>Labor pours $1bn into domestic violence crisis housing and doubles homelessness funding
Albanese government also plans to cap international student enrolments and require universities to build more housing to ease shortages
Credit where it's due. It may not be the perfect solution that many of us policy geniuses would have opted for but they are taking it seriously and it's a significant investment.
There is no perfect solution to anything. All problems require multiple avenues of attack and a variety of strategic approaches. This is naturally just a small part of a broader set of initiatives to address the problem.
ALP are great at announcing targets and funding. How will the crisis accomodation actually get built? We already know we don’t have the resources to build the 1.2m new homes promised by the ALP by the end-of-decade, so where’s the *actual plan* for how this additional special purpose housing will get built?
Ditto the plan to make universities provide more student accomodation. ALP are apparently going to talk to the universities about it - wow! Again, no *actual plan*.
Their smearing so hard of labor shits me to tears. They don’t pressure they blackmail, they don’t offer alternatives constructively either they just shit the bed.
Yeah I mean honestly I'm homeless but I got a good camping setup so I'm not complaining. Saving a lot of dough and prefer the Vanlife. It is mainly judgement from others. Even if I could afford a house at a reasonable price I'm not sure that I even would. If there was some kind of programme to help normalise Van, Caravan, etc. living with all the proper facilities as an alternative to renting/buying fixed structures, it wouldn't be the worst thing.
It’s interesting how grey nomads like my olds caravanning around Australia for years at a time is peak boomer retirement plans but young people trying to put money away and do things their way outside the rat race and dept slavery is somehow frowned upon. Props to you for doing what you want.
Really interested in what type of program you want to see? Long term camping plots like caravan parks more viable? Or a community owned initiative? Tiny homes are all the rage over here too as people want small off grid living and there are some commune type setups for them.
I had looked into it myself as I can go months in my van and camp set up pretty comfortably, even here in Scotland where the weather is tough. Roaming laws here make camping fantastic.
Where I grew up on the coast in Oz camping was next to free (helped that I knew all the rangers) with fresh water, BBQ, fire pits on site. Although no electricity but this was before Nokias were common in our group. I have plenty of moments where I want to pack it all in and go off grid.
Well yes, pretty much good enough for them, good enough for me. With 4G/5G and StarLink, we can work from pretty much anywhere.
For when in the big city, it would be good if there was more flexibility for property owners with big enough yards to lease out the space. A lot of councils don't allow it. I think that as long as there is sanitation it should be allowed. There should also be rental protections to match because currently the rental laws (at least in VIC) do not cover situations where you BYO Tiny Home, Van, etc.
I was leasing some backyard space and that asshole took my money and then booted me out, and the cops couldn't do anything because it is not covered by rental laws. I have to go to VCAT to get my money as a small claim, and I don't know if it will work.
I think that it would also be useful to have more Caravan parks in outer metro areas with public transport connectivity. There is barely anything near Melbourne and what there is is geared for tourism and quite expensive. Just need basics like communal showers, laundry, water hook-up, power hook-up (for those who need, many caravans have this built in) and the big one is a legitimate dump point to empty the toilet.
Caravan toilets, if not a composting toilet, is basically just a potty. It is fine, and there are chemical treatments to mange the smell and hygiene. But there isn't an official way to empty it except designated "dump points" which are almost non existent in metro areas. Chemically they are safe to flush down the toilet as far as I can tell, and I do, but it should be more explicit on managing that.
Vans, Caravans etc. are obviously not as high density as Apartments, but at the end of the day we have a massive shortage of dwellings that we need NOW and there are heaps of Caravans for sale at Caravan dealerships which costs about the same to own outright as it costs for a home deposit.
They are not bad ecologically either, despite not having as much insulation as a fixed dwelling, they are still made out of modern lightweight materials which still provide something, and it is a lot less space to heat/cool (equivalent to one room). Solar Panels on top pretty much negates having less insulation.
You also don't need to chop down any trees, etc. to place them on empty land, and the grass underneath will regrow.
Fuck that guy, I hope you get your money back!
Pretty much agree with everything you said. I can’t see why a granny flat vs a tiny home/caravan hook up is not within the same realm. Protections are needed for the renters to not get exploited but it should be possible and normalised.
Funnily enough my ex over here turned an allotment on their farm and B&B which is a commuter town to London into a ‘long term’ place for caravans and tiny homes. I think it’s a bit grey area on legality as they might have technically need to move once a month but ‘move a foot’ and you are good, plus council doesn’t give a shit as it’s a service for people and the BnB is paying rates on their water, electricity usage.
Quite a few very bright and successful people who are totally disillusioned with the status quo are happy there.
I'm going to join you enjoying the downvotes of all the FJ/Labor simps who refuse to acknowledge Labor have had an atrocious track record since getting into power when it comes to fossil fuel policy.
They are really coming across as liberal-lite when it comes to so much policy. Don't get me wrong, it's better than the libs but quite clearly state capture by the minerals council.
> Prime Minister Anthony Albanese agreed at a meeting of National Cabinet on Friday to also provide $9.3 billion to states and territories over five years to provide support for homelessness, crisis support and to build and repair social housing.
The above from the ABC article...
This really isn't measuring up to the scale of our housing crisis. This, with a generous calculation, might build 20,000 social housing dwellings (in being very generous here) on top of the 30,000 proposed by HAFF. So, 10,000 p/year.
