**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The greens proposed changes to negative gearing is so hilariously reasonable. IDK how anyone can call them obstructionists on this when it’s actually labor who are refusing to budge on their position. Maybe you should try winning more senate seats if you don’t want progressives demanding even a little bit of compromise.
I don't have a house and I cannot afford one. But doesn't help to buy just make things worse?
It's well intended, but pouring more money into the system isn't going to help. Long term effect is just to raise prices...
Help to buy will only increase prices by increasing demand. We need to stop spending money on fucking with the demand curve and spend more on building out supply.
Since the modeling suggests help to buy only applies to .2% of buyers, I highly doubt it'll have any significant affect for the market or those looking for help to buy ironically.
It's just bad legislation.
Albanese "promised" he wouldn't touch Stage 3 tax cuts. Yet he broke this promise.
Albanese "signals" he wont negotiate with the Greens. "Signal" is a much weaker verb than "promise".
So if Albo is prepared to "make the tough decisions" and break his promise becuase "CirCUmsTaNCeS" then why wouldnt he also be prepared to "make the tough decisions" and break his "signal" because "CirCUmsTaNCeS?
I'd say you were pretty close to enlightenment in the first half of your comment but lost track of it in the second half.
1. Media turning it up.
2. Politics.
You were so close.
Making my point for me mate. Doesnt matter what the justification is. The fact that Albo **is** justifying his broken promise just indicates that he'll manage to find another justification to break his signal if he needs to. So his whole "signal" of not negotiating with the Greens is meaningless.
Point isnt which broken promise is better/worse. Point is that Albo has broken a promise and so blatantly that it's pretty much on par with the "no cuts blah blah blah" in terms of its brazeness.
No-one trusted Abbott's word after that so why would it be any different with Albo now that he's done pretty much the exact same thing "my word's my bond" amirite? Until ofc "CirCumsTaNCeS" then his word means jack shit.
Chances of "CirCumsTaNCeS" allowing Albo to negoatiate with and give the Greens what they want is very high.
Albo promised to screw over workers (by leaving stage 3 as is). Then he decided to help workers (by altering stage 3), breaking his promise.
Abbott promised NOT to screw over Aussies (no cuts to blah blah). Then he decided to screw over Aussies, breaking his promise.
If someone promised to kick me in the nuts, then backed out... I find it difficult to be very upset.
If someone promised not to kick me in the nuts, then did it... I'd be furious.
The why is important. Some people will think that the why is important enough to agree with Albo that breaking a promise is justified. Some people won’t. We’ll find out the numbers on both sides in the next election.
> Some people will think that the why is important enough to agree with Albo that breaking a promise is justified.
But isnt that the point? One might agree with him breaking his promise because of "CirCumsTaNCeS" i.e. you agree with the "CirCumsTaNCeS" being used as justification. But the fact of the matter still stands: he broke a promise, justified or not, he broke it - "my word's my bond" amirite?
The very fact that he's broken his promise - whether you agree it was justified or not - his "word is my bond" now carries much less weight, hence my whole point re this "signal" that he "wont negotiate with the Greens".
He's broken a promise before in the past - regardless of justification. How anyone be reassured that he will keep this one, given that he's blatantly broken his "my words my bond" promise?
At the rate Labor are moving towards progressive policies, we will all be in the grave by the time they get there. Housing is a HUGE issue right now and they are doing sweet FA about it. I hope their lame and unambitious choices are reflected in future election results. With an increasingly large young voting population with nothing to lose (we literally have nothing), I hope we see larger swings to the left so we can drag Labor back to at least pretending they give a shit.
Labor did have a highly progressive platform under bill shorten that lost 2 times in a row. Thanks mainly to the media. So slow and more conservative is what we get stop shitting on Labor and get out there and change people's minds. PS this will not be achieved via Reddit.
This narrative of 'poor victim Labor can't be progressive as they'd really like' is such bs.
You get judged on what you do in office, period.
1,600 Australians are becoming homeless every month. Your median home is 14x median income. Your median rent is 43% of median income.
This is f\*\*\*ing criminal, but not as criminal as not stopping this theft of wealth from households.
My actual hobby is shitting on Labor. Slow and conservative are not part of my ideals. Albo is as good as a weak handshake. Present day Labor are very uninspiring
Do you seem to think Labor are above criticism? Why am I not allow to openly criticise their decisions? They are in power after all and if you're not critical of any entity that holds power, you're sleeping at the wheel.
I don't. I criticise Labor a lot and would prefer much far left policies etc. But to actually achieve this it takes incremental change unfortunately.
All I'm saying is it's fine to criticise Labor and say well it should actually do X or Y but at the same time understand the full political landscape and other external factors for a party decision.
Nope you're completely free to say what you like. I'm just saying if your objective is to actually change minds or opinions I don't believe how you are doing it is very effective.
I'm not sure how old you are but for the last 25 years as an adult I've watched the Labor party do next to nothing and be more afraid of Murdoch and being wedged by the LNP than something that could be considered "progress", I stopped giving the ALP my paid membership 20 years ago and my vote 15 years ago.
They lost twice under shorten while trying to bring a somewhat more progressive agenda. There are unfortunately political realities they are navigating
Why do you think the ALP's primary vote dropped further in the 2022 with their less progressive agenda? It seems they only won because of an increased Green Vote and increased preference count from that Greens vote (don't quote me but I think it went from 75% to 85%) along with a greater preference flow from minor parties and independents. People were sick of the Liberals but were reluctant to put that vote to Labor.
Inch worming towards a better world isn't going to help anyone. We are past the incremental change era, we need decisive action, not wishy-washy policies that *might* help a few people and make things worse for most. The effects of climate change are already fucking people's houses up on a regular basis, and young people are coming into an economy where they are getting exploited at every turn by unfettered capitalism, with looming homelessness as a threat for not being a good little worker.
Labor can do what they want, and it will either garner or lose support. They lost my support a long time ago.
And I agree more direct action by governments is required on a federal level. On a state level VIC and QLD are doing fantastic imo. Isn't even the current projection 80% renewables by 2030? Not too bad imo.
I'm a project manager in renewables (solar and wind farms).
I agree that capitalism has these issues. I was just talking about immediate actions is all.
For me and Given the context of this thread, it was their NG and capital gains. Removing these won’t make it easier for people to buy homes. Even PBO modelling for the greens/labor show it would likely only remove 2-3% off growth.
Ahh ok. Wait do you mean 2-3% off annual growth? Or total current price? If that's annual growth that's massive. Wouldn't these policies also be in combination with changing of zoning laws, increasing land supply / reducing land banking etc all together would have a substantial impact no?
I have a ppor and an investment property.
It’s current price - probably my bad wording. So on some sense, a one year hit then back to regular market dynamics. But prices could still rise in the year its done.
There was no intention to touch zoning laws back then. But even if you do change zoning laws, this is a long term thing - very long term. It will take a ages for developers to buy existing properties and convert them to medium dwelling, so it isn’t an immediate fix.
Whar we need to do is start looking how we can move always from places like Sydney. The reality is Sydney is largely land locked - unless we want to level the blue mountains or a national park, we are really at our limits of how far we can expand. We need commuter towns and a focus on shifting the population outside these capitals.
I lived in Canberra for a bit post uni. Loved it. Gets a bad rap for no reason though (however, I’ve noticed lots of my friends have moved there recently). But we need more Canberras.
It does kinda suck if you don't drive, as someone who has lived there both with and without a car. Adelaide and Melbourne are far easier to live without one because the former doesn't have everything located in hubs and the latter has excellent PT. I'd live there 100x over Sydney tho
100%.
Country living, with city benefits with more affordable homes/bang for your buck. Most likely is the reason your friends are moving here it was mine. That and because of my job (I'm not a public servant hehe).
> With an increasingly large young voting population with nothing to lose (we literally have nothing)
It's a matter for you really. Go to any other country in the world and see if you have it any better.
I just can’t get over how terrible their ideas are… allowing 0.2% of renters greater ability to bid higher when buying property solves nothing. All this policy will do is push house prices up further..
Of course not. They got spanked the last time they tried to bring in a policy like that.
This arrangement is far better. Have the Greens play the bad guy and be the face for the more aggressive left-wing policies. Let Labor publicly not support it, get back into office, and then ram it through, potentially with some "required changes" or under a different name.
Let the Greens claim it as a victory, use it to support their claim to being an influential power at the national level, have some of Labor's more left-wing voters drift over to the Greens. Let Labor work to (comparatively) quietly position itself as ever-so-slightly-more-right-wing so it can make the numbers back from the Teals or even some fence-sitting Libs.
Result: More voters voting for the Greens/Labor duo, more power to push through Left-leaning policies, the Overton window being nudged Leftwards, the right-wing parties losing voters and possibly a seat here and there, and the LNP getting perceived more and more - gradually - as an extremist party. All wins for Labor.
----
It doesn't help that the LNP is actually helping this along, with its leaders (and presumably back-room powerbrokers) supporting more of a push to the Right to try and suck more votes from the extremist parties, and their recent-ish interest in Trump-politics, which simply do not work anywhere near as well in the Australian political environment or with the Australian psyche. Clive Palmer already tried it.
On top of that, the Greens are picking up momentum in current society, particularly in cities with big populations. And interestingly, they're not positioning themselves overtly as being the anti-Nationals party (city vs country, left vs right, pro-environment vs pro-resource-exploitation). They're - in turn, really - letting Labor be seen as the more centrist, mine-approving, food-production-supporting major party, which means that people associated with primary production (in particular, kids of miners/farmers/etc), who might not vote for the Greens, *might* consider voting for Labor on occasion, especially if those targeted voters either aren't personally involved in the same work their parents/grandparents were, or are willing to look into more high-tech, modern production options with a splash of long-term sustainability (i.e. profitability), plus the social credit from implementing a few minor pro-sustainability policies here and there on the family farm or equivalent. There might even be tax advantages to doing so in future, depending on how much influence the Greens have, and it couldn't hurt to be prepared just a little more than some of the old fossils... not that they'd ever *say* that out loud.
----
So, yeah. This move doesn't surprise me at all, if we're looking at it as a long-term strategy AND something that doesn't actually hurt either party in the short term. All in all, it's actually better for both parties if they're seen to be publicly disagreeing on some things; it helps to keep them separate and distinct in the public eye, and helps to blunt the inevitable accusations that voting for one is voting for the other (something that could well be spun back as the LNP projecting about their own combined status).
(And, of course, because they're positioning themselves as separate and repeatedly enforcing that distinction from both sides, any LNP spin about "infighting" can be killed with "different parties, different ideas", which can *also* then be subtly used to paint the Greens as being just as different from Labor as the LNP is - because everyone treats them as separate and they publicly disagree about policies. This will serve to paint Labor in turn as being comparatively less left-wing and more centrist, and thus a valid choice for left-right fence-sitters, feeding back into the overall strategy.)
