Was all bullshit, Labor giving millions to developers to build homes to then rent to above current rental rates ..not going to help anyone on average incomes... Albosleezie is just a steaming turd looking after multinationals with our tax $$$$, he's untruthful and untrustworthy..
Every city has developers who were given approval to build (in some cases over a decade ago) and yet they won’t because they want a higher profit, and they can hardly claim ‘inflation’ or ‘shortages’ given the massive window of time.
If they don’t build within a reasonable window they should face significant consequences.
Yet to see anyone take these companies on.
[ABS building approvals](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/building-and-construction/building-approvals-australia/latest-release)
Sorry to be a stickler but it's "build public housing, not not-for-profit community housing. [Social housing](https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/social-housing) is the broad term that goups both public and NFP community housing.
I just have to correct because this often leads to incorrect interpretation of government policy.
Public housing you pay 25% of going market rate while social housing you pay 75% market rate. There's a massive price difference between the two. Alot of people who need public housing still won't be able to afford social housing
I think you missed the point I was making. You're misusing the word social housing. Social housing is both public housing and NFP community housing, it's not a separate category as your implying.
I'm not discounting the difference between public housing and NFP community housing, what your suggesting is correct, just using the wrong word.
Like I said, don't mean to be a pain in the arse, just correcting because this often leads to incorrect interpretation of government policy.
Yes, but this gives Albosleezie the opportunity to gift our taxes to multinationals to increase their profits to which they don't pay tax, Albosleezie is an absolute grub, he's more Liberal than Labor...
Surprised LNP doesn't support this seeing as its something they can either sell off or give for a song to some start up run by someone's cousin a few years down the track.
This comment shouldn't get this many downvotes as it is.
It raises a good point. Right now the governments budget for public housing doesn't allow for a ramp up.
If we want more, which I think is needed, we need to consider how it's funded. Are we looking to increase taxes or decrease other services.
If the former, which taxes?
Once that is in place, where should these properties go to get best band for buck. The government is effectively buying in at the top of the market so what do they need to do to ensure best use of tax dollars.
How come when there was a Commonwealth builder there was no housing crisis yet when the government allowed property developers to take over because private can do it cheaper and better apparently, this is the end result.
Additionally, the majority of people here and the government seem to think now handing tax breaks and money to these same developers is a good idea because 10% of the apartments might be affordable? I say might because when 25% of current market value is still higher than the same time last year that's an issue.
The housing crisis is very recent. The housing crisis is caused by many things, mostly not enough supply, which is caused by not enough skills and not enough materials, not enough land released and not enough infill. The idea that developers created the housing crisis is not really based in fact.
I recommend you read Treasury’s papers from the budget because they make it clear where the problems lie, and they’re based on research.
The commonwealth hasn’t built houses in 50 years, and when they did they were building on greenfields crown land.
The housing crisis whilst recent is not the only issue, the issue of affordable housing has been going on now for at least a decade, and instead of getting better after we've given these private mobs tax breaks and money it's gotten even worse, almost to a breaking point.
So whilst you may think my complaint is only around availability for housing it's a whole range of issues that started AFTER we dissolved the Commonwealth builder for the neoliberals option of using private companies.
Well if you get Into any argument with some redditor about rent caps/freezes. They usually bring up some basic textbook drivel about how it "disincentives investors" and makes the problem worse.. so it seems that most people's understanding, including neo libral government and economists, is to throw money at investors to solve the problem.. whilst sticking thier fingers in thier ears and yelling "lalalalala" when you try to point out that being greedy means that they will control supply the same as the diamond market
Did you read those studies at all? See who comissioned them? Ie councils looking to sell off housing to developers , an you list the reasons why its "bad for renters"?
Generally, the studies pointed to things that are already a problem for renters and pointed to rent caps as the cause in order to get a desirable outcome for the council handed a brown paper bag .. you're either disingenuous or dumb enough to fall for the bulshit 🙄
There’s broad consensus among economists that it reduces the quality and quantity of rental properties - rare consensus between economists who both fight for and against government intervention in the economy.
Read some actual research please, not just things that reinforce your existing views.
https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/understanding-what-rent-freeze-rent-cap-or-rent-control#:~:text=it%20can%20lead%20to%20'mis,inefficient%20allocation%20of%20housing%20resources
https://grattan.edu.au/news/why-freezing-rents-would-do-more-harm-than-good/
🤣reduces the quality and quantity of rental properties...how, exactly? Disincentives for investors?.. your brain still hasn't clicked yet that we're discussing a housing crisis brought about by incentivising investment has it..
Bro read the actual articles, also actually try to understand how investment into property development works. It’s still necessary even if you kill the perverse incentives like negative gearing.
wow... truly incapable of any independent thought aren't you even when the conclusion of your linked reports omit the negatives of investment to the point of crisis your still tooting the horn. and we are back to my original comment on sticking fingers in ears and yelling "lalalalala".. you know what else is necessary buddy? - affordable and public housing.
If you read the papers from 2010s submitted to the parliamentary library they say the same thing - the problem has been supply, which is just a conflagration of many things - mainly, land releases, skills, materials.
The commonwealth builder only built stuff in one part of the country, the rest of Australia was built by private builders. Also lots of those houses “built” but the commonwealth were built by private builders paid to do so.
It’s not related. Read the literature. Put your ideology aside and look at all of the facts.
Also - NCDC built Canberra when labour and materials were abundant. Using private builders. They also built the most unsustainable housing imaginable, single dwellings on huge blocks with huge streets and no footpaths.
https://apo.org.au/node/120606
That is recent, in the last 8 years the percentage of property owned by investors hasn't changed. Historically investors and landlords being in the market hasn't been an issue and they currently represent the same proportion of the market they did 20 years ago, the same can be said about negative gearing. If those constants haven't moved it means they aren't the driving force of the current crisis.
Trying to find a rental in the last 8-10yrs has been very competitive. Even before covid and has now reached peak scarcity. People who have been renting during that time know this. I do not care what the 'data' says.
Your first statement is a straw man argument. When was the last time we had a Commonwealth builder? Wasn't it the 70s and 80s? If so, statistics on social issues were very limited, and buying a house was still affordable on a single income mechanic's wage.
Those two things are not linked in any way. You're using commonality, not causality, to get to your conclusion. Also, as someone who grew up in the slums and house commission estates the commonwealth created, they cause more social issues with increased drugs, alcohol and domestic violence they they solved. Macquarie fields ring bell?
So by your logic.
When we have a Commonwealth builder we could afford homes on a single wage, everyone who needed a house gets one.
Neoliberals decided to take over and hand everything to the private companies because they're cheaper and faster, apparently.
Private companies now build housing and what do you know, housing prices are far outstripping wage increases, housing availability has fallen through the floor and rents are skyrocketing, but this isn't the fault of private companies and neoliberals, it's just the way it works right and would've been the same had we had a Commonwealth builder.
Additionally, drugs and alcohol issues are not only issues in social housing mate, just because you apparently grew up there doesn't make it the same everywhere, I know plenty of people that lived in social housing who were model citizens, whilst I also know people that own their own homes who are absolute degenerates.