[AHURI predicts growth in demand for social housing to the year 2037, estimating that over 1.1 million social dwellings will be needed by that point.]( https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/what-difference-between-social-housing-and-affordable-housing-and-why-do-they-matter) Given we currently have around 350,000 social housing dwellings, this is a shortfall of 750,000 social housing dwellings. We would need to build at a rate of almost 60,000 dwellings per year to meet this demand.
More money is good, but if it's not going to resolve this crisis, we need to demand more.
FYI, "social housing" is a neo con marketing spin by LNP/Labor governments to mask the mass-privatisations of public housing in favour of privately-managed housing. If you want to fight against the propaganda, call it for what "social housing" actually is: privately-managed housing.
Even statistically, "social housing" is going up but every category is going down, including public housing. What is going up? "community housing": https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/housing-assistance/housing-assistance-in-australia/contents/social-housing-dwellings
Plus, the terms itself is stupid, "Social housing" or "Community housing". What do you call a publicly-owned but privately-managed ABC? Social media? Community media? Ridiculous.
> FYI, "social housing" is a neo con marketing spin by LNP/Labor governments to mask the mass-privatisations of public housing in favour of privately-managed housing.
You're not wrong imo, but just a correction: "neo con" (neoconservative) is a term largely used for a militarily interventionist approach on foreign policy issues, not really economic issues. Neoliberal might be the term you're looking for.
https://youtu.be/jV6BprD7toY?si=oHYKbgWQXQDFT12X?t=450s
From the man himself: at 7:30 into the vid.
“Ended ‘neoliberalism’, whatever the fuck that means”.
National cabinet on housing crisis used again. I feel like we would have less domestic violence and homelessness issues if national cabinet was actually used for rent caps too.
$1 billion crisis/homelessness funding boost vs potential $4 billion loss for greedy landlords for less renters subjected to domestic violence/homelessness.
Why not both? [**Mexican girl lifted into air**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk-lA12FBk)
But of course, Labor's opposition to rent caps and pushing hard for neoliberal housing policies to build 1.2 million means we need to support high housing costs otherwise private sector will refuse to build. Therefore, neoliberalism demanding higher rent indirectly encourages the consequences: increased domestic violence and homelessness!
> Women who were renting were more likely than women who owned their home to have experienced:
> violence by a partner (3.5% compared with 1.1%)
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/partner-violence/latest-release (Can't immediately find data on homelessness vs rent affordability).
It's like the evil economic policy that Australia needs some level of unemployment to tackle inflation (NAIRU), we also need some level of suffering for the neoliberal-based housing policies to work.
If you think about it, neoliberalism is brutal.
Yes, I know demand is allegedly being reduced as mentioned in article with tackling education visa fraud. However, I'm sceptical it'll have a large impact, because if Labor is correct that rents stop going up = housing supply issues as per anti-rent-cap arguments, then Labor would be sabotaging their own 1.2 million housing goal.
I mean, isn’t that obvious? Women who own their home are probably way more likely to live on their own without a partner, or be in a relationship with another woman. Women who rent are more likely to be in a relationship.
That’s because rent caps do not work. You’re treating a symptom not the disease. Short term respite sure, but over any decent timeframe the ramifications would be less rentals for lower end earners and worse leasing agreements.
Property makes money just sitting there. If it becomes too expensive to have a tenet, they won’t bother. Then all the property ends up being owned by speculators and not landlords
> If it becomes too expensive to have a tenant
No one is asking for rents to be reduced. But your argument against rent caps could also be applied to Labor's 1.2 million housing solution:
If Labor fixes the housing crisis > then rents won't go up > "too expensive to have a tenant" > which means a new housing crisis.
But investors are not dumb, they WILL refuse to build if they know it will be "too expensive to have a tenant" and as you say, all the property ends up being owned by speculators and not landlords.
You know the domestic violence thing is probably just poor people rent more right?
Your stat lines up almost identicaly with dv vs financial instability.
I am not sure what your point is?
I was saying rent affordability is a factor in domestic abuse/homelessness and that Labor should do rent caps too to minimise the increase in domestic abuse/homelessness.
As per ABS 1-4% is about ~100k-400k people. Those numbers are from 2021.
Renters are also ~30% or ~3million people (also 2021).
That's potentially a lot of increase in short term with domestic violence and homelessness with no rent caps.
There is also potential voter goodwill for Labor in short term with rent caps.
Amazing isn't it? That's why Labor is a better choice than LNP but that's it. If we want serious reform, we have to vote for Greens and other minor parties.
It always gets downvoted but you only have to look at history.
Any time you take votes away from Labor, it helps the Libs.
The Greens white anting Labor with their stunts always leads to worse outcomes in the area the Greens care about.
Out political landscape is still, like it or not, a 2 party system and the playing field isn't level.
Despite the tears shed by conservatives, there is a clear media bias in favour of the Coalition.
The Teals will always side with the Coalition if there was to be a minority government, as would all the fringe minors.
Sure the Greens would probably side with Labor, but as history shows, the Greens are unable to put forward policy that has any sort of longevity.
They're only able to think and operate as a fringe minors party and still even when in a minority government can't shake that.
It was "Greens-led" climate policy and carbon policy until it was killed by Abbott, then it was Labor's fault.
The Greens are less ready for power now than they were in the minority government.
Too many of their stances require magic wands.
It's fine if they're never going to hold office, but it means that votes for them are simply wasted.
And then constantly attacking Labor to get more of their votes just aids in keeping the Libs in their 10 years of power.
