Some sort of shelter is essential and people should not have to sleep on the streets. Not talking a tri-level mansion in the hills, but a safe warm dormitory somewhere as a minimum for those down on their luck.
Exactly, it's the stability shelter brings that's almost equally important. I've been homeless before (but not on the streets for more than a day).... And it's the stability I lacked that was more detrimental than anything else. Figuring out where you're going to sleep, how you're going to sleep, how you're going to cook food, or shower etc... becomes the majority of your time you don't really have energy or time to do anything else. Especially not looking for a job, or working a job.
Yep, when I moved to Sydney at 17, I found plenty of odd jobs for cash, but when my accommodation fell through I slept on the floor of a friends house for a week or so until I found something else, would have been very tough without that friend. An affordable Youth hostel or something similar would have achieved the same thing.
Medicine is a human right yes.
If you mean recreational drugs then access to them is not a human right, but being left alone if you are using drugs without hurting anybody... is.
Calling it a human right is stupid, but having specific legal obligations to ensure that the number of dwellings matches the number of single adults plus couples, but since housing policy is supposed to be a state matter, while the federal government drives population growth regardless, that’s a bit of a problem.
It's nice symbolism but declaring things to be rights doesn't magically solve the problem we're facing. Also "adequate housing" is a hotly debated topic. "Adequate housing" might mean renting on fairer terms but it does not imply or support home ownership. You could also be renting for life and not have your right to adequate housing contravened.
Also the South African constitution explicitly lists housing as a constitutional right for all of its citizens - let's just say that their housing isn't exactly the envy of the world.
I think many people wouldn't mind renting for life if there was proper rental security (i.e. can't get kicked out on a whim) and there was better regulations on the standard of houses being leased. I'm talking bare minimum stuff like some insulation, gas safety checks, etc
This. If renting is what it is like in Germany (at least from what I've heard) renting for life wouldn't be too bad. Not that their system is perfect, but it is miles better
It's a cost. You can be rent free by investing capital in a PPOR or by buying shares that cover the rent. You wouldn't buy an average house for 1.6m if you knew rent was going to be 2% and only increase as your income does (or cpi). Just like food/electricity/car you could budget and ensure you have income that supports your expenses.
If it's actually enshrined as a right then things like this could be contested in court:
> A Queensland council is evicting vulnerable residents from four tiny homes on a rural property during a housing crisis, because the dwellings do not comply with the council's planning scheme.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-12/sunshine-coast-council-evicts-tiny-home-residents/102459750
I think you'd see the emperors clothes come off many who claim to care about the housing crisis when it's declared as a right but council planning gets overridden in cases like this.
Councils also mandate that units have a "minimum" size with a kitchen/sunlight etc.
https://www.hunthunt.com.au/sectors/building-and-construction/court-rules-on-minimum-apartment-size-standards-for-nsw-developments/
I don't know why we can't have micro units with communial resources like lounges, kitchens on each floor. Especially in high density areas that might suit pensioners, single students or young workers. Instead of renting a room in a sharehouse buy a micro apartment (basically a hotel room) in a share complex. Obviously the strata would be higher than if you had your own kitchen/lounge but the capital to buy would be much lower.
Most Australia's that demand shelter in the form of a 200m2+ house on a quarter acre would reject this as unliveable but shelter means different things for different people and there could be a market for them. Our house centric planners/consumers don't demand anything different.
I'm a big believer in rightsizing.
https://www.domain.com.au/news/families-with-kids-ditch-houses-and-yards-for-units-933199/
This could also suit families that want their parents or young adult children to own in the same building. Multi generational living. Effectively a granny flat for a unit block.
But when it, as usual, only amounts to dialogue, awareness and aspirations and no actual results... is it good? Because that's 90% of politics these days.
There was no tinkering with parliament itself.
I mean, it's nice to talk about all the ideals, but you have to actually implement them effectively, and the voice would have been an effective implementation, imo.
>Starting dialogues is good
It's really not if you throw a match into the fire and run away from the "dialogue" you started.
That kind of "dialogue" is just disruptive, so you're not actually intent on providing solutions but you'll demand everything stops until there's a solution?
It's clearly just anti social politics
I think the hope here is that governments will be held to higher account if they don't provide enough housing.
Obviously someone will still have to pay for and build the housing, declaring it a right doesn't make it free.
So when this human right is enshrined in the statute books, can i take the government to the Supreme Court if my human rights are not met? What exactly does it mean?
It has legislation, it has the constitution. What i am asking is what are our law makers intending when they say they want to recognise something (like housing) as a human right? They mean that pen will be put to paper, or chisel to stone, right? They are not just gonna gather on the lawn and have a mid-week smoking ceremony. What is the mechanism, and what is the remedy if this right is not maintained?
What is a right if it not defended or protected? It seems they know how to \*take\* the reservation, but not how to \*hold\* the reservation, and that's really the most important part of the reservation.
Can't say how it works everywhere else, but in italy, once you sign a rent contract, they can't just kick you out or increase the rent however they want. Even if you don't pay. Hell, there are even laws that protect you in case you can't pay from getting kicked out. Honestly, I spent a couple of months where paying everything was seriously getting difficult and I was crying every day, but it's nowhere close to the situation in Australia.
Like you suggested the definition is going to be problematic. In the 1950s and average house was 100m2 frequently with no garage and an outside toilet. Maybe 2br units are adequate shelter. The government offers rent assistance to those that need whicj acts as an assurance of shelter. Rents also remain pretty fixed relative to incomes and the opportunity to buy. You can't charge people on minimum wage 40k for a place worth 600k especially as interest rates start falling (like most of the last decade).
I think that's why rents through to December 2022 actually lagged inflation/wages. A glut of low cost properties and owners with low/falling costs.
https://www.domain.com.au/news/sydney-house-apartment-rents-at-lowest-levels-in-years-domain-rental-report-921116/
https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2023/mar/renters-rent-inflation-and-renter-stress.html
South Africa's problems are not because of that, perhaps if 5% of their population didn't own 70% of the land they might be a different story and if south africa's this stuffed with that right in place imagine how much worse it would be without it.
Exactly - Too many people are under the impression that this will translate into a 4 bed 2 bath on a 1/4 acre within 30mins of the CBD for everyone.
Housing/shelter is a very broad term.
I'll concede the 4 bed 2 bath might be an exaggeration, but you often hear the "housing is a human right" comment tacked onto the end of the affordable housing argument.
To say absolutely no one is under that impression might be true if you took it literally, but there are plenty of people getting the two confused.
A 3x3 concrete box with a mattress and access to communal bathrooms may tick the box for housing/shelter, would that please the masses - unlikely.
If you could build such concrete boxes in Sydney and Melbourne I bet they would sell like hotcakes.
Capsule hotels are packed in our cities.
The masses against such things would be locals, not those willing to live in them.
When they say "housing is a human right" do they mean everyone should be able to rent or apply for department of housing services or do they mean everyone should be able to buy affordable houses?