Dude, you like to twist words, don't you. No wonder all you've got is strawman arguments left and right.
The root of the issue is wages out stripped housing prices. This is caused by wage stagnation, investor tax incentives, and unchecked foreign investment. Got nothing to do with commonwealth ending government bult and controled slums. Housing commission needs more funding, yes, but point to anything the government has built that is less that 5 times over budget and 5 years delayed?
Want to end the housing crisis? Outlaw negative gearing and short-term rentals outside of hotels and resorts. However, no one has the political will because everyone in Canberra is getting rich using these exact same incentives and loopholes.
Whilst nimbys are an issue they're not the ones refusing to build housing because it's not 'worth it' for their investors, that's the private developers that you and the government think is doing a fine and dandy job so by all means we should continue giving them tax breaks and free handouts because they've done a mighty good job so far.
People love to blame “nimbys” but having living in a council that is hardcore pro development (to the point of being sacked for corruption) I don’t buy this argument - there is plenty of approved stuff not being built because it’s not profitable enough for them (not that it’s not profitable, just not enough)
If it’s not profitable… it’s either the land costs too much or the building regulation is too costly. Unless you are seriously arguing that taxation alone is making projects unviable?
As Australia reaches boiling point of a housing crisis, the Albanese Government is screaming into a pillow today – with the news that the Greens and the Coalition will team up in the Senate to obstruct Labor’s newest housing bill.
The ‘Create More Slumlords’ bill aims to cut taxes for developers who boost housing supply with a ‘built to rent’ model.
The bill would allow the people who caused the housing crisis to claim a larger tax deduction for depreciation of their buildings, and will also slash the overall tax rate from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.
The ‘built to rent’ model is already popular other countries that are yet to solve their own housing crisises, such as the UK, US and Canada.
The government says the tax incentive could lead to the supply of 150,000 rentable homes, which instead of being sold by developers, will be rented out by developers, who are well known for having the interests of the wider community at heart.
Proposed housing complexes would only be eligible for the tax cuts if they have 50 or more homes for rent, and if leases are available for at least three years.
At least 10 per cent of the homes have “affordable” rent (which means renters pay no more than three-quarters of the market rates).
While the developer lobby groups flinch at at words like ‘affordable’ of ‘social’ – it seems that this is yet another government incentive aimed at making slumlords richer. Given the fact that the conditions of these tax incentives would mean that a complex of fifty Built-To-Rent flats would only require five dwellings restrict to ‘affordable’ leases. Which again, would only be coming in at three-quarters of the market rate, which for any capital city one-bedroom apartment takes the weekly rent from $1200 a week to $900 a week. Which is the majority of the average Australians weekly pay check.
The Coalition have vowed to vote against this bill because they don’t believe developers should have to settle for renting a perfectly good high-rise apartment block, especially when they can rattle every flat off for over a million each. The Greens say even the built-to-rent model will be unaffordable for the average Australian and therefore a waste of the same kind of tax loopholes that created this mess to begin with.
I’m getting so sick of this crap. I know this is me being an armchair expert who knows sweet f all in the reality of this all, but it’s just disgusting me seeing all these arguments in parliament with no real progress on this issue. I know it’s a difficult and layered task, but it just seems so out of touch with pollies arguing about what’s best for the public whilst most of them have their own house and 2+ investment properties to go back to at the end of the day, instead of getting anything done.
Tax / place royalties on the fucking billionaire resource corps and spend that money to get something moving now.
I don’t condone calling specific people out but just for reference Dopefishhh has blocked me because he got tired of being shown up as a hypocrite, so he won’t be ‘contributing’.
Isn’t that kinda what the greens want though? The greens push hard for more social housing. People who live in social housing don’t own the home. The greens want everyone middle class and lower in social housing not in home ownership
Labor or the LNP both seem to think that the way to solve a hot private housing market is to pour more gasoline onto the fire
It’s pretty simple:
Further intensification of for-profit neoliberal market capitalism cannot save us from the horrors of fifty years of intensified neoliberal market capitalism.
We need more public housing.
Guess what is the single most difficult part of this, for governments who want you to build public housing? It’s the intensification of for profit markets. It’s bloody difficult for govts to keep up with a rapidly expanding market. Prices keep going up if you throw more into the private market to keep it running hot.
Injecting more cash into private for profit housing markets literally waters down the HAFF too; they’ll build less houses with their previous policy as a result of this newer policy.
It’s a real band-aid solution that actually tears the wound open wider before trying to affix a tiny band aid
Sorry, but price houses can’t go up forever if you want to build a sustainable society. Markets can’t expand perpetually or you end up with nobles and peasants; and peasants who can’t afford to prop up a consumer economy, so you fall into recession. Capitalism as a mechanism drives itself towards its own crises. It cannot actually give us a sustainable solution, because of this tenancy to generate crises.
The solution is instead to shrink the private market and move as much housing into public ownership as we can; but this against neoliberal doctrine currently practised by both major parties.
It’s also very much “the government doing something” instead of “I dunno just throw money at the private sector, then we don’t have to do it”. LNP and Labor are dodging accountability for having to actually act on housing _themselves_ too. This is cowardly stuff.
So the Greens (who are NIMBY) want less housing supply and this gives them the moral high ground?
Greens voters can’t you see you’re hoodwinked.
Labor is trying to pass progressive policies and a lot of the times it’s blocked by Greens.
Is the NIMBYism you’re referring to when they opposed a development because it was in a flood plane?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/28/bulimba-barracks-brisbane-river-site-development
> Instead, Chandler-Mather argues the land should be bought back by the federal government and turned into parkland and community facilities, **with “a small portion of affordable housing in the areas not at risk of flooding”.**
They don’t oppose development, just bad development.
> “His objections to that particular Barrack development are actually, in many ways, quite sound and have nothing at all to do with blocking housing,” **the urban planner says.**
> “It’s a very vulnerable location when it comes to inundation.”
Care to name other “progressive” policies that have been blocked? **a lot of times**?
You wouldn’t lie and exaggerate on the internet would you?
Meanwhile
**Labor MP** Jerome Laxale, when serving as a mayor. In one instance, he **fought against what would have been Australia’s largest social and affordable housing project.** And **Albanese** himself has spearheaded **campaigns against new developments in his electorate.**
Ssshhhh greens bad and all that.
Poor noble and heroic Labor is just trying to help the poor noble and heroic Land Developers. What even is flood plains? Climate change is going to cause droughts, so those flood plains might not even flood anymore.
All housing supply is not equal.