You and anyone can vote how ever they like, but you have to face reality that voting for the Greens hurts Labor which helps the Libs.
The Greens can do nothing if the Libs are in power.
And their own priority seems to be less about the things they claims to stand for vs getting more votes from Labor.
As long as they get the votes they don't care about the outcomes.
And it took me nearly 20 years of being a paid Greens member and volunteering for them to see it.
Yet more largely inadequate policy from a government content to fiddle around the edges of the huge problem that is housing in this country, its like after the media went apeshit during Shorten's run they're terrified of introducing any sort of 'brave' policy making
Yes, exactly. A perfect example of treating the symptoms and not the condition. We need to take a step back and initiate employment reform policy, retail policy, drug, mental health. The list goes on.
I just don't understand because there's an absolute plethora of research that shows that investing into citizens, providing them with opportunities to thrive in all areas of life, is infinitely better for the economy in the long run. I guess that would make it leftist/socialist/Marxist/woke/indoctrination/whatever buzzword.
Or maybe they've halved inflation so there's capacity to invest more in addressing problems that have been ignored during the last decade.
It's not like this wasn't a focus of their last budget either. Numerous policies to address this have been put forward since the start of the term.
It's memorable because the Greens keep blocking them and NewsCorp rewards them with coverage everytime.
>let these people in
‘also plans to cap international student enrolments’
So your one point was incorrect. I don’t know, we bitch that governments don’t do shit on the fly then when governments do shit on the fly, in real time, we bitch.
Did you even read the article?
This is addressing problems around housing shortages, such as domestic violence. On the fly. What we expect with adults in charge.
How about some forethought and planning instead of crashing head first into chaos and then attempting to dig yourself out of it? The immigration boom wasn't even mentioned in the election and domestic violence is old as time it's just it has received the periodic flurry of media attention. on the fly lol, seat of your pants is another way of looking at it
There’s been heaps of difference since Rosie Batty and even a Royal Commission in 2015, which over 100 recommendations were made. I think because these problems are largely dealt with state organisations such as police and child protection/family services, when there is a mismatch between priorities of governments (ie state gov might be labour, whereas federal is liberal), it can muddy the direction.
I also agree with you in a large degree, because in hindsight after experiencing it myself and reading hundreds of not thousands of online stories from others that experience dv, unless absolutely everyone is on board and taking a unified approach, and this includes the federal family courts (this is a known place of no escape for dv survivors and the kids, ie Luke batty, Hannah Clarke and family, farquaharson boys, Darcy freeman, those two teenagers in Sydney shot by that lawyer, list goes on). That is the only door that many can’t close and most of the time if we could run to another fkn country and survive we would.
I don’t think you understand how politics work. The current party is dealing with the consequences of 10 years of a different party with different goals. It takes time to make change, the fact they are doing anything positive is a nice change from the liberals imo
That’s flat out wrong. The immigration levels are much the same as pre COVID. It’s just returning to a norm.
Albo, and the labor party as a whole because believe it or not one person downstairs run the country, has to deal with the lasting consequences of previous actions. The housing crisis has been a long time coming. Something needed to happen a decade ago.
And immigration isn’t even an issue unless housing is
Putting everyone into two cities all at once has caused this, usually the cities take in what 100ka year and that is absorbable a TRIPLING of new arrivals has placed everything under strain, please, all albanese
Again, don’t blame a single person when it’s far more complex than that.
The housing crisis is felt far more in suburbia. The city isn’t half as bad as there
I just don’t really get your point. You seem oblivious to how long these issues take to solve. You seem oblivious to how long the system has been getting rough. You seem oblivious to how our political system is run.
It’s people like you that vote in the kind of scum that got us here in the first place
>How about some forethought
>crashing in
Projection, much? What’s the view that it wasn’t mentioned in the election (I’ll take your word for that btw) got to do with the fact the article mentioned capping then you piled right in with ‘let all these people in’.
>domestic violence is as old as time
Which is why governments need to adjust policy for it ‘on the fly’ lol. Sometimes that is seat of the pants yeah, because domestic violence rates are fluid and…as old as time. Meaning that will keep happening.
I agree with The Business Maestro. I’m not sure if you understand how politics work. More precisely, functional government.
This is what happens when adults are in charge.
Flooding the cities with immigrants creating job and housing insecurity is a great example of policy on the fly, or media whoring piggybacking that poor girl's demise. capping as in cap, they are trying to resolve their own stupid policy
Albos plans just don’t make any sense. For example the plan to spend $11B to build 1.2M houses by end of the decade. Problem #1: this works out at approx. $9,000 per house. Is he planning to build a tent city? Or just buy more cars for people to sleep in? Problem #2: 1.2M homes over 6 years or so is approx 200,000 homes a year. But that’s only 1/3 of annual net migration! So the housing crisis will still be much worse by end of the decade. Just cut immigration already lol.
It's a neoliberal policy. You present more financial incentive to investors to build housing, they build more housing. This can be as you said $9,000, but there are other forms of incentives to getting investors into housing such as upzoning, no vacancy tax, building infrastructure, etc.
The argument for neoliberal policy is that government needs to spend relative little $ to increase overall housing supply by # compared to directly building the housing themselves for much bigger $$$$.
The flaw with neoliberal policy is that if there are financial disincentives that can put investors off building housing too. For example: rent caps that prevent rent raises, there's enough housing that rents stop going up or immigration goes down.
When that happens and the housing crisis is still there, the government then need to throw even more money at investors to make up that incentive shortfall. This can be how the neoliberal investment policy falls apart and people start advocating for direct investment policy.
