Latest news with #Labor
The Advertiser
35 minutes ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
You know who could fix our housing crisis? The Albanese from 30 years ago
With the unwavering confidence of a prime minister backed by a decisive mandate (from 34.6 per cent of voters?), Anthony Albanese has warned the incoming crossbench to "get out of the way and let the private sector build [more housing]." That sector presides over a projected 262,000 home undershoot on the government's five-year target of 1.2 million new homes. Rewind to 1996. In his first speech to parliament, a 33-year-old Albanese stated that his "democratic socialist" politics partly developed from his upbringing in public housing. It is easy to conclude that Albanese was merely strumming the same air guitar version of democratic socialism to which some Labor Left circles still hold. This consists of entirely liberal platitudes about a more generous social safety net funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Worse, Albanese now appears to revel in occupying the political centre. This is a person who spent the lead-up to Labor's 2019 election defeat unmistakably positioning himself to outflank Bill Shorten from the right. During the recent election, Albanese declared: "I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist." Gough Whitlam admitted the same to Chairman Mao Zedong in 1973. But the scope and scale of Whitlam's fleeting three years in office contrasts jarringly with the near invisible size of the timid half-measures that have passed for reform under Albanese's Labor Party. The current historical moment calls for nothing less than the democratic socialism to which the young Albanese laid claim. Nowhere is this more evident than housing. 2636 construction companies were declared insolvent in the financial year to March. Large swathes of housing projects have stalled due to rising costs, despite having already received approvals. Some are already indirectly supported through Albanese's Housing Australia Future Fund. The simple truth is that most of these-and many other potential-projects could move forward were they not contingent on the time-wasting web of competing private property developers, construction companies, and investors seeking ever more complex ways to recover costs plus a rate of return. Unlike for-profit businesses, government-owned corporations (such as Australia Post) can run on a break-even basis, or at a loss. This means housing construction can in principle be undertaken by government at lower cost. There are limits to how much indirect government support can be justified before the very need for private sector involvement is called into question. When these concessions become too generous, they look more like a direct transfer of public resources to boost private profits. The government wants many more houses to be built. Yet when, for instance, construction companies fail in the market, they do not pay the social cost of losing yet more skilled construction workers to the unemployment queue, or the mining and manufacturing industries. All of this suggests the need for a genuine democratic socialist housing plan. Simply put, the market is too slow, wasteful, and unpredictable. Imagine the federal government starts by purchasing failing small to medium construction companies, and then controlling stakes in the large Australian construction corporations. Existing managers and workers could be reoffered their positions on Commonwealth salaries. In parallel, the government could establish a federal property developer that is statutorily tasked with coordinating the construction of affordable public housing, guided by annual and five-year construction targets. Federal government ministers in regular contact with state and territory counterparts could sit on the developer's board, enabling a more rational division of resources and workers between national and sub-national infrastructure projects. How would this be paid for? First, the economic research shows that this kind of arrangement would probably more than pay for itself through flow-on effects between industries. Second, the profits of more successful large companies in the government's construction industry portfolio could be used to prop up loss-making companies. Third, a major source of money is found in the portion of national income being paid out as rent for housing. This amounted to around $80.58 billion over the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 alone. The vast majority of this accrued to private landlords. MORE OPINION: As a federal property developer acquires more private land, a larger portion of these revenues could be freed up for reinvestment into public housing. Is this not a recipe for cosy deals between the Labor government and unions, at taxpayers' expense? Well, again in his first speech to parliament, the young Albanese convincingly reassured us that he has "always been a strong advocate for a pro-active, efficient and dynamic public sector. The ideologically driven view that the public sector is a huge monolith which exhausts economic and human resources must be challenged." Pro-housing supply crossbench parties in the upcoming 48th Parliament can and should introduce, scrutinise, and improve detailed legislation that makes these ideas real and constitutionally workable. The jury is still very much out on whether these overtures would be enough to rekindle the democratic socialist spark of Albanese's youth. If not, he must answer to the almost two-thirds of voters who did not give the Labor Party their first preference. For many of these people, big ambition on housing is the order of the day. With the unwavering confidence of a prime minister backed by a decisive mandate (from 34.6 per cent of voters?), Anthony Albanese has warned the incoming crossbench to "get out of the way and let the private sector build [more housing]." That sector presides over a projected 262,000 home undershoot on the government's five-year target of 1.2 million new homes. Rewind