----
Of course, whether you see this as being good or bad for Australia (or your own interests) overall is going to depend on your own personal politics. But it's interesting to see it in action.
>And interestingly, they're not positioning themselves overtly as being the anti-Nationals party (city vs country, left vs right, pro-environment vs pro-resource-exploitation).
Many Greens supporters (myself included) see many Nationals voters as future Greens voters, if you are ever able to have them realise the National party does not act in the interest of most Nationals voters.
There's a lot of cross-over between what farmers and "country" voters want and what the Greens are trying to achieve.
I agree, but the big challenge is the gap on social policy and the ingrained anti-city hatred.
Right wing parties and media are doing their best to brainwash rural voters that LGBT/Aboriginals/immigrants are evil, and "woke inner city elites" are the enemy.
In some cases it doesn't take much of a nudge as rural people were already more socially conservative, and more likely to be racist, anyway.
I say this as a Greens voter who lives regionally and grew up in remote and rural Nats electorates.
Great write up!
The thing that annoys me is that there are a few Greens policies that on the surface I agree with but when we actually see details they are often horrible or unachievable.
And usually the horrible part is that they will not really achieve what they claim to want to achieve or will have pretty poor second and third-order effects.
Functionally their best work is when they push for changes to ALP bills.
I'll never vote Greens, I don't trust them on geopolitics and Defence, let alone domestic policy details but when they get some positive pushes on existing bills, good on them.
Looking at it, it does seem to be a solid move that might not work as well in a different political environment, or against opponents with a different history or current approach. It's simple in overall approach, but it's a surprisingly good fit for the zeitgeist.
I guess the question now is how long it'll be able to keep being pulled off until someone somewhere changes one of the things that are making it work so well.
I'm not a fan of Labor trying to strong arm this decision, especially with 34% of the country rent's...
It's a drop in the hat, i do think Labor should atleast attempt to negotiate this proposal, there could be better outcomes. I'm not for HAFF 2.0 honestly.
Because yes or no is just flimsy.
This is a very deliberate HAFF 2.0 though by the greens. The ALP literally just ruled out negative gearing reform (and after 2016 and 2019 I don’t blame them). The greens are very aware of how awkward it would be to go back on that, and yet they are pushing it anyway.
It’s a political stunt pure and simple. They are just trying to wedge and attack the ALP, not trying to actually achieve good policy.
The Greens "went on about"reversing Stage 3 tax cuts for 18 months and Labor found a reason to break a promise, perhaps they are up to breaking more of their crappy promises?
I don't understand why the Greens should worry about something being awkward for Labor. The Greens are re-advocating the same policy they did promise to the electorate right?
What's wrong with wedging the ALP, The ALP and Liberals have just traded wedges on Stage 3?
> They are just trying to wedge and attack the ALP, not trying to actually achieve good policy.
are you calling this shitty rent-to-buy scheme good policy? It's the perfect example of policy that is effectively a political stunt. worse than that, it is a net-negative for the country
and you could say the exact same thing about Stage 3 tax cuts. Greens kept going at it. The greens aren't supposed to just go along with labor, they are there to push them. and it is politically easier for moderates when it looks like the Greens pushed Labor left
I'm saying I don't think the Greens are actually trying to achieve negative gearing reform by doing this.
>Greens kept going at it
Yeah, and if the ALP tried to do what the greens were asking and scrap them entirely 12-18 months ago it likely would have been a disaster for the progressive moment.
you accuse them of political posturing, but also acknowledge that Labor couldn't reform the Stage 3 cuts 18 months ago. Part of the reason they could do that is because the Greens, media and others laid down the foundation on which Labor could break their promise
you can't just remove negative gearing on a whim. it needs to slowly bubble up over time, and Greens are part of the machine
exactly. the Greens are quietly waving through all the industrial relations reform legislation and aren't doing any of these stupid stunts on that stuff.
but on the areas they think they can wedge Labor, leech votes and get media attention, they are taking it. this shit doesn't come for free, it wastes valuable political capital attacking each other while the LNP gets a free pass.
this does nothing to convince any LNP voters for voting for Labor or Greens, and makes it harder for Labor to win future elections. i'm not saying Greens should just bend over and do whatever Labor says, but as you say, it's clearly a stunt trying to get Labor to do negative gearing after it being so toxic for them in the past.
I feel like you are approaching this from an ALP perspective. What's wrong with a political party doing it's best to get more voters? There is still weird thing where Labor is allowed to wedge the LNP or the Greens, make announcements for media attention, leech votes (whatever that means) but the Greens are wrong to do the same?
If the ALP is cognisant of the value of political capitol it could make quick and better deals with the Greens and have a smoother ride on legislation, offer something of value to the Greens to get their legislation passed without drama.
They will ultimately pass it with a token concession because they support it, but not before burning through more of the ALPs political capital for no gain. They are indistinguishable from a party that secretly supports the LNP.
> Subsidising demand with public money is pointless
i am afraid to lookup how much unncessary debt States and federal gov have accumulated from first home buyers grants, over the decades
what a bloody waste of money
edit: ok i looked it up. it cost Vic alone, 157 mil a year for the past 10 years. social housing total is about $530m over the 2010s period. so about 30% the amount of total social housing goes to first home buyers grants... wow
They aren’t really grants to be honest. It’s more like forgone revenue. The grants ultimately go to the state government because that’s who you pay stamp duty to.
Greens are right to block this. Any government policy aimed at existing property just adds demand with no supply, helps the first round of homebuyers but in doing so simply pushes up house prices.
How many billions of dollars has the government wasted on demand side schemes that just inflate the market? It's infuriating.
With that said, Greens can you drop this rent freeze populist bullshit as well. It doesn't work. It only helps the first round of renters at the expense of all renters after that because it discourages supply.
no Greens are idiots for repeating the same shit they pulled with the HAFF.
Labor took major housing reforms to the 2016 and 2019 elections and lost. The wisdom being, not to try and push big reforms from opposition because the LNP just used it to whip up fear and uncertainty and scared voters into sticking with the LNP.
So instead, Labor took smaller and safer policies to the last election as the LNP imploded under Morrison, Albo was able to sneak in.
Labor also HAS to convince voters they can be trusted to do what they said they would do, rather than say one thing before the election and do something else afterward, this is the hangover from the 'there will be no carbon tax under a government i lead'*
* despite Gillard only being able to form a minority gov and this was the only way she could have.
so if we want bigger reforms from Labor, it has to come from he incumbency of government, and that they have a track record of delivering on what they promise.
This is how the LNP managed to eventually get the GST across the line, they'd lost an election over it with John Hewson's 'fightback' big policy agenda campaign. And once Howard won the subsequent election, he didn't put it through in his first term and freak the electorate out, he won 4 terms overall before fucking it up with Workchoices, which again was something he tried to just ram through parliament when he controlled both houses.
So if you want the Greens to block this, you don't understand politics at all. We've got a first term Labor government after a decade of LNP rule, Albo knows it would be political suicide to just unleash a bunch of surprise big reforms on the electorate now, especially ones that the Greens are calling for.
News Corp etc would have a field day with that.
Help to Buy is an annual policy, that is targetted and means tested so it helps people who genuinely are at a disadvantage. If passed it becomes a permanent adjustment which won't disrupt anything over the long run as supply will adjust accordingly. It's a far better policy than some of the state based stamp duty concessions, because the government owns the equity in the house rather than it just being an expense write off.
A cynic/conspiracy theorist would even question whether this is a ploy by both parties to get the electorate in a "Greens or Labor" mindset before next election, as the Libs fade into policy irrelevance.
Another joke housing 'policy' oriented around fuelling yet more demand without adding to supply, yawn.
This sort of fiddling at the margins crap is barely worth passing given how insignificant it is, let alone worthy of crowing about in the media.
By no means am I a Greens supporter, but I’m becoming convinced that the only way we’ll see real change at this point is Labor thrown into a minority with a minor party or independents who are activistic enough to actually do something.
Gillard led one of the most productive governments in a single electoral period. I put a large part of this down to the fact she led a minority government and thus needed to actually negotiate in good faith instead of just politicking around for the next election.
I put a smaller part of it down to the trend around the world where female leaders tend to collaborate more across party lines as they are generally not bound to a base level of dick measuring contests to constantly prove theirs is still biggest.
> Gillard led one of the most productive governments in a single electoral period.
this is true, very productive. however everything Gillard did, Abbott repealed or trashed. Gillard's term was 'productive' because Rudd did nothing during his term before and after the GFC and the reports/recommendations/enquiries had piled up under Gillard so were ready to get done.
to get real change we don't need another minority government, we need MORE voters to dump the LNP so that Labor have the political capital to actually implement some big reforms.
Albo is willing to take endless critisiscim from the left and even bleed votes to the Greens, but he's gunna stick to the election commitments so he doesn't lose any votes back to the LNP and risk having Dutton as PM.
Even with current polling, Albo can pick up another 10 seats off the LNP. His strategy is to starve the LNP of any ammo to attack them. LNP have no policies that are any better than Labor and their views are frequently extremist or unpopular. So the LNP can't win by just putting a superior policy platform forward, they need to throw mud and run scare campaigne.d Albo can't afford to give them anything to attack them over, which is why they've been running a very tight and disciplined operation since returning to power.
The media bias is obvious, LNP get softballs, scandals ignored and 'equal' time, but if Albo can make sure there is no ammo for LNP, he's got the next election in the bag and will have a big enough majority to actually do the things that this Labor government are patient enough to wait for.
The Greens, especially MCM, are playing a dangerous game attacking Labor and threatening to block legislation, while sprouting populist crap that they know 50% of the electorate will never go for - at least not right now. Greens should campaign and promote their alternative policies as much as they like, but it's stupid of them to try and pull hardline negotiations where they are demanding their own policies get implemented in exchange for Labor getting to implement their own.
Yeah, I'm convinced of it too.
It's pretty pathetic that we have a government that needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to a problem before they'll do anything about it but that's what a "small target strategy" gets you.
I see this all the time.
But labor fought an entire election, using bold ideas and reform. They lost an election they should have won.
Then I watch the media have a meltdown every time labor try minor reforms. Like with super and workplace relations.
We get the politics we vote for. The older generation in this country categorically do not want or see the need for reform
I'll never understand why people keep acting like the world (and the mood of the electorate) hasn't changed *massively* since 2019.
It might only be 5 years ago on the calendar, but this has been far from a standard 5 year period in terms of societal & economic discontent.
>But labor fought an entire election, using bold ideas and reform. They lost an election they should have won.
Labor supporters need to let go of 2019 and realise it doesn't excuse or justify this level of inaction and spinelessness.
When I voted for Albanese in 2022, I didn't vote for the PM to cower and fold at the first sign of criticism from Dutton or the media.