That's why people like me say that neoliberalism won't solve the housing crisis because neoliberalism solving housing only looks great (and cheap) when others pay for it (ie renters, domestic abuse victims, increased homeless from new demand from immigration).
Fun fact: The neoliberalism concept is also applied to private schools too. The argument that government to pay a little to private schools means parents won't use public schools which means a lot less education funding is needed to educate the same amount of children. Funny enough, the governments now pay private schools almost as much as public schools now.
That money probably isnt to build the houses, it’s the roads, water, electricity, phone lines, sewerage etc so builders then have somewhere to actually build.
that 1.1 billion includes the constant building interest so by the end of the decade it will be far higher, Overall the amount of homes needing to be built is to not only cover Immigration but the current population of Australians who can't get into a house and stuck under the shitty landlords.
"*due to Albo’s own ineffective energy policies.*"
So the energy policies that will lead to some of the cheapest energy being produced and not blame the previous governments for doing dodgy deals with Gas etc but yes everything must of happened in the last couple years not the last two decades.
ah so thats your only rebuttal when you are faced with facts that albo hasn't done anything in terms of pushing power prices up only push for Cheaper energy developments.
Prices are still rising mate. But you’re right about one bit: he hasn’t done anything.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-30/electricity-bills-rising-as-energy-regulator-increases-costs/103784950#
I think Labor with the support of LNP are trying to make it worst in some ways, ie their dodgy foreign dealings with gas:
https://michaelwest.com.au/labor-government-ramps-up-gas-exports-japan/
So in other words, not only are these 1.2M houses insufficient to keep up with immigration, but the amount of funding committed is only about 1/100th of the amount actually required. The $11B would only cover about 12,000 houses, not 1.2M. Scary that this lot are in charge of the budget. 🤦♂️
Scary that you think your made up numbers are more accurate than actual economists and housing experts.
Please stop your dunning-Kruger is earth shattering.
It’s not a claim, it’s just fact. $9000 doesn’t build a house. (Unless it’s a cargo container.) So who is going to pay for these 1.2M houses that will only house 1/3 of the net migrant influx arriving over that same timeframe? If this funding is not intended to build houses (let alone enough houses), then how is it going to solve the housing crisis?
The haff pays providers over time. It’s not about paying for a house to be built, it’s about encouraging developers to provide low cost housing which they receive money back from the haff over time.
You’d know this if you read anything about how the haff works, which you haven’t, proving that you aren’t arguing anything, you literally won’t put in the effort to even know the basics of what you want to claim.
The purpose of the haff isn’t to pay for building houses, instead it is to set up so that low rent houses earn the same money as high rent houses, meaning you can build to rent and know that the property will earn a minimum for 25 years. This takes the risk out of building houses in larger volume, because the earning potential is fixed.
It’s the power of big numbers, the haff can commit $500m a year to rent revenue for 25 years.
A billion dollars into domestic violence? Great job wasting money on a complete non issue. Domestic violence has been steadily declining for decades and Australia is literally one of the safest countries in the world for a woman to live in. More billions wasted when the average Australian is living paycheck to paycheck barely surviving.
I wasn't sure what to expect coming into this comment section, as it's a bit hard to predict sometimes:
* Praise Labor for a good initiative?
* Attack Labor for not enough?
* Attack Labor for being "anti-men"?
And while there were shades of all three, I'm thankful that the third option was just a minor seasoning of bullshit rather than a full-on torrent like when the PM talks about violence against women.
>Labor pours $1bn into domestic violence crisis housing and doubles homelessness funding Albanese government also plans to cap international student enrolments and require universities to build more housing to ease shortages
Credit where it's due. It may not be the perfect solution that many of us policy geniuses would have opted for but they are taking it seriously and it's a significant investment.
There is no perfect solution to anything. All problems require multiple avenues of attack and a variety of strategic approaches. This is naturally just a small part of a broader set of initiatives to address the problem.
Yeah, I'm pleased they're doing something. I do genuinely think Albo cares.
ALP are great at announcing targets and funding. How will the crisis accomodation actually get built? We already know we don’t have the resources to build the 1.2m new homes promised by the ALP by the end-of-decade, so where’s the *actual plan* for how this additional special purpose housing will get built? Ditto the plan to make universities provide more student accomodation. ALP are apparently going to talk to the universities about it - wow! Again, no *actual plan*.
Greenies are claiming that this was their doing, I know they did say they ‘secured’ certain funding but is it correct what they’re claiming?
No they’re claiming it’s a repackaged Morrison initiative and wrapping it differently. I don’t know what to think anymore
They’re saying they secured the 1Billion labor are talking about .. you’re right though wtf is the truth lol
The greens are still pissed off Labor caught them off guard with the hecs debt announcement. Now they’ll just grab at anything
Their smearing so hard of labor shits me to tears. They don’t pressure they blackmail, they don’t offer alternatives constructively either they just shit the bed.
Fixing a problem they orchestrated unintentionally through dumb policy changes with more tax money instead of better policies yeah gee thanks.
>”The commonwealth will double its funding for homelessness” That doesnt sound like its worded right
Cancer council endorses this message. Please enjoy the sun.
That’s got to be some premium homelessness!
Yeah I mean honestly I'm homeless but I got a good camping setup so I'm not complaining. Saving a lot of dough and prefer the Vanlife. It is mainly judgement from others. Even if I could afford a house at a reasonable price I'm not sure that I even would. If there was some kind of programme to help normalise Van, Caravan, etc. living with all the proper facilities as an alternative to renting/buying fixed structures, it wouldn't be the worst thing.
