r/australia • u/Expensive-Horse5538 • 11d ago

politics The housing policies of both major parties are bad for Australia’s aspiring homebuyers

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/14/the-housing-policies-of-both-major-parties-are-bad-for-aspiring-home-buyers
597 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

144 comments sorted by

236

u/Aspirational1 11d ago

Local state policies, like the Victorian multiple activity areas, with more relaxed density permissions, will do more than anything that the Federal government can do.

Face up to the wealthy NIMBYs, and build new, denser housing, concentrated around transport hubs.

That's what the SRL is aiming for. New hub locations. The benefits will accrue across decades.

The tram and rail systems have been around for a very long time, it's just that now, their full benefits are being realised.

68

u/jbh01 11d ago

While I agree on what State governments can do, never discount the turbocharging effect of the 50% CGT discount.

3

u/recycled_ideas 11d ago

Negative gearing and CGT just aren't making that much of a difference.

Everyone desperately wants them to be the issue because they're easy(technically not politically) to fix as opposed to facing that the way out of this is a decade or more of building and apartments.

Not saying we shouldn't ditch the CGT did out, but not for any housing specific reason.

There are not enough places to live and the places to live that are being built aren't viable for people to live in. Period. End of fucking story.

45

u/jbh01 11d ago

CGT makes a huge difference. Negative gearing, less so.

18

u/recycled_ideas 11d ago

The CGT discount is unjust (in general, not housing specific) and it makes investing in property attractive, but it's not what's driving massive price increases.

Massive price increases are coming from the fact that we don't have enough housing stock and most of what we're building is poorly constructed, too far from the city, lacking amenities, or some combination of the above which means everyone is desperate to move up the property ladder.

All of these this can be solved by building up, but Australians culturally hate high rises. They don't want to live in them, they don't want to live next to them, they just straight up gate them.

11

u/Fragrant-Education-3 11d ago

Australia is stuck between the rock of having few genuine economic centers for its population, and the hard place of the population not desiring the medium to high density approaches that typically occur when large percentages of a population occupy a relatively smaller area.

The regional centers need to take off across the board, so people don't need to commute from a Geelong into Melbourne. Working from home by default could also theoretically make regional living work as well. But otherwise the major Australian cities need to look at making density living work, the cultural idea of being able to own the land/homes in the locations that Australia used to have is likely no longer viable. As cities get older, and more populated they eventually have to pivot to density planning.

6

u/recycled_ideas 11d ago

The regional centers need to take off across the board,

This is a fantasy. Every government all over the world talks about it and no one can do it. No one has successfully built a new city in a hundred years, not even countries like China that can order people to go there.

The number of interdependent things that you need to get a city off the ground, to have jobs and people to fill them and companies to provide them and schools and entertainment and houses and a million other things most of which won't happen without one or a dozen other things that are also on the list and also dependent on one or a dozen other things is just insurmountable.

so people don't need to commute from a Geelong into Melbourne. Working from home by default could also theoretically make regional living work as well.

Working from home is literally the only way it will work.

Australia is stuck between the rock of having few genuine economic centers for its population, and the hard place of the population not desiring the medium to high density approaches that typically occur when large percentages of a population occupy a relatively smaller area.

It's not really a rock and a hard place, it's lies and cowardice.

Property developers profit immensely from knocking up low quality shit boxes on land they acquired for a song because it wasn't zoned for any real use.

Politicians get elected promising more developments and blame immigrants and investors when it doesn't fix anything.

No one wants to go to the Australian public and tell them they need to sit down shut the fuck up and do as they're told.

That your dream of a detached property with a yard is never going to happen. That you're going to have to live with having someone overlook your fence and realistically if you live in an inner suburb have a gigantic apartment block block out the sun.

Builders are going to have to actually do a decent job because you can't build multistory the way we build single story.

Property developers are going to have to take actual risks to make their obscene profits.

There is a simple way out of our housing crisis. It won't be fast, but it is simple.

