Dear Leaders of both Parties In Queensland, I am writing to find out if you have any policy for new housing for the people in QLD?
1.I have been on the housing commission list for years. I am a pensioner, that is in great need for a Housing Commission Unit. No one is saying anything on this point and it needs attention. I am sure the one that comes forth with any help for this area will be very pleased with the results. So many people need this housing to be available like it was in years gone by. Please, please, don't say 'you intend to doing something about it, in 2011,12,13,14,15,16,,' that is not suitable. Mr Rudd has used that line up. Its way past its used by date.
2.Kind Regards and Good Luck Annie

Great Question Bushieannie. You know why governments had money in years gone by? Because the Queen used to get lots and lots of money from what was called the Qui Tam action. The Queen in Queensland used to get about half the revenue from the courts, when they were not the private playgrounds of the lawyers.

It worked like this. If someone saw a crim at work, usually a white collar crim, they could charge him civilly in either the District Court or Supreme Court and instead of going to jail, the crim could pay a penalty and avoid any further consequences, half went to the prosecutor and half to the Queen.

Usually these settled quickly because if the cop was fair and square, the perp paid up, and avoided the publicity. The biggest crims today are the big banks. These have armies of lawyers working scams for them, and they justify their criminal activity as maximizing dividends for investors, like superannuation. Property developers, insurance companies, construction companies, legal companies, drug dealers, all offend and enough black money goes begging to buy all the houses we could possibly need.

Lawyers got control of the Rule making power of the Courts, and gave themselves, or some of their mates absolute power to dismiss or strike out these actions. But there is a snag. In 1497, King Henry VII was having the same problem. Judges and lawyers were getting together to defraud the revenue, by having Judges dismiss such cases so they made a law against it. From 1497, no such case was closed until a jury had given its verdict. This law was in force in 1900, and the Australian Courts Act 1828 and the Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) refers to such actions in the Other Expression (3). All we need is for a Judge somewhere to realize he has the worst job in Australia, and commit a crim to trial on a civil charge with a jury. We have eleven years of criminal activity under Federal Liberals, to catch up. There are plenty of fat cats out there need skinning.

Thank you for that very interesting reply.
But we need the "keepers" of Australia to answer us truthfully about housing. Not letting us get our hopes up by saying homes are coming. Politicians/and their helpers in crime, make life very difficult for every one,If they cant supply homes for their people. Let them get out of the way and let someone in that can. I am terrible disillusioned. Annie

Dear Bushyannie, I thought your post was an honest and open plea on a serious matter. Pensions and Commision Housing are in desperate need of review by all levels of Government and I don't see Seniors getting the attention these issues need.

You were kind to Peter the Believer when you said "Thank you for that very interesting reply".

There are however, some who might wonder what on earth he was talking about. The response seemed to lack any connection whatsoever with your plea for help and I am sadenned by it, I think it was quite offensive, irrelevant and rude.

Peter the Believer, you really do need to get back on your "meds". You are clearly not a well person, that is obvious. I trust that you have some sort of "carer" who might help you understand that you really do need to apologise and who should make sure you do, then have a nice lay down.

bushyannie, As one who has made an application to deliver a mixture of housing types on one site for our community you call is very remarkable as most who put themselves forward on this subject derive from the NIMBY set of pseudo-town planners without ever having actually tried to deliver housing except for themselves.

The term Housing Commission has changed and now is called social housing and its location is prescribed by local councils and their master state governments. Urban consolidation planning policies and its constraints which apply across all state capitals prescribe the location of social & affordable housing, in fact, where all housing must be located.

I would consider that building a mix of social housing say 6% & affordable housing 10%, and the rest as a balance would be acceptable, but no, the states and their councils prescribe high density and the failed practices of the past in clustering these types of housing altogether, out of sight out of mind, more than likely next door to the railway lines or in low lying areas which flood every 10-30yrs.

We would love to supply housing for you bushyannie, but as you probably guessed it, local and state governments have vested interests in the location and allocation of housing.

As we made application to deliver 485 homes and were next door to every conceivable service and infrastructure item, alas there are trees on the site, but you know they come before humanity, even if we saved over 40% of these for future residents and the possums.