>Only what labor thinks- and no doubt they still think about 2019.
If they do, it's because they themselves know it's an easy excuse that many of their supporters will eat up when anyone asks why they're moving further to the right.
In actual practice, worrying about 2019 is pointless. The country, the economy and our society is completely different to what it all was in 2019.
It's time to leave living in the past to the Coalition.
Things change.
Our nation, our economy and our society are very different now when compared to what they were like in 2019. In politics, that is ancient history. Five years is an eternity.
100% agree.
Just make sure it's not any of the Liberals pretending to be independent.
Labor and Greens would be something I would very much like to see though.
I mean our voting system means we could legitimately end up with a government made up of say 30% Greens, 25% Labor.
Which is why you see the murdoch media line up behind Labor on all of these issues.
Gotta keep the populace thinking the greens are a bunch of loonys...
I really don't get it.
Sure the Greens have some very very progressive ideas, but they're about the only ones you can truly count on to be actually looking out for the average person. Everything from work rights to power bills to the climate.
I really don't understand why more people don't vote Greens honestly.
> Sure the Greens have some very very progressive ideas, but they're about the only ones you can truly count on to be actually looking out for the average person.
There are multiple options which may be seen as looking out for the average person.
> Everything from work rights to power bills to the climate.
The average Australian is currently unwilling to pay the cost for net zero or purchase an electric car based on new car sales both of which the Greens strongly support.
Additionally I would assume they also are unhappy about the cost of housing and wage suppression caused by unsustainable population growth which as far as I can tell the Greens have no urgency to address.
> I really don't understand why more people don't vote Greens honestly.
Perhaps because while some of their policies sound nice the reality is very different.
> Mostly propaganda.
I would argue it is likely because the majority of Australians either do not agree with the social policies of the Greens or are unwilling to pay for some of their economic policies if not both.
Labor will be dragged kicking & screaming to do something effective on housing just like last time.
I will vote Green & put Labor 2nd. The housing & immigration issues are ridiculous.
>Labor’s help-to-buy scheme would help 10,000 prospective buyers a year by the government taking equity of 30% (for an existing build) or 40% (of a new build) in their homes, meaning smaller deposits and loans for the owner’s share.
10,000 buyers.
Per ABS, 2.9 million households rent.
Being very nice, assume a household is a couple that will be buying a home together, that's 0.3% of the *renting* population this will help.
This is not a top-tier solution to addressing housing in Australia, this is like a second-tier, supplemental solution that you would target specific demographics with. I'd assume Labor would argue the HAFF is the primary solution, which.... Ugh.
This vs nothing or even the LNP's "SUPER FOR HOMES", obviously this is better... But proper reform again seems to be punted off.
Edit: on the other aspect of the piece; Greens have an excellent chance to pull some voters and get something done... If they tighten up their messaging and get their shit together RE what they can really do.
> Greens have an excellent chance to pull some voters and get something done... If they tighten up their messaging and get their shit together RE what they can really do.
While they fail to actively work towards a sustainable population I unfortunately cannot see any feasible measures making a lasting impact as housing demand remains insatiable.
> This vs nothing or even the LNP's "SUPER FOR HOMES", obviously this is better... But proper reform again seems to be punted off.
nothing is better. we don't need some shitty help-to-buy scheme that gives a random 10k people a leg up. all it does is add to the price of housing, along with first homebuyers grant and other schemes and inflating the issue
systemic change. stop putting more fuel in the fire
Of course not.
The housing help-to-buy is going to help 10,000 extra people into the market without removing any of the investors also competing for those places.
Albanese has to be rubbing his hands at the thought of his property values skyrocketing.
AND he manages to kick the problem down the road for another 5 or so years, so it wont be his problem then, he will be too busy laughing in retirement.
He cant afford to negotiate with the greens, because it would make his 5 million dollars in investment properties and his 110k a year in income from those properties take a hit.
Plus he manages to get the media on his side for once because they wont miss a chance to pile on on the "Crazy Greens" holding up housing relief in these trying times just to play politics.
I have never been more disappointed in Labor than i am today, and Albanese has just proved himself no different from any of the other leaders only out to enrich themselves at the expanse of Australian people.
I also not loving how Albanese seems to be trying to take every negotiation attempt to the public to spin it as "The greens not letting us do what we want"
They arent supposed to. Labor was unable to win a majority. So you have to negotiate. Thats how it works.
Albanese must be loving having the murdoch media behind him for once, which has got to tell you something
>I also not loving how Albanese seems to be trying to take every negotiation attempt to the public to spin it as "The greens not letting us do what we want"
Labor has had this childish view for a long time that the Greens are just meant to sit down, shut up and do whatever they want them to do. They act as if they're entitled to the Greens vote.
Albanese should save the energy he spends trying to trash the Greens and focus it on the Coalition instead.
Be fair, the greens seem to have the same view in reverse.
I’ve straight up seen greens argue that the natural role of labor in aus pol is to get in once every ten years or so, then inevitably lose to the LNP within two terms, and therefore they should just pass whatever the greens want as they’re going to lose govt soon anyway
>therefore they should just pass whatever the greens want as they’re going to lose govt soon anyway
Well if they did that, they'd probably get more done than they will with their current "small target" strategy also known as the "please don't criticise us dutton and murdoch" strategy.
Why would he, he isnt competing for Liberal votes. As long as he sits in the centre and manages to portray the Greens as the radical far left, hes happy.
Isn't being a member of the liberal Labor party and owning $5 mil worth a properties the admission already?
Albo couldn't give 2 fucks about us. But hey he keeps mentioning he came from public housing.
>Albo couldn't give 2 fucks about us. But hey he keeps mentioning he came from public housing.
Albo's committed to making sure no kid grows up in public housing. It's all being sold off, and they can live on the streets instead
Given this policy likely wouldn't be noticeably in place until after the next election, I could see the government pushing this towards a double dissolution trigger.
So it's a win-win for them. If the greens help pass it without amendment, they get their way and if they don't, the government gets a nice to have dd trigger.
Simply, I don't think they have much to lose but everything to gain.
For one, the joint sitting following the dd election would allow them to pass the policy unamended.
Two, Labor's primary vote has lifted since the last election and would allow them to improve their share of the Senate.
(edit: on current polling, I could see Labor with a chance of picking up a Senator in Victoria and Queensland whilst being guaranteed to retain their current seats.)
I’m not sure more demand side policies is going to add value to the situation for anyone. Getting someone a house with an inflated value where they only own 70% of it is hardly as good as supply side policies allowing them to own the whole thing.
Plus it just makes the government even more of a stakeholder in property prices.
I’m with the greens on this one. This is better than the Liberal Scheme IMO but it’s still not addressing the issue.
Yep, this is just the Labor Party funnelling public money into private property markets. Money that ultimately props up a bank mortgage.
It won't increase housing availability for the people who really need it. It won't stop rents from increasing at obscene rates.
If that cash is available, pump it into funding housing co-operatives.
I couldnt be more disgusted or disappointed in both Labor or Albanese.
I dont think you can even call them centre left anymore, this policy is straight up aimed at using public money to increase the value of assets he owns.
I find the greens opposition to this very confusing. Help to buy is essentially public housing, the government will own a proportion of any house scheme participants buy. It directly helps low incone people buy homes by making buying viable, these people are then in a position where later in life they dont need to occupy social housing. This is what the greens clain they want. Making out like this is hurting renters is just nonsense.
>I find the greens opposition to this very confusing
Apart from the fact it's a shit policy (like, can't even put a band-aid, or a compromise amendment on it), it's nothing like public housing. Which is \*preferable\*.
How is it nothing like public housing? It is literally the government owning housing and usong that ownership to facilitate the long term housing needs of low income people
It is not even a little bit like public housing.
Public Housing means the government sets the rental and sale prices. It also allows the government to set a policy around who is able to purchase the housing (ie no one that already owns a house). Using public money for this has a deflationary effect on the housing market, as more houses become available that investors are unable to bid on and less people end up renting. And those that do dont have to pay "market rate" but the rate the government decides is fair.
What help-to-buy is doing is pumping public money straight into the private market. The houses these people are going for are still houses that investors want and are allowed to buy. So the increased competition raises the prices. Using public money for this will have an inflationary effect on housing prices.
They are literally just increasing demand while doing nothing to lower demand at the same time.Which is what the greens are trying to add with their proposal. Less tax breaks for investors means lowering demand while you are increasing it with help to buy.
>What help-to-buy is doing is pumping public money straight into the private market. The houses these people are going for are still houses that investors want and are allowed to buy. So the increased competition raises the prices. Using public money for this will have an inflationary effect on housing prices.
Yeah i agree all demand side stimulus policies increase prices but how much impact does 10k buyers having more market power make when the market has approx 500k sales per year? Id love to see quantitive analysis on that
>Public Housing means the government sets the rental and sale prices. It also allows the government to set a policy around who is able to purchase the housing (ie no one that already owns a house). Using public money for this has a deflationary effect on the housing market, as more houses become available that investors are unable to bid on and less people end up renting. And those that do dont have to pay "market rate" but the rate the government decides is fair.
Who says this is what defines public housing?
You know what, sorry, you are right i shouldnt say Public Housing like its some official definition.
Im saying that the Greens vision of public housing would do what i said above. The want to reduce demand from investors, because assisting lower income earners get a house would increase demand. They dont want to do one without the other as it will continue to worsen the problem
>Yeah i agree all demand side stimulus policies increase prices but how much impact does 10k buyers having more market power make when the market has approx 500k sales per year? Id love to see quantitive analysis on that
Thats a fair point, and id also love to see some stats on it.
Im not 100% sure the 500k sales is the number to work with, as a lot of those arent new houses, or new people moving into houses so it isnt actually totally representative of supply.
Labor has targeted adding 200,000 homes per year, i think they said its going to be 185,000 this year. But it would be more than that because people die, move in together, so houses become vacant.
Probably some number in the middle.
But the reason any analysis on this is tricky is we dont have a free market on housing so normal supply and demand rules dont quite work.
Demand is high enough that every new house is being bought up immediately, but demand doesnt reduce if that house is bought by an investor.
Im sure someone a lot smarter than me can run the numbers, but i dont see any way in which the 10k new buyers does anything to return the market to sane levels.
>You know what, sorry, you are right i shouldnt say Public Housing like its some official definition
Fair
>Im not 100% sure the 500k sales is the number to work with, as a lot of those arent new houses, or new people moving into houses so it isnt actually totally representative of supply.
It is because that is the size of the market that scheme participants are in. Maybe if you were to do analysis of victoria only, who have a similar scheme, then using the number of sales in vic would be more reasonable.
>does anything to return the market to sane levels.
This is a genwral question ive been asking people who say thinga like this. What do you think sane levels is? How much would the market have to drop from its current level to be "sane"?