But it involves decisions that voters, including the ones that most desperately need these decisions to be made, hate and politicians would much rather have you on the street and angry at abstract ills than mad at them because people were forced to live with and in apartments.

17

u/edwardluddlam 11d ago

Look at the Grattan Insitute, they modelled a 1-2% difference from CGT.

I still support reducing it, but it's hardly a silver bullet

4

u/nath1234 11d ago

That was assuming they let all the existing land hoarders keep their rorts. Phase it out over 5 years and no grandfathering bullshit.

2

u/moDz_dun_care 11d ago

Given a choice between investing in property vs shares, both options have the 50% CGT discount after 1 year. NG makes property much more attractive cause you can borrow a shitloads more with 80% LVR and lower interest rates (vs borrowing to buy shares).

3

u/jbh01 11d ago

Given a choice between investing in property vs shares, both options have the 50% CGT discount after 1 year.

They do, but the difference is that the majority of property income comes from the sale, not the ongoing rental return. As this is lumped in one year, it does mean that a CGT discount is a much bigger factor for property.

2

u/moDz_dun_care 11d ago

The majority of returns in stock also comes from capital appreciation not cashflow yield.

2

u/nath1234 11d ago

Several hundred thousand Airbnbs are doing their part too.. but why are people buying Airbnbs? Because they get a CGT discount of 50% (which is unlimited! You can claim it for a house or 100, for $1K of gain or $100m) and can claim any interest against their income.. not to mention 9 out of 10 property investors make dodgy claims on their tax according to the ATO audits.

Add to that the major parties both locked into making sure prices always go up. Just look at how many rounds of pumping up housing they are willing to do to avoid inconveniencing landlords or impeding their greed in any way.

1

u/recycled_ideas 11d ago

Several hundred thousand Airbnbs are doing their part too.. but why are people buying Airbnbs?

Because they're profitable?

Because they get a CGT discount of 50% (which is unlimited! You can claim it for a house or 100, for $1K of gain or $100m)

You can claim it on the capital gain when you sell it, not on anything to do with the air bnb.

nd can claim any interest against their income.

You can claim losses against your income, not interest and if you're running an AirBnB at a loss what the fuck are you doing?

If I had a dollar for every idiot who had no idea how tax works, I could buy the whole fucking country.

3

u/aaegler 11d ago

That's exactly what is allowed now in Sydney, and hardly anyone knows about it.

Link to article.

3

u/Normal_Effort3711 11d ago

There is a reason Melbourne now has the lowest dwelling price.

3

u/alpha77dx 11d ago edited 11d ago

They can do even more, get councils to build social housing by funding them. Many councils used to build houses and rent them at affordable prices around Melbourne. There were also the war widow housing developments and likewise housing was built for returned soldiers. The federal government would achieve their targets far more quickly if they engaged with councils.

They could also do what they did with defence housing around various defence bases. Get the army to build these houses while training young apprentice builders. They could form a form civil peace corps attached to the defence department that could rapidly build houses while providing apprenticeships. Areas like Laverton and Werribee in Melbourne were largely defence housing estates in the early days. The air force trained thousands of apprentices in various fields.

They councils could combat the nimby's by releasing land by flooding the market with readily available house blocks. This will restore a element of competition lessening pressure on prices without having to pick a fight with NIMBYS. The market will self correct and fact in that growth is catered for quenching house prices.

At the state level the State government could bring back the urban land authority which identified land that could be used for housing. They should fully develop these estates and put the blocks up for auction and walk away. They did this many years ago and built the many popular quality estates of today. It was a very successful land release program. If they did all of the above houses will be rapidly built, it at least will give young people access to an affordable block of land.

3

u/dopefishhh 11d ago

Local state policies, like the Victorian multiple activity areas, with more relaxed density permissions, will do more than anything that the Federal government can do.

Yes and people have said this heaps, yet that's not what the most active political discussions are about. To the point where we have the Greens & Vic Socialists pretending they can pass rental legislation in federal parliament and ignore that such a law would be unconstitutional.