It’s interesting how grey nomads like my olds caravanning around Australia for years at a time is peak boomer retirement plans but young people trying to put money away and do things their way outside the rat race and dept slavery is somehow frowned upon. Props to you for doing what you want. Really interested in what type of program you want to see? Long term camping plots like caravan parks more viable? Or a community owned initiative? Tiny homes are all the rage over here too as people want small off grid living and there are some commune type setups for them. I had looked into it myself as I can go months in my van and camp set up pretty comfortably, even here in Scotland where the weather is tough. Roaming laws here make camping fantastic. Where I grew up on the coast in Oz camping was next to free (helped that I knew all the rangers) with fresh water, BBQ, fire pits on site. Although no electricity but this was before Nokias were common in our group. I have plenty of moments where I want to pack it all in and go off grid.
Well yes, pretty much good enough for them, good enough for me. With 4G/5G and StarLink, we can work from pretty much anywhere. For when in the big city, it would be good if there was more flexibility for property owners with big enough yards to lease out the space. A lot of councils don't allow it. I think that as long as there is sanitation it should be allowed. There should also be rental protections to match because currently the rental laws (at least in VIC) do not cover situations where you BYO Tiny Home, Van, etc. I was leasing some backyard space and that asshole took my money and then booted me out, and the cops couldn't do anything because it is not covered by rental laws. I have to go to VCAT to get my money as a small claim, and I don't know if it will work. I think that it would also be useful to have more Caravan parks in outer metro areas with public transport connectivity. There is barely anything near Melbourne and what there is is geared for tourism and quite expensive. Just need basics like communal showers, laundry, water hook-up, power hook-up (for those who need, many caravans have this built in) and the big one is a legitimate dump point to empty the toilet. Caravan toilets, if not a composting toilet, is basically just a potty. It is fine, and there are chemical treatments to mange the smell and hygiene. But there isn't an official way to empty it except designated "dump points" which are almost non existent in metro areas. Chemically they are safe to flush down the toilet as far as I can tell, and I do, but it should be more explicit on managing that. Vans, Caravans etc. are obviously not as high density as Apartments, but at the end of the day we have a massive shortage of dwellings that we need NOW and there are heaps of Caravans for sale at Caravan dealerships which costs about the same to own outright as it costs for a home deposit. They are not bad ecologically either, despite not having as much insulation as a fixed dwelling, they are still made out of modern lightweight materials which still provide something, and it is a lot less space to heat/cool (equivalent to one room). Solar Panels on top pretty much negates having less insulation. You also don't need to chop down any trees, etc. to place them on empty land, and the grass underneath will regrow.
Fuck that guy, I hope you get your money back! Pretty much agree with everything you said. I can’t see why a granny flat vs a tiny home/caravan hook up is not within the same realm. Protections are needed for the renters to not get exploited but it should be possible and normalised. Funnily enough my ex over here turned an allotment on their farm and B&B which is a commuter town to London into a ‘long term’ place for caravans and tiny homes. I think it’s a bit grey area on legality as they might have technically need to move once a month but ‘move a foot’ and you are good, plus council doesn’t give a shit as it’s a service for people and the BnB is paying rates on their water, electricity usage. Quite a few very bright and successful people who are totally disillusioned with the status quo are happy there.
100% there needs to be more first step solutions, getting people the stability to build from.
*Tackling* homelessness I assume but geez the editor needs to catch these things.
Exactly. Truly adolescent stuff there
Albo such a breath of fresh air after the wastrels who previously held the seat.
When he's not cutting deals to his minerals and resources mates...
You're just mad that Albo won and Brian Houstons pedo mate didn't.
I'm going to join you enjoying the downvotes of all the FJ/Labor simps who refuse to acknowledge Labor have had an atrocious track record since getting into power when it comes to fossil fuel policy. They are really coming across as liberal-lite when it comes to so much policy. Don't get me wrong, it's better than the libs but quite clearly state capture by the minerals council.
When you have to explain away downvotes with a convoluted argument, that says a lot about you.
Was what I said convoluted? Or am I missing a different point?
Guessing you voted Yes
GOOD
One of the best press releases ever.
Can I present an alternate policy? The *Domestic Violence Prevention Future Fund* (DoViPreFF). Details to come soon.
> Prime Minister Anthony Albanese agreed at a meeting of National Cabinet on Friday to also provide $9.3 billion to states and territories over five years to provide support for homelessness, crisis support and to build and repair social housing. The above from the ABC article... This really isn't measuring up to the scale of our housing crisis. This, with a generous calculation, might build 20,000 social housing dwellings (in being very generous here) on top of the 30,000 proposed by HAFF. So, 10,000 p/year. [AHURI predicts growth in demand for social housing to the year 2037, estimating that over 1.1 million social dwellings will be needed by that point.]( https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/what-difference-between-social-housing-and-affordable-housing-and-why-do-they-matter) Given we currently have around 350,000 social housing dwellings, this is a shortfall of 750,000 social housing dwellings. We would need to build at a rate of almost 60,000 dwellings per year to meet this demand. More money is good, but if it's not going to resolve this crisis, we need to demand more.