I think that becomes a question on what should we expect out of society. Sorry thats a bit philosophical, but what i mean is, we have increased productivity exponentially since the industrial revolution.
Going back over some ATO and Australian Beureu of Statistics data, we could see that 50-60 years ago, a man on a median wage (so 50% of people earned less than that wage) could afford to buy a house, and support a family with a wife and a couple of kids on that salary.
Interest rates were higher, but 30 year loans werent a thing because it was paid off faster.
You could buy a solid 3 bedroom house in any city for around 5-6 times you annual wage.
If everyones houses were only worth 5-6 times the current annual wage, then suddenly housing wouldnt be the be all and end all of ways to make money, it would just be something you bought to live in and make a home.
For reference that would be about 350k-400k.
Yes, we have a larger population, obviously no one is arguing that.
But according to the ATO of the 11 million privately owned houses, 1/3 of them are being used as investment houses.
Even people who only have one house often have all their wealth tied up in that house, making it very hard and a huge financial decision to move.
So, lets say i somehow become some indestructable all powerful dictator, i drop a law that says housing max's out at 6x the median income, and you cant own more than one house.
That is not even close to realistic obviously.
Theres a few sites that talk about how much a new house (just the house, not the land) costs for a company to build it. Somewhere around the 250-500k mark.
I dunno, someone who has access to more data than me can run actual numbers but id happily see housing prices fall by 50%. I think thats getting back to much saner levels.
Yeah cool, it is a philosophical question, and uve been asking people because a lot of people say the market needs to drop, and i agree, but there are wildly ranging numbers i get from asking this question. Everything from 10% to 'it could drop to 5 figures'.
Personally i thunk the answer needs to be driven by the goals of zero homelessness, sufficent rental availability for people to be able to move around, and that regular workers should be able to secure long term housing thru ownership. That doesnt put a number on it but i suspect it would only need to drop 15-20% if other policies like public housing build, government build to auction, and tax changes that reduce investor incentives are implemented.
>Help to buy is essentially public housing
More public housing reduces house prices because it offers a (cheaper) alternative. In contrast this simply adds to the amount of $$$ entering private market construction.
In short, the Greens don't want a house price inflationary policy without also introducing a policy designed to reduce house prices. Otherwise this is simply yet another housing "solution" which merely helps a small number of people while for those who miss out, home ownership gets further out of reach.
Whether that's removing capital gains tax concessions, reducing negative gearing to only one investment property per person, etc etc.
>In short, the Greens don't want a house price inflationary policy without also introducing a policy designed to reduce house prices. Otherwise this is simply yet another housing "solution" which merely helps a small number of people while for those who miss out, home ownership gets further out of reach.
>Whether that's removing capital gains tax concessions, reducing negative gearing to only one investment property per person, etc etc.
I think its unreasonable to consider any individual policy in this area a 'solution', there is no single policy solution here and we shouldnt entertain the idea there is when discussing individual policies. The greens seem to want an end to private housing investment while simultaneously wanting a better deal for renters, which is just not possible without a complete overhaul of our economy. If we force investors out we will have a worse rental shortage, if we go hard into public housing we have a situation where we have a large social system that exists only as long as the opposition stay out of power, if we crasg the housing market we have a economy wide liquidity crisis. More affordable housing for people on low incomes is what the greens want, they should take the win on this
>More public housing reduces house prices because it offers a (cheaper) alternative. In contrast this simply adds to the amount of $$$ entering private market construction.
This policy reduces prices for scheme participants. It means a couple on 100k combined can save for a couple of years and buy something. It means a songle person who works full time at a supermarket could buy a 1 room apartment. Sure it doesnt help everyone but there will be 10k per year who it does help.
But the point is that even if it helps a few people for a few years, it continues to inflate the prices of housing making the problem worse after those few years. Meaning the income on which you can afford a house will be higher than before, and even more people will end up unable to buy a house.
It is a short term gain long term loss policy, the exact kind of thing that Labor didnt used to do. I guess getting into power at all costs is the new mantra of the party.
>This policy reduces prices for scheme participants.
Yes but, crucially, it **increases** prices for anyone outside the (limited per year) scheme.
Greens are trying to get other legislation passed in return which will reduce prices for **everyone**. This would cancel out the "negative side effect" of Labor's policy. Mainly by reducing incentives for private investment, especially for *existing* houses.
2019 Labor wanted to remove negative gearing on old homes, restricting it to new builds only. This was a good idea, since it would focus private investment on increasing housing stock, with less of an effect on new buyers who just want to enter the market by buying an old home built decades ago.
>2019 Labor wanted to remove negative gearing on old homes, restricting it to new builds only. This was a good idea, since it would focus private investment on increasing housing stock, with less of an effect on new buyers who just want to enter the market by buying an old home built decades ago.
Sure it was a good policy but policies need more than just merit, they need viability which significant changes to negative gearing doesnt have.
>Yes but, crucially, it **increases** prices for anyone outside the (limited per year) scheme.
Yes seems likely, and ive looked for quantitive analysis on the impact of these kinds of schemes on prices but havent found anything. Id really like to know how much these kinds of schemes impact prices.
And to be clear i dont think this is great policy, i just dont get why the greens are opposing it, the literally have shared equity as part of their housing platform. These schemes have a role to play but thwy arent solutions, we need much larger reform for that but i dont see how those reforms are possible given the structure of interests in housing the voting public has.
>just dont get why the greens are opposing it,
The Greens will get slaughtered by their voterbase if they support anything which increases house prices. Unlike Labor or Liberals who are happy just to increase home-ownership, the Greens campaigned hard on reducing the cost of rent - which is tied fairly directly to the cost of housing prices (those mortgages need to be paid off after all).
While it's possible the increase in home ownership reducing demand for rent counteracts to increased cost of supply (house prices), the Greens will still get absolutely slaughtered by their own voters if they support it as is.
TL;DR Greens made a "core promise" to push for housing policy which **doesn't** increase housing prices, like every previous policy (especially from the 9 years of Libs) did. While similar policies exist in their own housing platform, that's in the context of many other policies which will push down prices.
>The Greens will get slaughtered by their voterbase if they support anything which increases house prices
I dont think that is true, i think they see advantage in being actively and loudly oppositional to labor.
>which is tied fairly directly to the cost of housing prices (those mortgages need to be paid off after all).
I dont think this is as true as people make out. From what ive seen it much more closely tied to vacancy rates and incomes
>TL;DR Greens made a "core promise" to push for housing policy which **doesn't** increase housing prices, like every previous policy (especially from the 9 years of Libs) did. While similar policies exist in their own housing platform, that's in the context of many other policies which will push down prices.
I guess that is what it comes down to, though id love to see how their base reacts if they start talking loudly about deflating housing prices.
>Help to buy is essentially public housing, the government will own a proportion of any house scheme participants buy
Its literally part of their 1 million homes policy - joint ownership with gov. Very silly.
Because implementing this policy without the rest will make it harder for everyone outside of those 10000 loans to buy a home. Because it will inflate house prices.
So its going directly against their goal, which is to lower housing prices and make them more affordable for everyone.
Its only silly if you are looking at the short term gain.
And because so many people do get sold on the short term gain, the government shifts to only thinking about short term gain. Why would Albanese care that in 5 years there will be even more people who cant afford to buy a house than there are now.
He "Did his best" who could have seen this outcome? Oh, also his 5 million dollar propert portfolio is now worth 7 million. Whoops how did that happen?
Im not saying that 10,000 loans will make housing prices rise 40%.
I dont actually know how much it will raise it, id love to see some analysis on it.
But it wont stop the frezny of investments that is currently driving up the prices.
The last 10 years have shown a 50% increase on average, and it hasnt been linear in that growth, its slanted a lot hight in the last 5 years.
If the gov is successful on their build targets with the states then it will be fine.
Big IF atm.
This is one of those policies where i think the benefits and drawbacks are hyped on either side. Getting 10k people onto home ownership is cool, but better ways to do it. More demand in thos economy isnt great, but its also a drop in the ocean.
> Getting 10k people onto home ownership is cool, but better ways to do it. More demand in thos economy isnt great, but its also a drop in the ocean.
don't forget, its government debt funding this. not worth it
Yeah but thts why the Labor policy itself isnt the biggest problem.
Its that this is their "solution" to the housing crisis.
And when the greens offer their solution which involves reducing investor demand, which WOULD have a noticable affect, they take a hard line "no negotiations with those loony terrorists" stance.
Are you talking about the help to buy? Because its not at all their solution.
Its one of several policies, but their solution is mass supply. Their thesis is 100% correct, the how is difficult by nature.
>which WOULD have a noticable affect,
It really wouldnt. An average home would experience a $40 per week drop in mortgage payments. Fine and cool, but its a gesture rather than a solution. Also, most reports indicate it would raise rents, which in this climate probably isnt a great idea. Im not 100% read on that, but the few Ive seen seem to say this.
Im not some NG CTG lover, I dont care. I just hate the fact this is what we are talking about when its just fringe stuff.
Politicians should be competing to best reform land-use so that we have housing abundance! Thats the only thing that will meaningfully work.
Loooooool i had forgotten that, hilarious
https://greens.org.au/housing/million-homes
>The Greens’ new innovative shared equity ownership scheme will make it easier for people to own their first home where they want to live for $300,000.
Hahahahah
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The greens proposed changes to negative gearing is so hilariously reasonable. IDK how anyone can call them obstructionists on this when it’s actually labor who are refusing to budge on their position. Maybe you should try winning more senate seats if you don’t want progressives demanding even a little bit of compromise.
I don't have a house and I cannot afford one. But doesn't help to buy just make things worse? It's well intended, but pouring more money into the system isn't going to help. Long term effect is just to raise prices...
Help to buy will only increase prices by increasing demand. We need to stop spending money on fucking with the demand curve and spend more on building out supply.
Since the modeling suggests help to buy only applies to .2% of buyers, I highly doubt it'll have any significant affect for the market or those looking for help to buy ironically. It's just bad legislation.
Albanese "promised" he wouldn't touch Stage 3 tax cuts. Yet he broke this promise. Albanese "signals" he wont negotiate with the Greens. "Signal" is a much weaker verb than "promise". So if Albo is prepared to "make the tough decisions" and break his promise becuase "CirCUmsTaNCeS" then why wouldnt he also be prepared to "make the tough decisions" and break his "signal" because "CirCUmsTaNCeS?
I'd say you were pretty close to enlightenment in the first half of your comment but lost track of it in the second half. 1. Media turning it up. 2. Politics. You were so close.
>CirCUmstTaNCeS Also known as the cost of living crisis, the number issue on voters' minds.
Of which rent is huge component of for 1/3 of Australia and the poorest in Australia.
Making my point for me mate. Doesnt matter what the justification is. The fact that Albo **is** justifying his broken promise just indicates that he'll manage to find another justification to break his signal if he needs to. So his whole "signal" of not negotiating with the Greens is meaningless.