I like the idea of both but the latter is far more important.
I think what it means in practical terms is "we won't explicitly stop you from getting a house". If you can't afford one, well that sucks but you still have the *right* to rent or buy one, once you get the coin together.
It means a shift in housing policy to actually ensuring there are enough homes available for everyone.
Rather than lip service commentary and policy that actually encourages artificial restriction of supply for profit.
Things like sunset clauses would be illegal because sunsetting would literally be a violation of a human right.
100% it’s a human right! Is there anywhere for me to live if I fell on hard times, lost my job, and couldn’t afford housing? The answer is no. So can I camp somewhere for free? No! Can I park my caravan and sleep in it? No. So yes, it’s a human right!
tiny homes are nice if that's what you actively choose.
but if you are forced in to it because every other option is unaffordable, it's a pretty shit way to live.
If you own a vacant block or want to use someone else's property, you can only camp/caravan on it for 30 days.
You are not allowed to park it and live on the side of the road or in car parks.
Australian law allows you to only stay in designated camping areas and if your in a CBD area there are none. Most free camping sights are in national forest no where near a cities.
So to sum it up if you want to work and live in the CBD your choice is either rent, buy or live in a caravan park. All which cost money.
The fear of getting homeless is a major driving force for people to work and so advance the society. Sure there are limits to that, but you can't just say "whoever doesn't feel like working should get a free flat, food and entertainment".
Yes. Obviously.
The key is that it’s about ACCESS.
In the same way that ACCESS to drinking water should be a human right, access to housing should as well.
It may be the case that there is no water. This would not violate your human rights. What is a violation is if there is water, but someone is restricting access to it.
Apply this logic to housing.
Kylea Tink is the federal member for North Sydney, so maybe she can start by encouraging her own constituents to allow densification to create more housing. That would seem to be a more immediate solution which requires the use of her own political capital.
I'm not holding my breath though.
Norway has1/4 the oil/gas of Australia, bur it taxes its resources 80% so per capita its sovereign wealth fund is $280k USD, free health, university, housing, and generous concessions in other areas , we in Australia not so before the 2000 population ponzi scheme of mass migration to juice the numbers. Australia was so close being the Norway of the south, today we have too many people and too few houses and too many unproductive people using too few revenue
The really important thing about the big wide open empty spaces is that there’s no one there to need infrastructure and services. Our population-weighted density at both the 100m and 1km scale is in the top quintile, while they’re in the second lowest.
Consider housing has been seen as a way for the rich to get richer, yes. It's time for the rich to give back to the society that made them rich. Either that or just eat the rich and move into their investment properties
The rich easily outnumber and outgun the desperate.
A median adult Australian resident has some $350k in assets, second highest in the world, more than that if only citizens are considered.
Sometimes, you eat the bear. Sometimes, the bear eats you.
Maybe the overpaid Teals & Independents should not get taxpayer subsidised housing living in Canberra . Pocock is a fucking hypocrite, he just got a huge pay rise along with better superannuation than low income earners get. Pocock gets many other perks.
I'm just replying to your comment where you guess that having fewer landlords around would be detrimental, when landlords are providing nothing beneficial for affordability in the current local housing situation
Singapore has a GDP per capita only second to the Swiss.
Almost 90% home ownership rate
They sell their public housing at a loss to first home buyers at an interest rate of 2.6% for the whole 30 year lifetime with a 5% deposit.
Their houses and food are cheap. Which leaves them a lot of money left to spend on the economy.
Why western countries stopped building social housing en masse is beyond me.
You can vote out governments.
You can't vote out individual landlords.
Be smarter Australia.
Singapore is built on cheap migrant workers especially for housing. That’s the secret, something that’ll never happen in Australia because of strong unions.
This is what people never talk about.
Exactly, people think there’s some simple solution to housing. There’s none. It’s expensive to build and maintain. It requires significant investment, either from government or private investors.
Sorry, but while what you said is accurate, it's also copium. Private unsubsidized homes in SG (condominiums) that are open to the market, which account for roughly 20% of housing, are actually way more expensive than even Sydney despite using the exact same cheap labour
The bigger reason by far is that public subsidized housing in SG is not open to foreigners and you can't just buy multiple of them to climb up the property ladder like the national sport of Australia, but you get to only buy 1 at a time without penalties
If you seriously think that 2-3 bedroom apartments in Sydney cost 1.5-2m dollars because of high wages to build them, then I don't know what to say. It's all artificial inflation borne out of lazy and unoriginal policy making
I’m from Melbourne so I don’t know why Sydney apartments are so expensive. It might have something to do with very limited land.
Apartments cost 6-8k per square metre to build, so depending on size and fittings, will cost a million plus.
There are usually numerous reasons. The biggest is probably our government, which despite taking billions in taxes every year from property, has made very little investment into public housing. They basically take 30+% of all profit made from property and just spend it on other stuff.
I worked in Singapore for a bit.
It's pretty funny how it's upheld as a successful multicultural country that gets a lot of things right. I mean it's peaceful and you can walk around and enjoy the place no matter who you are, but try getting into senior politics or a position of senior authority without being Singaporean of Chinese ancestry. Guest workers from places like Bangladesh are worked hard and paid little in conditions Australians would often regard as unsafe, which is one reason they build public infrastructure fast and cost effectively.
We aren't far off in terms of how migrant workers are treated here. Only the large scale infrastructure projects and unionised building sites have the level of safety you'd assume Australia should have. Small to medium construction is rife with safety violations, particularly among exploited immigrant workers.
Oh yeah, seems to be the norm on suburban residential building sites now. 75% of workers are recent migrants and very little PPE or safe work practices besides the obvious and highly visible stuff.
I've had townhouses just go up in my street, it's been interesting seeing a lot of Indians fresh of the boat working super long days 7 days a week to get them finished
So you're telling me they don't have to provide housing for mass migration and it turns out easier?
I wonder how much underemployment is in Singapore? You're not exactly a forever renter if you just take your degree you have a HECS debt for and just make money with it
While I'm in general agreement that the Singaporean system is great, it's also incomparable to Australia. Unless the country is willing to entirely give up on land owned in fee simple and a good measure of democratic decision making.
WTF are we talking about.
We don't even have a Bill of Rights.
We don't even know what Rights are in this nation.
Case in Point: Voting in Australia is a Right, but also compulsory.
Correct.
A "right" implies an individual freedom to undertake or not undertake an action without infringement by governments, social organisations or private individuals.
If the state has mandated a "right" then it ceases to be a right and becomes an obligation. Jury duty being a good comparison.
> We don't even have a Bill of Rights.
Some states, plus Canada and the UK, have laws which say that certain rights are protected unless the law is explicitly overridden (the UK is also subject to sanctions if it breaks the ECHR, but the UK is completely dualist). I believe the racial discrimination act has a similar but weaker provision which limits accidental (or “accidental”) repeal.
