Lucy Turnbull slammed online after praising transformation of multi-level car park into social housing project in Paris
The wife of former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who was dubbed "Mr Harbourside Mansion" by Peta Credlin, shared a post on Thursday about a seven-storey parking garage which has been converted into 10 levels of public housing.
Ms Turnbull was wowed by the development and shared it to X.
"This is how to do it! Good design plus affordable housing," she wrote.
But the former Sydney Lord Mayor was quickly skewered by Australians online questioning whether she would be as receptive if a similar project was erected next to the Turnbulls' own multi-million-dollar Point Piper mansion.
"When you live in a $150 million house and advocate for others to live in social housing, what's that called?" one social media user wrote.
Another commented: "Honestly Lucy, would you like to live in it?"
"Fantastic! Hopefully they build a couple of those 'affordable housing' projects right next to your place - so you can truly enjoy them in all their glory," a third added.
"Lol, you and Mal are real popular with the masses hey Lucy? Stay in your ivory tower," a fourth user said.
A lot of users mocked the millionaire couple and suggested Point Piper could also play host to social housing.
"Fantastic! Hopefully they build a couple of those 'affordable housing' projects right next to your place - so you can truly enjoy them in all their glory," one said.
"Could get a few of these in some old buildings around Point Piper," another added.
Ms Turnbull, who have a reported combined net worth of about $200 million with her husband, is an urbanist and former Lord Mayor of Sydney in the early 2000s.
She has previously advocated for more social housing, urban renewal around inner Sydney.
The inner-city suburbs where Ms Turnbull has called for more "affordable retail housing and market-priced housing" are a far cry from the glamorous streets of Point Piper.
The Turnbulls bought their Tuscan-style palatial abode in 1994 for more than $5.4 million.
But their home is now valued at a whopping $150 million, according to Realestate.com.au.
"The waterfront property, the only in the area with direct access to Lady Martin's beach, is estimated to be worth about $150m," the website says.
"Mr Turnbull bought the home in 1994 for $5.45m, considered an astronomical price at the time, and later expanded the waterfront by snapping up part of the property next door."
The former prime minister even turned his back on the grand official residences of his lofty office and opted instead to reside at his waterfront abode.
The Paris building underwent "extensive" renovations which saw three additional floors included using a mixed-wood metal structure, frame facade and wood cladding.
The restoration will "preserve" almost the entire 1957-built garage, located in the 11th arrondissement of the French capital, and includes courtyards and gardens.
In an opinion piece in The Sydney Morning Herald, Ms Turnbull suggested there was an opportunity to renew publicly-owned land at Redfern-Waterloo and Surry Hills.
Currently occupied by public housing, Ms Turnbull said it could be renovated and turned into "affordable retail housing and market-priced housing".
"In Redfern-Waterloo we have an abundance of new transport infrastructure and not enough new housing. This has to stop," she wrote in the SMH in March.
"We need a model for public-private partnerships where publicly owned land is not completely divested. There has to be a smart blend of publicly and privately owned housing.
"An important general question is how and where should new housing be located?
"What new housing can be delivered at least cost to government so it can afford to deliver more of it? There is not enough consideration given to this, and the public needs to be able to understand the nature of the problem too."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
8 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Tax reform isn't hard. Slug multinationals and subsidise the things we want more of
Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms.
Canberra Times
10 hours ago
- Canberra Times
Tax reform isn't hard. Slug multinationals and subsidise the things we want more of
We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix.
Sky News AU
18 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘She's hopeless': Pauline Hanson says eSafety Commissioner should be sacked following loss of landmark censorship case
One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson says eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant should be 'thrown out of the job' following the Commissioner's recent track record, including losing a landmark case to a prominent Canadian activist. Chris Elston, known online as 'Billboard Chris', and Elon Musk's X prevailed in a major case against the eSafety Commission and transgender activist Teddy Cook on Tuesday following a ruling by the Administrative Review Tribunal. The ruling rescinded a takedown order issued by the eSafety Commissioner over a social media post by Mr Elston from February last year. In the post, the activist slammed a move to appoint Cook to a World Health Organisation panel drafting policy on caring for transgender people. Ms Inman Grant has also come under fire for advising Communications Minister Anika Wells to include YouTube in a social media ban for under 16s – which is set to come into effect from December 10. Ms Hanson has called out Ms Inman Grant in the wake of the Administrative Review Tribunal case ruling, claiming the commissioner is 'incompetent' and 'shouldn't be in the job at all'. 'By looks of it, she's a person pushing her own ideology, her own agenda, and she gets it wrong every time. She doesn't get it right, and it's been overturned that many times," Ms Hanson said told Sky News host Rowan Dean on Friday. The Queensland Senator also slammed Ms Inman Grant for seeking to have YouTube included in the social media ban, a move which Ms Hanson said she opposed. 'A lot of kids get some good information from YouTube. So I think that it's just gone too far, I think she's out of her depth, I don't think she knows what the hell she's doing.' She commended Mr Elston for winning the case against the Commission. 'I wish she'd ... be thrown out of the job. She's hopeless, useless,' Ms Hanson said. revealed on Thursday that about $66,000 of Australians' taxpayer dollars were spent on the eSafety Commission's legal costs to date in its defeat to Mr Elston and X Corp. 'eSafety notes the Administrative Review Tribunal's decision to set aside eSafety's decision to give a removal notice to X Corp relating to a post on X by Mr Elston," an eSafety spokesperson told 'This is the first case before the Tribunal seeking review of a decision where eSafety assessed the material met the criteria for adult cyber abuse.'