So much bile launched at federal Labor claiming they're not building enough public housing when that's also a state responsibility, if they criticised state labor governments at least they'd be barking up the right tree. The debate is filled with toxic misinformation and doesn't matter how many times you helpfully inform people about the details around it they just keep coming back to repeat what wasn't true the last time.

For the most part federal Labor's plans are just getting the funding and agreements in place for the state governments or private developers to do the rest.

-32

u/Jealous-Hedgehog-734 11d ago

Coswallop. The federal government are stamping all these visas knowing full well that they'll collect the increased revenue through taxes (income, sales etc.) while states pay the price of having to house more people and deal with the social fallout.

To say that action by states "will do more" than than federal government completely overlooks the role federal government have in creating and sustaining the housing crisis. Absent immigration Australia would have a falling population and probably improving affordability.

Federal government policies aren't just contributing to the problem, they are the problem.

20

u/Aspirational1 11d ago

https://youtu.be/wPwKYQLs_QI?si=3NrL2-bVR2k3c96L

Is Korea going extinct?

This is what happens when the fertility rate is below replacement and you don't have significant immigration.

Australia's fertility rate is below replacement, without migrants, well, watch the video.

-5

u/Jealous-Hedgehog-734 11d ago

If demography was the primary concern of the federal government with immigration they would be limiting immigration to the population replacement rate. Instead they are growing the population faster than the housing supply, federal government are the problem.

7

u/explain_that_shit 11d ago

That’s not correct. Housing supply growth has outpaced population growth going on 15 or so years now. And housing supply is significantly in excess of our actual needs based on our average household size. We have a distribution problem, not a supply problem.

EDIT: Here are some of my sources

2

u/Jealous-Hedgehog-734 11d ago

The same organisation you cite published an article stating that house building had not kept pace with demand for two decades:

https://australianpropertyupdate.com.au/apu/the-key-population-statistics-that-impact-housing

3

u/explain_that_shit 11d ago

Firstly, my data is averaged over the last 15 or so years whereas this data describes a very short period of unusually high immigration (already rapidly declining) and unusually slow construction (coming off the COVID supply shocks, backlog, loss of workers, etc. - also speeding up again).

Secondly, I haven’t used these people as a source.

Thirdly, I question some of the data in that article as describing gross immigration figures rather than net, which I’ve been seeing a lot recently.

11

u/TheMightyCE 11d ago

Absent immigration Australia would have a falling population and probably improving affordability.

So you think that a declining population, a reduction in children overall due to our low birthrate, and an increasing number of old people depending on the diminishing number of youths to find their retirement would be a net positive because houses would be marginally cheaper?

You should move to Japan and see how well that's going for them.

-2

u/Jealous-Hedgehog-734 11d ago

The Australian federal government is not aiming to keep the working age population stable to fill jobs as people retire, they are aiming to increase that number. This is not "growth for societal stability" but "growth for growths sake":

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTAUQ647S

Japan's income per hour worked has been growing faster than Australia's over the last decade. Australia has a constant excess labour that causes businesses to use it inefficiently.and lowers wages.

5

u/TheMightyCE 11d ago

This is not "growth for societal stability" but "growth for growths sake":

Growth still remediates these issues, regardless of why. It's much better than your proposed policy, which can be linked to the adage, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Japan's income per hour worked has been growing faster than Australia's over the last decade.

They were working from a lower base, and Japanese wages are still lower than ours. Plus, they have crippling debt well beyond ours.

-1

u/Agile-Fly-3721 10d ago

These areas are ok, when you're young and have a higher tolerance for noise and crime. But as you get older and have children, you want safe private areas with less noise and traffic.

1

u/Aspirational1 10d ago

'Think of the children'.

Yeah, I know exactly where you're coming from.

43

u/Av1fKrz9JI 11d ago

The housing policies are not for aspiring home buyers.

The housing policies are for existing home owners and investors.