to 1996. In his first speech to parliament, a 33-year-old Albanese stated that his "democratic socialist" politics partly developed from his upbringing in public housing. It is easy to conclude that Albanese was merely strumming the same air guitar version of democratic socialism to which some Labor Left circles still hold. This consists of entirely liberal platitudes about a more generous social safety net funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Worse, Albanese now appears to revel in occupying the political centre. This is a person who spent the lead-up to Labor's 2019 election defeat unmistakably positioning himself to outflank Bill Shorten from the right. During the recent election, Albanese declared: "I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist." Gough Whitlam admitted the same to Chairman Mao Zedong in 1973. But the scope and scale of Whitlam's fleeting three years in office contrasts jarringly with the near invisible size of the timid half-measures that have passed for reform under Albanese's Labor Party. The current historical moment calls for nothing less than the democratic socialism to which the young Albanese laid claim. Nowhere is this more evident than housing. 2636 construction companies were declared insolvent in the financial year to March. Large swathes of housing projects have stalled due to rising costs, despite having already received approvals. Some are already indirectly supported through Albanese's Housing Australia Future Fund. The simple truth is that most of these-and many other potential-projects could move forward were they not contingent on the time-wasting web of competing private property developers, construction companies, and investors seeking ever more complex ways to recover costs plus a rate of return. Unlike for-profit businesses, government-owned corporations (such as Australia Post) can run on a break-even basis, or at a loss. This means housing construction can in principle be undertaken by government at lower cost. There are limits to how much indirect government support can be justified before the very need for private sector involvement is called into question. When these concessions become too generous, they look more like a direct transfer of public resources to boost private profits. The government wants many more houses to be built. Yet when, for instance, construction companies fail in the market, they do not pay the social cost of losing yet more skilled construction workers to the unemployment queue, or the mining and manufacturing industries. All of this suggests the need for a genuine democratic socialist housing plan. Simply put, the market is too slow, wasteful, and unpredictable. Imagine the federal government starts by purchasing failing small to medium construction companies, and then controlling stakes in the large Australian construction corporations. Existing managers and workers could be reoffered their positions on Commonwealth salaries. In parallel, the government could establish a federal property developer that is statutorily tasked with coordinating the construction of affordable public housing, guided by annual and five-year construction targets. Federal government ministers in regular contact with state and territory counterparts could sit on the developer's board, enabling a more rational division of resources and workers between national and sub-national infrastructure projects. How would this be paid for? First, the economic research shows that this kind of arrangement would probably more than pay for itself through flow-on effects between industries. Second, the profits of more successful large companies in the government's construction industry portfolio could be used to prop up loss-making companies. Third, a major source of money is found in the portion of national income being paid out as rent for housing. This amounted to around $80.58 billion over the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 alone. The vast majority of this accrued to private landlords. MORE OPINION: As a federal property developer acquires more private land, a larger portion of these revenues could be freed up for reinvestment into public housing. Is this not a recipe for cosy deals between the Labor government and unions, at taxpayers' expense? Well, again in his first speech to parliament, the young Albanese convincingly reassured us that he has "always been a strong advocate for a pro-active, efficient and dynamic public sector. The ideologically driven view that the public sector is a huge monolith which exhausts economic and human resources must be challenged." Pro-housing supply crossbench parties in the upcoming 48th Parliament can and should introduce, scrutinise, and improve detailed legislation that makes these ideas real and constitutionally workable. The jury is still very much out on whether these overtures would be enough to rekindle the democratic socialist spark of Albanese's youth. If not, he must answer to the almost two-thirds of voters who did not give the Labor Party their first preference. For many of these people, big ambition on housing is the order of the day. With the unwavering confidence of a prime minister backed by a decisive mandate (from 34.6 per cent of voters?), Anthony Albanese has warned the incoming crossbench to "get out of the way and let the private sector build [more housing]." That sector presides over a projected 262,000 home undershoot on the government's five-year target of 1.2 million new homes. Rewind to 1996. In his first speech to parliament, a 33-year-old Albanese stated that his "democratic socialist" politics partly developed from his upbringing in public housing. It is easy to conclude that Albanese was merely strumming the same air guitar version of democratic socialism to which some Labor Left circles still hold. This consists of entirely liberal platitudes about a more generous social safety net funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Worse, Albanese now appears to revel in occupying the political centre. This is a person who spent the lead-up to Labor's 2019 election defeat unmistakably positioning himself to outflank Bill Shorten from the right. During the recent election, Albanese declared: "I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist." Gough Whitlam admitted the same to Chairman Mao Zedong in 1973. But the scope and scale of Whitlam's fleeting three years in office contrasts jarringly with the near invisible size of the timid half-measures that have passed for reform under Albanese's Labor Party. The current historical moment calls for nothing less than the democratic socialism to which the young Albanese laid claim. Nowhere is this more evident than housing. 