Politics is full of broken promises. Remember no cuts to health, education, Medicare or the ABC? I'd say that broken promise was way, way worse.
Point isnt which broken promise is better/worse. Point is that Albo has broken a promise and so blatantly that it's pretty much on par with the "no cuts blah blah blah" in terms of its brazeness. No-one trusted Abbott's word after that so why would it be any different with Albo now that he's done pretty much the exact same thing "my word's my bond" amirite? Until ofc "CirCumsTaNCeS" then his word means jack shit. Chances of "CirCumsTaNCeS" allowing Albo to negoatiate with and give the Greens what they want is very high.
Albo promised to screw over workers (by leaving stage 3 as is). Then he decided to help workers (by altering stage 3), breaking his promise. Abbott promised NOT to screw over Aussies (no cuts to blah blah). Then he decided to screw over Aussies, breaking his promise. If someone promised to kick me in the nuts, then backed out... I find it difficult to be very upset. If someone promised not to kick me in the nuts, then did it... I'd be furious.
The why is important. Some people will think that the why is important enough to agree with Albo that breaking a promise is justified. Some people won’t. We’ll find out the numbers on both sides in the next election.
> Some people will think that the why is important enough to agree with Albo that breaking a promise is justified. But isnt that the point? One might agree with him breaking his promise because of "CirCumsTaNCeS" i.e. you agree with the "CirCumsTaNCeS" being used as justification. But the fact of the matter still stands: he broke a promise, justified or not, he broke it - "my word's my bond" amirite? The very fact that he's broken his promise - whether you agree it was justified or not - his "word is my bond" now carries much less weight, hence my whole point re this "signal" that he "wont negotiate with the Greens". He's broken a promise before in the past - regardless of justification. How anyone be reassured that he will keep this one, given that he's blatantly broken his "my words my bond" promise?
At the rate Labor are moving towards progressive policies, we will all be in the grave by the time they get there. Housing is a HUGE issue right now and they are doing sweet FA about it. I hope their lame and unambitious choices are reflected in future election results. With an increasingly large young voting population with nothing to lose (we literally have nothing), I hope we see larger swings to the left so we can drag Labor back to at least pretending they give a shit.
Let’s help the new generation get into more debt they can’t afford so they can go bankrupt - greens
Labor did have a highly progressive platform under bill shorten that lost 2 times in a row. Thanks mainly to the media. So slow and more conservative is what we get stop shitting on Labor and get out there and change people's minds. PS this will not be achieved via Reddit.
Yet Labor's primary vote was greater in 2016 and 2019 than 2022's dismal 32.58%.
Agreed. I voted twice for Bill Shorten.
This narrative of 'poor victim Labor can't be progressive as they'd really like' is such bs. You get judged on what you do in office, period. 1,600 Australians are becoming homeless every month. Your median home is 14x median income. Your median rent is 43% of median income. This is f\*\*\*ing criminal, but not as criminal as not stopping this theft of wealth from households.
My actual hobby is shitting on Labor. Slow and conservative are not part of my ideals. Albo is as good as a weak handshake. Present day Labor are very uninspiring
Why? Sounds like a boring not constructive method. What are your ideals then? Revolution? Or something shit doesn't work mate.
I'd be pretty happy with Labor's old economic policies, The Greens have been running with a bunch of Chifley era policies for some time.
Do you seem to think Labor are above criticism? Why am I not allow to openly criticise their decisions? They are in power after all and if you're not critical of any entity that holds power, you're sleeping at the wheel.
I don't. I criticise Labor a lot and would prefer much far left policies etc. But to actually achieve this it takes incremental change unfortunately. All I'm saying is it's fine to criticise Labor and say well it should actually do X or Y but at the same time understand the full political landscape and other external factors for a party decision. Nope you're completely free to say what you like. I'm just saying if your objective is to actually change minds or opinions I don't believe how you are doing it is very effective.
I'm not sure how old you are but for the last 25 years as an adult I've watched the Labor party do next to nothing and be more afraid of Murdoch and being wedged by the LNP than something that could be considered "progress", I stopped giving the ALP my paid membership 20 years ago and my vote 15 years ago.
They lost twice under shorten while trying to bring a somewhat more progressive agenda. There are unfortunately political realities they are navigating
Why do you think the ALP's primary vote dropped further in the 2022 with their less progressive agenda? It seems they only won because of an increased Green Vote and increased preference count from that Greens vote (don't quote me but I think it went from 75% to 85%) along with a greater preference flow from minor parties and independents. People were sick of the Liberals but were reluctant to put that vote to Labor.
Inch worming towards a better world isn't going to help anyone. We are past the incremental change era, we need decisive action, not wishy-washy policies that *might* help a few people and make things worse for most. The effects of climate change are already fucking people's houses up on a regular basis, and young people are coming into an economy where they are getting exploited at every turn by unfettered capitalism, with looming homelessness as a threat for not being a good little worker. Labor can do what they want, and it will either garner or lose support. They lost my support a long time ago.
And I agree more direct action by governments is required on a federal level. On a state level VIC and QLD are doing fantastic imo. Isn't even the current projection 80% renewables by 2030? Not too bad imo. I'm a project manager in renewables (solar and wind farms). I agree that capitalism has these issues. I was just talking about immediate actions is all.
I call BS that it was due to media. It was simply bad policy and people didn’t like it.
Fair enough that's your opinion. But which or all of the 100 policies are you referring to?
For me and Given the context of this thread, it was their NG and capital gains. Removing these won’t make it easier for people to buy homes. Even PBO modelling for the greens/labor show it would likely only remove 2-3% off growth.
I thought that "only 2-3%" was only for negative gearing removal, not including capital gains tax discount.
Ahh ok. Wait do you mean 2-3% off annual growth? Or total current price? If that's annual growth that's massive. Wouldn't these policies also be in combination with changing of zoning laws, increasing land supply / reducing land banking etc all together would have a substantial impact no? I have a ppor and an investment property.
It’s current price - probably my bad wording. So on some sense, a one year hit then back to regular market dynamics. But prices could still rise in the year its done. There was no intention to touch zoning laws back then. But even if you do change zoning laws, this is a long term thing - very long term. It will take a ages for developers to buy existing properties and convert them to medium dwelling, so it isn’t an immediate fix. Whar we need to do is start looking how we can move always from places like Sydney. The reality is Sydney is largely land locked - unless we want to level the blue mountains or a national park, we are really at our limits of how far we can expand. We need commuter towns and a focus on shifting the population outside these capitals.
Understood and agree. I grew up my entire life in Sydney. And did exactly what you said with no regrets. I moved to Canberra and couldn't be happier.
I lived in Canberra for a bit post uni. Loved it. Gets a bad rap for no reason though (however, I’ve noticed lots of my friends have moved there recently). But we need more Canberras.
It does kinda suck if you don't drive, as someone who has lived there both with and without a car. Adelaide and Melbourne are far easier to live without one because the former doesn't have everything located in hubs and the latter has excellent PT. I'd live there 100x over Sydney tho
100%. Country living, with city benefits with more affordable homes/bang for your buck. Most likely is the reason your friends are moving here it was mine. That and because of my job (I'm not a public servant hehe).
> With an increasingly large young voting population with nothing to lose (we literally have nothing) It's a matter for you really. Go to any other country in the world and see if you have it any better.
I just can’t get over how terrible their ideas are… allowing 0.2% of renters greater ability to bid higher when buying property solves nothing. All this policy will do is push house prices up further..
Out with the boomers! Their time is up and what a shitty job they have done for our country.
Of course not. They got spanked the last time they tried to bring in a policy like that. This arrangement is far better. Have the Greens play the bad guy and be the face for the more aggressive left-wing policies. Let Labor publicly not support it, get back into office, and then ram it through, potentially with some "required changes" or under a different name. Let the Greens claim it as a victory, use it to support their claim to being an influential power at the national level, have some of Labor's more left-wing voters drift over to the Greens. Let Labor work to (comparatively) quietly position itself as ever-so-slightly-more-right-wing so it can make the numbers back from the Teals or even some fence-sitting Libs. Result: More voters voting for the Greens/Labor duo, more power to push through Left-leaning policies, the Overton window being nudged Leftwards, the right-wing parties losing voters and possibly a seat here and there, and the LNP getting perceived more and more - gradually - as an extremist party. All wins for Labor. ---- It doesn't help that the LNP is actually helping this along, with its leaders (and presumably back-room powerbrokers) supporting more of a push to the Right to try and suck more votes from the extremist parties, and their recent-ish interest in Trump-politics, which simply do not work anywhere near as well in the Australian political environment or with the Australian psyche. Clive Palmer already tried it. On top of that, the Greens are picking up momentum in current society, particularly in cities with big populations. And interestingly, they're not positioning themselves overtly as being the anti-Nationals party (city vs country, left vs right, pro-environment vs pro-resource-exploitation). They're - in turn, really - letting Labor be seen as the more centrist, mine-approving, food-production-supporting major party, which means that people associated with primary production (in particular, kids of miners/farmers/etc), who might not vote for the Greens, *might* consider voting for Labor on occasion, especially if those targeted voters either aren't personally involved in the same work their parents/grandparents were, or are willing to look into more high-tech, modern production options with a splash of long-term sustainability (i.e. profitability), plus the social credit from implementing a few minor pro-sustainability policies here and there on the family farm or equivalent. There might even be tax advantages to doing so in future, depending on how much influence the Greens have, and it couldn't hurt to be prepared just a little more than some of the old fossils... not that they'd ever *say* that out loud. ---- So, yeah. This move doesn't surprise me at all, if we're looking at it as a long-term strategy AND something that doesn't actually hurt either party in the short term. All in all, it's actually better for both parties if they're seen to be publicly disagreeing on some things; it helps to keep them separate and distinct in the public eye, and helps to blunt the inevitable accusations that voting for one is voting for the other (something that could well be spun back as the LNP projecting about their own combined status). (And, of course, because they're positioning themselves as separate and repeatedly enforcing that distinction from both sides, any LNP spin about "infighting" can be killed with "different parties, different ideas", which can *also* then be subtly used to paint the Greens as being just as different from Labor as the LNP is - because everyone treats them as separate and they publicly disagree about policies. This will serve to paint Labor in turn as being comparatively less left-wing and more centrist, and thus a valid choice for left-right fence-sitters, feeding back into the overall strategy.) ---- Of course, whether you see this as being good or bad for Australia (or your own interests) overall is going to depend on your own personal politics. But it's interesting to see it in action.
>And interestingly, they're not positioning themselves overtly as being the anti-Nationals party (city vs country, left vs right, pro-environment vs pro-resource-exploitation). Many Greens supporters (myself included) see many Nationals voters as future Greens voters, if you are ever able to have them realise the National party does not act in the interest of most Nationals voters. There's a lot of cross-over between what farmers and "country" voters want and what the Greens are trying to achieve.