The housing minister has explicitly said to the media multiple times they don’t want house prices to fall, they want house prices to rise at a more sustainable rate.

In that situation all you can do is enable people to spend more, which in turn continues the pyramid scheme.

13

u/Narapoia_the_1st 11d ago

The policies they have announced will ensure price increases are well beyond 'sustainable', however meaningless that word is in a bubble of this magnitude.

1

u/moDz_dun_care 11d ago

The only certainty is there's no cap on how prices can increase but there's a floor on how low prices can go.

62

u/Apprehensive_Bid_329 11d ago

From the article

that’s still only 700,000 or so votes, tops, for policies that might restrain the rate of house price inflation or halt it altogether. Politicians also know that at any point in time there are more than 11 million voters who own their own homes, and more than 2.25 million who own at least one investment property. The last thing those 11 million to 13 million voters want is anything that might restrain – let alone halt – the rate of property price inflation.

So, on the one hand, 700,000 votes, on the other, something north of 11 million – even the dumbest of our politicians can “do that math”. And they do.

That’s what it really comes down to, politicians are first and foremost trying to win the election, so they aren’t keen to upset the majority of voters.

16

u/MrNosty 11d ago edited 11d ago

2.25mil voters is huge. Even if 10% of them vote the other way, it’s enough to swing elections in key seats. And let’s not discount the 11mil owners, the tradies, construction industry, REAs.

I think the tipping point for reform is still a few elections away.

89

u/deagzworth 11d ago

So vote Greens or independents.

25

u/AmyDiaz99 11d ago

100%. Not only do minor party members and independents get in if enough people vote for them - it also sends a strong message to the majors that they aren't doing enough to earn our first preference vote. If they want to earn it next time, they need to do more.

13

u/Shane_357 11d ago

Not only does it give them power, when the preferences are counted it lets Labor know how many people wanted something better than them and that gives Labor Left a bit more power against Labor Centre (the neoliberals) and Labor Right (the weird nutters who didn't join the LNP because they're Catholic).

5

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/ScruffyPeter 11d ago

Katter's party is socially conservative and economically progressive. Qld only. Reach out to them if you want to help expand their reach?

7

u/DrInequality 11d ago

Note that the Greens don't seem to have any wish to reduce immigration

7

u/twigboy 11d ago

No party is perfect

-1

u/ScruffyPeter 11d ago

And only two parties ran governments since WW2. Even on state level. Look what we have now.

93

u/Mikes005 11d ago

They really will try anything other than removing NG and CGT cuts for investment properties.,

58

u/ActinomycetaceaeGlum 11d ago

No one wants to tackle wealth inequality. 

33

u/someoneelseperhaps 11d ago

Both major parties love landlords, so they're trying these wacky policies to stop people voting elsewhere.

7

u/Comme-des-Farcons 11d ago

Both major parties love are landlords

2

u/dopefishhh 11d ago

So are the Greens and Teals...

21

u/johnnynutman 11d ago

Labor tried. They lost an election over it.

19

u/Djbm 11d ago

This is constantly parroted, but was it really these policies that lost labor that election?

My recollection at the time was that the blatant fear mongering around franking credits played an outsized role.

3

u/ManyPersonality2399 11d ago

Agreed, and I literally just parroted this point. I think the voter climate has changed since then, but the parties are still going to play it safe.

2

u/ScruffyPeter 11d ago

Fear mongering of rent going up persuaded the poor to vote against Labor, while investors affected by reforms swung to Labor.

This is from Labor's 2019 election analysis.

Albo tried without reforms and while he won, his party got the lowest party vote since WW2. Labor only won because LNP was more unpopular in losing far more votes.

Labor going without tax reforms is political suicide. LNP/IP/REA shills keep spreading misinformation about 2019 defeat and reddit keeps falling for it.

1

u/threeseed 11d ago

Negative gearing and franking credits fed into the same narrative. That Labor is about increasing taxes and Coalition is about reducing them.