As of today our application is being blocked, as it shows up government, for what they really are and want, and that is not better neighborhoods, but the old class divisions, physically build collectives.

We are weathering this application storm of denial by lazy council and government and may have to wait until the bottom of this inflated housing price debacle created by government regulation sorts itself out and more people are homeless until we can supply you shelter in a nice neighborhood, maybe in 5 years time. Sincerely yours, Dallas...

The irony is that you can build a dwelling that meets health and safety standards for about $25,000. Add to that the right of landholders to subdivide their land and build such dwellings on it, and there would be no housing crisis. House prices and rents would be much lower.

We call on government to provide a solution, yet it is the restriction of rights by government, and the unsatisfactory and at times corrupt administration of those rights, that has created the housing crisis.

Spare me the patronizing. One poster clearly identified the problem. It is called Government. Because we have nine separate and ineffective State systems, all pulling in different ways, and no effective High Court in Australia ATM, the best efforts of Paul Keating to reform the system have been frustrated if not totally ignored.

PK was getting ready to totally reform Australia, and to that end had the Parliament of the Commonwealth pass amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 that if enforced, would eliminate loads of red tape. Shire Councils are a menace, and bound by the Trade Practices Act 1974 but still refuse to remove their illegal and destructive restrictions, largely based on State Legislation.

What PK did was make a National Competition Policy a law. However, he did not get round to abolishing the lawyers monopoly before he was replaced with a lawyers government. If local government was returned to its roots, and instead of a communist central planning scheme, that favors big developers a local scheme was implemented, and a Justice and jury made all local decisions, instead of an elected body, housing would not be a problem.

Without a few years to educate scoffers the system that we used to have to make crims pay for their illegal acts are probably incomprehensible to many. Until 1970, when the NSW Parliament declared unilateral independence from the Commonwealth, if the Commonwealth passed a law it was enforceable.

To spindoctor the electorate the Liberal Party created pretend Courts, and modified the High Court from a Federal Supreme Court to a play station for lawyers. KR needs to get rid of lawyer control of these Courts, and let the people have free and unfettered access to them or he is not going to be any different to his Liberal predecessor.

A court, is in reality a local church, erected by the State. If they remain as private churches, with a sign Lawyers Only Can Enter, and compulsory worship of the lawyer presiding, the Commonwealth is a mirage. Fix the courts and the housing crisis will be fixed too. Continued

PK in 1995, extended the Trade Practices Act 1974 to all Local Governments and State authorities, by s 2 he declared that the object was to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection.

By S 2A he extended it to the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities. By 2B he extended it to States and Territories. By 2BA he extended it to Local Authorities. By s 45 as amended he made exclusive dealing illegal. Has it worked? NO. Why? Because lawyers control access to the courts, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth may as well be an expensive drinking club while courts refuse to compete.

Instead of the Constitution being the guiding light for Australia with its intrinsic Christian principles, the guiding lights for Australia are nine separate Court systems, with an ineffective and practically useless High Court. Each of these systems has written its equivalent of a bible, and called them Rules of Court.

The High Court is useless because it refuses to abide the Trade Practices Act 1974 and actively compete as a Federal Supreme Court with the State Supreme Courts as anyone who has tried to file in it knows. In another post I cited the sections that restrict its trade. On three occasions it has made feelgood decisions, about the “Kable Principle” but since any State or Territory Government has the same right to indict each and every member of the High Court in its Supreme Court, as the Commonwealth has, they are frightened little men and women, clinging to what they have.

The State Supreme Court will take your money in Sydney, but lawyers have found another way to make it useless. They have Rules that allow a lawyer to strike a matter out without trial, with costs of course. If Bushieannie or anyone else was guaranteed a jury trial, whether she filed in the High Court or a State Supreme Court, she would have a home. If KR wants to do something about homelessness, he should disallow the High Court Rules of 2004 and 1952

Bushannie:

The State Housing Commission ( in all states ) as it was known, must have made billions of dollars over the many years in which it had been in operation, but in recent years the number of homes available seems to have diminished substantially!