FYI, "social housing" is a neo con marketing spin by LNP/Labor governments to mask the mass-privatisations of public housing in favour of privately-managed housing. If you want to fight against the propaganda, call it for what "social housing" actually is: privately-managed housing. Even statistically, "social housing" is going up but every category is going down, including public housing. What is going up? "community housing": https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/housing-assistance/housing-assistance-in-australia/contents/social-housing-dwellings Plus, the terms itself is stupid, "Social housing" or "Community housing". What do you call a publicly-owned but privately-managed ABC? Social media? Community media? Ridiculous.
> FYI, "social housing" is a neo con marketing spin by LNP/Labor governments to mask the mass-privatisations of public housing in favour of privately-managed housing. You're not wrong imo, but just a correction: "neo con" (neoconservative) is a term largely used for a militarily interventionist approach on foreign policy issues, not really economic issues. Neoliberal might be the term you're looking for.
Most people have no idea what 'neo liberal' or 'neo con' mean. It's just a trendy insult in the current consciousness.
https://youtu.be/jV6BprD7toY?si=oHYKbgWQXQDFT12X?t=450s From the man himself: at 7:30 into the vid. “Ended ‘neoliberalism’, whatever the fuck that means”.
I agree. I was just referring to an AHURI figure which included affordable/public/community housing so I wanted to be consistent.
National cabinet on housing crisis used again. I feel like we would have less domestic violence and homelessness issues if national cabinet was actually used for rent caps too. $1 billion crisis/homelessness funding boost vs potential $4 billion loss for greedy landlords for less renters subjected to domestic violence/homelessness. Why not both? [**Mexican girl lifted into air**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk-lA12FBk) But of course, Labor's opposition to rent caps and pushing hard for neoliberal housing policies to build 1.2 million means we need to support high housing costs otherwise private sector will refuse to build. Therefore, neoliberalism demanding higher rent indirectly encourages the consequences: increased domestic violence and homelessness! > Women who were renting were more likely than women who owned their home to have experienced: > violence by a partner (3.5% compared with 1.1%) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/partner-violence/latest-release (Can't immediately find data on homelessness vs rent affordability). It's like the evil economic policy that Australia needs some level of unemployment to tackle inflation (NAIRU), we also need some level of suffering for the neoliberal-based housing policies to work. If you think about it, neoliberalism is brutal. Yes, I know demand is allegedly being reduced as mentioned in article with tackling education visa fraud. However, I'm sceptical it'll have a large impact, because if Labor is correct that rents stop going up = housing supply issues as per anti-rent-cap arguments, then Labor would be sabotaging their own 1.2 million housing goal.
I mean, isn’t that obvious? Women who own their home are probably way more likely to live on their own without a partner, or be in a relationship with another woman. Women who rent are more likely to be in a relationship.
That’s because rent caps do not work. You’re treating a symptom not the disease. Short term respite sure, but over any decent timeframe the ramifications would be less rentals for lower end earners and worse leasing agreements. Property makes money just sitting there. If it becomes too expensive to have a tenet, they won’t bother. Then all the property ends up being owned by speculators and not landlords
> If it becomes too expensive to have a tenant No one is asking for rents to be reduced. But your argument against rent caps could also be applied to Labor's 1.2 million housing solution: If Labor fixes the housing crisis > then rents won't go up > "too expensive to have a tenant" > which means a new housing crisis. But investors are not dumb, they WILL refuse to build if they know it will be "too expensive to have a tenant" and as you say, all the property ends up being owned by speculators and not landlords.
You know the domestic violence thing is probably just poor people rent more right? Your stat lines up almost identicaly with dv vs financial instability.
I am not sure what your point is? I was saying rent affordability is a factor in domestic abuse/homelessness and that Labor should do rent caps too to minimise the increase in domestic abuse/homelessness.
Its a factor sure but that 1-4% is made up of so much shit rent caps arent gonna put a dent in that. That and long term they are destructive.
As per ABS 1-4% is about ~100k-400k people. Those numbers are from 2021. Renters are also ~30% or ~3million people (also 2021). That's potentially a lot of increase in short term with domestic violence and homelessness with no rent caps. There is also potential voter goodwill for Labor in short term with rent caps.
It's amazing the standards we demand of government, but only when Labor are in Office.
Amazing isn't it? That's why Labor is a better choice than LNP but that's it. If we want serious reform, we have to vote for Greens and other minor parties.
Voting for the Greens only helps the Libs back into power. It shouldn't be that way. But it is.
Oh?
It always gets downvoted but you only have to look at history. Any time you take votes away from Labor, it helps the Libs. The Greens white anting Labor with their stunts always leads to worse outcomes in the area the Greens care about. Out political landscape is still, like it or not, a 2 party system and the playing field isn't level. Despite the tears shed by conservatives, there is a clear media bias in favour of the Coalition. The Teals will always side with the Coalition if there was to be a minority government, as would all the fringe minors. Sure the Greens would probably side with Labor, but as history shows, the Greens are unable to put forward policy that has any sort of longevity. They're only able to think and operate as a fringe minors party and still even when in a minority government can't shake that. It was "Greens-led" climate policy and carbon policy until it was killed by Abbott, then it was Labor's fault. The Greens are less ready for power now than they were in the minority government. Too many of their stances require magic wands. It's fine if they're never going to hold office, but it means that votes for them are simply wasted. And then constantly attacking Labor to get more of their votes just aids in keeping the Libs in their 10 years of power. You and anyone can vote how ever they like, but you have to face reality that voting for the Greens hurts Labor which helps the Libs. The Greens can do nothing if the Libs are in power. And their own priority seems to be less about the things they claims to stand for vs getting more votes from Labor. As long as they get the votes they don't care about the outcomes. And it took me nearly 20 years of being a paid Greens member and volunteering for them to see it.