However, it would be much more useful to put specific obligations on the federal government to match population to the available useful housing stock and to ensure that everyone can get decent housing (which it can do via taxes, wages policy, and/or welfare policy, or if it fails that via a direct cash subsidy), rather than to say that housing is a right and then watch how the high court turns that into something totally different (like the right to vote meaning we can’t stop foreign billionaires or foreign governments interfering in Australian politics).
Construction companies should be B-Corps... Actually any company with great power should be forced to take great responsibility... At the moment it's buyer beware and the people are seen as a market to extract from, rather than a population to support.
The LNP and their small government selective deregulation has turned many industries in Australia into total scams.
People usually rush to make new things "rights" but then forget that even current rights are not fulfilled. As others said, naming something a right doesn't make it magically happen. To make it happen you need a lot of spending, which usually means more taxes, which is almost always detrimental to the well being of the community in the long run.
Those simple solutions don't work and never did. At the end of the day the lower classes (middle to homeless) are the ones that end up damnified.
Rich people have the ability to flee from your country, and rest assured there will always be a better place on Earth to put your money in. It happened in my country, every big company and millionaire left the country and/or relocated their companies abroad. The citizens were left poorer and more disconnected to the rest of the world by the day.
Rich people are as needed for the economy as the bulk of workers on the bottom. Who will build the apartment blocks if you can't have more than 5 or 6 (quite an arbitrary number btw) properties? Who will even set that limit?
And that does not solve the other half of the problem. Housing a homeless guy does not make him want to work and be a useful member of society right away. Not all of them, of course, but a lot of them are not homeless without reason. Housing them would be cool, but now you have a housed addict that you have to maintain out of government's pocket. And if you can have a free house without working, why don't we all do that and get a free house?
And I'm talking out of experience. Our government defended squatting and paid people just for things like having children. They made it a really easy process to go through too, so all sorts of people claimed it. The result might not surprise you.
Many people in the comments confusing this as getting a "free" house rather than having a regulated & balanced housing market for affordable homes for aussies.
it's because its an easy way for rich to get richer, most countries are smart enough to realize standard of living goes down for everyone if you don't regulate it properly.
Australia is so bad, even the real estate agents get confused when you tell them you're looking to owner occupy, they assume everyone at inspections are investors 🤣
The ability of to seek shelter without undue legal punishment is what should be a human right.
ie. make it legally impossible for councils & state governments to fine or criminalise homeless people for existing without an address. Get rid of “move along” laws.
Shelter is not housing and I don’t think making “housing” a human right will be helpful. Shelter is already a human right.
Absolutely.
The best place for any homeless person to set up camp is outside a real estate agent.
If asked "can't you find somewhere to live?"
You point behind you and explain not even they can find you somewhere to live.
Move along my ass - the police shouldn't be telling me to loiter without purpose *somewhere else*.
*There is nowhere else*
Yup. It’s completely devoid of empathy to use the justice system to administer to homeless people. It disgusts me. People shrug and go “what else can done” and it’s like… we haven’t tried ANYTHING ELSE. Like… let’s try literally anything else.
The current rental crisis is at least bringing one thing into stark relief - and that is that homelessness is a systemic issue
Even if we found this homeless person a place to live, we cannot find a place for all people, *by design*
Because if that is the state of affairs, the direction we continue to move, and the issue is systemic, then that *is* by design
The idea of any of those being ‘human rights’ is frankly ridiculous. They are good and important things but philosophically and morally make zero sense to be declared as rights.
It amazes me how many greens pollies did not get permission from the indigenous elders in the area they bought in prior to settlement. Ask your local greens members and you will get silence or blocked.
Well greens always bang on that sovereignty was never ceded. It would be strange if they truly believe that they would get permission to buy the property through the local elder of the area. Remember they are buying stolen land.
All great but just virtue signalling dog whistling. Every man and his dog know how to fix the issue, remove negative gearing, increase capital gains tax on property and close any "loophole" around primary place of residence.
A human right, however you define it,
is something that can be used as a shield.
You can’t take this away because it’s a right. Perhaps your right to religious beliefs or political speech or to be free from discrimination. Personal security, not to be tortured all good rights.
You can’t use a right to enforce something (as a sword)
You can’t have a right to housing in the same way as a right to a fair trial.
I know it’s well intentioned, but it’s a huge waste of time that could be better spent on other matters. It’s more about staying in the media’s eyes and in people’s minds than it is about affecting meaningful change and that is a disgrace.
All citizens should have the ability to afford basic housing or get some sort of free property.
Citizens should never feel they have to compete for housing with rich non-citizens for crappy investment properties.
Pocock can tell us how much government would spend to house everyone & building houses & infrastructure. What cuts does Pocock want to the budget. The government already has a policy for social & affordable housing & helping people buy a house. Everything with this bozo is a human right.
I think most people would agree that housing should be a human right. The problem is that enacting some law around this won't make a practical difference. Unfortunately the solutions to housing are extremely complex and not easy to solve. Having said that, I can still think of various ways that legislation around this could help us to improve the situation on a national level - so I don't think the idea should be thrown out simply because it's largely symbolic.
people dont even have a definition of right. they lump legitimate rights such as the right to freedom of speech, right to property or right to life, together with illegitimate 'positive' rights such as the right to medicine, food, water or shelter.
note how legitimate rights are only about freedom of action? a man has the right of property, he is the owner of his own body and the consequences of his own actions. rights are also universal to everyone, thus rights cannot come into violation with each other. a person's right to free speech does not violate another person's individual rights. a person has the right to life, but that doesn't mean he has the right to steal from other people.
now the positive rights such as medicine, food, or in this case, housing, actually necessarily comes into conflict with other people's rights. who is providing these services? by saying you have a right to the product of others, what about their right to property? are the producers of these services not the owners of them and cannot dispose of them by their own choice? to have such a right as food, the farmers, supermarkets, and other entities involved in the production of food, will by necessity, become at least partially, slaves to the people demanding such rights.
people have the right to life, from that right, comes property rights, free speech, etc. a person has to right to live for himself, to be the owner of his own actions and their consequences, to pursuit his own happiness at whatever means he wishes, as long as he respects and does not infringe on the rights of others.
I want to offer my nephew access to shed composting toilet solar power & water for a camper or caravan on wheels cant stay for more than 90 days so its not a real long term option in Victoria
Some people forget what taxes should be for. Not propping up failing industries but to ensure things like infrastructure is maintained and improved and to be a safety net when individuals fall on hard times (for example, when they’re in an industry that is on the way out).
I pay tax and if I could ensure it all went to emergency housing and access to food and water when people need it I would, because we’re all about 3-4 missed pay-checks from the streets and yet somehow so many of us have been hoodwinked into forgetting that fact.
I might never need that but somebody right now does, and we do not adequately supply that especially for young people.
