Labor played the Medicare card in its victory. Now it wants to own housing
On the back of the party's federal success in using Medicare as the centrepiece of its election campaign, Labor for Housing has been established to campaign for YIMBYism and ensure the party becomes defined by its commitment to solving the housing crisis, according to one of its founders.
Senior member of Labor left and Inner West Mayor Darcy Byrne said housing had to be a 'moral and political cause' for the party if it is to have any chance of solving the crisis gripping the nation.
'We have the union movement to campaign on Labor's agenda for workers' rights. We also need a grassroots movement to build popular support for Labor's solutions to the housing crisis,' he said.
'Just as Medicare is both a government policy and a Labor cause, our policies to fix the housing crisis must be supported by a concerted, grassroots, political campaign. If we want Labor's housing policies to succeed, then we need to go out into the community and advocate for them.'
Senior Labor sources, not authorised to comment on the federal campaign, were concerned the Greens managed to define themselves as the party of housing, even if the party's policies were going to do little to increase the lack of supply.
The federal government has an ambitious goal to build 1.2 million homes over the next five years to meet the chronic shortfall in supply, however, it is lagging well behind that target. NSW must build 75,000 a year over the same period to meet its target under the National Housing Accord but Premier Chris Minns has conceded his government will not achieve that.
David Borger, chair of Housing Now, an alliance of 'unlikely bedfellows' advocating for more housing, said political parties have for too long courted the anti-development vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
8 minutes ago
- ABC News
Vote counting done, the deal-making begins for Tasmania's next government
So here it is. The final seat chart for Tasmania's parliament: Liberals with 14, Labor with 10, five Greens and six other members of the crossbench. Sound familiar? Well, aside from some shuffling of the deckchairs, the 2025 Tasmanian election — not to be confused with the 2024 one (although you'd be forgiven for doing so) — ended up almost exactly where it was before Premier Jeremy Rockliff pulled the trigger. We can get to the whole what was the point later, but there is one rather vital question that has yet to be answered — who will be the government? Gone are the days when who would form government was known on election night. And, apparently, gone are the days when knowing the final makeup of parliament means we know which party will be leading the state at the end of the year. That answer may not be known for over a month. But at least the players are known, because the pathways to government or a no-confidence motion have become slightly clearer. Let's start with the Liberals on 14 seats. That may seem, on the face of things, to be a better chance. Whichever party hopes to form government will need 18 votes on their side. Finding four votes from a crossbench of 11 does not sound that hard in theory — until you start to break down who is in the crossbench. The Greens won't be offering up their five. Craig Garland is so infuriated by the way the Liberals have handled Marinus Link that he would be willing to vote for a no-confidence motion. Kristie Johnston voted for the last no-confidence motion and, while she hasn't ruled out offering supply and confidence, it may not be encouraging. That's six, maybe seven votes down, leaving four for the Liberals to truly court, with three of them newbies. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers' Carlo Di Falco and former Launceston Councillor George Razay have both said they are open to working with either side. For the record, so has anti-salmon campaigner Peter George, but his progressive values don't mesh particularly well with either major party. The easiest person for the Liberals get, or in this case keep onside, is independent David O'Byrne. Mr O'Byrne offered support in the last parliament, voted against the no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff and has spoken about how difficult it was for Labor to govern with 10 when there were just 25 members of the lower house as opposed to the 35 they now have. Mind you, last election Labor ruled out trying to form government, so Mr O'Byrne had no other option. As a former Labor leader with those values, he has to entertain the idea. Labor's rather mammoth effort of securing eight votes is made so much easier by the fact the Greens want to engage with it. Greens Leader Rosalie Woodruff gave Labor Leader Dean Winter the opportunity to work together during that weird time between the no-confidence motion and the election. Mr Winter flat-out refused. But things look very different from the other side of this election. The party is out of options, down on votes, and staring down four years of opposition, assuming this parliament makes it that long. The very fact that Mr Winter is playing phone tag with Dr Woodruff says it all. But the two clearly have some different ideas about how a minority Labor government might work. Labor is continuing to insist it will not do a deal with the Greens, while Dr Woodruff maintains there must be an agreement for it to work. She may not be sure what that looks like, but has said "there is no possibility of any minority government without some movement". That suggests compromise. So, is Labor just playing semantics with the word deal? Will it accept a so-called agreement with the Greens? They will be roasted by the Liberals if they do, but how much does that matter if the Libs are the ones sitting on the Opposition benches? Perhaps, Labor thinks it can avoid doing any sort of agreement with The Greens. After all, the Greens seem very determined to kick out the Rockliff Government — even more so post Marinus drama — and Labor is their only path to do so. Maybe that is all Labor has to offer up. Be it on the Greens if they want to be the key reason the Liberals stay in power. But there is a middle ground. The parties' values overlap, why not lean into that? After all, it was the Greens and Labor, with others on the crossbench, that banded together last parliament to lower the political donation disclosure threshold to $1,000, introduce industrial manslaughter laws and decriminalise begging. Surely working together could be about finding the middle space in the Venn diagram where no one compromises their values. Banning conversion therapy, working towards a treaty for First Nations peoples and strengthening the Integrity Commission are a few commonalities that spring to mind. If Labor gets the Greens on board, and with Craig Garland's vote, the party is only crossbenchers away from seizing power through a vote of no confidence. Of course, it may not come to that, but the backup plan is looking viable. And how wild would that be? Labor, which recorded its lowest ever primary vote, taking government and installing a premier that could not even pull a quota in his own right. If it pulls this off, Labor MPs will make up just over half of the 18 votes that they need in the lower house. What mandate do they really have? Then again, Tasmanians voted for 11 MPs that are neither Labor nor Liberal and the vast majority of those 11 MPs hold values that are far closer to Labor than the Liberals. Whether it can be called a progressive parliament is debatable. Winter's 'jobs jobs jobs' Labor is big on industries like mining, forestry and aquaculture and rarely delves into social issues. In fact, some have observed Mr Rockliff appears more socially progressive. But it certainly is not a Liberal friendly parliament either. They may have seen an uptick in their primary vote of more than three per cent and Mr Rockliff's 22,000 first preference votes, but their right-wing values do not appear to have won over the vast majority of Tasmanians. If the result was a true endorsement of the Liberals, wouldn't they have gained a single seat? In the end, all of this pondering does not matter, because both parties want government. One is trying to keep it, the other trying to claim it — and that means it is going to take a while. It is unclear exactly when Tasmanians will know who is going the lead the state. But while the parties play their power games, parliament is paused. No legislation is being passed, no big brave decisions (save Marinus) are being made — and the state is effectively left on standby.