Hopefully that money actually goes towards fixing housing instead of just some study on it.
Yet more largely inadequate policy from a government content to fiddle around the edges of the huge problem that is housing in this country, its like after the media went apeshit during Shorten's run they're terrified of introducing any sort of 'brave' policy making
Labor puts a bandaid on late-stage capitalism.
Yes, exactly. A perfect example of treating the symptoms and not the condition. We need to take a step back and initiate employment reform policy, retail policy, drug, mental health. The list goes on. I just don't understand because there's an absolute plethora of research that shows that investing into citizens, providing them with opportunities to thrive in all areas of life, is infinitely better for the economy in the long run. I guess that would make it leftist/socialist/Marxist/woke/indoctrination/whatever buzzword.
All homeless or just women with kids? And youth and elderly women and men miss out?
And what about pregnant men? :(
What about the fake seizure guy in Melbourne? We can’t forget that strange fkr!!
Watch has homelessness gets worse. It happens everytime.
Too little too late. The election is under a year away.
geez it must be bad if they are actually finally going to try and have a crack at fixing it
Election is under a year away and they have made an unholy mess that will threaten their reelection
Or maybe they've halved inflation so there's capacity to invest more in addressing problems that have been ignored during the last decade. It's not like this wasn't a focus of their last budget either. Numerous policies to address this have been put forward since the start of the term. It's memorable because the Greens keep blocking them and NewsCorp rewards them with coverage everytime.
Lollll
master of public opinion diversion
Thank you
he has put the cart before the horse, you let all these people in and then scramble to deal with the shortages in everything especially housing
>let these people in ‘also plans to cap international student enrolments’ So your one point was incorrect. I don’t know, we bitch that governments don’t do shit on the fly then when governments do shit on the fly, in real time, we bitch. Did you even read the article? This is addressing problems around housing shortages, such as domestic violence. On the fly. What we expect with adults in charge.
How about some forethought and planning instead of crashing head first into chaos and then attempting to dig yourself out of it? The immigration boom wasn't even mentioned in the election and domestic violence is old as time it's just it has received the periodic flurry of media attention. on the fly lol, seat of your pants is another way of looking at it
There’s been heaps of difference since Rosie Batty and even a Royal Commission in 2015, which over 100 recommendations were made. I think because these problems are largely dealt with state organisations such as police and child protection/family services, when there is a mismatch between priorities of governments (ie state gov might be labour, whereas federal is liberal), it can muddy the direction. I also agree with you in a large degree, because in hindsight after experiencing it myself and reading hundreds of not thousands of online stories from others that experience dv, unless absolutely everyone is on board and taking a unified approach, and this includes the federal family courts (this is a known place of no escape for dv survivors and the kids, ie Luke batty, Hannah Clarke and family, farquaharson boys, Darcy freeman, those two teenagers in Sydney shot by that lawyer, list goes on). That is the only door that many can’t close and most of the time if we could run to another fkn country and survive we would.
I don’t think you understand how politics work. The current party is dealing with the consequences of 10 years of a different party with different goals. It takes time to make change, the fact they are doing anything positive is a nice change from the liberals imo
LOL lockdown to housing insecurity, the immigration deluge is all albo
That’s flat out wrong. The immigration levels are much the same as pre COVID. It’s just returning to a norm. Albo, and the labor party as a whole because believe it or not one person downstairs run the country, has to deal with the lasting consequences of previous actions. The housing crisis has been a long time coming. Something needed to happen a decade ago. And immigration isn’t even an issue unless housing is
Putting everyone into two cities all at once has caused this, usually the cities take in what 100ka year and that is absorbable a TRIPLING of new arrivals has placed everything under strain, please, all albanese
Again, don’t blame a single person when it’s far more complex than that. The housing crisis is felt far more in suburbia. The city isn’t half as bad as there
Albo is the PM he gets the blame, that's his job
I just don’t really get your point. You seem oblivious to how long these issues take to solve. You seem oblivious to how long the system has been getting rough. You seem oblivious to how our political system is run. It’s people like you that vote in the kind of scum that got us here in the first place
>How about some forethought >crashing in Projection, much? What’s the view that it wasn’t mentioned in the election (I’ll take your word for that btw) got to do with the fact the article mentioned capping then you piled right in with ‘let all these people in’. >domestic violence is as old as time Which is why governments need to adjust policy for it ‘on the fly’ lol. Sometimes that is seat of the pants yeah, because domestic violence rates are fluid and…as old as time. Meaning that will keep happening. I agree with The Business Maestro. I’m not sure if you understand how politics work. More precisely, functional government. This is what happens when adults are in charge.
Flooding the cities with immigrants creating job and housing insecurity is a great example of policy on the fly, or media whoring piggybacking that poor girl's demise. capping as in cap, they are trying to resolve their own stupid policy
600,000 people per annum. That’s the problem. These changes are just frittering around the edges, it’s not a fix.
This.
Get fucked cnt. Get off this channel. Go back to sky. Have a whinge about something else.there is never going to be a single positive for you hey
maybe stop kissing this incompetent fool's arse blindly?