2636 construction companies were declared insolvent in the financial year to March. Large swathes of housing projects have stalled due to rising costs, despite having already received approvals. Some are already indirectly supported through Albanese's Housing Australia Future Fund. The simple truth is that most of these-and many other potential-projects could move forward were they not contingent on the time-wasting web of competing private property developers, construction companies, and investors seeking ever more complex ways to recover costs plus a rate of return. Unlike for-profit businesses, government-owned corporations (such as Australia Post) can run on a break-even basis, or at a loss. This means housing construction can in principle be undertaken by government at lower cost. There are limits to how much indirect government support can be justified before the very need for private sector involvement is called into question. When these concessions become too generous, they look more like a direct transfer of public resources to boost private profits. The government wants many more houses to be built. Yet when, for instance, construction companies fail in the market, they do not pay the social cost of losing yet more skilled construction workers to the unemployment queue, or the mining and manufacturing industries. All of this suggests the need for a genuine democratic socialist housing plan. Simply put, the market is too slow, wasteful, and unpredictable. Imagine the federal government starts by purchasing failing small to medium construction companies, and then controlling stakes in the large Australian construction corporations. Existing managers and workers could be reoffered their positions on Commonwealth salaries. In parallel, the government could establish a federal property developer that is statutorily tasked with coordinating the construction of affordable public housing, guided by annual and five-year construction targets. Federal government ministers in regular contact with state and territory counterparts could sit on the developer's board, enabling a more rational division of resources and workers between national and sub-national infrastructure projects. How would this be paid for? First, the economic research shows that this kind of arrangement would probably more than pay for itself through flow-on effects between industries. Second, the profits of more successful large companies in the government's construction industry portfolio could be used to prop up loss-making companies. Third, a major source of money is found in the portion of national income being paid out as rent for housing. This amounted to around $80.58 billion over the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 alone. The vast majority of this accrued to private landlords. MORE OPINION: As a federal property developer acquires more private land, a larger portion of these revenues could be freed up for reinvestment into public housing. Is this not a recipe for cosy deals between the Labor government and unions, at taxpayers' expense? Well, again in his first speech to parliament, the young Albanese convincingly reassured us that he has "always been a strong advocate for a pro-active, efficient and dynamic public sector. The ideologically driven view that the public sector is a huge monolith which exhausts economic and human resources must be challenged." Pro-housing supply crossbench parties in the upcoming 48th Parliament can and should introduce, scrutinise, and improve detailed legislation that makes these ideas real and constitutionally workable. The jury is still very much out on whether these overtures would be enough to rekindle the democratic socialist spark of Albanese's youth. If not, he must answer to the almost two-thirds of voters who did not give the Labor Party their first preference. For many of these people, big ambition on housing is the order of the day. With the unwavering confidence of a prime minister backed by a decisive mandate (from 34.6 per cent of voters?), Anthony Albanese has warned the incoming crossbench to "get out of the way and let the private sector build [more housing]." That sector presides over a projected 262,000 home undershoot on the government's five-year target of 1.2 million new homes. Rewind to 1996. In his first speech to parliament, a 33-year-old Albanese stated that his "democratic socialist" politics partly developed from his upbringing in public housing. It is easy to conclude that Albanese was merely strumming the same air guitar version of democratic socialism to which some Labor Left circles still hold. This consists of entirely liberal platitudes about a more generous social safety net funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Worse, Albanese now appears to revel in occupying the political centre. This is a person who spent the lead-up to Labor's 2019 election defeat unmistakably positioning himself to outflank Bill Shorten from the right. During the recent election, Albanese declared: "I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist." Gough Whitlam admitted the same to Chairman Mao Zedong in 1973. But the scope and scale of Whitlam's fleeting three years in office contrasts jarringly with the near invisible size of the timid half-measures that have passed for reform under Albanese's Labor Party. The current historical moment calls for nothing less than the democratic socialism to which the young Albanese laid claim. Nowhere is this more evident than housing. 