Having spent 20 odd years living in some pretty substandard "dogboxes", whilst a member of the Defence Forces, e.g: those prefabricated concrete slab monstrosities located in many of the lower socio-economic areas that dot the country, during which time we were subjected to many rigourous house inspections that simply established the general care and cleanliness of the rented house and surrounds, and which a report was compiled by the inspecting officer listing any damage or discrepancies that were noted and were subsequently repaired or rectified at a later date, at the expense of the tenant.

Many of these houses were initially built for around $1000, so the amount of money returned during the life-time of the house and the return for the final conversion and sale of the house to the private market would have been very very lucrative! I myself often queried where all this easy money created by the system had dissapeared to, but could never get an answer! All I did know that I thought that the system should have been able to build some "decent" houses for aa change instaed of perpetuating the existing social ghettos!

I am convinced that the system in place today is providing subsidized houses and unit rentals in much reduced quantities, consequently a lot of the tenants that finally are allocated one or the other of the available few, by this time are so frustrated and angry at having to wait so long and then having to battle to get any outstanding repairs carried out, that they themselves ultimately become another angry, uncaring, resentful and obnoxious tenant!

The whole problem of insufficient accomodation throughout the country rests with the greed of the developers, the petty local government laws and regulations and the obvious blind-sightedness of the politicians both State and Federal!

Sorry Peter the Believer, don’t understand any of your post. What has this to do with Bushyannie’s post? How does it help with the problem? It seems like some sort of “Legal babble” mixed with a pathological hatred of everything related to Government and Law?

Dallas, I did a contract for a company that sold “factory built homes” about five years ago. I was most impressed with the build quality and price, anything from a two bedroom to a five bedroom could be built and delivered complete, on-site in 3 months. The Australian Defense Force, Mining industry and many other industries use these. Once completed on-site there was no differece to a site built home. They even came complete with appliances, carpets and soft furnishing.

Perhaps these might offer a solution, not just on cost and time to build but the fact that environmental issues might be minimized?

To make this sound simple I will give an example. On the Mandurah Railway in WA a Union promoted a strike. The JWH Government initiated prosecutions in the Federal Court of Australia to fine these strikers $100,000 each for calling a meeting over safety issues. In a country with a rule of law this would have been impossible. No jury would impose such a fine on a working man.

The High Court comprised of seven Judges was asked to rule that advertising promoting Workchoices Legislation was illegal. Combet v the Commonwealth (2005). The applicant, was Greg Combet, a high profile Union Official, and Nicola Roxon, then Shadow Attorney General. and they thought they could go to the High Court and have the advertising budget quashed. Back in 1952 Menzies made that impossible. Two High Court judges thought it was illegal, but five did not. They did however hear it. Most never get a chance.

If you were on a jury, in a court, and asked if political advertising was a legal cost on the Budget, instead of spending it on housing, would you have ruled it illegal. New South Wales spends $100 million a year on such advertising.

Before 1952, you could have gone, yes you yourself, under s 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and had standing in the Federal Supreme Court to prosecute the Minister responsible and the Commonwealth as a corporation for spending Federal Money on political advertising. Section 28 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) prohibits anyone from interfering with political liberty. Because the money was spent on partisan Liberal Party advertising, and a similar amount was not appropriated to the opposition, the minister and the Commonwealth were interfering with political liberty. The two dissenting Justices Kirby and McHugh were right, and the majority wrong. Your political right to freely access the Federal Supreme Court was taken away by Menzies and others since. Your reward for doing so, would have been $198,000. It could not then have been struck out and costs awarded against you, because you are a Commonwealth public official. This was the penal action

Thank you spindoc, The cost of building is a ancillary issue to site availability. State governments & their local councils control what will be built and where, even if large sites adjacent to all the prescribed infrastructure are available, this does not mean that the land can be developed to build houses. These vacant sites may contain trees as a prelude to developing what people want. But be warned. if you prepare you site by growing the trees first, you investment will be usurped by government and councils, as what looks good to the eye now becomes everyone's property. Councils and state governments are now selling off their parkland to build housing in their own right and have not learn't past lessons which continue to blight the urban landscape.

