the “landed classes”, “feudal system of lords and serfs”. What century do you live in?

It was recently reported that, in Australia, more than one in nine taxpayers negatively gear. In 2020-21 they claimed losses amounting to $8.7 billion – 3.5 per cent of the income tax collected. Negative gearing benefits dud landlords: those who can’t make money by renting out properties.

Other countries, such as USA and UK only landlords, who can’t make money, to offset losses against profits from other investments – but not against wages. Even Canada, which allows offset of rental losses against wages, requires an “an intention to make a profit” – which would probably rule out most Australian negative gearers on ‘interest only investment loans’.

So perhaps drop the “we’re doing a community service” sanctimony and just admit you are sucking on the public teat to help finance your investments rather than truly generating investment income. And the leaching continues even when you sell the investment and you get these huge capital gains concessions.

As I said in another post, quoting former US Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes: ‘Taxes are the price we pay for civilized (sic) society.’ The issue is too many individuals, like you, want that civilisation at a discount – funded by other tax payers.

“Every business offsets it’s [sic] expenses against it’s [sic] income. A landlord is operating a business.”

Of course any business person is fully entitled to deduct business expenses and losses against their business operations. The point about negative gearing of housing as it stands is that it allows deductions against wholly unrelated personal income, which is not the same business. To say there is nothing wrong with that is a bit thoughtless.

The majority of property investors are not negatively geared so it is only a smaller proportion who are seeking benefits from it, relying on low-taxed capital gains. It is also the case that only about 23% of investor property loans are for new builds, so it would be false to represent that property investors are significant creators of rental housing, are not competing in a tax-advantaged way with home buyers.

I also think Clay’s / Chandler-Mathers’ proposal is economically irrational in the current context, but I am less blinkered about the problems than some of their opponents.

“Every business offsets it’s expenses against it’s income. A landlord is operating a business.”
I don’t have a problem with landlords offsetting their expenses against their “business” income … it’s offsetting losses against totally unrelated PAYG income that is the issue.

“If the legislation was sound, he wouldn’t have needed grandfathering clauses.”
That’s not a very sound observation. Grandfathering has nothing to do with the ‘quality’ of the legislation. It enables a person to continue to have their circumstances assessed under the ‘old rules’, so they are not disadvantaged by the introduction of the ‘new rules’. It means the legislation would be very sound.

“Who doesn’t like 50% tax-free money?”
… and people say they structure their finances so they won’t be reliant on the government in their retirement years. Instead they are reliant on the government now, to fund their future.

“… limit Franking Credit refunds to people who were tax-payers …”
Yeah on that – the only brain-fart was Labor’s inability to explain the proposal properly. Again grandfathering would have prevented the age pensioner outrage – but more importantly taken the wind out of the sails of the scare mongering from the Murdoch-backed press and shock jocks. Where’s the logic in people who pay no tax getting a tax return? Again, it’s the ‘I don’t want to be a burden on the welfare sector’ set – who are happy to take a handout from the ATO. However, those who’ve made decisions, to do this, in the past, should be able to continue – just accept it for what it is, welfare under another guise.

“If Albo goes to the next election with Shorten’s policies, history would repeat itself.”
If Labor can actually think through their approach to selling essentially good reforms and explain them so ordinary people can understand, then May 2022 election history will repeat itself.

Oh I’ve considered the consequences.

If those ‘landlords’ have to rely on the public teat to supplement the ‘affordability’ of their investment, then yes they will get out of the property market which will result in a net increase in available properties for owner occupiers who may come in from outer suburbs.

If that’s where the rental properties are (i.e. outer suburbs), so what? If people want to live in a particular location – e.g. inner city, they have to pay the market rate or live where they can afford it. That’s no different to what happens now under market forces, for heaven’s sake.

Oh and yes please, Capital Gains discounts are yet another form of ‘nursing on the public teat’. Not only do you want other tax payers to help fund the purchase of your asset, you want them to subsidise you further when you sell that asset.