Perth Now
38 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Australia urged to 'bite the bullet' on tax breaks
Working Australians will be locked out of home ownership unless the government winds back property tax breaks, a major union body has warned. As the federal government seeks ways to reinvigorate the nation's languishing productivity, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has urged the government to reform the tax system and make housing affordable. Tax concessions like negative gearing, which allows investors to claim deductions on losses, and the capital gains tax discount, which halves the amount of tax paid by those who sell assets owned for a year or more, have incentivised property investment and tied up capital that could otherwise be invested more productively, according to the union. "Working people can no longer afford to live near where they work and young people are locked out of the housing market and locked into high rents," ACTU secretary Sally McManus said. "It's just not right and has to change." The union has proposed limiting negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to a single investment property, though those tax breaks would be grandfathered for five years on properties that already benefit, giving investors time to adjust. But such reforms have historically been political kryptonite for Labor, with a proposal to limit negative gearing contributing to its narrow defeat at the 2019 election. Even in the aftermath of its significant election win in May, the party has largely avoided the topic and attempts at tax reform in recent years have been met with vocal opposition. The government's bill to lift taxes on super balances above $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent has proved controversial among industry giants and the coalition. But Ms McManus insisted the system needs to change. "We've got to bite the bullet," Ms McManus told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. "Otherwise we're just saying, 'too bad young people, you're not going to be able to ever own a home'." The union has also urged the government to implement a minimum 25 per cent tax rate for individuals who earn more than $1 million and for family trusts. Labor is preparing to host an economic roundtable later in August that will focus on lifting living standards by improving productivity, building resilience and strengthening the budget. Unions, business representatives and a host of government and economic figures have been invited to offer their answers.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
ACTU Secretary Sally McManus calls for one property limit on negative gearing tax breaks
The Australian Council of Trade Unions will call for bold reform to negative gearing and the capital gains tax at the government's productivity roundtable this month, proposing the tax breaks be limited to one investment property. Sally McManus, the union's secretary, told ABC's Insiders the current arrangements should continue for five years but after that date "we've got to bite the bullet". "Otherwise, we're just saying 'too bad young people, you're not going to be able to ever own a home'," she said. "Since 2019, the problem has just got worse. It's going to continue to get worse unless the government is brave enough to do something about it." Labor took negative gearing reforms from opposition to the 2016 and 2019 federal elections, at which they were defeated. Ahead of this year's election it emerged that Treasurer Jim Chalmer had asked his department to model the impact of changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hosed down speculation Labor was planning to scale back the tax breaks. Ms McManus did not divulge whether she believed the government, after its landslide victory earlier this year, would go for the proposal but stressed that the union would "go and argue it". "In the end, the government will make their decisions based on what they think is in the national interest. We would say that it is in the national interest," she said. The ACTU's proposal would raise about $1.5 billion in tax revenue each year, according to Ms McManus, who added that those with investment properties would have time to adjust their portfolios. "Part of the problem is that we've been keeping a whole lot of capital in housing. And it's not those people's fault. They've done that because it has worked for them and they've made smart decisions around that," she said. "But it's also meant that capital is not being invested in areas that are going to increase productivity, like Australian businesses and other ways that it can be invested." Nearly half of all Australian landlords had negatively geared properties, according to figures released in December, that showed the highest earners are hauled in tens of billions of dollars from tax concessions and loopholes. Mr Chalmers has signalled he will use the three-day roundtable to seek new economic reforms, prioritising "consensus" among unions, business and economists. He has said he wants any reform proposals brought to the roundtable to be budget neutral or budget positive. Earlier this week, the Productivity Commission released the first of several reports requested by Mr Chalmers in the lead-up to the roundtable, in which it called for a 20 per cent tax rate on profits for companies with revenue of up to $1 billion. That would represent a significant cut for all but the largest companies from the current rate, which is 25 per cent for companies with turnover under $50 million and 30 per cent for all others. It also called for a new 5 per cent tax on net cashflow rather than profits, which could see some large companies pay a higher rate but would provide immediate tax relief for smaller companies seeking to build their capital.