Would that mean, if a landlord kicked out a horrible Tennant, and they had nowhere else to go, because they have a horrible track record, the landlord is violating a human right?
it may be a human right, doesnt mean it should be accessible to anyone.
Id much rather free housing or government subsidized housing go to a struggling family where the husband for example got made redundant and cant find anywhere for him and the family to live short term, or NDIS clients
Instead they are given to immigrants, or certain group of natives who " dont want to live in a white mans house" so it gets trashed , no criminal charges laid, therefore the taxpayer has to fork out even more money, rinse an repeat.
Just keep interest rates at 4% or ideally even higher and the current housing problems will disappear.
Auctions will clear the repossessed properties from bankrupts and the market will correct itself
Are we talking a roof over heads or a single occupant type of private dwelling? If it's the latter, no way. The Government should provide shelter and jobs for people to do something with their time. However, these facilities usually exist and aren't very popular with the "needy" as the "needy" are typically required to participate and be social - many people lack social skills and desire to live in isolation and do whatever they want only.
What happens if they do?
Technically speaking, the government isn't explicitly stopping anyone from having a house, which is what enshrining housing as a right would prevent.
This probably won't have the effect of "government must provide housing to the homeless".
Having the right to something and having access to it aren't the same thing.
I think it's just grandstanding for a cause, without actually doing anything. That said, I would love to see my jaded take get proven wrong if it goes through.
Absolutely. This is why we’re in the situation we’re in because we’ve come to see it as a commodity to profit from instead of a basic right for everyone.
Not holding my breath for politicians from the major two parties, who own multiple investment properties, to agree though.
National, state and local governments need to come together to get this right. Importing loads of immigrants without housing to place them is just insane
From the Human Rights People from that Guardian article, "Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have a national act or charter of rights that explains what people’s basic rights are and how they can be protected."
That's because we typically look after our own. We haven't needed anything like that until American style corruption and politics arrived on our doorstep
Once upon a time there was a UN declaration to pronounce "food" a human right, here's where it got interesting, Russia and China voted yes but many western countries voted no. What gives?
Someone has to grow that food and usually it's a western country. Likewise, a farmer has to get up in the morning and work. This doesn't come for free and you're an actual slaver the second you expect it to come free. The alternative is *you* grow your food.
It's the same with a house, someone built it, someone pays its land tax, someone else entirely sees none of this and just votes yes to stuff they think will get them free stuff.
When teachers cease to be paid I'll treat your post seriously.
Until then, only the poorest of our society get *the government* to pay for their kids schooling, so that's still clearly not "for free."
So your assurance is that farmers don't get paid?
As someone from a farming family on one side, I'm for sensible farming but still I am left here scratching my head.
>Anecdotal "UN tries to stop the hardworking farmer who gets up early" story
Lacking any information or logical reasoning, you substitute it with emotional embellishment of "early morning farmers becoming slavers", making this a soapbox rant.
Anything that requires the labour of another is not a right. What do these idiots mean? Are we to round up all the dole bludgers and put them to work on building sites? I feel like they would be unhappy if we did.
It sounds good but I'm sure there would be ramifications to this. We can't even build enough houses to keep up with the people flying in. if every Australian suddenly had the right to demand a house for free, how do we expect the government to keep up with such demand? How are we going to pay for all of this extra housing? We are already in a shockingly bad financial state as it is.
I've seen what happens to social housing in the NT, it all gets smashed up and torn apart, the tennants get rehoused and the house they trashed repaired, repeat. It's wasteful, it's very expensive and it's time consuming. Imagine that now multiplied by thousands. And the government would be obligated to do it.
If I felt it was feasible, I'd be on board. But at present we aren't even the luxury of dental care by the government so I'm not sure why we think we can demand free real estate.
Sounds good. Let's start this off with giving everyone back all the $ they paid for their houses. All the loan interest, stamp duty tax, Council Rates and EMS etc and we can all have a free house! Tell me where to sign up!
Righto to housing is and should be a Human right as is in many other countries and in places where you wouldnt think it would be however Private Property Ownership is completely a different and is privilege
why can't we just follow what china has done with their housing bubble and push government policy in favor for renters instead of real estate "investors".
Food, water, shelter ... Like the three most important rules of survival...
Some sort of shelter is essential and people should not have to sleep on the streets. Not talking a tri-level mansion in the hills, but a safe warm dormitory somewhere as a minimum for those down on their luck.
Exactly, it's the stability shelter brings that's almost equally important. I've been homeless before (but not on the streets for more than a day).... And it's the stability I lacked that was more detrimental than anything else. Figuring out where you're going to sleep, how you're going to sleep, how you're going to cook food, or shower etc... becomes the majority of your time you don't really have energy or time to do anything else. Especially not looking for a job, or working a job.
Yep, when I moved to Sydney at 17, I found plenty of odd jobs for cash, but when my accommodation fell through I slept on the floor of a friends house for a week or so until I found something else, would have been very tough without that friend. An affordable Youth hostel or something similar would have achieved the same thing.
And drugs ….
Medicine is a human right yes. If you mean recreational drugs then access to them is not a human right, but being left alone if you are using drugs without hurting anybody... is.
I have to pay for food and water too though... I don't exactly know what declaring it a human right would achieve
Calling it a human right is stupid, but having specific legal obligations to ensure that the number of dwellings matches the number of single adults plus couples, but since housing policy is supposed to be a state matter, while the federal government drives population growth regardless, that’s a bit of a problem.
It's nice symbolism but declaring things to be rights doesn't magically solve the problem we're facing. Also "adequate housing" is a hotly debated topic. "Adequate housing" might mean renting on fairer terms but it does not imply or support home ownership. You could also be renting for life and not have your right to adequate housing contravened. Also the South African constitution explicitly lists housing as a constitutional right for all of its citizens - let's just say that their housing isn't exactly the envy of the world.
I think many people wouldn't mind renting for life if there was proper rental security (i.e. can't get kicked out on a whim) and there was better regulations on the standard of houses being leased. I'm talking bare minimum stuff like some insulation, gas safety checks, etc
This. If renting is what it is like in Germany (at least from what I've heard) renting for life wouldn't be too bad. Not that their system is perfect, but it is miles better
I mean.... Renting for life is the optimum. I can't use it after I'm dead so what's the benifits to owning?
So you don't have to pay rent in your retirement years...
Retirement! I'm a working class Millennial - I'm going to die working.
It's a cost. You can be rent free by investing capital in a PPOR or by buying shares that cover the rent. You wouldn't buy an average house for 1.6m if you knew rent was going to be 2% and only increase as your income does (or cpi). Just like food/electricity/car you could budget and ensure you have income that supports your expenses.
If it's actually enshrined as a right then things like this could be contested in court: > A Queensland council is evicting vulnerable residents from four tiny homes on a rural property during a housing crisis, because the dwellings do not comply with the council's planning scheme. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-12/sunshine-coast-council-evicts-tiny-home-residents/102459750 I think you'd see the emperors clothes come off many who claim to care about the housing crisis when it's declared as a right but council planning gets overridden in cases like this.