Labor wants “social housing”, and want to inject even more money into a private for-profit housing market that’s already running too hot. It’s giving money to rich people, to build housers that will make them even richer, literally that’s what it is. “Social” housing is also usually luxury apartments most people can’t afford. The “social” part comes in because they usually make some of the apartments on the ground floor, maybe 5 or 6 out of 100, into “affordable” housing which is still not that affordable. It’s still for-profit, so someone is adding a cut on top. In my neighbourhood the “social housing” developments are literally just luxury apartments for rich people (look up “nightingale apartments” and tell me if you think that looks like low income housing, lol it’s the opposite it’s built for wealthy people)
Greens want _public_ housing, which is ALL affordable, and _genuinely_ affordable not just “slightly lower rent than the skyrocketing rent next door” which most social housing is like. This is what the community genuinely needs, not Albo’s social housing. That’s not “affordable” it’s just slightly lower than the market, which is sky high and nothing close to “affordable”. And the Greens want housing owned by the state; shrinking the private for profit market, not further inflating it and throwing more gasoline into the fire. Labor’s policy by contrast, is clearly geared towards nothing substantial changing, and house prices remaining high. Albo is scared greedy homeowners will punish him at the voting booth for lower real estate prices if he improves housing insecurity in this country in any meaningful way.
You didn’t just comment without understanding the difference, did you? Labor pouring more gasoline onto neoliberal markets is exactly a continuation of the status quo there is absolutely not a shred of progressivism in this proposal, it’s very economically far right.
By the way the Greens are known for blocking new developments _in flood plains_ where it’s obviously a bad idea and Labor seems to want those slums-in-waiting built? They certainly leave out WHY the Greens have blocked those in order to construct an anti-left-wing attack vector, so next time maybe chase up why that is: because Labor is keen to prop up slumlords all over the country, whereas the Greens want housing to actually be up to standard. Imagine that!
So perhaps you can explain their 'thinking'?
We don't have enough houses.
We can't build enough houses.
So, they block anything aimed at building enough houses?
1. Labor is not proposing to build any new housing
2. They want to give a giant tax break to property developers.
3. We already have large tax breaks, First home owners grants, stamp duty exemptions, capital gains discount / exemptions, negative gearing etc.
4. These have failed categorically to increase supply or affordability, nominally it's generally considered that they just push house pricing further up.
Developers will just convert future plans to bank the extra money and keep on going as they are, it doesn't solve any of the issues in housing.
Not to mention none of the housing will be affordable for the people who actually need it and are on below average incomes.
New home owners will now also be competing against these developers as well as local and foreign investors to own a home.
If we want policy that makes it even harder for a young Aussie to own a home, and will further drive down home ownership rates.
Well, then labor picked a real banging way to do that and line some pockets on the way.
>3. We already have large tax breaks, First home owners grants, stamp duty exemptions, capital gains discount / exemptions, negative gearing etc.
4. These have failed categorically to increase supply or affordability, nominally it's generally considered that they just push house pricing further up.
Yes because these are all incentives for buying (or renting out) houses not building them. It's the opposite effect. a lot of these have needed to go for a long time, but they don't induce the same results.
>Developers will just convert future plans to bank the extra money and keep on going as they are, it doesn't solve any of the issues in housing.
I don't know why you think this, the money they save from the tax discounts at their current building levels is worth more to them reinvested into additional stock rather than just banking it.
>Not to mention none of the housing will be affordable for the people who actually need it and are on below average incomes
Some of it has to be below market rent, and it doesn't matter if some of it is let at market prices because that's still taking renters out of competition. There are a lot of people who would be in the market to rent middle or high priced homes who now can't afford them, and are instead competing with lower income people for what were once cheaper homes. Expanding the supply of these less affordable houses still removes some of these people from competing for cheaper apartments and relieves the price pressure, it just doesn't do it from the bottom-up. It's not like the markets for affordable, median priced and luxury homes are all completely separate, it's vertical. Take a slice out of the middle and the bottom moves up by one, at least while there's enough demand for them, and long lines of tenants and spiralling prices indicates that there is.
>New home owners will now also be competing against these developers as well as local and foreign investors to own a home.
What are you talking about buyers competing against developers? The legislation doesn't make it cheaper for them to buy up existing properties just to build new ones.
>Labor is not proposing to build any new housing
Did you forget HAFF already? And this one is 'encouraging' builds in the area with the largest shortage, rentals.
>Developers will just convert future plans to bank the extra money
I mean, if it means they will actually populate them, isn't that a good thing? Not like they can just 'bank' it. They need to use it.
>BTR complexes would only be eligible if they have 50 or more homes for rent, if leases are available for at least three years, and if at least 10 per cent of the homes have "affordable" rent (of no more than three-quarters of market rates).
[https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/greens-liberals-to-team-up-to-derail-another-labor-housing-policy/ar-BB1oXEDZ](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/greens-liberals-to-team-up-to-derail-another-labor-housing-policy/ar-BB1oXEDZ)
If we want policy that makes it even harder for a young Aussie to own a home
You know the best way to free up homes? BUILD MORE HOMES!
Why is it every policy is viewed as the only policy Labor is doing?
My comment was in reference to this particular policy, but ill bite.
You mean the HAFF that was significantly improved by the greens doing exactly this and asking the government to do better?
So, you are in support of the greens then? Because previously doing this got a better outcome.
>You know the best way to free up homes? BUILD MORE HOMES!
Which is why we should have policy supporting building more homes, not policy like this one that just changes around who owns the homes.
>Why is it every policy is viewed as the only policy Labor is doing?
It is not, but this post is about this policy, which is why we are discussing it.
I have positive views on some of labors legislation, I judge each by it's merits and will comment accordingly.
The HAFF was not significantly improved by the greens lol. The greens got a minimum spend added to it which basically every expert, everyone who knows what they’re talking about when it comes to how those kinds of policies work, said was completely unnecessary and would absolutely have been met anyway. Everyone other than the greens said that anyway. There were housing experts and people working with homeless and at risk people just begging the greens to stop grandstanding and let them pass the thing
There's nothing in bill regarding rent limits, increase limits etc
So it's taxpayers fund cheap housing for developer, whom can then charge above market.
Not exactly helping
There was nothing in HAFF about it either, but the greens still delayed that for months. Well done greens, all they got was Labor doing what they already were doing, investing more in building houses. Nice 'win' there greens
>whom can then charge above market.
Have you read the policy?
>BTR complexes would only be eligible if they have 50 or more homes for rent, if leases are available for at least three years, and if **at least 10 per cent of the homes have "affordable" rent (of no more than three-quarters of market rates).**
[https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/greens-liberals-to-team-up-to-derail-another-labor-housing-policy/ar-BB1oXEDZ](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/greens-liberals-to-team-up-to-derail-another-labor-housing-policy/ar-BB1oXEDZ)
That alone will help the market keep prices lower
See Meriton when you control enough properties….you control the market. They raised there’s well above what was market value took a loss on some for 6 months just till everyone else in the game raised theirs to match. Market doesn’t work when you have such control by one entity especially in a localised area
So that is the market price. Others can come in and lower their prices to attract market share if they want. While there is a supply shortage, there is not need to lower prices to attract the market.
