That doesn't mean they do, if a minority was preaching hate and bigotry towards a racial group whether that group by minority or majority the same penalties would apply. 

So it's up to the government to protect us from mean words?

1. So renters should not be allowed pets because they can't afford to own a house? Renters are still liable for damage by their pets do but simply banning pets creates second class citizens. Because I'm not rich enough to own a house I shouldn't be allowed to have an animal companion?
2.Because if you just move in and two minutes later you get kicked out because an owner is selling that's hardly fair, especially if you signed a lease for longer.
3. Landlords rarely fix things if they break, even things specially advertised in the lease and basic things like heating and air conditioning. Why do renters have to bear so much liability when Landlords have barely any.
4. Because you need to have an actual reason to kick people out of their home, somewhere they have paid for and would continue you to pay. It's not embarrassing to move into a house you own.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown needs to watch what she says then.... oh wait its only racist if you're white.....

Should we just exchange the words 'reverse racism' for 'acceptable racism'?

1. Absolutely they shouldn't. If the home owner doesn't want it then no. My parents rented their house and allowed pets at first... when they tenants moved we had to replace carpet and underlay as it was stained, not alot but worse was the smell, we also had to sand alot of the door and window frames as the dog chewed them, bond covers nothing, especially now that renters don't even have to steam clean carpets after moving and you cant take the bond to do it either. Ontop of that good luck chasing extra charges after they move, impossible.

2. Most rental owners would much rather keep their rental income than sell a property and sure sometimes it happens and its unavoidable... deal with it, we got 6 months before one of our rentals was sold, we were told by the new owners we could continue the lease, 2 weeks later we had a notice to move. Shit happens moving sucks but deal with it. 

3. We had the full range of owners, some that would pay for things as simple as a light globe, some that would only fix major things and our last one where we had to pay for everything, however every one that we had a legitimate contract with was great. However as a renter you need to know what you're moving into, you can't complain that you don't have air con if it wasnt there in the first place. 

4. Its not embarressing to move into your own home... but your saying the renter has more right to live in that house than the owner, thats bs. If the owner has an issue they should definitely be able to boot the renter out so they can live in their own house. 

Renters have too many rights, the whole thing needs to be reformed the other way. 

1.  You're not a second class citizen for not being allowed to have a pet, many places are pet friendly. However you're not entitled to have a pet. If you're a renter its not your house at the end of the day. However, many bad tenants with bad pets have ruined it for everyone. Forcing people to accept pets is just ridiculous, it's their house at the end of the day. It's next level entitlement.

2. 2 minutes? I haven't heard of many settlements taking less than 30 days plus all the other requirements. Like I said, what happens if the owner has a significant life change i.e. a loss of a job/business or a divorce? These changes could enforce financial and mental hardship on these people who are forced to hold onto a rental. The other thing I see this doing is ending long-term leases. There needs to be a happy medium when it comes to security for both parties.  

3. Landlords rarely fix things? Haha please don't paint with such a broad brush..... I literally do not know anyone who isn't a problem tenant having these issues. The mrs. mum was a problem tenant and broke shit often and even she never had issues getting people out to get stuff fixed. My mum also works for Hillsea and has to organise repairs on behalf of agents. Renters bear reliability

4. Nonsense. What if you've lost something like a business? Having to disclose that to people that really have no right to know that is wrong.

1. This is something I have had issues with being a dog owner and a renter. I have no problems with a landlord refusing to rent their property to me because I have two dogs. It's their right to rent their property to the best rental candidate according to whatever criteria that they set. But if the landlord doesn't ask if I have a dog, I am not going to disclose that information and the landlord has no right to remove me from the premises because they were too lazy to conduct their own due diligence. What would be next? The landlord will not be allowing me to wear shoes inside? No kids? I'm not allowed to have friends over? No alcohol? No parties? Dream on guys.

2. I agree that the landlord shouldn't have to disclose plans to sell unless they want the prospective buyers to inspect the property. Obviously, if the landlord needs to break the lease, the tenants should be compensated just like the landlord would be compensated in the event the renters had to break the lease.

3. No opinion on reducing bonds. I have stayed in places that require 4 weeks and others that require 2 weeks rent as bond. I always thought it was up to the landlord.

4. This is just common sense. If you need to remove someone from their home, the CTTT would require an explanation in any case.

1. If they do not ask I agree you have no reason to specify. That's a big fail on the agents part. There is no what's next. I simply take an issue with people who own a property being forced to accept things like pets which have caused many issues in rentals. The whole 'second class citizen' argument is just ridiculous.

2. Agreed. The tenants would spend money moving and taking days off work. They need to be compensated for having their contract broken.

3. My last place before I bought was 2, one before was 4. Bringing them down is a risk on the home owner. If the bond is say $500 and they cause $1000 damage, it would be more hassle than what it's worth chasing for that extra $500 leaving the homeowner out of pocket

Lax rental laws are yet another way that our housing system privileges property investors over tenants and first home buyers.

It's all about protecting the value of the investment property, instead of the rights of the people living there.