2636 construction companies were declared insolvent in the financial year to March. Large swathes of housing projects have stalled due to rising costs, despite having already received approvals. Some are already indirectly supported through Albanese's Housing Australia Future Fund. The simple truth is that most of these-and many other potential-projects could move forward were they not contingent on the time-wasting web of competing private property developers, construction companies, and investors seeking ever more complex ways to recover costs plus a rate of return. Unlike for-profit businesses, government-owned corporations (such as Australia Post) can run on a break-even basis, or at a loss. This means housing construction can in principle be undertaken by government at lower cost. There are limits to how much indirect government support can be justified before the very need for private sector involvement is called into question. When these concessions become too generous, they look more like a direct transfer of public resources to boost private profits. The government wants many more houses to be built. Yet when, for instance, construction companies fail in the market, they do not pay the social cost of losing yet more skilled construction workers to the unemployment queue, or the mining and manufacturing industries. All of this suggests the need for a genuine democratic socialist housing plan. Simply put, the market is too slow, wasteful, and unpredictable. Imagine the federal government starts by purchasing failing small to medium construction companies, and then controlling stakes in the large Australian construction corporations. Existing managers and workers could be reoffered their positions on Commonwealth salaries. In parallel, the government could establish a federal property developer that is statutorily tasked with coordinating the construction of affordable public housing, guided by annual and five-year construction targets. Federal government ministers in regular contact with state and territory counterparts could sit on the developer's board, enabling a more rational division of resources and workers between national and sub-national infrastructure projects. How would this be paid for? First, the economic research shows that this kind of arrangement would probably more than pay for itself through flow-on effects between industries. Second, the profits of more successful large companies in the government's construction industry portfolio could be used to prop up loss-making companies. Third, a major source of money is found in the portion of national income being paid out as rent for housing. This amounted to around $80.58 billion over the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 alone. The vast majority of this accrued to private landlords. MORE OPINION: As a federal property developer acquires more private land, a larger portion of these revenues could be freed up for reinvestment into public housing. Is this not a recipe for cosy deals between the Labor government and unions, at taxpayers' expense? Well, again in his first speech to parliament, the young Albanese convincingly reassured us that he has "always been a strong advocate for a pro-active, efficient and dynamic public sector. The ideologically driven view that the public sector is a huge monolith which exhausts economic and human resources must be challenged." Pro-housing supply crossbench parties in the upcoming 48th Parliament can and should introduce, scrutinise, and improve detailed legislation that makes these ideas real and constitutionally workable. The jury is still very much out on whether these overtures would be enough to rekindle the democratic socialist spark of Albanese's youth. If not, he must answer to the almost two-thirds of voters who did not give the Labor Party their first preference. For many of these people, big ambition on housing is the order of the day.
Sydney Morning Herald
39 minutes ago
- Health
- Sydney Morning Herald
Young Australians throwing away illegal vapes as prices soar
Vaping rates are falling among young adults and high schoolers, prompting Health Minister Mark Butler to claim Australia's world-first vape ban is working. Prices for the fruity-flavoured puffers illegally sold at tobacco and corner stores have risen from about $25 to between $50 and $60 since the middle of last year when Labor introduced one of the strictest public health measures of its term by banning vapes – they are now only legally purchased as anti-smoking aids at pharmacies – and clamping down on importation. Officials have since seized 8 million illegal vapes at the border, mostly manufactured in China and sold under popular brand names Alibarbar and iGet. While they can still be bought, the higher prices and reduced supply has combined with school-level warnings to bring down smoking rates. The rate of vaping has halved to 18 per cent among 18-24-year-olds from early 2023 to now, according to new data from the Cancer Council's Generation Vape report, the most comprehensive survey on vaping in Australia. Among 14-17-year-olds, the rate of vaping was rapidly rising in recent years but started to drop in the last quarter of last year, falling from 17 per cent to 15.5 per cent. The respondents are asked of their experiences in a mix of surveys and long-form interviews funded by the council and government agencies. Loading That drop-off among teens is backed by data from health authorities in South Australia, which showed vaping rates in the 30-to-59 age group had dropped by about half from 2023 to this year, and by about one-third for South Australians aged between 15 and 29. The number of schoolkids in SA being suspended for vaping declined by 50 per cent from the first term of 2023 when there were 388 suspensions compared to 186 in term four last year. 'The vaping legislation has really changed the game,' said Alecia Brooks of the Cancer Council.