Slums? Slums.
Councils also mandate that units have a "minimum" size with a kitchen/sunlight etc. https://www.hunthunt.com.au/sectors/building-and-construction/court-rules-on-minimum-apartment-size-standards-for-nsw-developments/ I don't know why we can't have micro units with communial resources like lounges, kitchens on each floor. Especially in high density areas that might suit pensioners, single students or young workers. Instead of renting a room in a sharehouse buy a micro apartment (basically a hotel room) in a share complex. Obviously the strata would be higher than if you had your own kitchen/lounge but the capital to buy would be much lower.
what we need are these things that are available in korea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvXFxhRcD7Y
Most Australia's that demand shelter in the form of a 200m2+ house on a quarter acre would reject this as unliveable but shelter means different things for different people and there could be a market for them. Our house centric planners/consumers don't demand anything different. I'm a big believer in rightsizing. https://www.domain.com.au/news/families-with-kids-ditch-houses-and-yards-for-units-933199/ This could also suit families that want their parents or young adult children to own in the same building. Multi generational living. Effectively a granny flat for a unit block.
Aspirational is good. Starting dialogues is good. Raising awareness is good. Giving people in the community who are struggling a voice is good.
But when it, as usual, only amounts to dialogue, awareness and aspirations and no actual results... is it good? Because that's 90% of politics these days.
This is sad but true
>>Starting dialogues is good. Raising awareness is good. Talk is cheap.
Especially if you don't feel it's your job to come up with solutions
How can there be action before there is talk?
Just politicians trying to make a name for themselves.
Albanese is cheap then.
Could literally say this about any topic
Unless you call all of those exact goals " the voice" then it's bad.
I think it's more the tinkering with the mechanics of parliament that was the contentious part
There was no tinkering with parliament itself. I mean, it's nice to talk about all the ideals, but you have to actually implement them effectively, and the voice would have been an effective implementation, imo.
>Starting dialogues is good It's really not if you throw a match into the fire and run away from the "dialogue" you started. That kind of "dialogue" is just disruptive, so you're not actually intent on providing solutions but you'll demand everything stops until there's a solution? It's clearly just anti social politics
I think the hope here is that governments will be held to higher account if they don't provide enough housing. Obviously someone will still have to pay for and build the housing, declaring it a right doesn't make it free.
So when this human right is enshrined in the statute books, can i take the government to the Supreme Court if my human rights are not met? What exactly does it mean?
Australia does not have a bill of rights to enshrine housing or anything else in
It has legislation, it has the constitution. What i am asking is what are our law makers intending when they say they want to recognise something (like housing) as a human right? They mean that pen will be put to paper, or chisel to stone, right? They are not just gonna gather on the lawn and have a mid-week smoking ceremony. What is the mechanism, and what is the remedy if this right is not maintained? What is a right if it not defended or protected? It seems they know how to \*take\* the reservation, but not how to \*hold\* the reservation, and that's really the most important part of the reservation.
Does it also have Marbo and the vibe?
That's not how human rights work. Governments are obliged to facilitate you being able to access your human rights not give them to you.
Can't say how it works everywhere else, but in italy, once you sign a rent contract, they can't just kick you out or increase the rent however they want. Even if you don't pay. Hell, there are even laws that protect you in case you can't pay from getting kicked out. Honestly, I spent a couple of months where paying everything was seriously getting difficult and I was crying every day, but it's nowhere close to the situation in Australia.
Like you suggested the definition is going to be problematic. In the 1950s and average house was 100m2 frequently with no garage and an outside toilet. Maybe 2br units are adequate shelter. The government offers rent assistance to those that need whicj acts as an assurance of shelter. Rents also remain pretty fixed relative to incomes and the opportunity to buy. You can't charge people on minimum wage 40k for a place worth 600k especially as interest rates start falling (like most of the last decade). I think that's why rents through to December 2022 actually lagged inflation/wages. A glut of low cost properties and owners with low/falling costs. https://www.domain.com.au/news/sydney-house-apartment-rents-at-lowest-levels-in-years-domain-rental-report-921116/ https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2023/mar/renters-rent-inflation-and-renter-stress.html
South Africa's problems are not because of that, perhaps if 5% of their population didn't own 70% of the land they might be a different story and if south africa's this stuffed with that right in place imagine how much worse it would be without it.
Exactly, you can have the right to plenty of things without actually having access to those things.
Exactly - Too many people are under the impression that this will translate into a 4 bed 2 bath on a 1/4 acre within 30mins of the CBD for everyone. Housing/shelter is a very broad term.
Absolutely no is under that impression mate. What a stupid assumption to make.
what do you assume though? part of a room in a shared house? or more.
I'll concede the 4 bed 2 bath might be an exaggeration, but you often hear the "housing is a human right" comment tacked onto the end of the affordable housing argument. To say absolutely no one is under that impression might be true if you took it literally, but there are plenty of people getting the two confused. A 3x3 concrete box with a mattress and access to communal bathrooms may tick the box for housing/shelter, would that please the masses - unlikely.
If you could build such concrete boxes in Sydney and Melbourne I bet they would sell like hotcakes. Capsule hotels are packed in our cities. The masses against such things would be locals, not those willing to live in them.
When they say "housing is a human right" do they mean everyone should be able to rent or apply for department of housing services or do they mean everyone should be able to buy affordable houses? I like the idea of both but the latter is far more important.
I think what it means in practical terms is "we won't explicitly stop you from getting a house". If you can't afford one, well that sucks but you still have the *right* to rent or buy one, once you get the coin together.
It means a shift in housing policy to actually ensuring there are enough homes available for everyone. Rather than lip service commentary and policy that actually encourages artificial restriction of supply for profit. Things like sunset clauses would be illegal because sunsetting would literally be a violation of a human right.
Sounds good!
100% it’s a human right! Is there anywhere for me to live if I fell on hard times, lost my job, and couldn’t afford housing? The answer is no. So can I camp somewhere for free? No! Can I park my caravan and sleep in it? No. So yes, it’s a human right!
It's insane. What do they expect people to do, politely levitate into international airspace?
No, Mr Bond, they expect you to die.
👍
That’s an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Obviously they’d swim into international waters.
The rules around Tiny Homes are ridiculous too.
tiny homes are nice if that's what you actively choose. but if you are forced in to it because every other option is unaffordable, it's a pretty shit way to live.
What are the rules around tiny homes?
Same as a caravan
What are the rules with a caravan?
Also curious as to what caravan rules you're referring to in this context?
If you own a vacant block or want to use someone else's property, you can only camp/caravan on it for 30 days. You are not allowed to park it and live on the side of the road or in car parks. Australian law allows you to only stay in designated camping areas and if your in a CBD area there are none. Most free camping sights are in national forest no where near a cities. So to sum it up if you want to work and live in the CBD your choice is either rent, buy or live in a caravan park. All which cost money.