The Guru,
That makes absolutely no sense.

You’re basically attempting the old argument that property investors are somehow benevolent actors, generously providing cheaper rental options for poorer people in inner city areas. Nothing could be further from the truth, investors aim to maximise their benefits wherever possible, it’s a purely financial position.

If housing investors aren’t preferenced in inner city areas, they won’t simply up and leave because often that’s where the highest capital gains and returns are regardless. Prices and demands will rebalance.

And even if some investors did choose to leave that market, why is that a bad thing? It would reduce the upwards pressure on prices caused by investor demand, allowing some new owner occupiers to move in at a lower price or even for redevelopment and higher density use to occur. Win win.

Some of the comments here are completely unhinged and entirely lacking sympathy for far too many people in Canberra who are finding it harder and harder to keep a roof over their heads. We all need a place to live, we don’t all need a profitable portfolio of investment properties. I’m not without sympathy for people who have invested in property and are now facing rising mortgage costs – there is more than one thing wrong with our broken housing system. It is awful that people are pitting themselves against each other instead of demanding our politicians take meaningful steps to address these problems.

John Citizen10:07 am 11 Feb 24

What’s unhinged is the greens continual push of failed ideologies. If they want to control increases and freeze rent, go buy their own properties to do it with. Stop atempting to steal from the pockets of private investors.

Chris, your well meaning thinking fails to account for economic reality.

You seem to expect other people to provide accommodation for those in need. Labor have been in Government here in the ACT since 2001. Don’t you think they may be the problem?

Government should be the ones providing social housing to those in need, private rentals are for those tenants who have jobs but are not yet able or ready to buy.

Your comment “we don’t all need a profitable portfolio of investment properties” is extremely misguided. If there is not some form os profitability to an investment, why would anyone invest?

And if government can’t provide rental accommodation, and if private landlords are actively discouraged from providing rental properties – which they currently are here in the ACT – then where do those renters unable to buy live?

Some politicians really make you cringe. All the evidence suggests that when Governments try & control rents it results in investors leaving the sector & less properties available.

Thanks for your contribution franky 22. When you say ‘all the evidence’, can you share where we can find that evidence? Thank you.

Stephen Saunders3:55 pm 10 Feb 24

The Greens won’t talk about the demand side of the rental market, the massive migration. That Would Be Racist. They talk about useless “rent freezes” instead.

Nowhere has the subject of finding homes for the 2000 odd homeless and 39000 on the breadline come up yet Jo! Did you forget that? Right, you signed up to the toy tram which is sucking every other part of Canberra financially dry due to your ideological brilliance or lack thereorf. I suppose you could point the finger at the Housing Minister but she appears asleep at the wheel too. The Govt should be building tiny houses, enough to satisfy demand around our broader city, close to shops and amenities and externally attractive so as not to represent slums. Start from that end, and stop extracting maximum dollar out of land sales.

I am getting a bit sick of Jo Clay inflicting her extreme Green and party generated ideas onto others. I think Ms Clay needs to get out of her bubble and people’s lives by seeking to penalise those in society who attempt to better themselves financially.

Yes, strive for a fairer taxation system and distribution of wealth but don’t penalise and shove your radical Green ideas down other people’s throats to suit your extreme beliefs.

As an elected member, that is her doing her job.

That is literally her job. Do you dislike democracy?

Well pierce from where I am sitting the Greens have no credibility. They are a party that should get their own house in order before they start lecturing others.

This policy proposal from the Greens would prohibit property investors from raising rents. Thankfully the government will not be supporting such a reckless proposal. This is the same party that held out for months and resisted Labor’s plan for a $10b housing investment fund aimed at building thousands of new social and affordable properties.

Recent data from the ABS tells me that rental affordability in the ACT has been rising over the past year and rents falling. Why would the Greens be calling for a rental freeze, forcing investors out of the market and increasing demand? Especially at a time when the ACT government has been focusing on increasing supply to the market and introducing policies aimed at protecting tenants rights including no-cause eviction protections, rebates on rental property upgrades etc etc?