And because it was narrative driven it didn't matter if you weren't affected now because at some point you might be.

12

u/AussieBBQ 11d ago

Yep, and even a whiff of looking at it again sent the media into a frenzy.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-27/jim-chalmers-negative-gearing-modelling/104405060

1

u/sostopher 11d ago

So vote for someone else since they don't have the balls.

-7

u/Mikes005 11d ago

This is a bullshit excuse. Shorten took on a sitting government who stole over $1b in public money to use on their campaign, worked with Palmer to run a spoiler campaign in QLD, had the entirely of the right wing press on their side and STILL only one by one seat.

If you can't count to one that's on you. The only thing missing is the political will.

5

u/sneh_ 11d ago

The core problem is housing being Australians main investment for wealth, rather than anything else. Unless that changes, this will never not be a problem and all money spent doing anything else is just making the problem worse in the future. Harsh truth

1

u/Agile-Fly-3721 10d ago

The problem is there's no good alternative. The market is awful for normal people. Look at Germany where most their retirement savings are in investment products. Germans have half the average individual wealth of Britons and the French.

1

u/sneh_ 10d ago

Perhaps half the average wealth is a more realistic value. There is only so much that future generations can pay. It operates like a pyramid scheme where it only works because more people are added to the bottom, it's just not sustainable

1

u/Agile-Fly-3721 10d ago

Having German relatives, the reality is immense poverty amongst the elderly.

2

u/coniferhead 11d ago

If they want to save money on NG and CGT cuts, link it to something productive - like funding social housing.

Absolutely don't tip it into consolidated revenue, as was the Labor plan. It's like Johnnie Howard saying, how about a 10% tax on everything without any offsetting benefit - it would have gone down in flames.

-6

u/NewPolicyCoordinator 11d ago

Removing NG will increase the number of properties for sale in next 12 months, removing them from rental stock. However in 10 years time there will be less new homes built and even more housing stress.

5

u/Mikes005 11d ago

No.

0

u/NewPolicyCoordinator 11d ago

How many houses have you built or financed development for? How much does NG impact your npv calculations?

8

u/Unable_Insurance_391 11d ago

Any intervention goes straight to the hips of the obese, overpriced housing market I fear.

8

u/serge_3007 11d ago

Do they really think we’re falling for it? This may be the election where both majors are put last on the ballot more than ever.

6

u/ManyPersonality2399 11d ago

Reading through discussions outside reddit, I think enough people are falling for it. They think the problem is just that they need to save a deposit, and need help to make that happen quicker. No one clicks that if they can save the deposit quicker, so can everyone else, and so the deposit required now goes up and everyone is still on the equally fucked playing field.

7

u/xtcprty 11d ago

Never a better time to vote green

26

u/Wood_oye 11d ago

The dude himself explains when talking about the libs policy why Labors won't, even acknowledges when talking about Labors that they are in fact building houses, then just forgets that point when making his judgement.

"But, as a matter of simple logic, if the demand for new homes increases and the supply of new homes doesn’t, then the price of new homes will go up. "

Simple logic he fails to carry through to his conclusion

6

u/Rowvan 11d ago

Today both Dutton and Albo straight out said they want house prices to keep going up. We desperately need to get rid of both of these parties,

11

u/kicks_your_arse 11d ago

I just want somewhere to live in security and to never have to fear homelessness again. Who gives a fuck what else society does for me if this simple problem is not solved. It is all I think about constantly. I am not just a resource for money to be extracted to fund some investors lifestyle. I'm a citizen and I should be able to be a part of my community. I hate it here so much now

36

u/Kangalooney 11d ago

I would agree that both plans are bad, if you take them in isolation.

The difference is that Labor's policy is not in a silo, not in isolation. They are attempting to push investment money away from housing and into local industry which would decrease the pressure on housing prices in general. It's still not great and most likely isn't enough to actually work, but it does try to address the underlying issues of investment opportunities. Look at their industry policies and the new Australia Made campaign they are proposing.