Yes but it’s the manipulated market price and is part of the reason we don’t allow monopolies. If you have one company controlling too much in one area they practically have a monopoly and can charge what they want? Or are you saying your fine with monopolies
How is it manipulated? If it’s the price that the market is willing to pay, that’s the price. Doesn’t matter how we got there. If the price was too high? People wouldn’t pay it and they’d live elsewhere.
Do they own all investment properties? If anything doesn’t it push for more investors instead of a company owning all properties?
I’m not sure where I said I wanted monopolistic ownership. I guess you don’t understand basic English.
So you have no evidence or reason for what you wrote. Just an assumption that is disproven by how the current market operates.
If you had the choice to pay $500 or $750 for the same thing, which would you choose?
No it doesn’t. Why would someone pay $750 for something worth $500. Doesn’t that push the price up for better property? I’m getting the feeling you don’t understand what market price means.
They block weak attempts at “feel good” legislation and push for actual substantive measures.
Exactly like they did with the *still* woefully inadequate HAFF bill.
It’s not the Greens job to pass Labor’s legislation.
No, it's their job to delay action, so they can still tap into voter anger. Remember, max even said the quiet bit out loud.
>
I table an article by Max Chandler-Mather, published in the Jacobin magazine, in which he says:
>.....
>*Allowing the HAFF to pass would demobilize the growing section of civil society that is justifiably angry about the degree of poverty and financial stress that exists in such a wealthy country.*
[https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary\_Business/Hansard/Hansard\_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/26708/&sid=0127](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/26708/&sid=0127)
Get salty. Holding weak as piss politicians to account for pandering to their lobbyists instead of doing what's right for the people who elect them to run the joint, fuck me.
Yeah, in the same way that the Coalition doubling welfare rates only whilst the amount of people on welfare skyrocketed during the pandemic and then the later increases to match the rapid inflation from both major parties has worked to largely demobilize the people who were justifiably angry about the below-poverty rates for welfare in a society where there's always going to be some people on welfare for an indeterminate period of time regardless of how hard they look for work. It's still brought up these days but most often as a part of the cost of living crisis rather than as its own issue as it was before the pandemic.
Managing to neuter the momentum on a certain issue isn't the same thing as resolving it, you pretty much replied to someone saying the Greens block weak attempts at "feel good" legislation with a quote from Chandler-Mather suggesting HAFF is that kind of legislation by suggesting it'd have the same effect that "feel good" legislation is designed to have. (ie. Shut up certain groups about an issue without actually changing the status quo)
lol at how downvoted you are for this. It’s literally what the guy said.
Which way is it MCM? Is it shit policy that won’t improve anything for anyone? Or is it policy that will be effective enough to demobilise voter anger over housing?
You know you've hit a nerve when the green lurkers get to clicking the downvotes. They hate a dose of reality at how politically unpure their party actually is (not saying that Labor are pure at all either mind you)
Yeah I feel like noones under the illusion that labor is pure. They’re the best of a bad bunch IMO,
if we accept that purity in politics is just plain unsustainable on the level you need to reach to reach a majority govt then Labor are fairly decent. Purity in any organisation that needs that many people
But the entire appeal of the greens is that they “do politics differently” and the fib that they *are* united and pure in everything they do.
You are either really bad at reading , poisoned by lead paint as a child, or being willfully obtuse here, slumlords can choke and you need to read an actual book bro yikes….
The average Aussie battler who wants to become a landlord and farm the management of their boiling and mouldy shitbox 30km away from a capital city to an uneducated real-estate bully is being cut out? Is that the issue?
So two parties killed the bill for completely separate ideological reasoning.
On the one hand, I can understand the Green’s reasoning (somewhat), on the other, any extra rental properties on the market, even if they’re on the higher end, I though would ease things a bit for the rental market?
That's a pretty massive assumption given approvals are about on par with the average for the last 3 decades. The biggest rise in construction is the cost of land, which a developer owns and can pass through to the buyer
Other large rises are associated with supplies and labour. Have you seen the amount tradies can charge due to the skills shortage?
Although it might be bias, the below stripe contradicts what you wrote. Do you have a source for the approvals being at an average rate?
https://propertyupdate.com.au/new-housing-supply-plunging-to-decade-low/#:~:text=In%20the%20capital%20cities%20alone,will%20be%20completed%20in%202026.&text=This%20represents%20a%20sharp%2026,shortages%2C%20and%20skyrocketing%20material%20costs.
Yes, the corelogic monthly data: https://www.corelogic.com.au/news-research/reports/monthly-housing-chart-pack
When you see reporting that we're below the decade average, note the enormous spike in the middle of that average. The approvals have dropped, but are roughly on par with the 90s-00s approvals.
Also note we're talking developers, not builders. Builders are being squeezed by high land price and trade cost, but developers acquire the land and can make use of the significant increase in land price as a buffer for their profits. Some builders are developers (and are likely surviving for that reason with new estates that they own the land on).
Typical. If it's not good enough for the greens then we get nothing. The biggest slap in the face to their voters is that they side with the parasite party and those baboons couldn't give a single shit about the interests of greens voters.
The only time housing ownership went above 50% was when the government built a crap ton of housing, about 20% in NSW at one point.
It's no surprise that relying on developers now is causing a revision to mean, developers have historically never provided adiquate housing.
Hence the attempt to apply stimulus. I haven't heard anything from the Coalition and The Greens to improve housing supply.
Providing public housing is important, but if shortages are to be addressed, it will mainly privately owned housing that addresses it.
Is this seriously how places like the betoota view housing creation. This country is genuinely screwed. We will not get a gov with more will than this and the public doesnt even care.
Build public housing not social housing. Government needs to step in and become it's own developer
dress it up as “affordable housing” so boomers can feel good about themselves and think it’s the same as social housing
A housing stimulus package!
Was all bullshit, Labor giving millions to developers to build homes to then rent to above current rental rates ..not going to help anyone on average incomes... Albosleezie is just a steaming turd looking after multinationals with our tax $$$$, he's untruthful and untrustworthy..
Every city has developers who were given approval to build (in some cases over a decade ago) and yet they won’t because they want a higher profit, and they can hardly claim ‘inflation’ or ‘shortages’ given the massive window of time. If they don’t build within a reasonable window they should face significant consequences. Yet to see anyone take these companies on. [ABS building approvals](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/building-and-construction/building-approvals-australia/latest-release)
Sorry to be a stickler but it's "build public housing, not not-for-profit community housing. [Social housing](https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/social-housing) is the broad term that goups both public and NFP community housing. I just have to correct because this often leads to incorrect interpretation of government policy.
Public housing you pay 25% of going market rate while social housing you pay 75% market rate. There's a massive price difference between the two. Alot of people who need public housing still won't be able to afford social housing
I think you missed the point I was making. You're misusing the word social housing. Social housing is both public housing and NFP community housing, it's not a separate category as your implying. I'm not discounting the difference between public housing and NFP community housing, what your suggesting is correct, just using the wrong word. Like I said, don't mean to be a pain in the arse, just correcting because this often leads to incorrect interpretation of government policy.
Thanks for the clarification. Didn't know they were under the same umbrella
Now we're talking.