Given that more people are renting, and the rate of property ownership is below 50pc due to high housing prices, whole generations will be renting for life.

The government won't impose rent controls or long term leases like Europe. Yet even minimal changes like this get resisted? Pretty sad

> I believe everyone should have the unalienable right to say whatever they want
> Wah wah a private entity is saying something I disagree with it shouldn't be allowed to 

what a joke

Renters have all the rights? I want to move to wherever you guys live.

I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone express this opinion unless possibly you have never rented before or had a really lucky private arrangement. Perhaps only someone who has had a particularly bad tenant trash their house could be excused for holding that position. I don't know anyone who has caused more damage to a property than the bond money. Though if you guys have bond of <$1,000 maybe things ARE different in Qld. I know plenty of people who have had to fight over getting bond money back because outside windows sills had some dirt on them (after a storm).

My last rental, we had what an electrician (after several of our appliances died) describe as an absolute death trap of a wiring system in our house. We reported it, 3 weeks later a guy gave a similar second opinion. Eventually the owner got a THIRD opinion (who was clearly a mate in an unmarked van) say he could fix the issue by just removing the ability to switch the switches to the off position and fix the outlets to be always on. That was that. Sorted.

We would get out of the shower on a Sunday morning with our back door glass windows open only to see the owner standing 3 feet away outside picking curry leaves. Unannounced, my wife barely in a towel. The agent's excuse was "he is just a bit old school and doesn't get it so try not to let it worry you".

I could list endless examples but how about for starters, expecting you to maintain gardens while not contributing to water costs?

Fair would be you pay rent to have a home for a set amount of time not pay to be someone's caretaker.

Still, when I lived in the UK they expected the tenants to pay council rates so i guess we do have it easy.

Exactly.
I should have read this post first and not bothered with my rant

The gentleman that stole my blow up doll.

I had been experimenting some new positions with her on the front lawn, filled her up completely, went back inside to get my cleaning equipment, came back outside and she was gone.

Hopefully he gives her a nice long kiss before cleaning her.

Farewell Mary-Beth. You and your stretched holes will be missed.

Rental landlords don't rent to better your life though, they're doing exactly what you suggest in that they are trying to maintain property value otherwise what is the point in owning a rental? They need to make money on their investment or what's the point.

Number of renters is irrelevant to any of the things mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, i'll work 16 hour days if I have to to keep my mortgage going. Renting is unpleasant but someone is agreeing to lease you something like a house which is a considerable risk, adequate controls need to be put in place.

I strongly disagree with forcing landlords to accept things like pets and lower bonds.

If you push these laws too far and discourage investment, then you really will have a rental crisis.

WGMG: I gotta do a 10 minute speech for my history major as well as 10 minutes of Q&A afterwards in front of at least 100 people. I despise public speaking and formality, and obviously both are required 

WGMG: Went to a party on Friday night and I'm starting to feel the effects now. Feel unwell but not sick enough to tac vom.

Yay sammy

All I had to do was drag myself out of this cancerous shithole.

He could've come out with 'Vote NO' banners. He could've preached about why everybody should return their forms unmarked. It wouldn't matter his stance (or any other performers stance) on a range of issues, sport should remain at arms' length from this sort of thing except in cases where it's directly affecting the game. I noticed that in the first ad-break after Ben's performance, a 'No' ad ran, which of course caused an uproar on social media from the usual suspects. Like I said, I'd rather have enjoyed an evening of footy without any of this- but it's either all ok or none of it's ok.

Equal rights for homosexuals could and does affect sport. First eg that comes to mind is the sport we are all on this forum for, one of the most famous Australian books about the sport is called "Sheilas, Wogs & Poofters". If you don't believe equal rights for homosexuals affects sport, I find your views ignorant or at the very least, highly oblivious. 

SSM isn't going to affect whether or not gay people play our code or whether a certain type of fan uses gay slurs against players...

I strongly disagree.

I just directly asked a pal whom is gay if SSM was legal, would that help him feel more accepted into society, feel like he is more accepted into traditionally male events such as sport, and feel like the stigma around homosexuality would be decreased and just in general feel more confident about himself & his sexuality as well as feeling less "bad" for being homosexual particularly in a public setting and with things such as team sport and he replied "absolutely". 

So SSM affects at least one gay person not playing sport. So thus I conclude, again, that your views on this are ignorant.

Cutting

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/entertainment/man-used-bash-poofters-fun-says-leftie-bullies-turned-off-voting-yes/

Like the best satire a fair bit of truth in there unfortunately.

Yup, the writers at Betoota are next level when it comes to Satire.

-PB

The Betoota is gold. I don't know how they can consistently nail their targets so well.

What's really sad is the amount of people who think its real.

That's the sad state of social media affairs and people taking everything they read as gospel.

-PB

WGMG: When you order a burger w/ chips at the pub and the chips taste like fish because they use the same fryer to make fish n chips

It makes it even better, particularly when you have the 20-something social justice warriors getting fired up about some perceived injustice aimed at young people.