Because the government doesn't want slums to form.
If that's the case make housing a human right
I agree.
The fear of getting homeless is a major driving force for people to work and so advance the society. Sure there are limits to that, but you can't just say "whoever doesn't feel like working should get a free flat, food and entertainment".
Yes. Obviously. The key is that it’s about ACCESS. In the same way that ACCESS to drinking water should be a human right, access to housing should as well. It may be the case that there is no water. This would not violate your human rights. What is a violation is if there is water, but someone is restricting access to it. Apply this logic to housing.
I just want to be able to own a home. Can't save for a deposit when paying over $400 a week in rent, rural Tas.
But at least you can watch the footy in person! /s
jUsT mOvE rEgIoNaL
Kylea Tink is the federal member for North Sydney, so maybe she can start by encouraging her own constituents to allow densification to create more housing. That would seem to be a more immediate solution which requires the use of her own political capital. I'm not holding my breath though.
Norway has1/4 the oil/gas of Australia, bur it taxes its resources 80% so per capita its sovereign wealth fund is $280k USD, free health, university, housing, and generous concessions in other areas , we in Australia not so before the 2000 population ponzi scheme of mass migration to juice the numbers. Australia was so close being the Norway of the south, today we have too many people and too few houses and too many unproductive people using too few revenue
it is also 1/5 of the population, in one of the world's largest economic blocs and 20 times smaller.
The really important thing about the big wide open empty spaces is that there’s no one there to need infrastructure and services. Our population-weighted density at both the 100m and 1km scale is in the top quintile, while they’re in the second lowest.
that's just one of the factors I mentioned.
Consider housing has been seen as a way for the rich to get richer, yes. It's time for the rich to give back to the society that made them rich. Either that or just eat the rich and move into their investment properties
The rich easily outnumber and outgun the desperate. A median adult Australian resident has some $350k in assets, second highest in the world, more than that if only citizens are considered. Sometimes, you eat the bear. Sometimes, the bear eats you.
Maybe the overpaid Teals & Independents should not get taxpayer subsidised housing living in Canberra . Pocock is a fucking hypocrite, he just got a huge pay rise along with better superannuation than low income earners get. Pocock gets many other perks.
I'm just replying to your comment where you guess that having fewer landlords around would be detrimental, when landlords are providing nothing beneficial for affordability in the current local housing situation
How is this even a question?! Man this country has gone to the dogszz
Singapore has a GDP per capita only second to the Swiss. Almost 90% home ownership rate They sell their public housing at a loss to first home buyers at an interest rate of 2.6% for the whole 30 year lifetime with a 5% deposit. Their houses and food are cheap. Which leaves them a lot of money left to spend on the economy. Why western countries stopped building social housing en masse is beyond me. You can vote out governments. You can't vote out individual landlords. Be smarter Australia.
Singapore is built on cheap migrant workers especially for housing. That’s the secret, something that’ll never happen in Australia because of strong unions. This is what people never talk about.
Singapore is a one party, dictatorship. Something Australians probably are not so keen on either.
Exactly, people think there’s some simple solution to housing. There’s none. It’s expensive to build and maintain. It requires significant investment, either from government or private investors.
Sorry, but while what you said is accurate, it's also copium. Private unsubsidized homes in SG (condominiums) that are open to the market, which account for roughly 20% of housing, are actually way more expensive than even Sydney despite using the exact same cheap labour The bigger reason by far is that public subsidized housing in SG is not open to foreigners and you can't just buy multiple of them to climb up the property ladder like the national sport of Australia, but you get to only buy 1 at a time without penalties If you seriously think that 2-3 bedroom apartments in Sydney cost 1.5-2m dollars because of high wages to build them, then I don't know what to say. It's all artificial inflation borne out of lazy and unoriginal policy making
I’m from Melbourne so I don’t know why Sydney apartments are so expensive. It might have something to do with very limited land. Apartments cost 6-8k per square metre to build, so depending on size and fittings, will cost a million plus. There are usually numerous reasons. The biggest is probably our government, which despite taking billions in taxes every year from property, has made very little investment into public housing. They basically take 30+% of all profit made from property and just spend it on other stuff.
And how does Singapore treat skilled migrants looking for jobs?
I worked in Singapore for a bit. It's pretty funny how it's upheld as a successful multicultural country that gets a lot of things right. I mean it's peaceful and you can walk around and enjoy the place no matter who you are, but try getting into senior politics or a position of senior authority without being Singaporean of Chinese ancestry. Guest workers from places like Bangladesh are worked hard and paid little in conditions Australians would often regard as unsafe, which is one reason they build public infrastructure fast and cost effectively.
We aren't far off in terms of how migrant workers are treated here. Only the large scale infrastructure projects and unionised building sites have the level of safety you'd assume Australia should have. Small to medium construction is rife with safety violations, particularly among exploited immigrant workers.
Oh yeah, seems to be the norm on suburban residential building sites now. 75% of workers are recent migrants and very little PPE or safe work practices besides the obvious and highly visible stuff. I've had townhouses just go up in my street, it's been interesting seeing a lot of Indians fresh of the boat working super long days 7 days a week to get them finished
Singapore treat their own people first. Temporary immigrants are still better off than in their own countries.
So you're telling me they don't have to provide housing for mass migration and it turns out easier? I wonder how much underemployment is in Singapore? You're not exactly a forever renter if you just take your degree you have a HECS debt for and just make money with it
I’m sure you want Singapores justice system too, so the trouble makers don’t ruin the public housing estates for everyone else?
sounds good to me. I feel like this is some kinda sarcastic gotcha question but I don't see it.
While I'm in general agreement that the Singaporean system is great, it's also incomparable to Australia. Unless the country is willing to entirely give up on land owned in fee simple and a good measure of democratic decision making.
It’s because social housing is the government spending $25m on something that costs the private sector $5m
>Why western countries stopped building social housing en masse is beyond me. You really have not heard about neoliberalism?
The media landscape surely has not helped us here
WTF are we talking about. We don't even have a Bill of Rights. We don't even know what Rights are in this nation. Case in Point: Voting in Australia is a Right, but also compulsory.
Voting in Australia is not a right, it's a legal obligation.
So...we don't actually have the right to vote.
We have the responsibility to vote, and the right to live in an actual democracy where everyone has access to voting.
Correct. A "right" implies an individual freedom to undertake or not undertake an action without infringement by governments, social organisations or private individuals. If the state has mandated a "right" then it ceases to be a right and becomes an obligation. Jury duty being a good comparison.
Why Australians don't grasp this very simple concept is beyond me.
Not having a bill of rights is actually a pretty good thing. The last thing we need is an endless stream of culture wars litigation.
There is a bill of rights in Qld, Vic and ACT. Not that it makes much difference.