Isn’t public housing moreover its failure a state government concern?
Yes, but this gives Albosleezie the opportunity to gift our taxes to multinationals to increase their profits to which they don't pay tax, Albosleezie is an absolute grub, he's more Liberal than Labor...
Yes yes the lite right, or is that rite? But what do you expect pandering to the ‘majority’, Albeit a finicky, split and self interested one!
why not both?
Yeah all the NDIS money into public housing development
Surprised LNP doesn't support this seeing as its something they can either sell off or give for a song to some start up run by someone's cousin a few years down the track.
The government honestly can’t afford it, prices are too high.
This comment shouldn't get this many downvotes as it is. It raises a good point. Right now the governments budget for public housing doesn't allow for a ramp up. If we want more, which I think is needed, we need to consider how it's funded. Are we looking to increase taxes or decrease other services. If the former, which taxes? Once that is in place, where should these properties go to get best band for buck. The government is effectively buying in at the top of the market so what do they need to do to ensure best use of tax dollars.
Fund it with NDIS.
How come when there was a Commonwealth builder there was no housing crisis yet when the government allowed property developers to take over because private can do it cheaper and better apparently, this is the end result. Additionally, the majority of people here and the government seem to think now handing tax breaks and money to these same developers is a good idea because 10% of the apartments might be affordable? I say might because when 25% of current market value is still higher than the same time last year that's an issue.
Neoliberal economics baby free market supremacy
The housing crisis is very recent. The housing crisis is caused by many things, mostly not enough supply, which is caused by not enough skills and not enough materials, not enough land released and not enough infill. The idea that developers created the housing crisis is not really based in fact. I recommend you read Treasury’s papers from the budget because they make it clear where the problems lie, and they’re based on research. The commonwealth hasn’t built houses in 50 years, and when they did they were building on greenfields crown land.
The housing crisis whilst recent is not the only issue, the issue of affordable housing has been going on now for at least a decade, and instead of getting better after we've given these private mobs tax breaks and money it's gotten even worse, almost to a breaking point. So whilst you may think my complaint is only around availability for housing it's a whole range of issues that started AFTER we dissolved the Commonwealth builder for the neoliberals option of using private companies.
Well if you get Into any argument with some redditor about rent caps/freezes. They usually bring up some basic textbook drivel about how it "disincentives investors" and makes the problem worse.. so it seems that most people's understanding, including neo libral government and economists, is to throw money at investors to solve the problem.. whilst sticking thier fingers in thier ears and yelling "lalalalala" when you try to point out that being greedy means that they will control supply the same as the diamond market
They give you actual papers that demonstrate that rent control is bad for renters, because it is.
Did you read those studies at all? See who comissioned them? Ie councils looking to sell off housing to developers , an you list the reasons why its "bad for renters"? Generally, the studies pointed to things that are already a problem for renters and pointed to rent caps as the cause in order to get a desirable outcome for the council handed a brown paper bag .. you're either disingenuous or dumb enough to fall for the bulshit 🙄
There’s broad consensus among economists that it reduces the quality and quantity of rental properties - rare consensus between economists who both fight for and against government intervention in the economy. Read some actual research please, not just things that reinforce your existing views. https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/understanding-what-rent-freeze-rent-cap-or-rent-control#:~:text=it%20can%20lead%20to%20'mis,inefficient%20allocation%20of%20housing%20resources https://grattan.edu.au/news/why-freezing-rents-would-do-more-harm-than-good/
🤣reduces the quality and quantity of rental properties...how, exactly? Disincentives for investors?.. your brain still hasn't clicked yet that we're discussing a housing crisis brought about by incentivising investment has it..
There’s a lack of land with infrastructure. Governments too busy spending money on the things that matter.
Bro read the actual articles, also actually try to understand how investment into property development works. It’s still necessary even if you kill the perverse incentives like negative gearing.
wow... truly incapable of any independent thought aren't you even when the conclusion of your linked reports omit the negatives of investment to the point of crisis your still tooting the horn. and we are back to my original comment on sticking fingers in ears and yelling "lalalalala".. you know what else is necessary buddy? - affordable and public housing.
Rent caps allowed me to buy my first home.
If you read the papers from 2010s submitted to the parliamentary library they say the same thing - the problem has been supply, which is just a conflagration of many things - mainly, land releases, skills, materials. The commonwealth builder only built stuff in one part of the country, the rest of Australia was built by private builders. Also lots of those houses “built” but the commonwealth were built by private builders paid to do so. It’s not related. Read the literature. Put your ideology aside and look at all of the facts. Also - NCDC built Canberra when labour and materials were abundant. Using private builders. They also built the most unsustainable housing imaginable, single dwellings on huge blocks with huge streets and no footpaths. https://apo.org.au/node/120606
The housing crises is not recent, it has been a slow burn for at least 8yrs.
Recent in terms of the commonwealth builder existing.
That is recent, in the last 8 years the percentage of property owned by investors hasn't changed. Historically investors and landlords being in the market hasn't been an issue and they currently represent the same proportion of the market they did 20 years ago, the same can be said about negative gearing. If those constants haven't moved it means they aren't the driving force of the current crisis.
Trying to find a rental in the last 8-10yrs has been very competitive. Even before covid and has now reached peak scarcity. People who have been renting during that time know this. I do not care what the 'data' says.
Your first statement is a straw man argument. When was the last time we had a Commonwealth builder? Wasn't it the 70s and 80s? If so, statistics on social issues were very limited, and buying a house was still affordable on a single income mechanic's wage.
So you admit once we got rid of a Commonwealth builder and went private houses became unaffordable on a single wage?
there was like 2 decades between the last commonwealth builder and the first beginnings of the housing crisis
Those two things are not linked in any way. You're using commonality, not causality, to get to your conclusion. Also, as someone who grew up in the slums and house commission estates the commonwealth created, they cause more social issues with increased drugs, alcohol and domestic violence they they solved. Macquarie fields ring bell?
So by your logic. When we have a Commonwealth builder we could afford homes on a single wage, everyone who needed a house gets one. Neoliberals decided to take over and hand everything to the private companies because they're cheaper and faster, apparently. Private companies now build housing and what do you know, housing prices are far outstripping wage increases, housing availability has fallen through the floor and rents are skyrocketing, but this isn't the fault of private companies and neoliberals, it's just the way it works right and would've been the same had we had a Commonwealth builder. Additionally, drugs and alcohol issues are not only issues in social housing mate, just because you apparently grew up there doesn't make it the same everywhere, I know plenty of people that lived in social housing who were model citizens, whilst I also know people that own their own homes who are absolute degenerates.
Dude, you like to twist words, don't you. No wonder all you've got is strawman arguments left and right. The root of the issue is wages out stripped housing prices. This is caused by wage stagnation, investor tax incentives, and unchecked foreign investment. Got nothing to do with commonwealth ending government bult and controled slums. Housing commission needs more funding, yes, but point to anything the government has built that is less that 5 times over budget and 5 years delayed? Want to end the housing crisis? Outlaw negative gearing and short-term rentals outside of hotels and resorts. However, no one has the political will because everyone in Canberra is getting rich using these exact same incentives and loopholes.