The Age
43 minutes ago
- Health
- The Age
Young Australians throwing away illegal vapes as prices soar
Vaping rates are falling among young adults and high schoolers, prompting Health Minister Mark Butler to claim Australia's world-first vape ban is working. Prices for the fruity-flavoured puffers illegally sold at tobacco and corner stores have risen from about $25 to between $50 and $60 since the middle of last year when Labor introduced one of the strictest public health measures of its term by banning vapes – they are now only legally purchased as anti-smoking aids at pharmacies – and clamping down on importation. Officials have since seized 8 million illegal vapes at the border, mostly manufactured in China and sold under popular brand names Alibarbar and iGet. While they can still be bought, the higher prices and reduced supply has combined with school-level warnings to bring down smoking rates. The rate of vaping has halved to 18 per cent among 18-24-year-olds from early 2023 to now, according to new data from the Cancer Council's Generation Vape report, the most comprehensive survey on vaping in Australia. Among 14-17-year-olds, the rate of vaping was rapidly rising in recent years but started to drop in the last quarter of last year, falling from 17 per cent to 15.5 per cent. The respondents are asked of their experiences in a mix of surveys and long-form interviews funded by the council and government agencies. Loading That drop-off among teens is backed by data from health authorities in South Australia, which showed vaping rates in the 30-to-59 age group had dropped by about half from 2023 to this year, and by about one-third for South Australians aged between 15 and 29. The number of schoolkids in SA being suspended for vaping declined by 50 per cent from the first term of 2023 when there were 388 suspensions compared to 186 in term four last year. 'The vaping legislation has really changed the game,' said Alecia Brooks of the Cancer Council.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Business
- Sky News AU
Labor needs to 'step up the pace' after housing approvals slump, REA Group senior economist Eleanor Creagh declares
Labor needs to 'step up the pace' to fulfil its ambitious housing target, an economist has warned as the rate of building approvals in Australia recently slumped. Dwelling approvals fell 5.7 per cent in April, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, coming in well below market expectations and causing concern as the nation continues to grapple with a housing shortage. While the approval trend has been positive over the past year and a half, the recent downturn is a thorn in the side of Labor's plan to deliver 1.2 million new homes by mid-2029. REA Group senior economist Eleanor Creagh urged for greater action to fulfill the major looming target. 'We're really not approving and then building enough new homes to meet pace with where demand currently is and also to meet the federal government target of a million new homes by 2029,' Ms Creagh said on Sky News' Business Now. 'So, we really need to step up the pace of: one, approvals—which is really the best-case scenario for what gets off the ground; two, building activity—which is hard, given continued labour shortages and higher prices, cost materials, etc.; and then, three, completions.' The overall decline in April was driven by lower apartment approvals, according to the ABS' head of construction statistics Daniel Rossi. 'A drop in apartment approvals drove a 19 per cent fall in private dwellings excluding houses,' Mr Rossi said. 'Meanwhile, private sector house approvals were up 3.1 per cent.' This followed a 14.4 per cent drop in March as apartment approval rates have sank compared to the start of the year. 'In original terms, 5,612 apartments were approved across March and April, compared with 8,625 approved across January and February,' the ABS said. Alongside its pledge to build 1.2 million homes, Labor has also committed $10 billion to build 100,000 homes over eight years for first time buyers. The Albanese government has also established the First Home Buyers Guarantee to allow first-time buyers to purchase a home with a five per cent deposit and without paying Lenders Mortgage Insurance. It follows the Reserve Bank of Australia delivering its second cash rate cut of 2025 last week, which is expected to further the turnaround in house price growth after slowing in 2024. Originally published as Labor needs to 'step up the pace' after housing approvals slump, REA Group senior economist Eleanor Creagh declares
The Age
an hour ago
- Politics
- The Age
Teachers to protest in the streets against school funding cuts
Teachers furious at a state government plan to underfund public schools for another six years will take to the streets in a mass protest personally targeting Premier Jacinta Allan as a parliamentary inquiry is launched into the growing scandal. The Australian Education Union on Friday wrote to Victorian teachers calling for immediate action against the government's school funding 'con job' which will strip $2.4 billion out of public schools by pushing back its commitment to fully fund the Gonski reforms by three years. The campaign outlined by the union's state leadership will involve paid advertisements, flooding the email inboxes of Allan and Education Minister Ben Carroll with letters from outraged teachers and school parents and public rallies targeting the pair and Treasurer Jaclyn Symes. The Greens this week established a parliamentary inquiry to examine the impact of the funding cuts on students, teachers and the state school system. The inquiry, backed by the Liberal Party and not voted against by Labor MPs, is due to report by 30 April next year, seven months before the next state election. Cabinet-in-confidence documents provided to this masthead uncovered a secret government decision taken in March last year to delay until 2031 additional funding needed by public schools to deliver the Gonski education reforms. In the three weeks since the funding cuts were exposed, Allan and Carroll have refused to publicly acknowledge the decision or canvass the implications for public school students and teachers. Loading The documents show that Carroll argued against the delay, warning it would damage the state's reputation, entrench Victoria as Australia's lowest per-student funding jurisdiction for government schools and aggravate the funding gap between government and non-government schools and disparity in outcomes between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Allan and Carroll, when questioned about the decision in parliament, have pointed to a 34 per cent increase per student in funding for public schools since Labor came to power 11 years ago and $17 billion in capital investments in new and upgraded schools.