It is a bit much of an ask to apply guilt to anyone who has been successful in their lives to fund things the Socialist Morons belch when they are lining their bank accounts with Tax payers Money - Instead of demanding Honest working people , why not start collecting the money of all the thieving Politicians and Bureaucrats and the armies of Apparatchiks - Commonly known as Socialist activists ; or Orwellian for Human rights activists etc - who have depleted the Treasury over a thirty year period and depleted the treasury for 30 years to come.
That is where the National Wealth lay – remember some of us who actually have most of their income taxed and taken off us?
Where did you actually think that money had gone?
I can assure you otherwise, that the present course The Rudd star is taking will assure Australia and most of it – the National Sovereignty is depleted totally.

It's really quite simple, and obvious, to me. Gov' these days is run as a "business", there has to be a "profit", and loss-makers are cut away. There's no money in Public Housing, or Health, or any of the other social services our Gov' used to fund. That money is now poured into the pockets of "big-business', on the theory they'll pick up the slack, which just won't happen. Look at the money we give the Oil-industry, surely one of the most profitable around, why should we?
I don't actually recall being asked about this change in approach, do you? Why should a Gov' be run this way? I'm no "Socialist", but isn't that why we established Democracy in the first place? To provide a decent chance at life for ALL? I've heard that somewhere in the Bible it says one of the signs of the End Time will be when.."the world is in the hands of the Urserers", the money-lenders, and with this credit based economy, we certainly are!
I reckon all the trouble started when "Business" decided that "Profit" wasn't enough, there had to be "Profit Growth", every single year, we were on a slippery slope from that point on!

Maximillion, Its good to see that you have some grasp on the process and while your there could you please advise us how to make an application and deliver what the state governments want in the way of social and affordable housing and how you can afford to deliver these without risking your savings.

It’s not rocket-science Dallas, there is quite a large taxation kitty these days. If the Gov’ were to stop pouring money into the pockets of big-business, trim its own excesses, impose true taxation on the wealthy, who pay far less than PAYE workers, through all sorts of clever accounting, there would be more than enough to fund subsidised housing, health, and the various other things we expect of them.
That is the central conundrum of democracy, the power of the elites, it always corrupts the process.
Can you show ME one good reason why we should run Oz as a “business”?
Why the doctors in the Public Health system have contracts that allow them to utilize public facilities for private patients, at no cost, while the public waits years for help, wards are closed, and people DIE?
Why our education system has been reduced to the lowest common denominator approach? To the point where university entrants need remedial courses in reading and writing and basic maths?
Why they’ve sold off so much of the public system, usually for ridiculous prices and conditions?
Why our quarantine and customs services have been gutted, to the point of almost total ineffectiveness?
How has all this been of benefit to the population of Oz?
I’m not suggesting any plot, I reckon its just short-term political thinking, vested interests, and sheer stupidity on the part of Government.
Can YOU supply a logical, clear explanation for any of this? One that shows how this has been good for us?

Your point is not lost Maxamillion, when you mention Government and its industries, it is poignant to note that the entire Proletariat constituent – be Lawyers – or just a plain Bureaucrat intellectual programming – absolutely none of them , even if you could count the numbers on one hand – Who actually have had a real job that requires an essence of professional attributes to succeed- None of them would be a defining number- and as sad as it is today , what was Private enterprise has died a slow painful death .
That is why much of what you see reflects near the same as Government behaviour. Incompetent Looting – because they can.
Bureaucratic industries of ethical and moral incompetence of their own psychopathic egos – when the money runs out because of the Empire of Barons of the new age proletariat has lost it, In fellow followers bank accounts “ , they just take more – after all , it is the Collective will- isn’t it?

The criminals write the statutes , and until there is a realisation of the known fact – The value system has deteriorated beyond repair.
We know what comes next.

Two years on a waiting list for a taxpayer funded home unit. Where have you been living for these last two years while waiting?
What sort of pension are you on? Are you in working age? Do you have ability to work?
If times are so tough then there are organisations happy to help get you back on track.
The aussie battler used to do what he could to help himself, seems the term is now being used for those sitting on laurels waiting for a handout.
Life is what we make of it.