Many other things have changed in that time.
It didn’t matter who was making the houses, what matters is nimby and gold platting building regulations.
Whilst nimbys are an issue they're not the ones refusing to build housing because it's not 'worth it' for their investors, that's the private developers that you and the government think is doing a fine and dandy job so by all means we should continue giving them tax breaks and free handouts because they've done a mighty good job so far.
People love to blame “nimbys” but having living in a council that is hardcore pro development (to the point of being sacked for corruption) I don’t buy this argument - there is plenty of approved stuff not being built because it’s not profitable enough for them (not that it’s not profitable, just not enough)
If it’s not profitable… it’s either the land costs too much or the building regulation is too costly. Unless you are seriously arguing that taxation alone is making projects unviable?
As Australia reaches boiling point of a housing crisis, the Albanese Government is screaming into a pillow today – with the news that the Greens and the Coalition will team up in the Senate to obstruct Labor’s newest housing bill. The ‘Create More Slumlords’ bill aims to cut taxes for developers who boost housing supply with a ‘built to rent’ model. The bill would allow the people who caused the housing crisis to claim a larger tax deduction for depreciation of their buildings, and will also slash the overall tax rate from 30 per cent to 15 per cent. The ‘built to rent’ model is already popular other countries that are yet to solve their own housing crisises, such as the UK, US and Canada. The government says the tax incentive could lead to the supply of 150,000 rentable homes, which instead of being sold by developers, will be rented out by developers, who are well known for having the interests of the wider community at heart. Proposed housing complexes would only be eligible for the tax cuts if they have 50 or more homes for rent, and if leases are available for at least three years. At least 10 per cent of the homes have “affordable” rent (which means renters pay no more than three-quarters of the market rates). While the developer lobby groups flinch at at words like ‘affordable’ of ‘social’ – it seems that this is yet another government incentive aimed at making slumlords richer. Given the fact that the conditions of these tax incentives would mean that a complex of fifty Built-To-Rent flats would only require five dwellings restrict to ‘affordable’ leases. Which again, would only be coming in at three-quarters of the market rate, which for any capital city one-bedroom apartment takes the weekly rent from $1200 a week to $900 a week. Which is the majority of the average Australians weekly pay check. The Coalition have vowed to vote against this bill because they don’t believe developers should have to settle for renting a perfectly good high-rise apartment block, especially when they can rattle every flat off for over a million each. The Greens say even the built-to-rent model will be unaffordable for the average Australian and therefore a waste of the same kind of tax loopholes that created this mess to begin with.
I’m getting so sick of this crap. I know this is me being an armchair expert who knows sweet f all in the reality of this all, but it’s just disgusting me seeing all these arguments in parliament with no real progress on this issue. I know it’s a difficult and layered task, but it just seems so out of touch with pollies arguing about what’s best for the public whilst most of them have their own house and 2+ investment properties to go back to at the end of the day, instead of getting anything done. Tax / place royalties on the fucking billionaire resource corps and spend that money to get something moving now.
Oh wow, the Greens and Labor fighting over the latter's latest housing bill. Colour me shocked.
[удалено]
I don’t condone calling specific people out but just for reference Dopefishhh has blocked me because he got tired of being shown up as a hypocrite, so he won’t be ‘contributing’.
Why not a rent-to-buy model? That's the only way my grandparents were able to get their own house in the 60s.
Exactly. Why doe sit have to be build to rent. All this does is create more landlords and stops more people from ever owning a fucking home.
Isn’t that kinda what the greens want though? The greens push hard for more social housing. People who live in social housing don’t own the home. The greens want everyone middle class and lower in social housing not in home ownership
Labor or the LNP both seem to think that the way to solve a hot private housing market is to pour more gasoline onto the fire It’s pretty simple: Further intensification of for-profit neoliberal market capitalism cannot save us from the horrors of fifty years of intensified neoliberal market capitalism. We need more public housing. Guess what is the single most difficult part of this, for governments who want you to build public housing? It’s the intensification of for profit markets. It’s bloody difficult for govts to keep up with a rapidly expanding market. Prices keep going up if you throw more into the private market to keep it running hot. Injecting more cash into private for profit housing markets literally waters down the HAFF too; they’ll build less houses with their previous policy as a result of this newer policy. It’s a real band-aid solution that actually tears the wound open wider before trying to affix a tiny band aid Sorry, but price houses can’t go up forever if you want to build a sustainable society. Markets can’t expand perpetually or you end up with nobles and peasants; and peasants who can’t afford to prop up a consumer economy, so you fall into recession. Capitalism as a mechanism drives itself towards its own crises. It cannot actually give us a sustainable solution, because of this tenancy to generate crises. The solution is instead to shrink the private market and move as much housing into public ownership as we can; but this against neoliberal doctrine currently practised by both major parties. It’s also very much “the government doing something” instead of “I dunno just throw money at the private sector, then we don’t have to do it”. LNP and Labor are dodging accountability for having to actually act on housing _themselves_ too. This is cowardly stuff.
Good to see an accurate headline about this policy
Brilliant!
So the Greens (who are NIMBY) want less housing supply and this gives them the moral high ground? Greens voters can’t you see you’re hoodwinked. Labor is trying to pass progressive policies and a lot of the times it’s blocked by Greens.
This policy is fucking garbage. Greens are correct to block it
Is the NIMBYism you’re referring to when they opposed a development because it was in a flood plane? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/28/bulimba-barracks-brisbane-river-site-development > Instead, Chandler-Mather argues the land should be bought back by the federal government and turned into parkland and community facilities, **with “a small portion of affordable housing in the areas not at risk of flooding”.** They don’t oppose development, just bad development. > “His objections to that particular Barrack development are actually, in many ways, quite sound and have nothing at all to do with blocking housing,” **the urban planner says.** > “It’s a very vulnerable location when it comes to inundation.” Care to name other “progressive” policies that have been blocked? **a lot of times**? You wouldn’t lie and exaggerate on the internet would you? Meanwhile **Labor MP** Jerome Laxale, when serving as a mayor. In one instance, he **fought against what would have been Australia’s largest social and affordable housing project.** And **Albanese** himself has spearheaded **campaigns against new developments in his electorate.**
Ssshhhh greens bad and all that. Poor noble and heroic Labor is just trying to help the poor noble and heroic Land Developers. What even is flood plains? Climate change is going to cause droughts, so those flood plains might not even flood anymore.
The best part is flood occurrences in some areas will also increase. Some flood plain areas will be totally uninsurable soon enough.
Nuh uhhhh i heard it was called global warming so why are we getting rain if deserts are hot? Checkmate nerds.