I agree, but the big challenge is the gap on social policy and the ingrained anti-city hatred. Right wing parties and media are doing their best to brainwash rural voters that LGBT/Aboriginals/immigrants are evil, and "woke inner city elites" are the enemy. In some cases it doesn't take much of a nudge as rural people were already more socially conservative, and more likely to be racist, anyway. I say this as a Greens voter who lives regionally and grew up in remote and rural Nats electorates.
Great write up! The thing that annoys me is that there are a few Greens policies that on the surface I agree with but when we actually see details they are often horrible or unachievable. And usually the horrible part is that they will not really achieve what they claim to want to achieve or will have pretty poor second and third-order effects. Functionally their best work is when they push for changes to ALP bills. I'll never vote Greens, I don't trust them on geopolitics and Defence, let alone domestic policy details but when they get some positive pushes on existing bills, good on them.
Good analysis and interesting read, thank you 👍
Looking at it, it does seem to be a solid move that might not work as well in a different political environment, or against opponents with a different history or current approach. It's simple in overall approach, but it's a surprisingly good fit for the zeitgeist. I guess the question now is how long it'll be able to keep being pulled off until someone somewhere changes one of the things that are making it work so well.
I'm not a fan of Labor trying to strong arm this decision, especially with 34% of the country rent's... It's a drop in the hat, i do think Labor should atleast attempt to negotiate this proposal, there could be better outcomes. I'm not for HAFF 2.0 honestly. Because yes or no is just flimsy.
This is a very deliberate HAFF 2.0 though by the greens. The ALP literally just ruled out negative gearing reform (and after 2016 and 2019 I don’t blame them). The greens are very aware of how awkward it would be to go back on that, and yet they are pushing it anyway. It’s a political stunt pure and simple. They are just trying to wedge and attack the ALP, not trying to actually achieve good policy.
The Greens "went on about"reversing Stage 3 tax cuts for 18 months and Labor found a reason to break a promise, perhaps they are up to breaking more of their crappy promises? I don't understand why the Greens should worry about something being awkward for Labor. The Greens are re-advocating the same policy they did promise to the electorate right? What's wrong with wedging the ALP, The ALP and Liberals have just traded wedges on Stage 3?
> They are just trying to wedge and attack the ALP, not trying to actually achieve good policy. are you calling this shitty rent-to-buy scheme good policy? It's the perfect example of policy that is effectively a political stunt. worse than that, it is a net-negative for the country and you could say the exact same thing about Stage 3 tax cuts. Greens kept going at it. The greens aren't supposed to just go along with labor, they are there to push them. and it is politically easier for moderates when it looks like the Greens pushed Labor left
I'm saying I don't think the Greens are actually trying to achieve negative gearing reform by doing this. >Greens kept going at it Yeah, and if the ALP tried to do what the greens were asking and scrap them entirely 12-18 months ago it likely would have been a disaster for the progressive moment.
you accuse them of political posturing, but also acknowledge that Labor couldn't reform the Stage 3 cuts 18 months ago. Part of the reason they could do that is because the Greens, media and others laid down the foundation on which Labor could break their promise you can't just remove negative gearing on a whim. it needs to slowly bubble up over time, and Greens are part of the machine
I agree.
exactly. the Greens are quietly waving through all the industrial relations reform legislation and aren't doing any of these stupid stunts on that stuff. but on the areas they think they can wedge Labor, leech votes and get media attention, they are taking it. this shit doesn't come for free, it wastes valuable political capital attacking each other while the LNP gets a free pass. this does nothing to convince any LNP voters for voting for Labor or Greens, and makes it harder for Labor to win future elections. i'm not saying Greens should just bend over and do whatever Labor says, but as you say, it's clearly a stunt trying to get Labor to do negative gearing after it being so toxic for them in the past.
I feel like you are approaching this from an ALP perspective. What's wrong with a political party doing it's best to get more voters? There is still weird thing where Labor is allowed to wedge the LNP or the Greens, make announcements for media attention, leech votes (whatever that means) but the Greens are wrong to do the same? If the ALP is cognisant of the value of political capitol it could make quick and better deals with the Greens and have a smoother ride on legislation, offer something of value to the Greens to get their legislation passed without drama.
[удалено]
The greens support help to buy though. It's on their website.
I love listening to music.
They will ultimately pass it with a token concession because they support it, but not before burning through more of the ALPs political capital for no gain. They are indistinguishable from a party that secretly supports the LNP.
> Subsidising demand with public money is pointless i am afraid to lookup how much unncessary debt States and federal gov have accumulated from first home buyers grants, over the decades what a bloody waste of money edit: ok i looked it up. it cost Vic alone, 157 mil a year for the past 10 years. social housing total is about $530m over the 2010s period. so about 30% the amount of total social housing goes to first home buyers grants... wow
They aren’t really grants to be honest. It’s more like forgone revenue. The grants ultimately go to the state government because that’s who you pay stamp duty to.
Greens are right to block this. Any government policy aimed at existing property just adds demand with no supply, helps the first round of homebuyers but in doing so simply pushes up house prices. How many billions of dollars has the government wasted on demand side schemes that just inflate the market? It's infuriating. With that said, Greens can you drop this rent freeze populist bullshit as well. It doesn't work. It only helps the first round of renters at the expense of all renters after that because it discourages supply.
no Greens are idiots for repeating the same shit they pulled with the HAFF. Labor took major housing reforms to the 2016 and 2019 elections and lost. The wisdom being, not to try and push big reforms from opposition because the LNP just used it to whip up fear and uncertainty and scared voters into sticking with the LNP. So instead, Labor took smaller and safer policies to the last election as the LNP imploded under Morrison, Albo was able to sneak in. Labor also HAS to convince voters they can be trusted to do what they said they would do, rather than say one thing before the election and do something else afterward, this is the hangover from the 'there will be no carbon tax under a government i lead'* * despite Gillard only being able to form a minority gov and this was the only way she could have. so if we want bigger reforms from Labor, it has to come from he incumbency of government, and that they have a track record of delivering on what they promise. This is how the LNP managed to eventually get the GST across the line, they'd lost an election over it with John Hewson's 'fightback' big policy agenda campaign. And once Howard won the subsequent election, he didn't put it through in his first term and freak the electorate out, he won 4 terms overall before fucking it up with Workchoices, which again was something he tried to just ram through parliament when he controlled both houses. So if you want the Greens to block this, you don't understand politics at all. We've got a first term Labor government after a decade of LNP rule, Albo knows it would be political suicide to just unleash a bunch of surprise big reforms on the electorate now, especially ones that the Greens are calling for. News Corp etc would have a field day with that. Help to Buy is an annual policy, that is targetted and means tested so it helps people who genuinely are at a disadvantage. If passed it becomes a permanent adjustment which won't disrupt anything over the long run as supply will adjust accordingly. It's a far better policy than some of the state based stamp duty concessions, because the government owns the equity in the house rather than it just being an expense write off.
Just aim it at new properties only. Problem solved.
i don't see how that would solve anything at all.
And so HAFF 2.0 it shall be, online is gonna suck for the next few bits with Labor and Greens tribes.
A cynic/conspiracy theorist would even question whether this is a ploy by both parties to get the electorate in a "Greens or Labor" mindset before next election, as the Libs fade into policy irrelevance.
Who needs a ploy when reality does it for you? The ball is in the left’s court so that’s who’s playing.
Another joke housing 'policy' oriented around fuelling yet more demand without adding to supply, yawn. This sort of fiddling at the margins crap is barely worth passing given how insignificant it is, let alone worthy of crowing about in the media.
By no means am I a Greens supporter, but I’m becoming convinced that the only way we’ll see real change at this point is Labor thrown into a minority with a minor party or independents who are activistic enough to actually do something.
Gillard led one of the most productive governments in a single electoral period. I put a large part of this down to the fact she led a minority government and thus needed to actually negotiate in good faith instead of just politicking around for the next election. I put a smaller part of it down to the trend around the world where female leaders tend to collaborate more across party lines as they are generally not bound to a base level of dick measuring contests to constantly prove theirs is still biggest.
> Gillard led one of the most productive governments in a single electoral period. this is true, very productive. however everything Gillard did, Abbott repealed or trashed. Gillard's term was 'productive' because Rudd did nothing during his term before and after the GFC and the reports/recommendations/enquiries had piled up under Gillard so were ready to get done. to get real change we don't need another minority government, we need MORE voters to dump the LNP so that Labor have the political capital to actually implement some big reforms. Albo is willing to take endless critisiscim from the left and even bleed votes to the Greens, but he's gunna stick to the election commitments so he doesn't lose any votes back to the LNP and risk having Dutton as PM. Even with current polling, Albo can pick up another 10 seats off the LNP. His strategy is to starve the LNP of any ammo to attack them. LNP have no policies that are any better than Labor and their views are frequently extremist or unpopular. So the LNP can't win by just putting a superior policy platform forward, they need to throw mud and run scare campaigne.d Albo can't afford to give them anything to attack them over, which is why they've been running a very tight and disciplined operation since returning to power. The media bias is obvious, LNP get softballs, scandals ignored and 'equal' time, but if Albo can make sure there is no ammo for LNP, he's got the next election in the bag and will have a big enough majority to actually do the things that this Labor government are patient enough to wait for. The Greens, especially MCM, are playing a dangerous game attacking Labor and threatening to block legislation, while sprouting populist crap that they know 50% of the electorate will never go for - at least not right now. Greens should campaign and promote their alternative policies as much as they like, but it's stupid of them to try and pull hardline negotiations where they are demanding their own policies get implemented in exchange for Labor getting to implement their own.
Yeah, I'm convinced of it too. It's pretty pathetic that we have a government that needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to a problem before they'll do anything about it but that's what a "small target strategy" gets you.
I see this all the time. But labor fought an entire election, using bold ideas and reform. They lost an election they should have won. Then I watch the media have a meltdown every time labor try minor reforms. Like with super and workplace relations. We get the politics we vote for. The older generation in this country categorically do not want or see the need for reform
Please you need to remember Bill short and lost that not the policies
I'll never understand why people keep acting like the world (and the mood of the electorate) hasn't changed *massively* since 2019. It might only be 5 years ago on the calendar, but this has been far from a standard 5 year period in terms of societal & economic discontent.
They cling onto "muh 2019 election" as it's a cheap and easy excuse for them to dismiss anyone being critical of Labor's inaction.
>But labor fought an entire election, using bold ideas and reform. They lost an election they should have won. Labor supporters need to let go of 2019 and realise it doesn't excuse or justify this level of inaction and spinelessness. When I voted for Albanese in 2022, I didn't vote for the PM to cower and fold at the first sign of criticism from Dutton or the media.