If she is so keen to see private individuals house other people at their expense, then she might use some of her excessive political salary to buy housing that she rents out at cost or below. I would be very surprised if those members of the Greens who’ve invested in property (and there are a few) are renting it out at a loss.

Yeah , rent freezes, sounds fair on the landlord, are the greens on the same planet

Stephen Ellis1:28 pm 10 Feb 24

Sounds like a great way to drive investors out of Canberra. Limit rent rises to 2%, regardless of the rising cost of maintaining a mortgage, paying for the ACT government’s annual (and steep) rates and tax increases, not to mention ever increasing body corporate fees that come about from the increasing costs associated with maintaining complex dwellings. Another great plan by the Greens…just watch as this government implements it and then blames someone else when the market fails.

You are taking a too simplistic look at the market. You are assuming all landlords are trying to maximise what they can squeeze out of tenants. Yes, there are some landlords who try to do that, but some landlords have also faced massive increases in mortgage costs as interest rates go up. A blanket freeze on rent increases will mean some landlords will default on their mortgages – where would that leave the tenants? A forced sale will not automatically mean the property is picked up by a tenant becoming an owner. It’s more likely to be snapped up by another investor who will be seeking a high paying tenant to pay the mortgage for them.
(For the record, I am not now, nor have even been a landlord).

Mike McGettrick1:03 pm 10 Feb 24

If the Labor/Greens Government had released sufficient land to meet demand over the past 20 years there would have been no issue. The Government needed the money from the sale of land to fund crazy projects like The Tram. They made sure there would always be an under supply so that sale prices would continue to rise. They even forced many first home buyers to enter into unconditional Contracts for Sale to purchase land under the Land Ballot scheme – land which would generally take at least 12 months to be made available and where the buyer could not have arranged unconditional finance from a lender at the time of executing the Contract for Sale. In many cases I understand deposits were forfeited due to the buyers inability to arrange the necessary finance to complete the purchase when the land finally became available.

Would the same go for a freeze on Rates, Land Tax and Body corporate fees, i think not.

Hmmm, freeze rents and limit increases to 2 percent. Does the same apply to Rates, Land Tax, and Body Corporate fees? I think not. So the result will be landlords going backward with an unaffordable investment. Geese, there are some very real dumb *** politicians in this city.

John Citizen10:10 am 10 Feb 24

Can these Marxists stop attempting to commandeer other peoples property? Go larp as Mao Zedong somewhere else.

You want to know what would help with rent prices in Canberra? Less ridiculous virtue signalling greens policies, that cost a heap to achieve absolutely nothing, but need to be paid for by raising rates and taxes. It’s really that simple. Stop expecting private citizens to clean up your mess.

Stephen Ellis1:37 pm 10 Feb 24

At a meeting arranged by the Owners Corporation Network some time ago to discuss some of the problems associated with combustible cladding in ACT apartment buildings, the responsible Greens MLA at the time failed to grasp the concept of a “discussion”, instead lecturing owners, with her opening statement really saying it all…this is where she acknowledged that we are on “stolen land, always was, always will be, stolen land”. Such a declaration told us right from the start what this government thinks about property owners in the ACT…we have no right to be here because it is not our land. The MLA left before the questions from the floor discussion, thereby denying owners any opportunity to challenge her position.

Yet we keep voting these people in, over and over. While there is no “upper house” second chamber of Government in the ACT and the Legislative Assembly represents what would be a “Local Government Area” elsewhere, as well as the equivalent of a “State Government”, there is little opportunity for any of their decision to be challenged or effectively debated.

Isn’t it simply a fact that we are on land stolen from the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples? How is that a controversial thing to say?

I hope you aren’t living on stolen land then Mousicle.

John Citizen1:24 pm 11 Feb 24

It’s not a fact. Show me their proof of ownership.

Who did they steal it from ?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.