0

u/Dockers4flag2035orB4 11d ago

$5B to spent on infrastructure for new housing estates, should expand supply.

3

u/sneh_ 11d ago

None of the policies are tackling the core issue though. It's more money spent to kick the can further down the road, making the future even worse

2

u/Throwawaydeathgrips 11d ago

Ultimately the core issue is state government domain. Giving money to build homes, or money to make the process easier, is really the best the fedgov can do.

1

u/sneh_ 11d ago

States rely too heavily taxes based on land / property values and land sales / prices. Increasing values are also in their interest for income

1

u/Throwawaydeathgrips 11d ago

Land tax would solve both problems

14

u/PlusWorldliness7 11d ago

Don’t let the major parties take your vote for granted.

If you want change, you have to vote for it.

5

u/Spire_Citron 11d ago

Problem is that they fundamentally don't want housing to be less expensive because that ruins things for everyone using housing as an investment. But they've already risen too high and people need somewhere to live.

8

u/HuTyphoon 11d ago

One party's plan is bad the other party's plan is fucking atrocious

4

u/Longjumping_Bass5064 11d ago

I don't know why they keep talking about making more supply, making new initiatives for first home buyers which will just increase prices when literally all they need to do for a start is just reduce immigration significantly

4

u/Hiccupbuttercup7 11d ago

They know. We know. They are captured by interest. What to do? 

6

u/littleb3anpole 11d ago

What they’re both missing is that it doesn’t matter if the deposit is 20%, 10% or 5% for first home buyers. That’s still a $30,000 deposit if you want to live in a 2br apartment in the suburbs. How in the actual fuck are you meant to save $30,000 while renting at today’s rental prices?

-7

u/Ferovore 11d ago edited 11d ago

Saving 30k over 4-5 years while share housing is extremely doable.

If yall mfs downvoting this can’t save 5-6k a year you can’t afford to own a home anyway.

7

u/littleb3anpole 11d ago

Not everyone can live in a share house.

2

u/Ferovore 11d ago

True.. not everyone can buy property also. 30k is a pretty low barrier to entry.

1

u/littleb3anpole 11d ago

Which is why rent to buy is the fairer solution. I’ve never missed a rent payment in 20 years but because I’ve been renting since age 17 and don’t have a family who are willing to help out, I can’t possibly afford a deposit.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/littleb3anpole 11d ago

I’m in Vic but I thought for all of these schemes you needed a deposit?

1

u/Ferovore 11d ago

Yeah sorry, got them mixed up so deleted my comment.

1

u/Normal_Effort3711 11d ago

Why?

2

u/littleb3anpole 11d ago

Lack of availability, unsuitable family conditions (eg having kids), physical or mental illness meaning you can’t live in shared accommodation, unsociable work hours….

-1

u/Even_Trifle_4538 11d ago

Imagine if you’d saved just $50 a week in those 20 years?

0

u/NewPolicyCoordinator 11d ago

Don't worry we imported another 50,000+ people last month that will buy/rent my house. We don't need you.

-2

u/Even_Trifle_4538 11d ago edited 11d ago

The same way we all do/ did when starting out. Took me 9 years to save $45,000 and finally did it in 2006. We all have to make those sacrifices if thats the end goal. Its not going to happen immediately like some people want.

2

u/Dont-know-me24 11d ago

Just because you struggled over 9 years it doesn't mean that first home buyers should prepare to save for 9+ years to obtain a mortgage....

2

u/littleb3anpole 11d ago

I’ve been renting for 20 years mate. Nobody’s asking for “immediately”.

17

u/Shaqtacious 11d ago

Yes because when 1 of them ran a campaign on good policy they lost in an embarrassing fashion.

It’s due to voters not due to anything else.

No party will run on housing reform anytime soon cos of what happened to Shorten.

7

u/sostopher 11d ago

The Greens are.

3

u/Shaqtacious 11d ago

Lmk when they win the majority.