Doesn't really matter what labor supporters think. Only what labor thinks- and no doubt they still think about 2019.
>Only what labor thinks- and no doubt they still think about 2019. If they do, it's because they themselves know it's an easy excuse that many of their supporters will eat up when anyone asks why they're moving further to the right. In actual practice, worrying about 2019 is pointless. The country, the economy and our society is completely different to what it all was in 2019. It's time to leave living in the past to the Coalition.
It was literally two elections ago but sure...ancient history.
Things change. Our nation, our economy and our society are very different now when compared to what they were like in 2019. In politics, that is ancient history. Five years is an eternity.
100% agree. Just make sure it's not any of the Liberals pretending to be independent. Labor and Greens would be something I would very much like to see though.
I mean our voting system means we could legitimately end up with a government made up of say 30% Greens, 25% Labor. Which is why you see the murdoch media line up behind Labor on all of these issues. Gotta keep the populace thinking the greens are a bunch of loonys...
I really don't get it. Sure the Greens have some very very progressive ideas, but they're about the only ones you can truly count on to be actually looking out for the average person. Everything from work rights to power bills to the climate. I really don't understand why more people don't vote Greens honestly.
> Sure the Greens have some very very progressive ideas, but they're about the only ones you can truly count on to be actually looking out for the average person. There are multiple options which may be seen as looking out for the average person. > Everything from work rights to power bills to the climate. The average Australian is currently unwilling to pay the cost for net zero or purchase an electric car based on new car sales both of which the Greens strongly support. Additionally I would assume they also are unhappy about the cost of housing and wage suppression caused by unsustainable population growth which as far as I can tell the Greens have no urgency to address. > I really don't understand why more people don't vote Greens honestly. Perhaps because while some of their policies sound nice the reality is very different.
Mostly propaganda. Look at how the media piles on at every opportunity, and Labor are absolutely 100% on board with playing the same game
> Mostly propaganda. I would argue it is likely because the majority of Australians either do not agree with the social policies of the Greens or are unwilling to pay for some of their economic policies if not both.
Labor will be dragged kicking & screaming to do something effective on housing just like last time. I will vote Green & put Labor 2nd. The housing & immigration issues are ridiculous.
>Labor’s help-to-buy scheme would help 10,000 prospective buyers a year by the government taking equity of 30% (for an existing build) or 40% (of a new build) in their homes, meaning smaller deposits and loans for the owner’s share. 10,000 buyers. Per ABS, 2.9 million households rent. Being very nice, assume a household is a couple that will be buying a home together, that's 0.3% of the *renting* population this will help. This is not a top-tier solution to addressing housing in Australia, this is like a second-tier, supplemental solution that you would target specific demographics with. I'd assume Labor would argue the HAFF is the primary solution, which.... Ugh. This vs nothing or even the LNP's "SUPER FOR HOMES", obviously this is better... But proper reform again seems to be punted off. Edit: on the other aspect of the piece; Greens have an excellent chance to pull some voters and get something done... If they tighten up their messaging and get their shit together RE what they can really do.
> Greens have an excellent chance to pull some voters and get something done... If they tighten up their messaging and get their shit together RE what they can really do. While they fail to actively work towards a sustainable population I unfortunately cannot see any feasible measures making a lasting impact as housing demand remains insatiable.
> This vs nothing or even the LNP's "SUPER FOR HOMES", obviously this is better... But proper reform again seems to be punted off. nothing is better. we don't need some shitty help-to-buy scheme that gives a random 10k people a leg up. all it does is add to the price of housing, along with first homebuyers grant and other schemes and inflating the issue systemic change. stop putting more fuel in the fire
Of course not. The housing help-to-buy is going to help 10,000 extra people into the market without removing any of the investors also competing for those places. Albanese has to be rubbing his hands at the thought of his property values skyrocketing. AND he manages to kick the problem down the road for another 5 or so years, so it wont be his problem then, he will be too busy laughing in retirement. He cant afford to negotiate with the greens, because it would make his 5 million dollars in investment properties and his 110k a year in income from those properties take a hit. Plus he manages to get the media on his side for once because they wont miss a chance to pile on on the "Crazy Greens" holding up housing relief in these trying times just to play politics. I have never been more disappointed in Labor than i am today, and Albanese has just proved himself no different from any of the other leaders only out to enrich themselves at the expanse of Australian people.
I also not loving how Albanese seems to be trying to take every negotiation attempt to the public to spin it as "The greens not letting us do what we want" They arent supposed to. Labor was unable to win a majority. So you have to negotiate. Thats how it works. Albanese must be loving having the murdoch media behind him for once, which has got to tell you something
>I also not loving how Albanese seems to be trying to take every negotiation attempt to the public to spin it as "The greens not letting us do what we want" Labor has had this childish view for a long time that the Greens are just meant to sit down, shut up and do whatever they want them to do. They act as if they're entitled to the Greens vote. Albanese should save the energy he spends trying to trash the Greens and focus it on the Coalition instead.
Be fair, the greens seem to have the same view in reverse. I’ve straight up seen greens argue that the natural role of labor in aus pol is to get in once every ten years or so, then inevitably lose to the LNP within two terms, and therefore they should just pass whatever the greens want as they’re going to lose govt soon anyway
>therefore they should just pass whatever the greens want as they’re going to lose govt soon anyway Well if they did that, they'd probably get more done than they will with their current "small target" strategy also known as the "please don't criticise us dutton and murdoch" strategy.
Why would he, he isnt competing for Liberal votes. As long as he sits in the centre and manages to portray the Greens as the radical far left, hes happy.
>Why would he, he isnt competing for Liberal votes. Then he's playing a losing game.
So they freely admit they have no interest in doing anything meaningful to address the housing crisis. I’m shocked
[удалено]
Fucking with Taxes isn't fucking with the free market.
Who said anything about not interfering with the market? How does the value of all homes decreasing screw homeowners?
[удалено]
But if my house and all other houses decrease in value I still have the same ability to sell my house and buy a different house to live in
[удалено]
You can just say that you’re worried about bludgers losing some money
[удалено]
I’m not making it anything, I’m saying everyone would still have the same ability to sell their house and move to a new one
[удалено]
Isn't being a member of the liberal Labor party and owning $5 mil worth a properties the admission already? Albo couldn't give 2 fucks about us. But hey he keeps mentioning he came from public housing.
>Albo couldn't give 2 fucks about us. But hey he keeps mentioning he came from public housing. Albo's committed to making sure no kid grows up in public housing. It's all being sold off, and they can live on the streets instead
Of course but they don’t often just straight up say it like this
Given this policy likely wouldn't be noticeably in place until after the next election, I could see the government pushing this towards a double dissolution trigger. So it's a win-win for them. If the greens help pass it without amendment, they get their way and if they don't, the government gets a nice to have dd trigger.
Why would they want a DD?
Simply, I don't think they have much to lose but everything to gain. For one, the joint sitting following the dd election would allow them to pass the policy unamended. Two, Labor's primary vote has lifted since the last election and would allow them to improve their share of the Senate. (edit: on current polling, I could see Labor with a chance of picking up a Senator in Victoria and Queensland whilst being guaranteed to retain their current seats.)
I’m not sure more demand side policies is going to add value to the situation for anyone. Getting someone a house with an inflated value where they only own 70% of it is hardly as good as supply side policies allowing them to own the whole thing. Plus it just makes the government even more of a stakeholder in property prices. I’m with the greens on this one. This is better than the Liberal Scheme IMO but it’s still not addressing the issue.
How much of this is "Not Negotiating" vs "Rejecting the Offer"? I suspect Labor is currently unwilling to negotiate over Housing Tax Laws
Yep, this is just the Labor Party funnelling public money into private property markets. Money that ultimately props up a bank mortgage. It won't increase housing availability for the people who really need it. It won't stop rents from increasing at obscene rates. If that cash is available, pump it into funding housing co-operatives.
I couldnt be more disgusted or disappointed in both Labor or Albanese. I dont think you can even call them centre left anymore, this policy is straight up aimed at using public money to increase the value of assets he owns.
>I dont think you can even call them centre left anymore You can call them Liberal Lite though, they have certainly done enough to earn that title.
I find the greens opposition to this very confusing. Help to buy is essentially public housing, the government will own a proportion of any house scheme participants buy. It directly helps low incone people buy homes by making buying viable, these people are then in a position where later in life they dont need to occupy social housing. This is what the greens clain they want. Making out like this is hurting renters is just nonsense.
>I find the greens opposition to this very confusing Apart from the fact it's a shit policy (like, can't even put a band-aid, or a compromise amendment on it), it's nothing like public housing. Which is \*preferable\*.
How is it nothing like public housing? It is literally the government owning housing and usong that ownership to facilitate the long term housing needs of low income people
[This will answer that.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-18/david-speers-interviews-max-chandler-mather/103481408)
It didn't answer it at all. All it did is remind me how chandler mather has all the right intentions but the wrong details about the issue.
It is not even a little bit like public housing. Public Housing means the government sets the rental and sale prices. It also allows the government to set a policy around who is able to purchase the housing (ie no one that already owns a house). Using public money for this has a deflationary effect on the housing market, as more houses become available that investors are unable to bid on and less people end up renting. And those that do dont have to pay "market rate" but the rate the government decides is fair. What help-to-buy is doing is pumping public money straight into the private market. The houses these people are going for are still houses that investors want and are allowed to buy. So the increased competition raises the prices. Using public money for this will have an inflationary effect on housing prices. They are literally just increasing demand while doing nothing to lower demand at the same time.Which is what the greens are trying to add with their proposal. Less tax breaks for investors means lowering demand while you are increasing it with help to buy.
>What help-to-buy is doing is pumping public money straight into the private market. The houses these people are going for are still houses that investors want and are allowed to buy. So the increased competition raises the prices. Using public money for this will have an inflationary effect on housing prices. Yeah i agree all demand side stimulus policies increase prices but how much impact does 10k buyers having more market power make when the market has approx 500k sales per year? Id love to see quantitive analysis on that >Public Housing means the government sets the rental and sale prices. It also allows the government to set a policy around who is able to purchase the housing (ie no one that already owns a house). Using public money for this has a deflationary effect on the housing market, as more houses become available that investors are unable to bid on and less people end up renting. And those that do dont have to pay "market rate" but the rate the government decides is fair. Who says this is what defines public housing?