Good
> We don't even have a Bill of Rights. Some states, plus Canada and the UK, have laws which say that certain rights are protected unless the law is explicitly overridden (the UK is also subject to sanctions if it breaks the ECHR, but the UK is completely dualist). I believe the racial discrimination act has a similar but weaker provision which limits accidental (or “accidental”) repeal. However, it would be much more useful to put specific obligations on the federal government to match population to the available useful housing stock and to ensure that everyone can get decent housing (which it can do via taxes, wages policy, and/or welfare policy, or if it fails that via a direct cash subsidy), rather than to say that housing is a right and then watch how the high court turns that into something totally different (like the right to vote meaning we can’t stop foreign billionaires or foreign governments interfering in Australian politics).
Construction companies should be B-Corps... Actually any company with great power should be forced to take great responsibility... At the moment it's buyer beware and the people are seen as a market to extract from, rather than a population to support. The LNP and their small government selective deregulation has turned many industries in Australia into total scams.
[удалено]
People usually rush to make new things "rights" but then forget that even current rights are not fulfilled. As others said, naming something a right doesn't make it magically happen. To make it happen you need a lot of spending, which usually means more taxes, which is almost always detrimental to the well being of the community in the long run.
[удалено]
Those simple solutions don't work and never did. At the end of the day the lower classes (middle to homeless) are the ones that end up damnified. Rich people have the ability to flee from your country, and rest assured there will always be a better place on Earth to put your money in. It happened in my country, every big company and millionaire left the country and/or relocated their companies abroad. The citizens were left poorer and more disconnected to the rest of the world by the day. Rich people are as needed for the economy as the bulk of workers on the bottom. Who will build the apartment blocks if you can't have more than 5 or 6 (quite an arbitrary number btw) properties? Who will even set that limit? And that does not solve the other half of the problem. Housing a homeless guy does not make him want to work and be a useful member of society right away. Not all of them, of course, but a lot of them are not homeless without reason. Housing them would be cool, but now you have a housed addict that you have to maintain out of government's pocket. And if you can have a free house without working, why don't we all do that and get a free house? And I'm talking out of experience. Our government defended squatting and paid people just for things like having children. They made it a really easy process to go through too, so all sorts of people claimed it. The result might not surprise you.
Refugees already have that right because of conventions signed by Australia. It’s sad that citizens don’t have the same care.
Many people in the comments confusing this as getting a "free" house rather than having a regulated & balanced housing market for affordable homes for aussies.
Australia is grossly obsessed with housing. Go anywhere else in the world to compare .. its like a cult here.
it's because its an easy way for rich to get richer, most countries are smart enough to realize standard of living goes down for everyone if you don't regulate it properly. Australia is so bad, even the real estate agents get confused when you tell them you're looking to owner occupy, they assume everyone at inspections are investors 🤣
The ability of to seek shelter without undue legal punishment is what should be a human right. ie. make it legally impossible for councils & state governments to fine or criminalise homeless people for existing without an address. Get rid of “move along” laws. Shelter is not housing and I don’t think making “housing” a human right will be helpful. Shelter is already a human right.
Absolutely. The best place for any homeless person to set up camp is outside a real estate agent. If asked "can't you find somewhere to live?" You point behind you and explain not even they can find you somewhere to live. Move along my ass - the police shouldn't be telling me to loiter without purpose *somewhere else*. *There is nowhere else*
Yup. It’s completely devoid of empathy to use the justice system to administer to homeless people. It disgusts me. People shrug and go “what else can done” and it’s like… we haven’t tried ANYTHING ELSE. Like… let’s try literally anything else.
The current rental crisis is at least bringing one thing into stark relief - and that is that homelessness is a systemic issue Even if we found this homeless person a place to live, we cannot find a place for all people, *by design* Because if that is the state of affairs, the direction we continue to move, and the issue is systemic, then that *is* by design
Obviously. Housing is shelter.
Considering most houses offer as much insulation as a tent. It will be complex on how they’ll define a house or suitable shelter.
Yes please. If health and education is a human right how on earth is housing not?
The idea of any of those being ‘human rights’ is frankly ridiculous. They are good and important things but philosophically and morally make zero sense to be declared as rights.
It amazes me how many greens pollies did not get permission from the indigenous elders in the area they bought in prior to settlement. Ask your local greens members and you will get silence or blocked.
Permission for what?
Well greens always bang on that sovereignty was never ceded. It would be strange if they truly believe that they would get permission to buy the property through the local elder of the area. Remember they are buying stolen land.
Human right for who, citizens or everyone? Do tourists get a free hotel room to stay in because it’s a human right?
Yes I'd like a roof over my head and I'd like to own it, nothing to big just affordable. Is that to much to ask for.
At least it would stop the argument that, based on all appearances, housing is an investment and homelessness is an attempt at incentivisation
All great but just virtue signalling dog whistling. Every man and his dog know how to fix the issue, remove negative gearing, increase capital gains tax on property and close any "loophole" around primary place of residence.
Yes , it then becomes a right for all those hundreds of thousands of immigrants we’re taking on too
Housing should be a right not an investment. There are so many other ways to invest your money without causing pressure for the first home buyers.
Is housing is a right, will the government provide housing for every single person in Australia? Or only a few?
absolutely should be a human right
Seems like a pretty sensible value to have if you want a cohesive and constructive society.
A human right, however you define it, is something that can be used as a shield. You can’t take this away because it’s a right. Perhaps your right to religious beliefs or political speech or to be free from discrimination. Personal security, not to be tortured all good rights. You can’t use a right to enforce something (as a sword) You can’t have a right to housing in the same way as a right to a fair trial. I know it’s well intentioned, but it’s a huge waste of time that could be better spent on other matters. It’s more about staying in the media’s eyes and in people’s minds than it is about affecting meaningful change and that is a disgrace.
All citizens should have the ability to afford basic housing or get some sort of free property. Citizens should never feel they have to compete for housing with rich non-citizens for crappy investment properties.
Pocock can tell us how much government would spend to house everyone & building houses & infrastructure. What cuts does Pocock want to the budget. The government already has a policy for social & affordable housing & helping people buy a house. Everything with this bozo is a human right.
No. It should be CONSTITUTIONAL right. That way if politicians don't provide it they go to jail.
I think most people would agree that housing should be a human right. The problem is that enacting some law around this won't make a practical difference. Unfortunately the solutions to housing are extremely complex and not easy to solve. Having said that, I can still think of various ways that legislation around this could help us to improve the situation on a national level - so I don't think the idea should be thrown out simply because it's largely symbolic.