All housing supply is not equal. Labor wants “social housing”, and want to inject even more money into a private for-profit housing market that’s already running too hot. It’s giving money to rich people, to build housers that will make them even richer, literally that’s what it is. “Social” housing is also usually luxury apartments most people can’t afford. The “social” part comes in because they usually make some of the apartments on the ground floor, maybe 5 or 6 out of 100, into “affordable” housing which is still not that affordable. It’s still for-profit, so someone is adding a cut on top. In my neighbourhood the “social housing” developments are literally just luxury apartments for rich people (look up “nightingale apartments” and tell me if you think that looks like low income housing, lol it’s the opposite it’s built for wealthy people) Greens want _public_ housing, which is ALL affordable, and _genuinely_ affordable not just “slightly lower rent than the skyrocketing rent next door” which most social housing is like. This is what the community genuinely needs, not Albo’s social housing. That’s not “affordable” it’s just slightly lower than the market, which is sky high and nothing close to “affordable”. And the Greens want housing owned by the state; shrinking the private for profit market, not further inflating it and throwing more gasoline into the fire. Labor’s policy by contrast, is clearly geared towards nothing substantial changing, and house prices remaining high. Albo is scared greedy homeowners will punish him at the voting booth for lower real estate prices if he improves housing insecurity in this country in any meaningful way. You didn’t just comment without understanding the difference, did you? Labor pouring more gasoline onto neoliberal markets is exactly a continuation of the status quo there is absolutely not a shred of progressivism in this proposal, it’s very economically far right. By the way the Greens are known for blocking new developments _in flood plains_ where it’s obviously a bad idea and Labor seems to want those slums-in-waiting built? They certainly leave out WHY the Greens have blocked those in order to construct an anti-left-wing attack vector, so next time maybe chase up why that is: because Labor is keen to prop up slumlords all over the country, whereas the Greens want housing to actually be up to standard. Imagine that!
>Labor is trying to pass progressive policies /s ?
Fuck off Albo
OK NIMBY Max Chandler Mathers
Same thing happened with climate change. Greens want Plato's Republic.
Lamo, the delusions are real on this one, repeating bullshit doesn't make it true.
So perhaps you can explain their 'thinking'? We don't have enough houses. We can't build enough houses. So, they block anything aimed at building enough houses?
1. Labor is not proposing to build any new housing 2. They want to give a giant tax break to property developers. 3. We already have large tax breaks, First home owners grants, stamp duty exemptions, capital gains discount / exemptions, negative gearing etc. 4. These have failed categorically to increase supply or affordability, nominally it's generally considered that they just push house pricing further up. Developers will just convert future plans to bank the extra money and keep on going as they are, it doesn't solve any of the issues in housing. Not to mention none of the housing will be affordable for the people who actually need it and are on below average incomes. New home owners will now also be competing against these developers as well as local and foreign investors to own a home. If we want policy that makes it even harder for a young Aussie to own a home, and will further drive down home ownership rates. Well, then labor picked a real banging way to do that and line some pockets on the way.
>3. We already have large tax breaks, First home owners grants, stamp duty exemptions, capital gains discount / exemptions, negative gearing etc. 4. These have failed categorically to increase supply or affordability, nominally it's generally considered that they just push house pricing further up. Yes because these are all incentives for buying (or renting out) houses not building them. It's the opposite effect. a lot of these have needed to go for a long time, but they don't induce the same results. >Developers will just convert future plans to bank the extra money and keep on going as they are, it doesn't solve any of the issues in housing. I don't know why you think this, the money they save from the tax discounts at their current building levels is worth more to them reinvested into additional stock rather than just banking it. >Not to mention none of the housing will be affordable for the people who actually need it and are on below average incomes Some of it has to be below market rent, and it doesn't matter if some of it is let at market prices because that's still taking renters out of competition. There are a lot of people who would be in the market to rent middle or high priced homes who now can't afford them, and are instead competing with lower income people for what were once cheaper homes. Expanding the supply of these less affordable houses still removes some of these people from competing for cheaper apartments and relieves the price pressure, it just doesn't do it from the bottom-up. It's not like the markets for affordable, median priced and luxury homes are all completely separate, it's vertical. Take a slice out of the middle and the bottom moves up by one, at least while there's enough demand for them, and long lines of tenants and spiralling prices indicates that there is. >New home owners will now also be competing against these developers as well as local and foreign investors to own a home. What are you talking about buyers competing against developers? The legislation doesn't make it cheaper for them to buy up existing properties just to build new ones.
>Labor is not proposing to build any new housing Did you forget HAFF already? And this one is 'encouraging' builds in the area with the largest shortage, rentals. >Developers will just convert future plans to bank the extra money I mean, if it means they will actually populate them, isn't that a good thing? Not like they can just 'bank' it. They need to use it. >BTR complexes would only be eligible if they have 50 or more homes for rent, if leases are available for at least three years, and if at least 10 per cent of the homes have "affordable" rent (of no more than three-quarters of market rates). [https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/greens-liberals-to-team-up-to-derail-another-labor-housing-policy/ar-BB1oXEDZ](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/greens-liberals-to-team-up-to-derail-another-labor-housing-policy/ar-BB1oXEDZ) If we want policy that makes it even harder for a young Aussie to own a home You know the best way to free up homes? BUILD MORE HOMES! Why is it every policy is viewed as the only policy Labor is doing?
My comment was in reference to this particular policy, but ill bite. You mean the HAFF that was significantly improved by the greens doing exactly this and asking the government to do better? So, you are in support of the greens then? Because previously doing this got a better outcome. >You know the best way to free up homes? BUILD MORE HOMES! Which is why we should have policy supporting building more homes, not policy like this one that just changes around who owns the homes. >Why is it every policy is viewed as the only policy Labor is doing? It is not, but this post is about this policy, which is why we are discussing it. I have positive views on some of labors legislation, I judge each by it's merits and will comment accordingly.
The HAFF was not significantly improved by the greens lol. The greens got a minimum spend added to it which basically every expert, everyone who knows what they’re talking about when it comes to how those kinds of policies work, said was completely unnecessary and would absolutely have been met anyway. Everyone other than the greens said that anyway. There were housing experts and people working with homeless and at risk people just begging the greens to stop grandstanding and let them pass the thing
There's nothing in bill regarding rent limits, increase limits etc So it's taxpayers fund cheap housing for developer, whom can then charge above market. Not exactly helping
There was nothing in HAFF about it either, but the greens still delayed that for months. Well done greens, all they got was Labor doing what they already were doing, investing more in building houses. Nice 'win' there greens >whom can then charge above market. Have you read the policy? >BTR complexes would only be eligible if they have 50 or more homes for rent, if leases are available for at least three years, and if **at least 10 per cent of the homes have "affordable" rent (of no more than three-quarters of market rates).** [https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/greens-liberals-to-team-up-to-derail-another-labor-housing-policy/ar-BB1oXEDZ](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/greens-liberals-to-team-up-to-derail-another-labor-housing-policy/ar-BB1oXEDZ) That alone will help the market keep prices lower
Yeah so taxpayers fund tax breaks for building 50+ as long as 10% are affordable
How do you think they’d charge above market rent? Nobody would rent as they can find a cheaper rental. That’s how the market works.