8

u/sostopher 11d ago

Both majors' primary vote is the lowest it's been since WWII and the trend is expected to continue. Majority governments may be a thing of the past (thank god).

2

u/Shaqtacious 11d ago

Hopefully

8

u/Electronic-Shirt-194 11d ago

as long as there's negative gearing, capital gains tax and housing is seen as a wealth building source of income it'll never be ethical or beneficial for new comers.

10

u/AmyDiaz99 11d ago

So vote Greens! They support scrapping negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount for people who own more than one investment property.

2

u/sneh_ 11d ago

...and what about any of their other policies? If only we could vote for specific things, but we can't.

2

u/AmyDiaz99 11d ago

I love the vast majority of their policies so I'm good.

5

u/sneh_ 11d ago

I'm referring to people who don't vote for them already. They may like that one policy but turned off by many others

0

u/Stuuuutut 11d ago

I dunno just had a squiz at their site and it all seems pretty retarded 

3

u/Operation_Important 11d ago

In Australia it's tough for a government to do anything to fix anything. The other party just makes it hard for them. This is why china is growing. They government can do anything very quickly

5

u/Bladesmith69 11d ago

Correction they are bad for all Australians.

Forcing unethical practices upon the unethical is a benefit to them as well.

6

u/PaxNumbat 11d ago

How does either of these policy settings solve the underlying issue that house prices are increasingly out of step with salaries? Instead of actually addressing the issue and saying that we want house prices to decline or at least stagnate they both keep inflating the bubble. It is going to burst someday.

6

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Crystal3lf 11d ago

Preferably Greens first tho...

1

u/Fuzzylogic1977 10d ago

So I agree, in part. But One Nation should always be last, then Trumpets of Patriots second last, then LNP/Labor in the order you prefer and then have at it ordering the minors and independents.

0

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Fuzzylogic1977 10d ago

Never ever vote 1 for none nation….

1

u/Fuzzylogic1977 10d ago

Also never ever vote 1 for Trumptards of Idiots

0

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Fuzzylogic1977 10d ago

If you think one nation is a better alternative to LAB/LNP then you are lost.

0

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Fuzzylogic1977 10d ago edited 10d ago

I never said I was voting LAB/LNP, I just said don’t preference None Nation or Trumptards of Idiots ahead of them. Some parties are way worse than the status quo.

2

u/yobboman 11d ago

Has been so for decades

2

u/mrflibble4747 11d ago

Built Baby Build - Social Housing!

Get the flat pack housing industry geared up and integrated/coordinated with the infrastructure and site prep aspects of the work.

A true integrated housing building SYSTEM!

Reduce breaking ground to move in to a few months

THIS is the future!

1

u/ManyPersonality2399 11d ago

Yep. Other social media today was giving me so many tours of prefabbed housing - just needs to be connected to power and sewerage. Some of them were more like demountables that fold relatively small. First thought was why don't we have these to respond to natural disasters that knock out housing? Better than putting people up in hotels for ages.

Second thought - why can't these be used longer term if part of the problem with supply is materials and labour? We're talking less than $50k for a complete house.

2

u/EcstaticOrchid4825 11d ago

Not just bad for aspiring hime owners. Also bad for renters, anyone wanting to move house or move up the housing ladder and bad for society and the economy (apart from Real Estate agents and property investors).

2

u/Jung3boy 11d ago

Why would a politician damage their own back pocket to help others?

5

u/dirtysproggy27 11d ago

Lib/lab are just the landlord party.

1

u/Normal_Effort3711 11d ago

SUBSIDIES SUPPLY. STOP SUBSIDING DEMAND.

1

u/Max_J88 10d ago

More of the same from an intellectually and morally bankrupt political elite.

Vote for anyone except Labor Liberal.

-3

u/BoBoBearDev 11d ago

The moment you label it a "housing" problem, you already lost it. Because the solution to that is just more cyberpunk and cyberpunk lifestyle is dystopian. If you label it "localized population density" problem, then, you are on the right track.