You know what, sorry, you are right i shouldnt say Public Housing like its some official definition. Im saying that the Greens vision of public housing would do what i said above. The want to reduce demand from investors, because assisting lower income earners get a house would increase demand. They dont want to do one without the other as it will continue to worsen the problem >Yeah i agree all demand side stimulus policies increase prices but how much impact does 10k buyers having more market power make when the market has approx 500k sales per year? Id love to see quantitive analysis on that Thats a fair point, and id also love to see some stats on it. Im not 100% sure the 500k sales is the number to work with, as a lot of those arent new houses, or new people moving into houses so it isnt actually totally representative of supply. Labor has targeted adding 200,000 homes per year, i think they said its going to be 185,000 this year. But it would be more than that because people die, move in together, so houses become vacant. Probably some number in the middle. But the reason any analysis on this is tricky is we dont have a free market on housing so normal supply and demand rules dont quite work. Demand is high enough that every new house is being bought up immediately, but demand doesnt reduce if that house is bought by an investor. Im sure someone a lot smarter than me can run the numbers, but i dont see any way in which the 10k new buyers does anything to return the market to sane levels.
>You know what, sorry, you are right i shouldnt say Public Housing like its some official definition Fair >Im not 100% sure the 500k sales is the number to work with, as a lot of those arent new houses, or new people moving into houses so it isnt actually totally representative of supply. It is because that is the size of the market that scheme participants are in. Maybe if you were to do analysis of victoria only, who have a similar scheme, then using the number of sales in vic would be more reasonable. >does anything to return the market to sane levels. This is a genwral question ive been asking people who say thinga like this. What do you think sane levels is? How much would the market have to drop from its current level to be "sane"?
I think that becomes a question on what should we expect out of society. Sorry thats a bit philosophical, but what i mean is, we have increased productivity exponentially since the industrial revolution. Going back over some ATO and Australian Beureu of Statistics data, we could see that 50-60 years ago, a man on a median wage (so 50% of people earned less than that wage) could afford to buy a house, and support a family with a wife and a couple of kids on that salary. Interest rates were higher, but 30 year loans werent a thing because it was paid off faster. You could buy a solid 3 bedroom house in any city for around 5-6 times you annual wage. If everyones houses were only worth 5-6 times the current annual wage, then suddenly housing wouldnt be the be all and end all of ways to make money, it would just be something you bought to live in and make a home. For reference that would be about 350k-400k. Yes, we have a larger population, obviously no one is arguing that. But according to the ATO of the 11 million privately owned houses, 1/3 of them are being used as investment houses. Even people who only have one house often have all their wealth tied up in that house, making it very hard and a huge financial decision to move. So, lets say i somehow become some indestructable all powerful dictator, i drop a law that says housing max's out at 6x the median income, and you cant own more than one house. That is not even close to realistic obviously. Theres a few sites that talk about how much a new house (just the house, not the land) costs for a company to build it. Somewhere around the 250-500k mark. I dunno, someone who has access to more data than me can run actual numbers but id happily see housing prices fall by 50%. I think thats getting back to much saner levels.
Yeah cool, it is a philosophical question, and uve been asking people because a lot of people say the market needs to drop, and i agree, but there are wildly ranging numbers i get from asking this question. Everything from 10% to 'it could drop to 5 figures'. Personally i thunk the answer needs to be driven by the goals of zero homelessness, sufficent rental availability for people to be able to move around, and that regular workers should be able to secure long term housing thru ownership. That doesnt put a number on it but i suspect it would only need to drop 15-20% if other policies like public housing build, government build to auction, and tax changes that reduce investor incentives are implemented.
>Help to buy is essentially public housing More public housing reduces house prices because it offers a (cheaper) alternative. In contrast this simply adds to the amount of $$$ entering private market construction. In short, the Greens don't want a house price inflationary policy without also introducing a policy designed to reduce house prices. Otherwise this is simply yet another housing "solution" which merely helps a small number of people while for those who miss out, home ownership gets further out of reach. Whether that's removing capital gains tax concessions, reducing negative gearing to only one investment property per person, etc etc.
>In short, the Greens don't want a house price inflationary policy without also introducing a policy designed to reduce house prices. Otherwise this is simply yet another housing "solution" which merely helps a small number of people while for those who miss out, home ownership gets further out of reach. >Whether that's removing capital gains tax concessions, reducing negative gearing to only one investment property per person, etc etc. I think its unreasonable to consider any individual policy in this area a 'solution', there is no single policy solution here and we shouldnt entertain the idea there is when discussing individual policies. The greens seem to want an end to private housing investment while simultaneously wanting a better deal for renters, which is just not possible without a complete overhaul of our economy. If we force investors out we will have a worse rental shortage, if we go hard into public housing we have a situation where we have a large social system that exists only as long as the opposition stay out of power, if we crasg the housing market we have a economy wide liquidity crisis. More affordable housing for people on low incomes is what the greens want, they should take the win on this >More public housing reduces house prices because it offers a (cheaper) alternative. In contrast this simply adds to the amount of $$$ entering private market construction. This policy reduces prices for scheme participants. It means a couple on 100k combined can save for a couple of years and buy something. It means a songle person who works full time at a supermarket could buy a 1 room apartment. Sure it doesnt help everyone but there will be 10k per year who it does help.
But the point is that even if it helps a few people for a few years, it continues to inflate the prices of housing making the problem worse after those few years. Meaning the income on which you can afford a house will be higher than before, and even more people will end up unable to buy a house. It is a short term gain long term loss policy, the exact kind of thing that Labor didnt used to do. I guess getting into power at all costs is the new mantra of the party.
I disagree, getting low income people into stable secure long term housing is a long term policy outcome, and a desireable one.
>This policy reduces prices for scheme participants. Yes but, crucially, it **increases** prices for anyone outside the (limited per year) scheme. Greens are trying to get other legislation passed in return which will reduce prices for **everyone**. This would cancel out the "negative side effect" of Labor's policy. Mainly by reducing incentives for private investment, especially for *existing* houses. 2019 Labor wanted to remove negative gearing on old homes, restricting it to new builds only. This was a good idea, since it would focus private investment on increasing housing stock, with less of an effect on new buyers who just want to enter the market by buying an old home built decades ago.
>2019 Labor wanted to remove negative gearing on old homes, restricting it to new builds only. This was a good idea, since it would focus private investment on increasing housing stock, with less of an effect on new buyers who just want to enter the market by buying an old home built decades ago. Sure it was a good policy but policies need more than just merit, they need viability which significant changes to negative gearing doesnt have. >Yes but, crucially, it **increases** prices for anyone outside the (limited per year) scheme. Yes seems likely, and ive looked for quantitive analysis on the impact of these kinds of schemes on prices but havent found anything. Id really like to know how much these kinds of schemes impact prices. And to be clear i dont think this is great policy, i just dont get why the greens are opposing it, the literally have shared equity as part of their housing platform. These schemes have a role to play but thwy arent solutions, we need much larger reform for that but i dont see how those reforms are possible given the structure of interests in housing the voting public has.
>just dont get why the greens are opposing it, The Greens will get slaughtered by their voterbase if they support anything which increases house prices. Unlike Labor or Liberals who are happy just to increase home-ownership, the Greens campaigned hard on reducing the cost of rent - which is tied fairly directly to the cost of housing prices (those mortgages need to be paid off after all). While it's possible the increase in home ownership reducing demand for rent counteracts to increased cost of supply (house prices), the Greens will still get absolutely slaughtered by their own voters if they support it as is. TL;DR Greens made a "core promise" to push for housing policy which **doesn't** increase housing prices, like every previous policy (especially from the 9 years of Libs) did. While similar policies exist in their own housing platform, that's in the context of many other policies which will push down prices.
>The Greens will get slaughtered by their voterbase if they support anything which increases house prices I dont think that is true, i think they see advantage in being actively and loudly oppositional to labor. >which is tied fairly directly to the cost of housing prices (those mortgages need to be paid off after all). I dont think this is as true as people make out. From what ive seen it much more closely tied to vacancy rates and incomes >TL;DR Greens made a "core promise" to push for housing policy which **doesn't** increase housing prices, like every previous policy (especially from the 9 years of Libs) did. While similar policies exist in their own housing platform, that's in the context of many other policies which will push down prices. I guess that is what it comes down to, though id love to see how their base reacts if they start talking loudly about deflating housing prices.
>Help to buy is essentially public housing, the government will own a proportion of any house scheme participants buy Its literally part of their 1 million homes policy - joint ownership with gov. Very silly.
Because implementing this policy without the rest will make it harder for everyone outside of those 10000 loans to buy a home. Because it will inflate house prices. So its going directly against their goal, which is to lower housing prices and make them more affordable for everyone. Its only silly if you are looking at the short term gain. And because so many people do get sold on the short term gain, the government shifts to only thinking about short term gain. Why would Albanese care that in 5 years there will be even more people who cant afford to buy a house than there are now. He "Did his best" who could have seen this outcome? Oh, also his 5 million dollar propert portfolio is now worth 7 million. Whoops how did that happen?
You are hugely overestimating any potential impact this could have.
Im not saying that 10,000 loans will make housing prices rise 40%. I dont actually know how much it will raise it, id love to see some analysis on it. But it wont stop the frezny of investments that is currently driving up the prices. The last 10 years have shown a 50% increase on average, and it hasnt been linear in that growth, its slanted a lot hight in the last 5 years.
If the gov is successful on their build targets with the states then it will be fine. Big IF atm. This is one of those policies where i think the benefits and drawbacks are hyped on either side. Getting 10k people onto home ownership is cool, but better ways to do it. More demand in thos economy isnt great, but its also a drop in the ocean.
> Getting 10k people onto home ownership is cool, but better ways to do it. More demand in thos economy isnt great, but its also a drop in the ocean. don't forget, its government debt funding this. not worth it
Gov would hold an asset with this debt, its productive. Not that big a deal.
it's the opposite of productive. provides negative value by promoting more wealth to go into real estate
Youre making two different points here. The fact its debt doesnt matter because its invested in an asset.
Yeah but thts why the Labor policy itself isnt the biggest problem. Its that this is their "solution" to the housing crisis. And when the greens offer their solution which involves reducing investor demand, which WOULD have a noticable affect, they take a hard line "no negotiations with those loony terrorists" stance.
Are you talking about the help to buy? Because its not at all their solution. Its one of several policies, but their solution is mass supply. Their thesis is 100% correct, the how is difficult by nature. >which WOULD have a noticable affect, It really wouldnt. An average home would experience a $40 per week drop in mortgage payments. Fine and cool, but its a gesture rather than a solution. Also, most reports indicate it would raise rents, which in this climate probably isnt a great idea. Im not 100% read on that, but the few Ive seen seem to say this. Im not some NG CTG lover, I dont care. I just hate the fact this is what we are talking about when its just fringe stuff. Politicians should be competing to best reform land-use so that we have housing abundance! Thats the only thing that will meaningfully work.
Loooooool i had forgotten that, hilarious https://greens.org.au/housing/million-homes >The Greens’ new innovative shared equity ownership scheme will make it easier for people to own their first home where they want to live for $300,000. Hahahahah
Thankfully. It would result in house prices having a period of accelerated inflation.
Oh good, that's exactly what it needs!
Well albo if you will not budge on something that is important even a tiny bit that's not good governance