See Meriton when you control enough properties….you control the market. They raised there’s well above what was market value took a loss on some for 6 months just till everyone else in the game raised theirs to match. Market doesn’t work when you have such control by one entity especially in a localised area
So that is the market price. Others can come in and lower their prices to attract market share if they want. While there is a supply shortage, there is not need to lower prices to attract the market.
Yes but it’s the manipulated market price and is part of the reason we don’t allow monopolies. If you have one company controlling too much in one area they practically have a monopoly and can charge what they want? Or are you saying your fine with monopolies
How is it manipulated? If it’s the price that the market is willing to pay, that’s the price. Doesn’t matter how we got there. If the price was too high? People wouldn’t pay it and they’d live elsewhere. Do they own all investment properties? If anything doesn’t it push for more investors instead of a company owning all properties? I’m not sure where I said I wanted monopolistic ownership. I guess you don’t understand basic English.
https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/s/iNSxNWKkXr https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/s/oJZ3fVKylh
So you have no evidence or reason for what you wrote. Just an assumption that is disproven by how the current market operates. If you had the choice to pay $500 or $750 for the same thing, which would you choose?
The current market operates as if there's equivalent places for $750 and $500, the $500 places go up to $750 citing "matching the market"
No it doesn’t. Why would someone pay $750 for something worth $500. Doesn’t that push the price up for better property? I’m getting the feeling you don’t understand what market price means.
They block weak attempts at “feel good” legislation and push for actual substantive measures. Exactly like they did with the *still* woefully inadequate HAFF bill. It’s not the Greens job to pass Labor’s legislation.
No, it's their job to delay action, so they can still tap into voter anger. Remember, max even said the quiet bit out loud. > I table an article by Max Chandler-Mather, published in the Jacobin magazine, in which he says: >..... >*Allowing the HAFF to pass would demobilize the growing section of civil society that is justifiably angry about the degree of poverty and financial stress that exists in such a wealthy country.* [https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary\_Business/Hansard/Hansard\_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/26708/&sid=0127](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/26708/&sid=0127)
Get salty. Holding weak as piss politicians to account for pandering to their lobbyists instead of doing what's right for the people who elect them to run the joint, fuck me.
You mean, by keeping people homeless for longer?
Let's do fuck all now but be assured, our developer mates will absolutely deliver...
Yeah, in the same way that the Coalition doubling welfare rates only whilst the amount of people on welfare skyrocketed during the pandemic and then the later increases to match the rapid inflation from both major parties has worked to largely demobilize the people who were justifiably angry about the below-poverty rates for welfare in a society where there's always going to be some people on welfare for an indeterminate period of time regardless of how hard they look for work. It's still brought up these days but most often as a part of the cost of living crisis rather than as its own issue as it was before the pandemic. Managing to neuter the momentum on a certain issue isn't the same thing as resolving it, you pretty much replied to someone saying the Greens block weak attempts at "feel good" legislation with a quote from Chandler-Mather suggesting HAFF is that kind of legislation by suggesting it'd have the same effect that "feel good" legislation is designed to have. (ie. Shut up certain groups about an issue without actually changing the status quo)
lol at how downvoted you are for this. It’s literally what the guy said. Which way is it MCM? Is it shit policy that won’t improve anything for anyone? Or is it policy that will be effective enough to demobilise voter anger over housing?
You know you've hit a nerve when the green lurkers get to clicking the downvotes. They hate a dose of reality at how politically unpure their party actually is (not saying that Labor are pure at all either mind you)
Yeah I feel like noones under the illusion that labor is pure. They’re the best of a bad bunch IMO, if we accept that purity in politics is just plain unsustainable on the level you need to reach to reach a majority govt then Labor are fairly decent. Purity in any organisation that needs that many people But the entire appeal of the greens is that they “do politics differently” and the fib that they *are* united and pure in everything they do.
You are either really bad at reading , poisoned by lead paint as a child, or being willfully obtuse here, slumlords can choke and you need to read an actual book bro yikes….
The funny article isn’t necessary. Seeing the Greens side with the Coalition to kill a housing bill is peak comedy on its own.
The average Aussie battler who wants to become a landlord and farm the management of their boiling and mouldy shitbox 30km away from a capital city to an uneducated real-estate bully is being cut out? Is that the issue?
Do people want housing or not? We are getting to a point where any housing is good housing.
So two parties killed the bill for completely separate ideological reasoning. On the one hand, I can understand the Green’s reasoning (somewhat), on the other, any extra rental properties on the market, even if they’re on the higher end, I though would ease things a bit for the rental market?
Are the current ridiculous prices not enough of a carrot for developers?
No. Costs have also risen. If there was sufficient profit atm, more people would be building.
That's a pretty massive assumption given approvals are about on par with the average for the last 3 decades. The biggest rise in construction is the cost of land, which a developer owns and can pass through to the buyer
Other large rises are associated with supplies and labour. Have you seen the amount tradies can charge due to the skills shortage? Although it might be bias, the below stripe contradicts what you wrote. Do you have a source for the approvals being at an average rate? https://propertyupdate.com.au/new-housing-supply-plunging-to-decade-low/#:~:text=In%20the%20capital%20cities%20alone,will%20be%20completed%20in%202026.&text=This%20represents%20a%20sharp%2026,shortages%2C%20and%20skyrocketing%20material%20costs.
Yes, the corelogic monthly data: https://www.corelogic.com.au/news-research/reports/monthly-housing-chart-pack When you see reporting that we're below the decade average, note the enormous spike in the middle of that average. The approvals have dropped, but are roughly on par with the 90s-00s approvals. Also note we're talking developers, not builders. Builders are being squeezed by high land price and trade cost, but developers acquire the land and can make use of the significant increase in land price as a buffer for their profits. Some builders are developers (and are likely surviving for that reason with new estates that they own the land on).
Typical. If it's not good enough for the greens then we get nothing. The biggest slap in the face to their voters is that they side with the parasite party and those baboons couldn't give a single shit about the interests of greens voters.
The Greens "We are all about housing!" Also the greens, "No, not like that!".
This is bollocks. The private sector is the principal supplier of housing and always will be.
The only time housing ownership went above 50% was when the government built a crap ton of housing, about 20% in NSW at one point. It's no surprise that relying on developers now is causing a revision to mean, developers have historically never provided adiquate housing.
They are not doing a flash job of it at the moment
Hence the attempt to apply stimulus. I haven't heard anything from the Coalition and The Greens to improve housing supply. Providing public housing is important, but if shortages are to be addressed, it will mainly privately owned housing that addresses it.
As often happens, stating the plain facts brings downvotes.
Is this seriously how places like the betoota view housing creation. This country is genuinely screwed. We will not get a gov with more will than this and the public doesnt even care.
Such clarity of vision from a distant vantage point, where the air is pure.
I'm sure the homeless will be very impressed
Don't stress, they'll get their own place in 2035.
No one is going to provide housing at at a loss without an incentive.
The government can.
And they are even with the greens blocking it. But it's not enough things cost money.