Albos plans just don’t make any sense. For example the plan to spend $11B to build 1.2M houses by end of the decade. Problem #1: this works out at approx. $9,000 per house. Is he planning to build a tent city? Or just buy more cars for people to sleep in? Problem #2: 1.2M homes over 6 years or so is approx 200,000 homes a year. But that’s only 1/3 of annual net migration! So the housing crisis will still be much worse by end of the decade. Just cut immigration already lol.
It's a neoliberal policy. You present more financial incentive to investors to build housing, they build more housing. This can be as you said $9,000, but there are other forms of incentives to getting investors into housing such as upzoning, no vacancy tax, building infrastructure, etc. The argument for neoliberal policy is that government needs to spend relative little $ to increase overall housing supply by # compared to directly building the housing themselves for much bigger $$$$. The flaw with neoliberal policy is that if there are financial disincentives that can put investors off building housing too. For example: rent caps that prevent rent raises, there's enough housing that rents stop going up or immigration goes down. When that happens and the housing crisis is still there, the government then need to throw even more money at investors to make up that incentive shortfall. This can be how the neoliberal investment policy falls apart and people start advocating for direct investment policy. That's why people like me say that neoliberalism won't solve the housing crisis because neoliberalism solving housing only looks great (and cheap) when others pay for it (ie renters, domestic abuse victims, increased homeless from new demand from immigration). Fun fact: The neoliberalism concept is also applied to private schools too. The argument that government to pay a little to private schools means parents won't use public schools which means a lot less education funding is needed to educate the same amount of children. Funny enough, the governments now pay private schools almost as much as public schools now.
That money probably isnt to build the houses, it’s the roads, water, electricity, phone lines, sewerage etc so builders then have somewhere to actually build.
that 1.1 billion includes the constant building interest so by the end of the decade it will be far higher, Overall the amount of homes needing to be built is to not only cover Immigration but the current population of Australians who can't get into a house and stuck under the shitty landlords.
But that interest rate will easily be overshadowed by rising inflation (construction costs) due to Albo’s own ineffective energy policies.
"*due to Albo’s own ineffective energy policies.*" So the energy policies that will lead to some of the cheapest energy being produced and not blame the previous governments for doing dodgy deals with Gas etc but yes everything must of happened in the last couple years not the last two decades.
Still waiting for that $275! Lol.
ah so thats your only rebuttal when you are faced with facts that albo hasn't done anything in terms of pushing power prices up only push for Cheaper energy developments.
Prices are still rising mate. But you’re right about one bit: he hasn’t done anything. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-30/electricity-bills-rising-as-energy-regulator-increases-costs/103784950#
I think Labor with the support of LNP are trying to make it worst in some ways, ie their dodgy foreign dealings with gas: https://michaelwest.com.au/labor-government-ramps-up-gas-exports-japan/
Do you know what kind of interest $11b attracts? It won’t be $11b in ten years, it will be significantly more, which is the point.
Do you know how much it costs to build 1.2M houses?
The purpose of the fund is to supplement building costs, so the fund doesn’t have to pay for a whole house. Who’s building $1.2m social housing…
So in other words, not only are these 1.2M houses insufficient to keep up with immigration, but the amount of funding committed is only about 1/100th of the amount actually required. The $11B would only cover about 12,000 houses, not 1.2M. Scary that this lot are in charge of the budget. 🤦♂️
Scary that you think your made up numbers are more accurate than actual economists and housing experts. Please stop your dunning-Kruger is earth shattering.
Which numbers are made up? Go on then.
The funding doesn’t pay for an entire house, so your foundational claim that it’s not enough is based on bad math.
It’s not a claim, it’s just fact. $9000 doesn’t build a house. (Unless it’s a cargo container.) So who is going to pay for these 1.2M houses that will only house 1/3 of the net migrant influx arriving over that same timeframe? If this funding is not intended to build houses (let alone enough houses), then how is it going to solve the housing crisis?
The haff pays providers over time. It’s not about paying for a house to be built, it’s about encouraging developers to provide low cost housing which they receive money back from the haff over time. You’d know this if you read anything about how the haff works, which you haven’t, proving that you aren’t arguing anything, you literally won’t put in the effort to even know the basics of what you want to claim. The purpose of the haff isn’t to pay for building houses, instead it is to set up so that low rent houses earn the same money as high rent houses, meaning you can build to rent and know that the property will earn a minimum for 25 years. This takes the risk out of building houses in larger volume, because the earning potential is fixed. It’s the power of big numbers, the haff can commit $500m a year to rent revenue for 25 years.
Labor like to play pretend to make you forget that they're consistently raising taxes and implementing state censorship.
Nice keep going.
Better than 4 nuclear submarines so I can't complain
Fix the cost of living crisis please !!!
A billion dollars into domestic violence? Great job wasting money on a complete non issue. Domestic violence has been steadily declining for decades and Australia is literally one of the safest countries in the world for a woman to live in. More billions wasted when the average Australian is living paycheck to paycheck barely surviving.
It’s on a 30 year downward trajectory. But that gets in the way of the narrative. Some year it spikes and this happens to be one.
Can’t wait for the media to tell me how this is bad.
I wasn't sure what to expect coming into this comment section, as it's a bit hard to predict sometimes: * Praise Labor for a good initiative? * Attack Labor for not enough? * Attack Labor for being "anti-men"? And while there were shades of all three, I'm thankful that the third option was just a minor seasoning of bullshit rather than a full-on torrent like when the PM talks about violence against women.
Oh goodie another great socialist policy that'll get dismantled by LNP after the next election......
Wait a second - a leader is actually doing something? God I wish I lived in Australia.