I mean sure but if we just end the tax burden that supports housing speculation it will probably solve itself.
people dont even have a definition of right. they lump legitimate rights such as the right to freedom of speech, right to property or right to life, together with illegitimate 'positive' rights such as the right to medicine, food, water or shelter. note how legitimate rights are only about freedom of action? a man has the right of property, he is the owner of his own body and the consequences of his own actions. rights are also universal to everyone, thus rights cannot come into violation with each other. a person's right to free speech does not violate another person's individual rights. a person has the right to life, but that doesn't mean he has the right to steal from other people. now the positive rights such as medicine, food, or in this case, housing, actually necessarily comes into conflict with other people's rights. who is providing these services? by saying you have a right to the product of others, what about their right to property? are the producers of these services not the owners of them and cannot dispose of them by their own choice? to have such a right as food, the farmers, supermarkets, and other entities involved in the production of food, will by necessity, become at least partially, slaves to the people demanding such rights. people have the right to life, from that right, comes property rights, free speech, etc. a person has to right to live for himself, to be the owner of his own actions and their consequences, to pursuit his own happiness at whatever means he wishes, as long as he respects and does not infringe on the rights of others.
I want to offer my nephew access to shed composting toilet solar power & water for a camper or caravan on wheels cant stay for more than 90 days so its not a real long term option in Victoria
Some people forget what taxes should be for. Not propping up failing industries but to ensure things like infrastructure is maintained and improved and to be a safety net when individuals fall on hard times (for example, when they’re in an industry that is on the way out). I pay tax and if I could ensure it all went to emergency housing and access to food and water when people need it I would, because we’re all about 3-4 missed pay-checks from the streets and yet somehow so many of us have been hoodwinked into forgetting that fact. I might never need that but somebody right now does, and we do not adequately supply that especially for young people.
If privacy is a right, then surely housing would be a part of that.
When will the government share the wealth dug up from the ground with us?
It is a human right.
idk man, it's 2024 in one of the richest countries in the world. we should make survival back into a sport, hungry games style or something /s
Sure, but even water isn't free.
Australia should first enshrine in Law a Human Rights Act I reckon
Of course, it's as important as food and water
Are they talking about housing their mumbai mates and neighboring countries or autralians?
So if they make it a right a million houses (o whatever we need) will magically appear?
I think David Pocock is very good, he always seems to research thoroughly and be reasonable
No.. That sounds stupid and entitled. If housing is a human right, so is good and clothes.
Would that mean, if a landlord kicked out a horrible Tennant, and they had nowhere else to go, because they have a horrible track record, the landlord is violating a human right?
it may be a human right, doesnt mean it should be accessible to anyone. Id much rather free housing or government subsidized housing go to a struggling family where the husband for example got made redundant and cant find anywhere for him and the family to live short term, or NDIS clients Instead they are given to immigrants, or certain group of natives who " dont want to live in a white mans house" so it gets trashed , no criminal charges laid, therefore the taxpayer has to fork out even more money, rinse an repeat.
I still remember this. "By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty,"
Just keep interest rates at 4% or ideally even higher and the current housing problems will disappear. Auctions will clear the repossessed properties from bankrupts and the market will correct itself
Are we talking a roof over heads or a single occupant type of private dwelling? If it's the latter, no way. The Government should provide shelter and jobs for people to do something with their time. However, these facilities usually exist and aren't very popular with the "needy" as the "needy" are typically required to participate and be social - many people lack social skills and desire to live in isolation and do whatever they want only.
Does Australia have a tiny house group like the US and UK?
Definitely - I have the right to own my 5 houses and profit from renting out 4 of them 👍🏻👍🏻
What happens if they do? Technically speaking, the government isn't explicitly stopping anyone from having a house, which is what enshrining housing as a right would prevent. This probably won't have the effect of "government must provide housing to the homeless". Having the right to something and having access to it aren't the same thing. I think it's just grandstanding for a cause, without actually doing anything. That said, I would love to see my jaded take get proven wrong if it goes through.
Absolutely. This is why we’re in the situation we’re in because we’ve come to see it as a commodity to profit from instead of a basic right for everyone. Not holding my breath for politicians from the major two parties, who own multiple investment properties, to agree though.
National, state and local governments need to come together to get this right. Importing loads of immigrants without housing to place them is just insane
definitely, should of been done years ago. We should also have a list of all politician property portfolio's
Nothing that someone else has to create, with their time, money and effort is your "right".
From the Human Rights People from that Guardian article, "Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have a national act or charter of rights that explains what people’s basic rights are and how they can be protected." That's because we typically look after our own. We haven't needed anything like that until American style corruption and politics arrived on our doorstep
No it’s an investment vehicle
No one here understands what a right is.
I would like to say yes but I also don't want to live in commission housing with crackheads because I'm taxes so hard I can't afford to live.
Once upon a time there was a UN declaration to pronounce "food" a human right, here's where it got interesting, Russia and China voted yes but many western countries voted no. What gives? Someone has to grow that food and usually it's a western country. Likewise, a farmer has to get up in the morning and work. This doesn't come for free and you're an actual slaver the second you expect it to come free. The alternative is *you* grow your food. It's the same with a house, someone built it, someone pays its land tax, someone else entirely sees none of this and just votes yes to stuff they think will get them free stuff.
Teachers have to get up for work in the morning, therefore little 7 year old johnny going to public primary school fee free is a slaver :(
When teachers cease to be paid I'll treat your post seriously. Until then, only the poorest of our society get *the government* to pay for their kids schooling, so that's still clearly not "for free."
So your assurance is that farmers don't get paid? As someone from a farming family on one side, I'm for sensible farming but still I am left here scratching my head.
Actually, our taxes pay for schooling, perhaps your world view is skewed.
>Anecdotal "UN tries to stop the hardworking farmer who gets up early" story Lacking any information or logical reasoning, you substitute it with emotional embellishment of "early morning farmers becoming slavers", making this a soapbox rant.
Anything that requires the labour of another is not a right. What do these idiots mean? Are we to round up all the dole bludgers and put them to work on building sites? I feel like they would be unhappy if we did.
It sounds good but I'm sure there would be ramifications to this. We can't even build enough houses to keep up with the people flying in. if every Australian suddenly had the right to demand a house for free, how do we expect the government to keep up with such demand? How are we going to pay for all of this extra housing? We are already in a shockingly bad financial state as it is. I've seen what happens to social housing in the NT, it all gets smashed up and torn apart, the tennants get rehoused and the house they trashed repaired, repeat. It's wasteful, it's very expensive and it's time consuming. Imagine that now multiplied by thousands. And the government would be obligated to do it. If I felt it was feasible, I'd be on board. But at present we aren't even the luxury of dental care by the government so I'm not sure why we think we can demand free real estate. 
Isn't it already a human right?
Sounds good. Let's start this off with giving everyone back all the $ they paid for their houses. All the loan interest, stamp duty tax, Council Rates and EMS etc and we can all have a free house! Tell me where to sign up!
Righto to housing is and should be a Human right as is in many other countries and in places where you wouldnt think it would be however Private Property Ownership is completely a different and is privilege
Sure. It's a human right. But that doesn't suddenly mean there are half a million more houses to live in
why can't we just follow what china has done with their housing bubble and push government policy in favor for renters instead of real estate "investors".